You'd offer a $350K player $750K because we can ? To me that's madness. I want the club to get better too, but at what cost ? Wellingham isn't an A grader, he's B. There comes a point where you have to manage your list with a semblance of logic and responsibility.

It's not just a matter of 'because we can'

We have to pay a certain amount. We can't save money or pay under..... so unless we are going to renegotiate other players existing contracts we have to spend an appropriate amount on the player list.

Fact is, in order to get a player away from another club, you have to pay over and above their actual worth... No one is saying Cloke is worth 1mil a year, but it is going to be close to that and a long term contract to secure him.

Goddard is the same, how much is he worth.... ? how much is it going to take to get him across to your club? Answer being a lot more than he is probably worth....

Anyone think that David McKay from Adelaide was worth $400k over 3 or 4 seasons.... Half of Demonland said 'Who??' when they heard of the attempt.

Something you are not factoring in is that many of these players consider their futures beyond AFL when in negotiations. Many players have bad habits they need to sustain or expensive lifestyles ect in which results in money being much more important then success, especially if they have already had success.

These guys only get maybe one good chance in their careers to really up the anti and get a big contract to earn the money to set themselves up for the rest of their lives. So an extra 100k a year over 4 years is a big difference to them. 400k > repeated success for some players. Especially if they have no other skillsets to provide them with work beyond footy

I think the lifestyle point you make is one the money,

But all players must obtain a skillset while being an AFL player, part time ect, they will walk out with the majority if not all of a degree or TAFE course of some kind as i know it.

Well that's the question, what is the cost? The club surely budgets to spend 100% of the salary cap, so if you can spend it without detrimenting your ability to pay your other players, which it doesn't under my scenario as I've assumed we've got the cap room (and it doesn't impact other aspects of the club because it's budgeted money), then what's illogical or irresponsible about it? What damage do you believe this would cause?

I find it difficult reconciling where our club is presently at and where I'd like it to go. I want it to become a powerful and well run club that is a benchmark in list management, recruiting, and general decision making. Would a really good club pay Wellingham twice what he's worth, or would they realise that any player coming in has to meet the requirements they've set in place for their entire list ? I'm sure they have some flexibility, but equally I'm sure they have a philosophy of not overpaying. They'll no doubt front end contracts, etc, but they'd carefully analyse opportunity versus cost. How do you think Scully's contract is going to impact GWS over the next 5 years ?

But equally I understand that we're presently not a great club and are in the throes of trying to become one. So it's fair to say that we need to do things that for example Geelong wouldn't. But there has to be parameters. The club has to have one eye on the future and the precedents they set. As a club when do you start making the types of decisions that good clubs make ?

Fan is in a far better position to give his views on list management and more capable of outlining the pitfalls and longer term repercussions of imprudent financial overtures to opposition players. It's an on-going concern. I was all for getting Clark, but each circumstance is different and Clark was a player far more deserving of a lucrative contract. And I also believe the figure is wildly exagerated in the media.

What's your point ?

I'm saying what I'd do.

You were talking about players not leaving a premiership team to go to a minnow, I gave you the prototype, Gazza Jnr.

I find it difficult reconciling where our club is presently at and where I'd like it to go. I want it to become a powerful and well run club that is a benchmark in list management, recruiting, and general decision making. Would a really good club pay Wellingham twice what he's worth, or would they realise that any player coming in has to meet the requirements they've set in place for their entire list ? I'm sure they have some flexibility, but equally I'm sure they have a philosophy of not overpaying. They'll know doubt front end contracts, etc, but they'd carefully analyse opportunity versus cost. How do you think Scully's contract is going to impact GWS over the next 5 years ?

But equally I understand that we're presently not a great club and are in the throes of trying to become one. So it's fair to say that we need to do things that for example Geelong wouldn't. But there has to be parameters. The club has to have one eye on the future and the precedents they set. As a club when do you start making the types of decisions that good clubs make ?

Fan is in a far better position to give his views on list management and more capable of outlining the pitfalls and longer term repercussions of imprudent financial overtures to opposition players. It's an on-going concern. I was all for getting Clark, but each circumstance is different and Clark was a player far more deserving of a lucrative contract. And I also believe the figure is wildly exagerated in the media.

