A Very Restricted 'Restricted Free Agency'

[rjay 23,891]

I'm not a fan off the Hawks but I admire what they have achieved and hope they win it this year. No COLA, no academy players(someone mentioned Cyril was on a scholarship?, not sure how that works). Yes they recurred a priority years ago but they have recruited and developed better than the rest.

Add a fair degree of luck and you have the secret formula...

[whatwhat say what 18,908]

Crows have reportedly confirmed they'll match,

First big test of this fallacy of a system.

[dee-luded 2,958]

I think they were. Many will disagree and that's fine. The fact they won it last year and are a big chance this year is a credit to them.

'buddy' joined the Swans Pre 2014 season, as a 27Yr old player.. he will turn 29 yrs in January 2016, before a ball is kicked in anger. He cost the Swans a lot of salary cap

& trade restrictions.

.. so the Hawks got P-19, a 1st Rndr,,, for a talented 27 Yr old with no injury guarantees; so max they will get from him is about 5 Yrs, imo.

Frawley joined the Hawks as a 26Yr old tall regular senior player, who has a lot ahead of him..... of course we got P-3, or so.

both Clubs pulled 1st Rnd picks. I don't think its too far off the mark.

[dee-luded 2,958]

Do we know how is the academy funded by AFL %wise and how much do the Swans tip in?

Why can't the academy's be 100% funded by the AFL and kids are drafted where they are taken in the draft.

Why can't the academy players be in the Clubs development region, & be developed by their club, & be drafted by the developing club of their home region, Pre-Draft .....

(up to 3 Academy/Father-son recruits per season). After which any others should have to go into the current Father-Son bidding system existing within the draft rules.

Edited September 24, 2015 by dee-luded

[Bombay Airconditioning 5,875]

'buddy' joined the Swans Pre 2014 season, as a 27Yr old player.. he will turn 29 yrs in January 2016, before a ball is kicked in anger. He cost the Swans a lot of salary cap

& trade restrictions.

.. so the Hawks got P-19, a 1st Rndr,,, for a talented 27 Yr old with no injury guarantees; so max they will get from him is about 5 Yrs, imo.

Frawley joined the Hawks as a 26Yr old tall regular senior player, who has a lot ahead of him..... of course we got P-3, or so.

both Clubs pulled 1st Rnd picks. I don't think its too far off the mark.

I thought Buddy was younger, my bad. I look at it this way(and it's probably not the right way), what would the club have to cough up if they were trading for that player. In the case of Buddy regardless of his age it would of been more than pick 19. Judds a great example. Carlton lost a pick 3 and a gun player. That happened before all of this.

[monoccular 16,043]

And without starting a riot, yes mental health issues are serious and should be treated as such, for me the jury is out on "what's happening with Buddy"(I don't need people telling me they know for a fact that.....). As we've been advised we're not aloud/going to speculate but at the time he was traded he was and still is a superstar. Like anything buyer beware. If Danger does his ACL or strikes out 3 times for illicit drugs that's bad luck for the club involved at the time.

Some interesting comments there - do you seriously believe that the three strike policy is administered in an impartial, integrity driven manner by the AFL?? Really?? Truly?? For superstars??

[monoccular 16,043]

'buddy' joined the Swans Pre 2014 season, as a 27Yr old player..*** he will turn 29 yrs in January 2016, before a ball is kicked in anger. He cost the Swans a lot of salary cap

& trade restrictions.

.. so the Hawks got P-19, a 1st Rndr,,, for a talented 27 Yr old with no injury guarantees; so max they will get from him is about 5 Yrs, imo.

Frawley joined the Hawks as a 26Yr old tall regular senior player, who has a lot ahead of him..... of course we got P-3, or so.

both Clubs pulled 1st Rnd picks. I don't think its too far off the mark.

** on a reputedly ten year contract. A decade for a 27 year old by my calculations brings him to 37 yo at the end of the contract- does anyone seriously think that, even the recent revelations aside, he could have played until he was 37??? Harvey, Fletcher yes but Franklin??? And of course the contract is Kosher and the Swans' salary cap is Kosher (COLA aside). And Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny are as true as the Tooth Fairy :-)))) Edited September 24, 2015 by monoccular

[dee-luded 2,958]

I thought Buddy was younger, my bad. I look at it this way(and it's probably not the right way), what would the club have to cough up if they were trading for that player. In the case of Buddy regardless of his age it would of been more than pick 19. Judds a great example. Carlton lost a pick 3 and a gun player. That happened before all of this.

I think the hawks would have done better in a free trade scenario, because buddy is a match-winner,, but a 1st Rnd pick is a 1st Rnd pick, so the likelihood of turning up a very good footballer from a 1st Rnd pick is high, imo...

unless your club are noddies at the draft table.... we've won that award many times over in the past 10 years or so. probably still leading it.

Frawley, i think we'll see his true worth next year at the Hawks. fwiw

Judd ; in hindsight we dodged a silver bullet there, & Carltoon payed thru their backside for judd@meister & the cruiser cup.

I'm sure the Eagles are very appreciative of judas & of the elliot/praatt empires, as they sit up near the top nest.

** on a reputedly ten year contract. A decade for a 27 year old by my calculations brings him to 37 yo at the end of the contract- does anyone seriously think that, even the recent revelations aside, he could have played until he was 37??? Harvey, Fletcher yes but Franklin??? And of course the contract is Kosher and the Swans' salary cap is Kosher (COLA aside). And Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny are as true as the Tooth Fairy :-))))

I don't think they have to pay him, for seasons not played.

