News Trade Week & DFA's Chat - Non Crows

[Thetrader15]

I think the issue is that the Suns started negotiations involving pick 7.

Surely a more prudent approach was to offer Bowes with a second or third rounder and see who bites?

Or offer Bowes for a future 5th round pick.

You put a fridge you don't want on the footpath with a sign saying Free, not a sign saying Please take for free, and I will throw in my new car

 

[Crow_68]

Surely Stack gets picked up by someone else. Maybe RCD, too

Watch the ‘Ken effect’ come into play….

 

[feenix67]

I think the issue is that the Suns started negotiations involving pick 7.

Surely a more prudent approach was to offer Bowes with a second or third rounder and see who bites?

The AFL couldn't give a damn about prudence. They are the most outcome driven organisation you could imagine.

 

[Scorpus]

Surprised re RCD dumping .....

View attachment 1535440

Richmond have delisted their Ned McHenry. Supporters would be over the moon

 

[FR0GGY]

Everyone saying the AFL should not have signed off on the Bowes salary dump. You remember who owns the Suns, right?

It’s the reason why they did do it.
Doesn't mean they should have.

 

[Golumless]

There's our big bodied midfielder Hamish didn't draft in 2018

The one we didn't was Hately, which... went as well as RCD.

 

[Eagleboy2011]

Surely Stack gets picked up by someone else. Maybe RCD, too

I'd take Stack. A bit of baggage but a very good player.

 

[Crowked]

I think the issue is that the Suns started negotiations involving pick 7.

Surely a more prudent approach was to offer Bowes with a second or third rounder and see who bites?

Then how would the AFL give the reigning premiers a mid first round priority pick?

 

[hippyhippy]

Nope

That's 2 players geelong did not care to lower their asking prices and kept...

Yet we gave away dangerfield for peanuts .... because we're the good guys.... and just took their offer because " that's all they had"....

 

[1990crow]

I'd take Stack. A bit of baggage but a very good player.

Our midfield is already stacked.

 

[FR0GGY]

That's 2 players geelong did not care to lower their asking prices and kept...

Yet we gave away dangerfield for peanuts .... because we're the good guys.... and just took their offer because " that's all they had"....

Big difference is they were contracted and could do that.
However we did get royally screwed.

 

[CrowsB4hoes]

Nope

Oh. My. God.

Rooch is suggesting that the real reason Geelong didn't trade Ratugolea to Port is they didn't want to strengthen a fellow premiership contender.

 

[1990crow]

Oh. My. God.

Rooch is suggesting that the real reason Geelong didn't trade Ratugolea to Port is they didn't want to strengthen a fellow premiership contender.

He’s just repeating what trade radio said.

 

[relapse]

He’s just repeating what trade radio said.

I think it was SOS who said it.

I could see the point he was trying to make, it wasn't meant as a spiteful thing, but more that if you have a contracted player you're not just going to do another club a favour by handing them over for what they consider to be unders.

It's the same old story, when a player is contracted their value is higher and the onus is on the club that wants the player to make the deal happen.

At the end of the day Port had to give up everything to get JHF done and because of that they had no room to work with Geelong in order to get a deal done. That's a Port Adelaide problem, not a Geelong one.

 

[Amacca 23]

Oh. My. God.

Rooch is suggesting that the real reason Geelong didn't trade Ratugolea to Port is they didn't want to strengthen a fellow premiership contender.

what feb premiers ?

On SM-G996B using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[pjcrows]

I think the issue is that the Suns started negotiations involving pick 7.

Surely a more prudent approach was to offer Bowes with a second or third rounder and see who bites?

Payback for Ablett.

 

[GROTTO]

Our midfield is already stacked.

Laugh all you want, we have Matt Crouch in the midfield in 2023, he was apparently wanted by several clubs over the trade period.

 

[hippyhippy]

Big difference is they were contracted and could do that.
However we did get royally screwed.

We could have matched geelong and forced the extra picks just like geelong is doing

 

[dplggr47]

I would like the AFL to make a rule so this situation can't happen ever again.

The GC list management team should lose their jobs for this, but they just don't appreciate top end picks as they should as they are continually showered with them.

