Free Agency Stephen Coniglio

Where do you think he will play in 2020 and beyond?

  • GWS

    Votes: 61 12.1%

  • Hawthorn

    Votes: 179 35.4%

  • Carlton

    Votes: 185 36.6%

  • St Kilda

    Votes: 14 2.8%

  • West Coast

    Votes: 27 5.3%

  • Other

    Votes: 40 7.9%
  • Total voters
    506

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.

Log in to remove this ad.

Turbocat said:
all player should be UFA at 8 years ...
Click to expand...

Without the current rules changing elsewhere I don't agree.

Dangerfield as an RFA only really played 7 seasons (+2 games) after staying in Victoria to finish year 12. We have Allen and Brander on our list who are from the 2017 draft and have played 12 and 3 games respectively so far. If those guys make it it's likely they won't be genuine AFL regulars until their 3rd or 4th seasons (Allen currently in our 22 having played all 10 this year). I look at what we got from 6 years of Chris Judd (134 games, a list of accolades as long as your arm) compared to Ashley Hansen from the same draft (no games for two years, 78 over 9 years on the list) and even though their peaks were miles apart their trajectories were completely different. Essentially having a player for 8 seasons means you might only get 4-6 years of output.

I'm OK with greater player movement but I also support one of the bigger clubs so we would benefit from it. There's a lot we can borrow from international competitions. I'm an NBA fan and they do some good things. Their system isn't perfect or 100% applicable to the AFL but they do some things a lot better than we do.

The biggest problem from the players' side is that they won't allow club sanctioned trading. The trade off for 6 year RFA & 8 year UFA should be that prior to RFA status players can be traded at the whim of the club.
 
Scotland said:
Without the current rules changing elsewhere I don't agree.

Dangerfield as an RFA only really played 7 seasons (+2 games) after staying in Victoria to finish year 12. We have Allen and Brander on our list who are from the 2017 draft and have played 12 and 3 games respectively so far. If those guys make it it's likely they won't be genuine AFL regulars until their 3rd or 4th seasons (Allen currently in our 22 having played all 10 this year). I look at what we got from 6 years of Chris Judd (134 games, a list of accolades as long as your arm) compared to Ashley Hansen from the same draft (no games for two years, 78 over 9 years on the list) and even though their peaks were miles apart their trajectories were completely different. Essentially having a player for 8 seasons means you might only get 4-6 years of output.

I'm OK with greater player movement but I also support one of the bigger clubs so we would benefit from it. There's a lot we can borrow from international competitions. I'm an NBA fan and they do some good things. Their system isn't perfect or 100% applicable to the AFL but they do some things a lot better than we do.

The biggest problem from the players' side is that they won't allow club sanctioned trading. The trade off for 6 year RFA & 8 year UFA should be that prior to RFA status players can be traded at the whim of the club.
Click to expand...

Id advocate some sort of forced trading ..maybe 2nd contracts.. from y3 to y6 .etc.

But the games played, and slow development is just too bad. You picked players that were too far away from ready. Clubs should be generally picking to play not picking to warehouse. Im not sure I really agree with rfa and ufa ... its hardly fair based on list cap manipulation of payment you may or may not qualify. Its discriminatory.. I wonder how that would go in court.
 
Scotland said:
Without the current rules changing elsewhere I don't agree.

Dangerfield as an RFA only really played 7 seasons (+2 games) after staying in Victoria to finish year 12. We have Allen and Brander on our list who are from the 2017 draft and have played 12 and 3 games respectively so far. If those guys make it it's likely they won't be genuine AFL regulars until their 3rd or 4th seasons (Allen currently in our 22 having played all 10 this year). I look at what we got from 6 years of Chris Judd (134 games, a list of accolades as long as your arm) compared to Ashley Hansen from the same draft (no games for two years, 78 over 9 years on the list) and even though their peaks were miles apart their trajectories were completely different. Essentially having a player for 8 seasons means you might only get 4-6 years of output.

I'm OK with greater player movement but I also support one of the bigger clubs so we would benefit from it. There's a lot we can borrow from international competitions. I'm an NBA fan and they do some good things. Their system isn't perfect or 100% applicable to the AFL but they do some things a lot better than we do.

The biggest problem from the players' side is that they won't allow club sanctioned trading. The trade off for 6 year RFA & 8 year UFA should be that prior to RFA status players can be traded at the whim of the club.
Click to expand...

There will never be a player traded without their concent.

They dont have any choice when drafted but get around that by interviewing techniques. Thats the clubs advantage over a players preference.

When they come out of contract thwy should control their place of work not clubs.

At least we arent like the ARL. Broncos this week lost a uncontracted key player 1/3 of the way through a season to a rival club. In season.

That would be like Kelly moving to the Eagles after round 12.

