So, can someone who knows the Free Agency Rules better than I do clarify this for me?

Under free agency rules, Goddard can only submit his best offer from a rival club for the Saints to match.

Read more: http://www.theage.co...l#ixzz27d0yMajN

Ok,... So hypothetically, Essendon could offer Goddard say $800k for 3 years and Goddard might want to go to Essendon. But MFC could put an offer down of $810k for 3 years.... and he doesn't want to go to us... that statement indicates that Goddard has to place the best offer, not his preferred destination for the Saints to match.

Does that sound a bit odd to people? or has Jon Pierek misinterpretted things? Surely the interpretation as it's described would mean that Freo can't be discounted by those players not wanting to move West, especially if they have the coin to safely put in the best offer?

That's not how it works.

Essendon gives an offer and he can leave, or the Saints can match it and keep him or he can say I am off to the draft.

There is no 'third team with a better offer' aspect to the rule.

That's not how it works.

Essendon gives an offer and he can leave, or the Saints can match it and keep him or he can say I am off to the draft.

There is no 'third team with a better offer' aspect to the rule.

Are you sure of that? It's probably not correct to indicate this as a 'Third Team', but they sound fairly clear in their description that the process sees the manager field all offers from for free agents that they manage. The Age seems to indicate that they have to put the best, not preferred offer to the AFL on form 41 (for restricted agents)

Again, I am agreeing it doesn't sound right to me RPFC, but if it is wrong, it's a pretty ordinary bit of journalism given the amount of detail that they are attempting to put into the article about free agency.

Unrestricted agents can go where they want, but the restricted ones maybe can only go to the club that offers the highest bid, or their current club.

Heard from a very poor source (Greg Denham via SEN this morning) that we are the frontrunners to pick up David Rodan.

Thankfully the person who clips the nails of my next door neighbour's dog, disagrees, and i'm more inclined to believe him.

Heard from a very poor source (Greg Denham via SEN this morning) that we are the frontrunners to pick up David Rodan.

Thankfully the person who clips the nails of my next door neighbour's dog, disagrees, and i'm more inclined to believe him.

I rate Rodan when he is fit, but how many Lars surgerys has he had now?

Are you sure of that? It's probably not correct to indicate this as a 'Third Team', but they sound fairly clear in their description that the process sees the manager field all offers from for free agents that they manage. The Age seems to indicate that they have to put the best, not preferred offer to the AFL on form 41 (for restricted agents)

Again, I am agreeing it doesn't sound right to me RPFC, but if it is wrong, it's a pretty ordinary bit of journalism given the amount of detail that they are attempting to put into the article about free agency.

Unrestricted agents can go where they want, but the restricted ones maybe can only go to the club that offers the highest bid, or their current club.

This is the line you are talking about:

Under free agency rules, Goddard can only submit his best offer from a rival club for the Saints to match.

But the preceeding two lines are:

Goddard has yet to decide whether to quit the Saints but will make his intentions clear early next week.

Only then will the Saints know what they will have to match if they want to keep the restricted free agent.

I read it as an arse about way of saying that once Goddard agrees to a contract from Essendon - St Kilda can only match it. So god help him/them if they match it and it sets a fire in their TPP plans. If St Kilda say to Goddard now - whatever they offer - we will match so don't screw us over - Goddard would be remiss by agreeing to an offer designed to get St Kilda offside.

It's a dangerous game when contracts are designed in such a way - another RFA in the NBA this year - Jeremy Lin agreed to a contract that was designed as a 'poisoned pill' to his team (the Knicks). And because the Knicks are run by a bunch of idiots they lost the kid. The final thing that sent him away was the 'ridiculous' contract (in the words of the best Knicks player).

I rate Rodan when he is fit, but how many Lars surgerys has he had now?

Think he has had 3 recos (2 LARS). Struggled to get a game at Port this year even when fit. About to turn 29.

I'd pass.

