Geelong are definitely the front runners in the race to sign Danger. He met up with Chris Scott for a 2 hour long chat on the 2nd Jan at Skilled.

Rather he goes to the cats than the Hawks! Don't want them lining up for a 4peat!!

If he goes to either team then the AFL has an even bigger problem on their hands with FA than they anticipated.

If he goes to either team then the AFL has an even bigger problem on their hands with FA than they anticipated.

That much is already clear. It was designed for the likes of Angus Monfries and Matt White of the AFL, maybe Rivers and Moloney. Certainly was never intended for top class players.

I'd rather not chase him now given the young midfield we're currently assembling and developing. I think it would be wiser to keep some cash spare for the years ahead.

That and reckon Dom Tyson will be a better player than him.

That much is already clear. It was designed for the likes of Angus Monfries and Matt White of the AFL, maybe Rivers and Moloney. Certainly was never intended for top class players.

Debateable. That was how the AFLPA painted free agency to avoid an obvious PR disaster by pushing for it, but everyone knew what their true motive was. I've got no doubt it's why the AFL held off for so long, then implemented it with a raft of restrictions and compensatory policies (which the AFLPA, naturally, want scrapped).

One needs only look at what free agency has caused in overseas sports, though thankfully the AFL maintains a salary cap. Wonder how long it takes the AFLPA to demand that be scrapped as well?

Edited January 13, 201510 yr by Lamashtu

That much is already clear. It was designed for the likes of Angus Monfries and Matt White of the AFL, maybe Rivers and Moloney. Certainly was never intended for top class players.

I don't think that's how it was designed. I'd suggest however, it was the way the AFLPA sold it to the AFL. It would be working out how exactly how the AFLPA intended.

Edited January 13, 201510 yr by Ethan Tremblay

Debateable. That was how the AFLPA painted free agency to avoid an obvious PR disaster by pushing for it, but everyone knew what their true motive was. I've got no doubt it's why the AFL held off for so long, then implemented it with a raft of restrictions and compensatory policies (which the AFLPA, naturally, want scrapped).

One needs only look at what free agency has caused in overseas sports, though thankfully the AFL maintains a salary cap. Wonder how long it takes the AFLPA to demand that be scrapped as well?

can't understand why the aflpa would be naturally concerned about the compensatory measures......doesn't affect them

Edited January 13, 201510 yr by daisycutter

can't understand why the aflpa would be naturely concerned about the compensatory measures......doesn't affect them

I didn't understand initially either, but their official line is that it's a disincentive for players to change clubs, thus preventing free agency from reaching the quantity of player movement they wanted.

Would've thought the opposite, personally.

Oh, this should explain their position and argument quite succinctly:

Marsh said that delegates also supported the scrapping of clubs receiving compensation for losing unrestricted free agents.

The AFLPA argued that compensation acted as a barrier to deals and might benefit the clubs involved in the trade while working against the other 16 clubs.

It's almost like they want the best players in the league only moving to top-tier clubs and ensuring lowly clubs remain nothing but feeder clubs for the rich ones.

Yep pat yourself on the back, or you can use your pink selfie stick

ha! Not only am i right with my assumptions made last October, but i am also slightly creeped out as i do own a pink selfie stick, as i got it from xmas. Which means my cover/anonymity has either been blown on here and you know me personally, or it was a lucky guess by you.

Edited January 13, 201510 yr by The Song Formerly Known As

Oh, this should explain their position and argument quite succinctly:

It's almost like they want the best players in the league only moving to top-tier clubs and ensuring lowly clubs remain nothing but feeder clubs for the rich ones.

thanks for the quotes........but it still baffles me......both the logic and why it is of concern to an org like the aflpa

sounds more like a power play exercise, like their stance on messydrugs

Oh, this should explain their position and argument quite succinctly:

It's almost like they want the best players in the league only moving to top-tier clubs and ensuring lowly clubs remain nothing but feeder clubs for the rich ones.

thanks for the quotes........but it still baffles me......both the logic and why it is of concern to an org like the aflpa

sounds more like a power play exercise, like their stance on messydrugs

Ok, so the logic here is that UFAs make up 10 year vets who have already been FA once and players not in a team's top 10 paid players who are OOC after 8 years.

So those players would be 28+ year olds that could be your best players and 26+ year olds who are outside your 10 most well paid.

Situations like Frawley being UFA won't happen again as teams won't front end contracts anymore - and that is the sole reason Frawley was a UFA - his last year was minuscule compared to previous years when he was prepaid so to speak.

I don't think removing UFA compensation is a bad idea, in fact it would mean we, in theory (the AFL loves making this up on their fly), could go after UFAs even if we lost a RFA and it won't affect our compensation. Which I believe is the impetus behind the AFLPA's desire for it.

Taylor Walker has been made captain of Adelaide for 2015 and beyond.

Surely that only fuels the Danger rumours now for the rest of the year...