The rule I'd like the AFL come up with as let's say the top 4 or 6 for example they are excluded from the Bowes salary dump and pick 7 deal from partcipating. They are just locked out so GC can only negotiate with teams that sit outside this.

You can't have the raining premiers (number 1) getting this (the most lop-sided trade ever). Rich get richer - poor get poorer. If NM Hawthorn Essendon or Adelaide get this trade in I can stomach that but not the reigning premiers.

This is not the first time Gold Coast have traded something of higher value to Geelong for something of much lower value for no reason.

2019 - Gold Coast trade a future first rounder (and pick 64) for pick 27. A first rounder is already higher than pick 27. Why the need to throw in a random late pick - WTF
2020 - Gold Coast traded pick 27 to Geelong for a future 3rd rounder - WTF

 

[Anzacpaul]

I'd take Stack. A bit of baggage but a very good player.

Wouldn't pass the AFC's red flag-o-meter

 

[WaynesWorld19]

AFL to consider tweaks for the salary dump​

The AFL will review the trade period to consider refining the rules around salary dumping and consider whether to extend the length of elite players’ first contracts from two years to three.

Clubs have argued for, and the AFL will now consider, a change that would require a club in Geelong’s situation in future to have to keep the $825,000 from a Bowes-type contract in their salary cap for two years, not the smoothed out contract amount they are actually paying him.

Troubled by players leaving clubs, especially in emerging markets, to move early in their careers, as well as regard for the inflationary effect of massive salary demands from second-year players for their first unregulated contracts, the AFL will explore whether the initial player contract could, or should, be extended from two to three years, possibly only for first and second round draftees.

Trade post-mortem: AFL to consider tweaks for the ‘salary dump’

The AFL will review the trade period to consider refining the rules around salary dumping and consider whether to extend the length of elite players’ first contracts from two years to three.

www.theage.com.au

 

[CrowsB4hoes]

AFL to consider tweaks for the salary dump​

The AFL will review the trade period to consider refining the rules around salary dumping and consider whether to extend the length of elite players’ first contracts from two years to three.

Clubs have argued for, and the AFL will now consider, a change that would require a club in Geelong’s situation in future to have to keep the $825,000 from a Bowes-type contract in their salary cap for two years, not the smoothed out contract amount they are actually paying him.

Troubled by players leaving clubs, especially in emerging markets, to move early in their careers, as well as regard for the inflationary effect of massive salary demands from second-year players for their first unregulated contracts, the AFL will explore whether the initial player contract could, or should, be extended from two to three years, possibly only for first and second round draftees.

Trade post-mortem: AFL to consider tweaks for the ‘salary dump’

The AFL will review the trade period to consider refining the rules around salary dumping and consider whether to extend the length of elite players’ first contracts from two years to three.

www.theage.com.au

Shouldn’t they have worked this out before hand?

 

[Mr MysteryGuest]

AFL to consider tweaks for the salary dump​

The AFL will review the trade period to consider refining the rules around salary dumping and consider whether to extend the length of elite players’ first contracts from two years to three.

Clubs have argued for, and the AFL will now consider, a change that would require a club in Geelong’s situation in future to have to keep the $825,000 from a Bowes-type contract in their salary cap for two years, not the smoothed out contract amount they are actually paying him.

Troubled by players leaving clubs, especially in emerging markets, to move early in their careers, as well as regard for the inflationary effect of massive salary demands from second-year players for their first unregulated contracts, the AFL will explore whether the initial player contract could, or should, be extended from two to three years, possibly only for first and second round draftees.

Trade post-mortem: AFL to consider tweaks for the ‘salary dump’

The AFL will review the trade period to consider refining the rules around salary dumping and consider whether to extend the length of elite players’ first contracts from two years to three.

www.theage.com.au

So the AFL will stop other clubs from receiving the advantages Geelong get.

Like clockwork.

 

[refused_]

AFL to consider tweaks for the salary dump​

Yes, we thought about it over some drinks and said, too much work. Geelong, what do you think?

 

[Carmo]

So the AFL will stop other clubs from receiving the advantages Geelong get.

Like clockwork.

And what the SA clubs got this year. That's what really wouldve paved the way. If it was just Geelong and Richmond, getting players only a few years in the system nothing would be said.