It's a dangerous game when contracts are designed in such a way - another RFA in the NBA this year - Jeremy Lin agreed to a contract that was designed as a 'poisoned pill' to his team (the Knicks). And because the Knicks are run by a bunch of idiots they lost the kid. The final thing that sent him away was the 'ridiculous' contract (in the words of the best Knicks player).

Just one thing to add: this won't happen as much in the AFL as the 'RFA Matching of a Contract' is not year to year payments but the total contract.

So the Bombers can't put him on a $1m and then 800k and 600k and make the Saints pay the same. They can do it $800k in all three years. I have not heard whether they can 'back end' it but I haven't seen anything that says that isn't possible...

This is the line you are talking about:

But the preceeding two lines are:

I read it as an arse about way of saying that once Goddard agrees to a contract from Essendon - St Kilda can only match it. So god help him/them if they match it and it sets a fire in their TPP plans. If St Kilda say to Goddard now - whatever they offer - we will match so don't screw us over - Goddard would be remiss by agreeing to an offer designed to get St Kilda offside.

It's a dangerous game when contracts are designed in such a way - another RFA in the NBA this year - Jeremy Lin agreed to a contract that was designed as a 'poisoned pill' to his team (the Knicks). And because the Knicks are run by a bunch of idiots they lost the kid. The final thing that sent him away was the 'ridiculous' contract (in the words of the best Knicks player).

I see what you are saying, but I don't see how you can discount the line that I mentioned either. If he can only submit his best offer, that suggests that in the case of more than one offer by rival clubs the Saints have to match the best offer.

I agree that once "whatever" offer is tabled then the Saints only have to match it. But the notion of multiple offers being made for a RFA suggests the RFA cannot move to chase a premiership, but they can move for more cash. It can't be right... *shrug* who knows.

Am I right in reading that 2 year minimum pertaining to RFA only?

Heard from a very poor source (Greg Denham via SEN this morning) that we are the frontrunners to pick up David Rodan.

Thankfully the person who clips the nails of my next door neighbour's dog, disagrees, and i'm more inclined to believe him.

If we really want to be, we can be the frontrunners of just about anyone on the cusp of starting 22.

If we really want to be, we can be the frontrunners of just about anyone on the cusp of starting 22.

A great point H_T, and one that makes me very interested to see what actually happens.

Neeld and the coaching team have a method that they want to implement, and lets face it, and I am betting that there could be several players that we look at or bring into the club that might confuse or dismay some people, but we will bring players in to play a role, they could excel in that role here if it's not what they are doing at another club. Similarly with the draft, will we see a continuation of players like Cook, Morton, Gysberts... or something more like Taggart, Couch and Magner (in the context of being ready to play, rather than developmental at time of draft)

I see what you are saying, but I don't see how you can discount the line that I mentioned either. If he can only submit his best offer, that suggests that in the case of more than one offer by rival clubs the Saints have to match the best offer.

I agree that once "whatever" offer is tabled then the Saints only have to match it. But the notion of multiple offers being made for a RFA suggests the RFA cannot move to chase a premiership, but they can move for more cash. It can't be right... *shrug* who knows.

I think it is a lazy sentence.

A player accepts a contract from the club he wants to play for, in no way does he have to pick a team just because they offer the most.

For those wanting the services of either Chapman, Enright or Hunt to bolster experience and or leadership, they've just re-signed with the Cats for another year.

I think it is a lazy sentence.

A player accepts a contract from the club he wants to play for, in no way does he have to pick a team just because they offer the most.

Right, which is what I would expect it to be. Lazy isn't quite the word, as its actually plain wrong. They are trying to cite the process, and end up stating something that in fact looks completely false.

Koby Stevens has confirmed with West Coast he wants to be traded out.

Im suspicious with Cloke signing, not long after Eddie made his ploy to Vlad to have a similar deal like Carltons Visy one setup...

$800K a year add in Pendlebury($700K), Swan($600K), Jolly($500K) and Ball($500K). Doesn't leave much for the others.

