On 11/03/2014 at 21:39, rpfc said:

Free Agency can help the club.

It doesn't have to be a hindrance.

In the NFL where Free Agency is at its most fluid - contracts are rarely signed mid-season. Usually players are re-signed in the days before the FA period or during the first week.

Contracts in the AFL will be, predominantly, signed in August/September every year for the 'FAs' that choose to stay at their club.

We spun Sylvia leaving through FA into Vince.

Keep Frawley and we can go and target some 26-28 year old pros to help at the fringes.

Lose Frawley and we can go to clubs with a top 5 pick and ask what they will give for it.

Bingo !!!

Roos will have plans in place if we lose either Frawley or Dunn. He probably already has his recruiting "team" sniffing around behind the scenes already.
I trust the man.

I haven't read beyond about the first dozen posts, so I may be repeating an opinion made elsewhere...

Restricted or unrestricted virtually makes no difference. If a player wants to go they'll go and the club won't stop them.

Name a restricted player that wanted to go, but was stopped by his club ? There may be one, but there wouldn't be much more.

He'll stay if he sees a bright future and he'll go if he doesn't. Restricted or unrestricted doesn't matter.

Not really related to chippa but i reckon we will be chasing Nick Smith, Swans player who wants to come back to victoria

  On 11/03/2014 at 21:53, Hannibal said:

I haven't read beyond about the first dozen posts, so I may be repeating an opinion made elsewhere...

Restricted or unrestricted virtually makes no difference. If a player wants to go they'll go and the club won't stop them.

Name a restricted player that wanted to go, but was stopped by his club ? There may be one, but there wouldn't be much more.

He'll stay if he sees a bright future and he'll go if he doesn't. Restricted or unrestricted doesn't matter.

It hurts at the margins; Monfries was traded as a RFA, that is not an option if he is UFA. UFA also means that we have no leverage to push Frawley into the draft should he wish to leave.

I agree that if he wants to go - it wouldn't matter if he was RFA or UFA - but it is now decidedly easier for him to leave, and to get to the club of his choice.

  On 11/03/2014 at 10:43, RalphiusMaximus said:

The Hawks will be a big suitor for him. Lake is just about done, so they'll be looking for another FB and Frawley fits the bill nicely. They have money to burn after Franklin left, so expect them to make a big play for him. He'd have to consider them given the state of their list, especially if they go deep into the finals again this year. We're talking a pay rise and almost guaranteed finals for the rest of his career. Very hard to pass that up.

Would there be anything more sickening and vomitus then having the club that has bullied us so often, smashed us so bad so regularly, to then take our prized fast running key back off us to win yet another premiership.

  On 11/03/2014 at 22:07, rpfc said:

It hurts at the margins; Monfries was traded as a RFA, that is not an option if he is UFA. UFA also means that we have no leverage to push Frawley into the draft should he wish to leave.

I agree that if he wants to go - it wouldn't matter if he was RFA or UFA - but it is now decidedly easier for him to leave, and to get to the club of his choice.

I disagree.

Either way he'd get to his destination if he wants to go.

  On 11/03/2014 at 22:25, Bay Riffin said:

Would there be anything more sickening and vomitus then having the club that has bullied us so often, smashed us so bad so regularly, to then take our prized fast running key back off us to win yet another premiership.

I am so hoping they blow up...but even now it looks to be a forlorn hope.

Are you my soul mate, Biff?

Do you hate them more than any other?

  On 11/03/2014 at 22:45, Hannibal said:

I disagree.

Either way he'd get to his destination if he wants to go.

It removes the leverage of the possibly going through the draft - something that is very real leverage but hard to measure.

  On 11/03/2014 at 22:50, pitmaster said:

I am so hoping they blow up...but even now it looks to be a forlorn hope.

Are you my soul mate, Biff?

Do you hate them more than any other?

I simply don't understand the hatred for the Hawks.

They are everything the MFC should be.

Over the last twenty years they have been well run and the MFC has been run badly.

Hence the two positions of the clubs currently.

We should be inspired to fashion ourselves in their image.

  On 11/03/2014 at 22:56, rpfc said:

It removes the leverage of the possibly going through the draft - something that is very real leverage but hard to measure.

No. It's a leverage the club wouldn't use. No clubs use them.

  On 11/03/2014 at 23:11, Hannibal said:

No. It's a leverage the club wouldn't use. No clubs use them.

Port did with Stevens and it didn't work...

Or maybe it did.

We can never tell who has re-signed with a club due to the possibility they go somewhere they don't want to in the draft.

I am sure it has made a few think twice, and made a few decisions easier.

  On 11/03/2014 at 23:09, old dee said:

I simply don't understand the hatred for the Hawks.

They are everything the MFC should be.

Over the last twenty years they have been well run and the MFC has been run badly.

Hence the two positions of the clubs currently.

We should be inspired to fashion ourselves in their image.

I hate them, I hate there arrogance and attitude. I hate the jumper and I have no respect for the supporter base who I see as far weather suporters who jumped on board during the 80's amd are now old enough to pay up. I hated Jeff Kennett in politics and he confirmed my hate by being President the team I hate. I hate the fact the are so successful.