Ok, so the logic here is that UFAs make up 10 year vets who have already been FA once and players not in a team's top 10 paid players who are OOC after 8 years.

So those players would be 28+ year olds that could be your best players and 26+ year olds who are outside your 10 most well paid.

Situations like Frawley being UFA won't happen again as teams won't front end contracts anymore - and that is the sole reason Frawley was a UFA - his last year was minuscule compared to previous years when he was prepaid so to speak.

I don't think removing UFA compensation is a bad idea, in fact it would mean we, in theory (the AFL loves making this up on their fly), could go after UFAs even if we lost a RFA and it won't affect our compensation. Which I believe is the impetus behind the AFLPA's desire for it.

The problem isn't necesarily the compensation, it's the net compensation. When we lost Frawley, we were effectively removed from free agency so as not to risk diluting our compensation. This would be a concern for the AFLPA due to there being a situation where it reduces the number of clubs being able to actively bid for free agents.

They really should just implement some blanket rules like teams in the top 4-6 can't take restricted free agents from teams outside the top 4-6 (prevents premiership teams pillaging the bottom feeders every year).

Similarly, lowly teams in the bottom 6 should be able to get free agents without diluting their compensation.

As for Paddy, surely this means one foot is out the door? Very surprised Sloane was overlooked too.

Free Agency is working exactly how the players want it to work.

The only way a Free Agent will go to a bottom club is for massive coin. Understandable.

The MFC has to load up and move up the ladder, make the system work for us.

Free Agency is working exactly how the players want it to work.

The only way a Free Agent will go to a bottom club is for massive coin. Understandable.

The MFC has to load up and move up the ladder, make the system work for us.

You may never speak words truer than those wyl.

Improving the money they earn and improving the chance for them to play in a GF is what it is about.

End of story.

Taylor Walker has been made captain of Adelaide for 2015 and beyond.

Surely that only fuels the Danger rumours now for the rest of the year...

That was the first thing that I thought when I saw the headline. Sloan and Danger were co-captains in Van Berlows absence last year. Tells me Walsh isnt sure he's keeping the boys around past 2015.

And roll out the cheque book.

You may never speak words truer than those wyl.

Improving the money they earn and improving the chance for them to play in a GF is what it is about.

End of story.

Exactly. There is nothing wrong with that at all.

The MFC has to make itself more desirable, which it is doing.

That was the first thing that I thought when I saw the headline. Sloan and Danger were co-captains in Van Berlows absence last year. Tells me Walsh isnt sure he's keeping the boys around past 2015.

And roll out the cheque book.

Did Van Berlo step down?

You may never speak words truer than those wyl.

Improving the money they earn and improving the chance for them to play in a GF is what it is about.

End of story.

It's fools gold though, because while the small minority (the best players in the league) will receive ballooning salaries and ridiculous contracts, it will push down the median salary for other players. This is the argument Roos put forth to the AFLPA but was, unexpected, ignored.

It's detrimental to the overwhelming majority of players playing AFL and only rewards the elite few.

I hope we go aggressively after Dangerfield.

Assuming we finish around 10th in 2015, the addition of Danger, plus the continued maturing of our young mids would almost guarantee finals in 2016 and beyond.

And put a flag within the realm of possibility by 2017...

I don't think removing UFA compensation is a bad idea, in fact it would mean we, in theory (the AFL loves making this up on their fly), could go after UFAs even if we lost a RFA and it won't affect our compensation. Which I believe is the impetus behind the AFLPA's desire for it.

OK, thanks i get it

the issue is not compensation but the consequences of "netting"

so if a club loses a FA, they are disincented to bring in a FA for fear of netting, thus reducing the possibilities of FA movement thus the AFLPA's concern

the solution doesn't have to be getting rid of the compo, just get rid of the netting

so, have compo (or potential compo) on a trade by trade basis

no need to throw the baby out with the bathwater

It's fools gold though, because while the small minority (the best players in the league) will receive ballooning salaries and ridiculous contracts, it will push down the median salary for other players. This is the argument Roos put forth to the AFLPA but was, unexpected, ignored.

It's detrimental to the overwhelming majority of players playing AFL and only rewards the elite few.

I agree. A union like the AFLPA should not favour a few of its members over the interests of the majority. Not sure what line player managers would take, but leaving them aside, I think that if the AFL got into the ears of the non-elite players, the AFL could enforce a different regime without fear of how the AFLPA might react. But I guess a lot of average players have foolish dreams of becoming elite and are prepared to toe the current line. A bit like Walmart employees in the USA thinking one day they will be millionaires and voting Republican.

Geelong are definitely the front runners in the race to sign Danger. He met up with Chris Scott for a 2 hour long chat on the 2nd Jan at Skilled.

Like Frawley last year?

Don't kid yourself, there are a lot of teams in the running, and plenty of 2 hour long chats have been held.

I'd say we have just as much chance of getting him as Geelong.