I totally get what you're saying Ben. It's kinda a scary time in a way. The way I look at it is this: There are teams that are enticing as far as their performance, culture, support, and finals chances go, and we want to become one of those teams. However, in order to get there we need to improve, so we need better players, players that want success but can be persuaded by money, as that's the only weapon we have right now. Once we have used that strategy to build a better team players will start wanting to come to us as we are a successful club and can offer them finals and maybe even a premiership shot, and life will be so much better.

I am a fan of going after him and overpaying him in his first year. If he comes via the PSD. Same goes for Caddy.

Otherwise we should be taking the long road in the draft.

But it's more sensible to talk about likely scenarios.

I'm guessing that Melbourne would offer Wellingham around $500k per year and Collingwood about $350k per year. In that situation it'd be a no brainer for me. I'd stay. If Melbourne upped it to $550K, I'd say to Collingwood I want $400k. But I'd probably stay for $375K.

I'd want to stay and win flags with my mates. $375K is still great coin if invested wisely and Collingwood is a club that looks after it's own way beyond football. But that's just me.

We're a very unattractive proposition - there's contract length and primary playing role components but money is the only lever we really have. We have to be careful that we don't set unsustainable precedents and unrest in the current player group re pay parity. The fact that we have massive TPP space now as Nasher points out needs to be taken advantage of. We need to make our extra offer as "sign-on bonus" in year one with a manageable base following. In your above scenario we offer Wellingham 4 years x $350K base, the same as Collingwood so we preserve pay parity but we give him the difference as a "sign-on bonus" in year one. The extra $150K x 4 years = $600K, so his contract is $950K, $350K, $350K, $350K - it equals $500K x 4 years but it has built in advantage for him and us. I think our players will more readily accept that it requires a premium to attract better players which will make their life better too, Wellingham gets a massive up front payment which we can afford and there's transparency about his salary in future contract negotiations - his salary is $350K.

I agree with Nasher. I also disagree with any talk that Wellingham is a B grader - he seems to be underrated by A LOT of folks.

He is a very good footballer and he's still very young, would be an amazing get for any club.

Clearly our parameters of what makes a player A grade, or not, are quite different. Dale Thomas is having an average year by his standards, but it's still far great than Wellingham's output. Wellingham is having his best year and averages 19 disposals per game. He's never averaged 20.

In fact, statistically Sylvia has 3 years which are better than Wellingham's best. And I don't call Sylvia A grade. Sylvia is having his worst year since 2008, but even then it's not far off Wellingham's best. Wellingham is averaging 1.5 disposals more, but kicked only 13 goals to Sylvia's 15.

Like Sylvia, Wellingham is a good player and has the potential to reach greater heights, but the facts are he's presently not A grade and neither player have displayed consistent high quality football. I believe Sidebottom has had an A grade year, but I'd baulk at even calling him A grade until he backs it up with another. And hopefully a better one.

But if you want to call Wellingham A grade go ahead. Supporters tend to get enamoured with opposition players at this time of year and overrate them accordingly.

Clearly our parameters of what makes a player A grade, or not, are quite different. Dale Thomas is having an average year by his standards, but it's still far great than Wellingham's output. Wellingham is having his best year and averages 19 disposals per game. He's never averaged 20.

In fact, statistically Sylvia has 3 years which are better than Wellingham's best. And I don't call Sylvia A grade. Sylvia is having his worst year since 2008, but even then it's not far off Wellingham's best. Wellingham is averaging 1.5 disposals more, but kicked only 13 goals to Sylvia's 15.

Like Sylvia, Wellingham is a good player and has the potential to reach greater heights, but the facts are he's presently not A grade and neither player have displayed consistent high quality football. I believe Sidebottom has had an A grade year, but I'd baulk at even calling him A grade until he backs it up with another. And hopefully a better one.

But if you want to call Wellingham A grade go ahead. Supporters tend to get enamoured with opposition players at this time of year and overrate them accordingly.

Can't be helped - coming from such a low base, seduction will win over pragmatism any day.

