List Mgmt. Steven Motlop nominates Port Adelaide, Geelong declines to match, COMPO IS PICK 19

[David the Cat]

but that is a failure of logic on our behalf. why are we chasing players we have to pay overs for (as yuo say) when we can keep our current ones like Motlop for probably unders.

motlop had an injury plagued year this year. like selwood in 2015 and hawkins in 2013 and countless other players. do we all just get rid of them because of it? Motlops previous four years were all very good and worthy of that pay, as was his last 6 games this year.

I appreciate your support of Motlop....too often on here we see players lambasted and ridiculed...but with all due respect I personally don't see Mots worth 600,000K...seems an extraordinary payment...and over 4 years. I don't think the Club would have entertained a payment of that much over a 4 year period.

We have as a result, received a first round pick...I think the club would think thats a pretty reasonable outcome. I'm sure if you ran a poll, the vast majority would have been against a 600K payment over 4 years for Mots. I suspect the Club felt the same way.

 

[Vdubs]

Yeah, that's true, but my point was that so pass a player's inconsistency off as being due to "confidence and injury" is a flimsy excuse, because those two reasons are the prime source of inconsistency for players.

Get your point.
Mine was more specifically for Varcoe, as said, often recovering from injury or injured; not sure we can ascribe inconsistency to other players for the same reason.

 

[Seeds]

Bizarre then that we tried to trade him at the end of 2016 and no clubs wanted him.

Yep it was bizarre then. Bizarre now. Chris scott wanted motlop to stay. But some of the faceless men at our club clearly had it in for him and have more power then the coach which is a real worry.

 

[Seeds]

I appreciate your support of Motlop....too often on here we see players lambasted and ridiculed...but with all due respect I personally don't see Mots worth 600,000K...seems an extraordinary payment...and over 4 years. I don't think the Club would have entertained a payment of that much over a 4 year period.

We have as a result, received a first round pick...I think the club would think thats a pretty reasonable outcome. I'm sure if you ran a poll, the vast majority would have been against a 600K payment over 4 years for Mots. I suspect the Club felt the same way.

The salary cap has gone up 20 percent. Its the equivalent of 500 thousand salary last year. That seems about right. He is worth more than scott selwood who is on 400 under the old salary cap. Two years ago a number of reports suggested north offered motlop between 750 to 850 thousand per year under the old salary cap if we want sime perspective. Richmond was also suspected of offering around 700 thousand under the old salary cap at that time. Devon smith has believed to have been offered 600 thousand this year. He is a rung atleast below motlop and only 2 years younger.

 

[FoolCat]

For what it's worth, I saw a news snippet where Tom Browne reported that Motlop is earning $600k+ over 4 years at Port, basically identical to that of Rockliff's contract which is apparently bang on $650k. Factor in the 1 year age difference, band 2 for both seems pretty consistent.

Interesting. Kane Cornes (lol) seemed adamant it was ~500 (I think he claimed under at one stage). Either Port really came to the party or other reported figures were incorrect or mixture of both I guess.

 

[Pure_Ownage]

Yep it was bizarre then. Bizarre now. Chris scott wanted motlop to stay. But some of the faceless men at our club clearly had it in for him and have more power then the coach which is a real worry.

It's not bizarre. Clubs are unlikely to trade anything significant for any player who they can get as a free agent 12 months later (see rockliff with brisbane last year) let alone one with consistency issues. I don't know why anyone thought motlop wouldn't have interest this year because he didn't last year, different scenarios.

 

[Brains Trust66]

Bizarre then that we tried to trade him at the end of 2016 and no clubs wanted him.

I was shocked last year that nobody wanted him after the year he had . I wanted him at the Saints because he looked good to me but after we changed draft picks with Hawks last year maybe we didn’t have a high enough pick to get him .

 

[Brains Trust66]

The salary cap has gone up 20 percent. Its the equivalent of 500 thousand salary last year. That seems about right. He is worth more than scott selwood who is on 400 under the old salary cap. Two years ago a number of reports suggested north offered motlop between 750 to 850 thousand per year under the old salary cap if we want sime perspective. Richmond was also suspected of offering around 700 thousand under the old salary cap at that time. Devon smith has believed to have been offered 600 thousand this year. He is a rung atleast below motlop and only 2 years younger.

Lol so Norff missed out on another big name player . They money to throw around but nobody wants to go there because there is no future for sure . Another couple of bad years and Norff will probably be sent to Tassie full time or merged with GC up there.

And as for Motlop bouncing the ball straight away , Aussie Jones used to do the same at St Kilda , I don’t think it’s a big deal as it allows the player to settle while allowing him time to think what he is going to do with it .

 

[Landgraft]

Seems the AFL has a please explain in regards to how we got pick 19 as not many (basically anyone outside Geelong) are happy and questioning the decision - be interesting to see if and how they answer

The answer is pretty simple, it was determined by the AFL that we were eligible for band 2 compo and this is the resulting comp.