That being said I wish we were as good. But I do hate them.

  On 11/03/2014 at 21:05, old dee said:

IMO only a miracle will keep Frawley at the MFC.

We need to win far more games than this list is capable of getting.

If he leaves who could blame him certainly not me.

I agree OD, I've personally seen the writing on the wall ever since I named my cat 'Chipper' after him (I once also had a cat named 'Beamer'). I would not blame him for wanting to leave either, though I can't help but partially blame him and about 20 other blokes on our list (and a coach who shall remain unnamed) for getting us to where we are in the first place.

The cruel irony is, if we want to win some games we need players like Chip to stand up and play some decent, consistent footy. But the more decent, consistent footy that Chip plays means more lucrative offers from rival suitors and less chance he'll stay a Dee.

  On 12/03/2014 at 00:36, Vince Vega said:

I agree OD, I've personally seen the writing on the wall ever since I named my cat 'Chipper' after him (I once also had a cat named 'Beamer'). I would not blame him for wanting to leave either, though I can't help but partially blame him and about 20 other blokes on our list (and a coach who shall remain unnamed) for getting us to where we are in the first place.

The cruel irony is, if we want to win some games we need players like Chip to stand up and play some decent, consistent footy. But the more decent, consistent footy that Chip plays means more lucrative offers from rival suitors and less chance he'll stay a Dee.

Why don't you really upset Olisik and name your cat "Dunny"?

Not sure what the fuss is about. Even if he was still a restricted FA, I can't imagine any situation that we would consider matching another offer and forcing him to stay. It just wouldn't happen. Unrestricted or restricted, it means nothing. If he wants to go, then let him go and move on.

The policy to front end the contracts was very smart, even though it would have been made in the expectation we were closer to the pointy end and therefore able to lure a big name player. It would have been an important factor is allowing us to get Dawes and Clarke. Their injuries are unfortunate but that's footy isn't it? Players get injured.

Ridiculing a contracting policy made before FA even came into existence is crazy.

Frawley is the first player I would really hate to lose, but I can't blame him. As tough a first half a career as you could possibly get playing Full Back for MFC. Hope he stays though and gets some success with the club he loves.

  On 12/03/2014 at 00:39, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

Why don't you really upset Olisik and name your cat "Dunny"?

If I had the time, space, money and patience I'd have cats named after about 75% of our 2012 and 2013 lists.

My die-hard Geelong supporting aunt named her cat 'Biz' which actually worked in our favour. So as you can see, there is either a curse at play or I'm just pretty superstitious.

But so as not to detract from the actual thread topic, I would love to see Frawley stay at Melbourne but in this day and age I sadly don't see it happening

  On 11/03/2014 at 21:07, mjt said:

His contract was signed 2 years before FA was introduced it hardly seems fair I hate CS but he can't be blamed.

FA has been in the pipeline for 5-10 years. Every club knew of it and surely when sighing him to a contract that would have brought him into free agency would have anticipated this.

  On 12/03/2014 at 00:56, Cudi_420 said:

FA has been in the pipeline for 5-10 years. Every club knew of it and surely when sighing him to a contract that would have brought him into free agency would have anticipated this.

not sure you could anticipate the formula the afl would use to determine the top 25% wage earners when contracts are involved

Surely the formula should just use an average pay over the four years of his contract, not the lowest pay of a front loaded contract, that's just insane, he is in the top 25% just not this year because of how we decided to pay him

  On 12/03/2014 at 00:20, rpfc said:

Port did with Stevens and it didn't work...

Or maybe it did.

We can never tell who has re-signed with a club due to the possibility they go somewhere they don't want to in the draft.

I am sure it has made a few think twice, and made a few decisions easier.

There are a host of restricted agents who have left and gone to the club of their choice. Goddard, Troy Chaplin, Dale Thomas, Monfries and Crameri are just a recent few off the top of my head.

Restricted, or unrestricted makes no difference in my view. Clubs no longer hog tie a player who wants to go if they're restricted, or unrestricted. They may well try and change their mind, or play hardball, as Essendon did with Crameri and the Dogs, but in the end they didn't stop him.

I'm happy to disagree.

Im very much a realist but i still think frawley will stay provided we show genuine improvement and roos commits for the 3rd year

  On 12/03/2014 at 01:15, Hannibal said:

There are a host of restricted agents who have left and gone to the club of their choice. Goddard, Troy Chaplin, Dale Thomas, Monfries and Crameri are just a recent few off the top of my head.

Restricted, or unrestricted makes no difference in my view. Clubs no longer hog tie a player who wants to go if their restricted, or unrestricted. They may well try and change their mind, or play hardball, as Essendon did with Crameri and the Dogs, but in the end they didn't stop him.

I'm happy to disagree.

that's right, why keep a player who doesn't want to be at your club, you want blokes committed to your cause for the right reasons, not just that you matched their preferred sides offer.

The key disadvantages of Frawley being an UFA rather than a RFA are 1) that the AFL may scrap the compensation for UFAs over the next year and 2) that he could go to a club chasing a flag on a below market salary which then reduces our compensation.