List Mgmt. Trade & F/A - 2018/2019 - Part 2!

[Timmy from Thomastown]

View attachment 551835

I like that trade. Brissy paying overs for a 25 year old jet (probably worth it), Pies paying slightly overs for a 29 year old jet, Freo getting fair compo (especially if they can on trade those two picks and upgrade to a top ten)

Pies need something back, preferably cap relief by way of a Beams salary subsidy.

 

[TradeDraft]

View attachment 551835

Take that with a Grain of Salt

 

[TradeDraft]

Man, i love Beamsy - the guy still has A-grade ability - but it is risky, and if we trade for him i still hope we can work out/make further deals to bring in a top or promising defender like Kelly. A massive need still.

Agree. We need Talls before a Mid

 

[didaksrightfoot]

View attachment 551835

Not a ****ing chance Freo do that for Neale. Change 22 to 4 and they probably still want another sweetener.
---

I'm not sold on Beams for pick 14-18. (Remembering that picks are based on final position in the finals, not ladder position).
Beams is worth that pick generally - but not worth it to us given our current position.
Even if we keep Moore, we are pretty desparate for another KPP. That becomes a massive hole if Moore guys.
I would much rather use 16 to try and get that done, than I would using it on another mid who is a luxury rather than a need. If we sort out our KPP stocks and still have that pick, then sure do they trade - but not until thats all done.

 

[Apex36]

I have no problem with adjusting contracts from year to year. Front and backloading is part and parcel of player management. But in the final year of a contract the balance of the originally contracted amount (total contarcted amount less amounts actually paid to date) should be included in the salary cap.

I understand match payments add a degree of confusion/risk/volatility to the issue.

Bottom line, I dont see why theres one rule for RFA's and one for everybody else.

The reason there is one rule for RFA’s and one for everyone else is the matching component. The Buddy rule prevents clubs offering ludicrous long term contracts to RFA’s that can’t be matched and then have the player ‘retire’ early to clear cap room.

 

[TradeDraft]

The reason there is one rule for RFA’s and one for everyone else is the matching component. The Buddy rule prevents clubs offering ludicrous long term contracts to RFA’s that can’t be matched and then have the player ‘retire’ early to clear cap room.

and That is a Great Rule but AFL was happy let GWS use it and Swans took Advantage of that

 

[unplugged]

Not quite sure if i understand your proposed variation, but the situation is simple. The club and Wells can agree to whatever sort of player contract and subsequent variation that they want. Only what we pay him goes to the TPP cap for that particular year.

I probably should've explained myself a little bit better.

So at the moment we're to assume that Wells is currently contracted for $500,000.00 in 2019, the final year of his contract.

My query is whether we can offer a new contract with $300,000.00 in 2019 and $300,000.00 in 2020. This in turn would be his "second contract" with us, and sounds favourable to him because he's earning an extra 100k.

Then between now and the trade period/list lodgements, Wells "visits the surgeon" and "receives some horrible news" about his foot, resulting in a "career-ending injury."

Insurance covers his losses (not sure how that works), we pay him $300,000.00 in 2019 and nothing in 2020, hence saving ourselves $200,000.00.

There has to be some sort of unprecedented scenario where we can rort the cap!

Unless of course Wells gets himself fit and plays next year and performs...

 

[Go Pie5]

Dane beams has just announced he's staying at brisbane

 

[Quicky]

View attachment 551835

Terrible outcome for us in the medium to long term. Lose a first rounder and get a 29yo. I'd hope if we give up our first rounder it's for someone who has a longer time left in the game than Beams.

 

[jonbe54]

Whatever the case, it appears we are up to something big. I hope I'm not disappointed. If we could land Beams and a KPP (either end) that would be an amazing outcome.

On [device_name] using BigFooty.com mobile app

Yeah that's gunna happen . . . .

Beams spent a lot of time emptying the sh@t can over Buckley and the club after he left - absolutely NO class onfield or off.

 

[MagpieBat]

Dane beams has just announced he's staying at brisbane

 

[Quicky]

Oh snap! There goes that speculation.

 

[jonbe54]

Thank FCK for that!
Puts to bed this seasons inane Beams to Collingwood rubbish.

 

[CasuallyDressed]

View attachment 551835

On what planet would Freo do this trade?

People just making shit up.

 

[sideswipe]

I probably should've explained myself a little bit better.

So at the moment we're to assume that Wells is currently contracted for $500,000.00 in 2019, the final year of his contract.

My query is whether we can offer a new contract with $300,000.00 in 2019 and $300,000.00 in 2020. This in turn would be his "second contract" with us, and sounds favourable to him because he's earning an extra 100k.

Then between now and the trade period/list lodgements, Wells "visits the surgeon" and "receives some horrible news" about his foot, resulting in a "career-ending injury."

Insurance covers his losses (not sure how that works), we pay him $300,000.00 in 2019 and nothing in 2020, hence saving ourselves $200,000.00.

There has to be some sort of unprecedented scenario where we can rort the cap!

Unless of course Wells gets himself fit and plays next year and performs...

Like Little Johnny said to his teacher, I like the way you are thinking.

But I think you are talking about the old CBA "final year of contract/career ending injury" compo that Dane Swan used - which was funded by insurance, rather than the club. This was based on a formula and is now gone - replaced by the Injury & Hardship Fund which the AFL is funding. This fund will be able to make payments for a load of different reasons to former players, one of them being career ending injuries. But it is discretionary, so the almost automatic payments under the rule have been reduced/removed.

 

[Dead Eye Didak]

Beams close with Daisy isn’t he?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Play for Carlton!...Beamer is better off staying at Brisbane

 

[Bored_Pie]

That was only because Gibbs wanted to go home with his young family.

I'm sure Carlton would definitely be interested in Beams if they could get him to add some class and grunt to their midfield.

Gibbs said if a deal could be done he'd go but he'd of stayed if he had to. SOS traded him.

 

[NT.Thunder]

Beans won't leave Brisbane this season it seems

 

[TradeDraft]

Dane beams has just announced he's staying at brisbane

Does not bother me and means we actually can try and get Player we Need in a KPP Player

 

[TradeDraft]

Beans won't leave Brisbane this season it seems

Trade been too hard to do

 

[jonbe54]

Beans won't leave Brisbane this season it seems

Thank FCK for that, good player but no class whatsoever on or off field.

 

[Bored_Pie]

Thank FCK for that, good player but no class whatsoever on or off field.

Bulldust, he's as classy as they come on on field. Rarely makes mistakes.

 

[Saintly Viewed]

Here here. Even if he costs nothing.

Because if he costs nothing his behaviour will cost us plenty

 

[NT.Thunder]

Trade been too hard to do

He's said he doesn't want to leave this season and will play out as contracted

 

[Soups]

Nekminute at Collingwood.