We're a very unattractive proposition - there's contract length and primary playing role components but money is the only lever we really have. We have to be careful that we don't set unsustainable precedents and unrest in the current player group re pay parity. The fact that we have massive TPP space now as Nasher points out needs to be taken advantage of. We need to make our extra offer as "sign-on bonus" in year one with a manageable base following. In your above scenario we offer Wellingham 4 years x $350K base, the same as Collingwood so we preserve pay parity but we give him the difference as a "sign-on bonus" in year one. The extra $150K x 4 years = $600K, so his contract is $950K, $350K, $350K, $350K - it equals $500K x 4 years but it has built in advantage for him and us. I think our players will more readily accept that it requires a premium to attract better players which will make their life better too, Wellingham gets a massive up front payment which we can afford and there's transparency about his salary in future contract negotiations - his salary is $350K.

Nice post and exactly why a better strategy might be - seeking to enter a 3 way deal. Wellingham is a WA boy, Kerr is not getting any younger, Collingwood have salary cap problems - can we take advantage of both situations.

Collingwood move Wellingham on to retain Cloke, West Coast get a prime mid that help them take the next step - we look for something on West Coast list that we need and is far more manageable in the long-term & maybe a pick upgrade into the bargain. Although this draft is strong it seems to level out in the low-mid 40' .... get picks before that your probability increases.

I don't think it's out of the question for us to offer Wellingham something like $750k to Collingwood's $350k. It might be worth than he's worth technically, but if you've the money to spare and are better off with the player than without then it's money well spent for mine.

I would rather table a $750k offer to Dom Tyson instead - blow any Richmond talk out of the water.

A clearance player with outside run and good hands; a potential gun as opposed to a solid middle-tier contributor.

There'll be no GWS retaliation, either. We're just settling the score.

Wellingham's not A grade. If he was, we wouldn't be having this discussion because there wouldn't be any doubt as to whether he's staying at Collingwood.

The fact that he may end up leaving is down to the fact that, if push did come to shove, he's not in Collingwood's top echelon.

Having said that, he is still B grade, and that makes him better than almost every midfielder on our list. He adds to our list things we don't have (pace and skill in one person, goal-kicking nous). The price that it will take, if it comes to this point, is going to be substantial, but that's not to say we shouldn't be willing. If we pay more than what we think he's 'worth' as a footballer, we'd be adding in what he's 'worth' in terms of lifting our midfield slightly and making the team better. Then distribute those extra dollars around our other 21 players and you get a balanced team costing us not much.

There is obviously a limit as to where we will stop bidding for him, but IMO that limit can afford to be quite high.

Wellingham's not A grade. If he was, we wouldn't be having this discussion because there wouldn't be any doubt as to whether he's staying at Collingwood.

The fact that he may end up leaving is down to the fact that, if push did come to shove, he's not in Collingwood's top echelon.

Having said that, he is still B grade, and that makes him better than almost every midfielder on our list. He adds to our list things we don't have (pace and skill in one person, goal-kicking nous). The price that it will take, if it comes to this point, is going to be substantial, but that's not to say we shouldn't be willing. If we pay more than what we think he's 'worth' as a footballer, we'd be adding in what he's 'worth' in terms of lifting our midfield slightly and making the team better. Then distribute those extra dollars around our other 21 players and you get a balanced team costing us not much.

There is obviously a limit as to where we will stop bidding for him, but IMO that limit can afford to be quite high.

He might be a B grader in ability but we will be forced to pay a A grade price to get him - BAD value for us. Much better to look for a C grader on the way up, far easier sell job and in the long term we have far more flexibility.

Wellingham's not A grade. If he was, we wouldn't be having this discussion because there wouldn't be any doubt as to whether he's staying at Collingwood.

The fact that he may end up leaving is down to the fact that, if push did come to shove, he's not in Collingwood's top echelon.

Having said that, he is still B grade, and that makes him better than almost every midfielder on our list.

But you are still willing to part with A-grade dollars for a player that is certified B.

And if one day the likes of Trengove, Viney et al develop into A-graders, he will still be a B.

Wellingham is a short-term investment with a clear-cut ceiling and that sounds pretty unappealing for us.

Focus your energies on Dom Tyson.

Still think Wellingham has potential to be A grader, still very young.

Mitch Clark wasn't worth the cash etc last year in most peoples minds but we picked him up as he was entering his prime.

Maybe getting 22 year old Wellingham will be the same?

But you are still willing to part with A-grade dollars for a player that is certified B.

