GOODBYE MR. CHIP FRAWLEY

[FC Melbourne 108]

Well played Mr Dawes.

Edited September 1, 2014 by FC Melbourne

[Guest]

Well played Mr Dawes.

Beat me to it. Golden

[praha 11,240]

Well played Mr Dawes.

Hahah came here to post that.

[What 18,810]

Well played Mr Dawes.

that is amazing

wonder if frawley was there

[beelzebub 23,369]

Well played Mr Dawes.

Guesing Chip wasnt invited ??

[binman 42,936]

don't know what makes you think mid range clubs have more coin in their salary cap

especially given how all clubs have a min cap spend

Yes but clubs like the dees are only playing 92% and have lot more wiggle room because contracts are often front loaded to ensure they can even meet that mark. Clubs like the Cats barely can move and even have to ask players to take cuts (or accept lower than average amounts).

But yes i guess that applies more to bottom clubs that genuine mid range clubs.

[Wormburner 674]

Can we please get this Country Bumpkin off the banner Its insulting to Demonlanders

Don't taint all us "Country bumpkins" just because of him and his actions.

[Biffen 12,943]

Don't taint all us "Country bumpkins" just because of him and his actions.

Warrenheip is only an hour from town,

and Geelong.

[rjay 24,921]

I do. What i also believe is that the AFL didn't think though the implication properly and stupidly thought their compo system would adequately address the issues of lower clubs being hurt by FA. They should have only agreed to FA with the proviso that top 4 clubs at end of home an away were ineligible to get FA's. That way clubs like the Hawks and Cats couldn't just top up to remain at the top (which contradicts the whole draft concept) yet if they chose their club judiciously FA's could still get to a club on the rise and with good chances of progressing up the ladder (eg say North).

Such a system would enable mid run clubs to be use their extra coin to attract FA's and give sides other those entrenched in the top 4 a chance to rise - which would support the whole logic of the draft system not hinder it.

I agree that they didn't think it through, I don't think they were held over a barrel. That's a convenient excuse.

The reasoning for FA was supposedly to give players not getting a game the opportunity to move clubs. Surely they could see what was really going to happen.

This system need to be revised and your top 4 clubs idea has some merit although I think the entire system needs an overhaul and quickly. I fear a lot of damage has already been done.

[Ted Lasso 19,514]

Lol check out dawesys instagram

[Jack Jack 415]

Yes but clubs like the dees are only playing 92% and have lot more wiggle room because contracts are often front loaded to ensure they can even meet that mark. Clubs like the Cats barely can move and even have to ask players to take cuts (or accept lower than average amounts).

But yes i guess that applies more to bottom clubs that genuine mid range clubs.

Actually in the last few years the minimum spend has changed to 95%. Considering the cap is currently around the $10 mill mark, it makes me nauseous to think that there's only about $500k difference between the Hawks/Cats list and ours.

[dazzledavey36 54,913]

Of course chip will still be at mad monday. Whether he leaves or not he is still going to be mates with majority of his ex teammates. By Dawes doing that it would have been tongue and cheek and Chip will cop alot or ribbing for it. It will be all in good nature.

[rpfc 28,415]

Ok, I love Dawesy even more than I used to...

[binman 42,936]

This system need to be revised and your top 4 clubs idea has some merit although I think the entire system needs an overhaul and quickly. I fear a lot of damage has already been done.

Yep. Another unintended consequence - an example of the damage - is the Lake scenario. People seem to forget he didn't leave as a free agent. He was traded the year before he became eligible because he said he wanted out and the doggies wanted to ensure they could at least trade for him. They could have held firm and got the AFL compo but then hey would have had a disgruntled player on the list, no guaranteed daft pick (ie they may not have got a first round given i think his contract is pretty low) and a wasted year of development of a young bloke.

Surely such a scenario where a player has a struggling club over a barrel and can force an early end to their contract was not the idea of FA. And again the bottom clubs cop it becase they lose vital sesnoir players to club who have a surfeit of such players.

There is discussion somewhere on DL of this exact scenario playing out with Dangerfield.