What I don't understand is how suddenly pick 19 is a rarefied currency. If you traded in a player of Motlops currency for what is effectively a second rounder than you're pretty safely ahead imo.

 

[geelong_crazy26]

Seems the AFL has a please explain in regards to how we got pick 19 as not many (basically anyone outside Geelong) are happy and questioning the decision - be interesting to see if and how they answer

Why do they have a please explain? Because posters on a public football forum are sulking?

None of the clubs have come out and complained. It is in the AFL's interest that players move more freely from club to club with free agency; the players have been demanding it for years to have freedom of movement, the afl is compensating well enough for clubs to let it go and not match the bids. If more clubs start to match bids and block moves, the players association will have a riot.

The AFL is simply facilitating what the players association has wanted for many years. Freedom of movement to be phased in.

The AFL simply does not want clubs matching bids.

 

[goyoucatters]

I appreciate your support of Motlop....too often on here we see players lambasted and ridiculed...but with all due respect I personally don't see Mots worth 600,000K...seems an extraordinary payment...and over 4 years. I don't think the Club would have entertained a payment of that much over a 4 year period.

We have as a result, received a first round pick...I think the club would think thats a pretty reasonable outcome. I'm sure if you ran a poll, the vast majority would have been against a 600K payment over 4 years for Mots. I suspect the Club felt the same way.

I figure plenty of posters here would have been O.K. with Mots staying. I know I certainly would have been happy to see whether the glimpse of something better we saw at the end of this season could have been followed up with interest next year.

Having said that, I cannot accept that the GFC (based on Steven's last couple of years as a whole) should have been looking to offer a contract term as long as four years. Or a figure around $500,000 for his annual remuneration either.

So having our club match those terms would have seemed irresponsible to me, given the serious variations in his output over the past couple of years.

Pick 19 is a very decent chip to take forward, and I hope the club is extremely reticent to offer it up in trades for any of our supposed 'hit list'. I don't think any of our supposed targets are worth that pick and I would like to see it retained for the draft (or, at worst, exchanged as part of a deal that only involves a minor pick downgrade).

I truly wish Steven all the best. But I think his football of '16 and '17 (given his obvious capabilities) was too often middling and almost demanded that the market determine his actual worth.

Which has then seen Port agree to a contract that appears to reflect more on his potential than his (recent) performance.

It's a gamble on behalf of both clubs, of course. But I can certainly understand how the Port contract offer (given both the dollars and the duration) meant that keeping Mots was a gamble the GFC simply wasn't prepared to take this time around.

 

[ijaxcat]

but that is a failure of logic on our behalf. why are we chasing players we have to pay overs for (as yuo say) when we can keep our current ones like Motlop for probably unders.

motlop had an injury plagued year this year. like selwood in 2015 and hawkins in 2013 and countless other players. do we all just get rid of them because of it? Motlops previous four years were all very good and worthy of that pay, as was his last 6 games this year.

I thought you were leaving and not coming back when Menzel got dropped for the first final.

 

[cats_09]

One interesting thing is that Port have said he isn't on the salary being reported as it's an incentive based contract

Why do they have a please explain? Because posters on a public football forum are sulking?

None of the clubs have come out and complained. It is in the AFL's interest that players move more freely from club to club with free agency; the players have been demanding it for years to have freedom of movement, the afl is compensating well enough for clubs to let it go and not match the bids. If more clubs start to match bids and block moves, the players association will have a riot.

The AFL is simply facilitating what the players association has wanted for many years. Freedom of movement to be phased in.

The AFL simply does not want clubs matching bids.

Hate to tell you, buy the media wouldn't be running with a story based on fans on a football forum questioning things.

It's the media and other clubs that are confused about the compensation pick we received - and you can understand that when it has an impact on the other clubs who are now starting round 2, later than they expected.

Compare the 2 deals for Motlop & Rockliff and tell me, do you really think they are worth the same compensation of an end of first round pick:
STEVEN Motlop is officially a Port Adelaide player after Geelong declined to match the Power's four-year, $2 million deal for the restricted free agent.
The move is a coup for the Power, after it added Tom Rockliff to its list on a four-year deal worth $2.6 million.

If the two deals were the equivalent then there'd be no questions, but at $600k difference over 4 years, you can start to understand the confusion. Even Port have said they didn't sign Motlop on a high dollar value and it's an incentive based contact - incentives aren't taken into account when looking at FAs, just the base pay stricture.

 

[David the Cat]

There's guess work over the magnitude of the 4 year payment for Motlop...Nial said 550K over 4 years...Mick Warner suggested it was more..the AFL didn't give us Pick 19 out of the goodness of their hearts...

There is a formula...and they applied that formula. It was widely suggested the Crows offered 600K....many ( not including Kane Cornes ) believe Motlop's manager went back to Port and said match it or else he goes to the Crows....they matched and Mots went to Port which was his preference in any case.