Crazy crazy crazy!!!
 
Turbocat said:
Id advocate some sort of forced trading ..maybe 2nd contracts.. from y3 to y6 .etc.

But the games played, and slow development is just too bad. You picked players that were too far away from ready. Clubs should be generally picking to play not picking to warehouse. Im not sure I really agree with rfa and ufa ... its hardly fair based on list cap manipulation of payment you may or may not qualify. Its discriminatory.. I wonder how that would go in court.
Click to expand...

Not sure any of the AFL's rules would really hold up in court. Every footballer in the country is free to play outside the AFL system, though. Out of contract players are free to move around whenever they want in the NBL but every single one of them would accept the T&Cs of an NBA contract if it meant playing in that league.

I like the NBA approach of qualifying contracts. You don't just get a $200m 5 year contract because a club wants you, you have to earn it with a certain level of performance. And each team is limited to how many high paid free agents they can sign etc. Someone like Anthony Davis can earn a supermax contract if he stays but less if he leaves as a free agent or is traded.

Someone like Tim Kelly (2 years but well above what a standard first 2 years normally looks like) would not be eligible for FA status but could be eligible for say 5 x $750k to stay with Geelong, or 4 x $725k / 5 x $700k if traded.

Someone like Coniglio (8 years) would be eligible for FA status at maybe 6 x $900k to stay or 6 x $800k to leave.

That sort of thing. Plus someone like Dylan Shiel could only be traded for the remainder of his contract, so would be out of contract this year.

Where our FA system is skewed is 25% of salaries thing and the fact there is compo on offer. We could've re-signed Scott Lycett for maybe $50-100k more per season but in letting him go we got pick 19. Silly system.
 
Obeanie1 said:
There will never be a player traded without their concent.

They dont have any choice when drafted but get around that by interviewing techniques. Thats the clubs advantage over a players preference.

When they come out of contract thwy should control their place of work not clubs.

At least we arent like the ARL. Broncos this week lost a uncontracted key player 1/3 of the way through a season to a rival club. In season.

That would be like Kelly moving to the Eagles after round 12.

Crazy crazy crazy!!!
Click to expand...
Good news for Kelly then, we have reserved number 11 for him and NicNat will be back after round 12 to feed him the ball.
 
Obeanie1 said:
At least we arent like the ARL. Broncos this week lost a uncontracted key player 1/3 of the way through a season to a rival club. In season.

That would be like Kelly moving to the Eagles after round 12.
Click to expand...

The NRL is nuts but on one level that's better than 23 weeks (or more) of speculation.

Franklin to Sydney was apparently agreed in 2012. Imagine the shit storm if that news had come out prior to the end of 2013.
 
Scotland said:
Not sure any of the AFL's rules would really hold up in court. Every footballer in the country is free to play outside the AFL system, though. Out of contract players are free to move around whenever they want in the NBL but every single one of them would accept the T&Cs of an NBA contract if it meant playing in that league.

I like the NBA approach of qualifying contracts. You don't just get a $200m 5 year contract because a club wants you, you have to earn it with a certain level of performance. And each team is limited to how many high paid free agents they can sign etc. Someone like Anthony Davis can earn a supermax contract if he stays but less if he leaves as a free agent or is traded.

Someone like Tim Kelly (2 years but well above what a standard first 2 years normally looks like) would not be eligible for FA status but could be eligible for say 5 x $750k to stay with Geelong, or 4 x $725k / 5 x $700k if traded.

Someone like Coniglio (8 years) would be eligible for FA status at maybe 6 x $900k to stay or 6 x $800k to leave.

That sort of thing. Plus someone like Dylan Shiel could only be traded for the remainder of his contract, so would be out of contract this year.

Where our FA system is skewed is 25% of salaries thing and the fact there is compo on offer. We could've re-signed Scott Lycett for maybe $50-100k more per season but in letting him go we got pick 19. Silly system.
Click to expand...

Bottom sides need some sort of protection. The idea of movement in us sports is different to here .. although I saw something recently that put forth the idea on why the Vanc Grizzlies failed..and one reason was players did not want to play there. We tend to pick and choose which comp and which facets of the comp we copy. I read a while ago FA rules are quiet different in different sports.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

General Giant said:
We didn't offer the massive amount North did.
Click to expand...

That's awkward that you have no cap space after letting all those players to create cap space...

Everyone knows GWS will be able to re-sign Coniglio or match a sensible free agency offer. Theoretically you could trade him to us for our first pick plus extra which is better than a single compo pick.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Similar threads

The Nostradamus
Traded Dylan Stephens [Traded with #25 to North for #44 and F-EoF]
13 14 15 16 17
Replies
402
Views
29K
Caligo
Caligo
Back
Top