And if one day the likes of Trengove, Viney et al develop into A-graders, he will still be a B.

Wellingham is a short-term investment with a clear-cut ceiling and that sounds pretty unappealing for us.

Focus your energies on Dom Tyson.

We can't keep aiming to be good in 4-5 years. All we ever do is draft youngsters and wonder why we're not getting anywhere...

We're a very unattractive proposition - there's contract length and primary playing role components but money is the only lever we really have. We have to be careful that we don't set unsustainable precedents and unrest in the current player group re pay parity. The fact that we have massive TPP space now as Nasher points out needs to be taken advantage of. We need to make our extra offer as "sign-on bonus" in year one with a manageable base following. In your above scenario we offer Wellingham 4 years x $350K base, the same as Collingwood so we preserve pay parity but we give him the difference as a "sign-on bonus" in year one. The extra $150K x 4 years = $600K, so his contract is $950K, $350K, $350K, $350K - it equals $500K x 4 years but it has built in advantage for him and us. I think our players will more readily accept that it requires a premium to attract better players which will make their life better too, Wellingham gets a massive up front payment which we can afford and there's transparency about his salary in future contract negotiations - his salary is $350K.

Now we are talking, Old!

We can't keep aiming to be good in 4-5 years. All we ever do is draft youngsters and wonder why we're not getting anywhere...

Every club drafts youngsters. Unfortunately we just didn't draft good ones.

And I'll give you the hot tip: we're not going to be good next year.

Every club drafts youngsters. Unfortunately we just didn't draft good ones.

And I'll give you the hot tip: we're not going to be good next year.

We've focused on youngsters for too long though, you can't argue that we need some quality experienced players.

I'm sick of hearing, we're going to draft this guy or that, then in 4 or 5 years we'll be a good team... Think about who's left/leaving, Green, Moloney, Rivers, pretty much the most experienced players from a group that is already one of the youngest in the AFL, the future is now, if all you ever do is plan ahead you'll never get anywhere.

using Old's strategy (which I am sure is common place these days) we'd only be paying A grade salary for 1 year. 350K is actually a little lighter that what I think a 22 year B+ grade midfielder should be worth any way let alone to attract him to another club.

We have to pay 92.5% of the salary cap any way. If a Million dollars is spent as a 1 off signing bonus to 2 or 3 players to get them over to our club on 4 or 5 year deals, I say DO IT!

We might just find that after doing this our ability to attract players of the same ilk in future years is so much easier because we have a far more attractive on field product.

I would hope the club would pay him nowhere near $750,000. Offer him $100,000 a year more than the Pies with some incentives. Give him the term he wants upto 4 years.

I would presume with our coaching staff they know whether he can play or not. i'm not totally sold on him and wonder if he could step up in our 4th world midfield. I'll leave that to the coaches and recruiters.

I do know that I'd like the club to recruit some 23 -24 year old players this year.

I would hope the club would pay him nowhere near $750,000. Offer him $100,000 a year more than the Pies with some incentives. Give him the term he wants upto 4 years.

I would presume with our coaching staff they know whether he can play or not. i'm not totally sold on him and wonder if he could step up in our 4th world midfield. I'll leave that to the coaches and recruiters.

I do know that I'd like the club to recruit some 23 -24 year old players this year.

How do we recruit mature midfielders assuming they turn down a 100K pay rise to play for a tema who has not featured in finals for over 5 years?

I just dont think 100K will do it, and that we have a cap which we MUST spend on something, why not a new player with potential to step themselves and us up?

Still think Wellingham has potential to be A grader, still very young.

Mitch Clark wasn't worth the cash etc last year in most peoples minds but we picked him up as he was entering his prime.

Maybe getting 22 year old Wellingham will be the same?

Different year different draft - this year sadly the "sales pitch" will have to be changed. Pain in the butt I know but we did finish 16th with 4 wins GWS twice Gold Coast & Essendon.

I think it's easy for 'serviceable' to look 'good' in Collingwood's midfield.

Different year different draft - this year sadly the "sales pitch" will have to be changed. Pain in the butt I know but we did finish 16th with 4 wins GWS twice Gold Coast & Essendon.

Gee, what's the sales pitch like for Richmond, Carlton and Port Adelaide who actually LOST to one of the expansion teams?