None of us know the exact amounts offered or the structure of the contract in place.

Bottom line is, Mots got what he wanted, and Geelong benefited by getting a first round pick....a pick higher than Mayne and Vickery got...and quite rightly so. Its game set and match on this issue now...stiff shit to those who can't accept it...

 

[Seeds]

It's not bizarre. Clubs are unlikely to trade anything significant for any player who they can get as a free agent 12 months later (see rockliff with brisbane last year) let alone one with consistency issues. I don't know why anyone thought motlop wouldn't have interest this year because he didn't last year, different scenarios.

the bizarre comment was in reference as to why we want to get rid of him given his output and our deficiency in both line breakers and goal kickers. Now that deficiency is even greater.

 

[Seeds]

One interesting thing is that Port have said he isn't on the salary being reported as it's an incentive based contract


Hate to tell you, buy the media wouldn't be running with a story based on fans on a football forum questioning things.

It's the media and other clubs that are confused about the compensation pick we received - and you can understand that when it has an impact on the other clubs who are now starting round 2, later than they expected.

Compare the 2 deals for Motlop & Rockliff and tell me, do you really think they are worth the same compensation of an end of first round pick:
STEVEN Motlop is officially a Port Adelaide player after Geelong declined to match the Power's four-year, $2 million deal for the restricted free agent.
The move is a coup for the Power, after it added Tom Rockliff to its list on a four-year deal worth $2.6 million.

If the two deals were the equivalent then there'd be no questions, but at $600k difference over 4 years, you can start to understand the confusion. Even Port have said they didn't sign Motlop on a high dollar value and it's an incentive based contact - incentives aren't taken into account when looking at FAs, just the base pay stricture.

they are just guessing at payments. wages arent public knowledge. some reports suggest motlop is earning close to 600 per year.

 

[Seeds]

I thought you were leaving and not coming back when Menzel got dropped for the first final.

if there is no one here to question the stupidity and corruption then the stupidity and corruption wins.

 

[Tony Barber]

He's gone. Get over it.

 

[dazbroncos]

if there is no one here to question the stupidity and corruption then the stupidity and corruption wins.

You forgot to mention that its "in your opinion"

And the tin foil hats are over there ------>

GO Catters

 

[bigblackboz]

Why would a salary ever get released to the media? Salaries are only released to benefit someone.

I.e. player manager releases Adelaide offer of $600k to get another club to increase their offer.

I.e. club wants to make it look like they are a destination club for PR.

I.e. player wants to look like they are moving clubs for reasons other than money.

I.e. club doesn't want other players to get jealous.

The question one needs to ask is why is the salary released? And who benefits? What is their motivation?

I suspect the media have no idea and its likely the AFL is right on this. I don't see why they help Geelong out.

 

[geelong_crazy26]

One interesting thing is that Port have said he isn't on the salary being reported as it's an incentive based contract


Hate to tell you, buy the media wouldn't be running with a story based on fans on a football forum questioning things.

It's the media and other clubs that are confused about the compensation pick we received - and you can understand that when it has an impact on the other clubs who are now starting round 2, later than they expected.

Compare the 2 deals for Motlop & Rockliff and tell me, do you really think they are worth the same compensation of an end of first round pick:
STEVEN Motlop is officially a Port Adelaide player after Geelong declined to match the Power's four-year, $2 million deal for the restricted free agent.
The move is a coup for the Power, after it added Tom Rockliff to its list on a four-year deal worth $2.6 million.

If the two deals were the equivalent then there'd be no questions, but at $600k difference over 4 years, you can start to understand the confusion. Even Port have said they didn't sign Motlop on a high dollar value and it's an incentive based contact - incentives aren't taken into account when looking at FAs, just the base pay stricture.

Like it has been reported already, it's based off contract size length and conditions. There is no please explain and I can guarantee the AFL won't feel obliged to because a newspaper article or so is written about it. There is no corruption or any sort of stupid commentary that goes with it from halfwits.

The media don't know his contract either.

 

[Brains Trust66]

When I was a junior player I did what Motlop did which was everytime I played on I bounced the ball straight away , it was just something I did without thinking but of course I wasn’t a great footballer so maybe it was the only time I got to bounce the ball , lol.

 

[Catters 070911]

Just Malthouse trying to be relevant wouldn’t pay too much attention , the crap they write up to get clicks is laughable.

The whole industry is toxic

Malthouse stopped having credibility to me when he listed his greatest 25 players he has seen, and didn't include either Gary Abletts, and left out Nathan Buckley as well (which was probably because Buckley took his job).

 

[jazzee]

Ouch.


Unless he means it was which club he chose to go to as opposed to Adelaide v Port Adelaide.

 

[fpm84]

"I had a lot of fun working with Nakia Cockatoo and Brandan (Parfitt) so it was hard (to leave). I'll always be a Geelong person in my heart."