[binman 42,936]

Actually in the last few years the minimum spend has changed to 95%. Considering the cap is currently around the $10 mill mark, it makes me nauseous to think that there's only about $500k difference between the Hawks/Cats list and ours.

500k is a fair bit of extra coin to be able to offer a player.

Also as of this year (and retrospectively for 1, maybe 2 years) clubs who have not used their cap can effectively bank it and exceed their cap to he same amount in future years. Meaning for at the least the next two years if we wanted to the dees (and any other club paying unders) could pay 105% of the cap

[daisycutter 29,613]

Yes but clubs like the dees are only playing 92% and have lot more wiggle room because contracts are often front loaded to ensure they can even meet that mark. Clubs like the Cats barely can move and even have to ask players to take cuts (or accept lower than average amounts).

But yes i guess that applies more to bottom clubs that genuine mid range clubs.

and i thought the min was now 95%

[binman 42,936]

and i thought the min was now 95%

See post above yours. Next year, assuming we actually have the cash, we effectively have $1 million more a year we can spend on players. That has to give us some traction

Edited September 1, 2014 by binman

[daisycutter 29,613]

Don't taint all us "Country bumpkins" just because of him and his actions.

yes that was very unfair. he should have said hayseed instead

[daisycutter 29,613]

500k is a fair bit of extra coin to be able to offer a player.

Also as of this year (and retrospectively for 1, maybe 2 years) clubs who have not used their cap can effectively bank it and exceed their cap to he same amount in future years. Meaning for at the least the next two years if we wanted to the dees (and any other club paying unders) could pay 105% of the cap

problem here is that such clubs probably don't have the spare 1M to fork out the difference between 95% and 105%

it's the top clubs (for obvious reasons) that are more profitable

bottom line is that struggling clubs only get marginal assistance under these rules/conditions

[jazza 1,323]

The good part about chip going.

We get to write long threads about him and his new club when he plays bad and the club fails.

We get to throw snott at each other when he plays good and his new team is on top of ladder.

Win Win for board,and it gives stuie so much space to write "i told you so" or "i knew we was right to get rid of him'

[Jack Jack 415]

500k is a fair bit of extra coin to be able to offer a player.

Also as of this year (and retrospectively for 1, maybe 2 years) clubs who have not used their cap can effectively bank it and exceed their cap to he same amount in future years. Meaning for at the least the next two years if we wanted to the dees (and any other club paying unders) could pay 105% of the cap

Sure I understand that. Still, when you compare us to a team like the Hawks, they'd be paying close to the cap and have players on contract under market value. Us on the other hand, I would assume, would be barely making the minimum spend and having to overpay our players.

When you look at the quality of our list, I can't see how we could get much over the 95% spend, even if we were to bring in another Vince or Dawes. I just can't see how we'd ever utilise that extra 5-10%?

Maybe we will at some stage, but not for a few years at least.

[Deez 298]

Well played Mr Dawes.

I wonder what frawleys reaction was to dawes's costume.

[dees189227 12,392]

interesting to see he needs a few weeks., What a few weeks until hawthorn geelong or sydney bow out of finals and they talk to you.

[corowa 216]

I'm beginning to think that the possibility of immediate success might be as much of a lure as big salary.

Whatever it is, 'top' clubs continue to become stronger while the lesser lights flounder.

Look at Hawthorn in recent years. Key backs were missing so they 'recruit' Gibson and Lake. They were poor in the ruck division they get Hale and McEvoy.

They had no early draft selections but they have heaps of appeal to players at unsuccessful clubs.

In the mean time we'll get all excited about 3rd grade rejects from other clubs.

The AFL needs to fix this up before we become a two tier competition that few of us from 'weaker' clubs will attend.

[Forest Demon 4,681]

Those clubs who were lucky enough to be up the top of their cycles when FA came in are laughing all the way to the finals every year. Make no mistake, if FA came in when Hawthorn or Geelong were a basket case, which wasn't that long ago remember, they would be floundering down the bottom for the foreseeable future. It is a vicious cycle, and we are going to have to d an amazing job to break it.

Edited September 1, 2014 by Forest Demon