Koby Stevens has confirmed with West Coast he wants to be traded out.

Awesome.

Im suspicious with Cloke signing, not long after Eddie made his ploy to Vlad to have a similar deal like Carltons Visy one setup...

$800K a year add in Pendlebury($700K), Swan($600K), Jolly($500K) and Ball($500K). Doesn't leave much for the others.

Where did you get those figures from?

Where did you get those figures from?

I'm as interested as you are.

I'm tipping it's the BS file.

So, can someone who knows the Free Agency Rules better than I do clarify this for me?

Under free agency rules, Goddard can only submit his best offer from a rival club for the Saints to match.

Read more: http://www.theage.co...l#ixzz27d0yMajN

Ok,... So hypothetically, Essendon could offer Goddard say $800k for 3 years and Goddard might want to go to Essendon. But MFC could put an offer down of $810k for 3 years.... and he doesn't want to go to us... that statement indicates that Goddard has to place the best offer, not his preferred destination for the Saints to match.

Does that sound a bit odd to people? or has Jon Pierek misinterpretted things? Surely the interpretation as it's described would mean that Freo can't be discounted by those players not wanting to move West, especially if they have the coin to safely put in the best offer?

It's FREE Agency.

IMO if the bummers wanted him & offered, & Freo offered as well, but Goddard wanted to go to the Bummers, then that would be the accepted offer Goddard would forward to the Saints.

Im suspicious with Cloke signing, not long after Eddie made his ploy to Vlad to have a similar deal like Carltons Visy one setup...

$800K a year add in Pendlebury($700K), Swan($600K), Jolly($500K) and Ball($500K). Doesn't leave much for the others.

Smart clubs structure there pay deals. Clokes may be front ended say 1mil one year and Swans back ended so 1 mil towards the end.

Heard from a very poor source (Greg Denham via SEN this morning) that we are the frontrunners to pick up David Rodan.

Thankfully the person who clips the nails of my next door neighbour's dog, disagrees, and i'm more inclined to believe him.

Greg making things up I'd say. Did he manage to squeeze in his usual basketcase demons whack? While I think Rodan is a tidy player or was in his day he is the last thing a team like ours needs and I doubt that we would be interested - and if we are its a knee jerk thing that would concern me.

Dees are in the hunt fo Koby Stevens from what I've heard - Ben Warren as well but it looks unlikely that Levi will leave the Blues...

not sure if this actually goes in here, but a former team mate of Knights believes Richmonds offer will be more then the dee's (still keeps in touch with him but was quite vague and i didnt push had to get back to work).

Isn't Knights a restricted free agent? does this mean he has to take the best offer back to adelaide and then they have the choice to match it or can he pick which one (i believe he'd pick the tigers anyway but just interested what happens in this scenario.)

Don't worry just read up a bit after i posted. Thanks..

Knights is unrestricted so he can take whichever deal he wants. If he was Restricted then he'd have to pick whichever he wanted of the Melbourne and Richmond offers and take it back to Adelaide for them to match or not match.

Q Lynch to the Pies - some think that means Dawes is on the table but I'm led to believe they see the Q as an upgrade on Leigh Brown

It's FREE Agency.

IMO if the bummers wanted him & offered, & Freo offered as well, but Goddard wanted to go to the Bummers, then that would be the accepted offer Goddard would forward to the Saints.

Wow.... thanks for the response, and the capitalisation of FREE made it so much clearer.

Perhaps if you read the damn article and came back to explain how the definition of BEST OFFER (see my snazzy use of capitals there.... good huh?) means in fact PREFERRED OFFER (I added bold as a special touch just for you mate!) and how badly that interpretation of the rules by the journalist actually is.

I posted earlier with the link because the definition in that article goes against what is commonly thought of as free agency... hence my comments back and forth with RPFC.

Best <> Preferred. Best has to mean the biggest contract value.