Edited September 24, 2015 by dee-luded

[Demon trucker 1,744]

I don't think they have to pay him, for seasons not played.

whether they pay him or not that does not matter, the AFL told them it would be in their cap for the full term of the contract, so his contract will be 1.3 million seas,on 1, 1.3s-2 1.2 s4 1 s5, 900000 s6 900000s7 900000 s8 700000 s9, so they will have those amounts in their cap for the 9 seasons of the contract whether he plays or not

[Dr. Gonzo 22,412]

Unless the AFL fixes the many flaws in the system then smaller clubs don't stand a chance. First priority should be enforcing a hard salary cap with strict penalties for any breaches. No third party deals to entice players to a new club.

Second should be allowing clubs to nominate franchise players who are exempt from FA. Remember FA was about ensuring mid-range players can easily move to a new club for better opportunities not to allow A-graders to move to top clubs for easy premierships. This is about money and opportunities to play senior footy not about top range players all moving to the same 3 or 4 clubs to build all-star teams.

Third should be removing players right to veto trades. If they have FA after a period of time then anything before that should be controlled by the club. The offset could be reducing the qualifying period for FA from 8 to 6 years.

Rookie contracts should also have options up to 4 years (probably even 6 for 1st round picks). 2 years for an 18 year old kid isn't enough.

That's just for a start.

[Binmans PA 26,021]

Unless the AFL fixes the many flaws in the system then smaller clubs don't stand a chance. First priority should be enforcing a hard salary cap with strict penalties for any breaches. No third party deals to entice players to a new club.

Second should be allowing clubs to nominate franchise players who are exempt from FA. Remember FA was about ensuring mid-range players can easily move to a new club for better opportunities not to allow A-graders to move to top clubs for easy premierships. This is about money and opportunities to play senior footy not about top range players all moving to the same 3 or 4 clubs to build all-star teams.

Third should be removing players right to veto trades. If they have FA after a period of time then anything before that should be controlled by the club. The offset could be reducing the qualifying period for FA from 8 to 6 years.

Rookie contracts should also have options up to 4 years (probably even 6 for 1st round picks). 2 years for an 18 year old kid isn't enough.

That's just for a start.

Particularly agree about this one, mate. Bringing qualification down from 8 years to 6 is fair too. I'm usually for the unions, but the AFLPA have slowly compromised the competition in a big, big way in the last five years.

[dee-luded 2,958]

whether they pay him or not that does not matter, the AFL told them it would be in their cap for the full term of the contract, so his contract will be 1.3 million seas,on 1, 1.3s-2 1.2 s4 1 s5, 900000 s6 900000s7 900000 s8 700000 s9, so they will have those amounts in their cap for the 9 seasons of the contract whether he plays or not

whether they pay him or not that does not matter, the AFL told them it would be in their cap for the full term of the contract, so his contract will be 1.3 million seas,on 1, 1.3s-2 1.2 s4 1 s5, 900000 s6 900000s7 900000 s8 700000 s9, so they will have those amounts in their cap for the 9 seasons of the contract whether he plays or not

they may have said that the other year, but i doubt it'll workout that way. a settlement will happen. retirement etc, some creative idea will be accepted.

Edited September 24, 2015 by dee-luded

[dee-luded 2,958]

Unless the AFL fixes the many flaws in the system then smaller clubs don't stand a chance. First priority should be enforcing a hard salary cap with strict penalties for any breaches. No third party deals to entice players to a new club.

Second should be allowing clubs to nominate franchise players who are exempt from FA. Remember FA was about ensuring mid-range players can easily move to a new club for better opportunities not to allow A-graders to move to top clubs for easy premierships. This is about money and opportunities to play senior footy not about top range players all moving to the same 3 or 4 clubs to build all-star teams.

Third should be removing players right to veto trades. If they have FA after a period of time then anything before that should be controlled by the club. The offset could be reducing the qualifying period for FA from 8 to 6 years.

Rookie contracts should also have options up to 4 years (probably even 6 for 1st round picks). 2 years for an 18 year old kid isn't enough.

That's just for a start.

.... its not good enough, us only writing whinges every week. We all have to go on-strike as supporters, to make the message LOUD & clear to the AFL.

We need a supporters protest march; from the MCG, & away, to Federation Square on a game day.... to make the message loud enough.

[Dr. Gonzo 22,412]

Another one I'd add us removing the salary floor - how can the bottom clubs build decent war chests to benefit from FA if they're forced to overpay their existing players?

[deespicable me 1,427]

Another one I'd add us removing the salary floor - how can the bottom clubs build decent war chests to benefit from FA if they're forced to overpay their existing players?

That's how we ended up paying too much for too long to Dawes and Lumumba. Then Howe says pay me the same as Lumumba and soon enough you have a lopsided pay sheet and disgruntled players.

People have been critical of Watts and Howe and in many cases happy to shift them off with the hope of an upgrade, but in an ideal world I'd keep those two and trade out Dawes and Lumumba. Who knows you might even get some spare change back as well.

Having said that I think we are getting our payments in order. At least I hope so. I really don't want to lose one of our young guns.

The only upside of paying Dawes and Lumumba overs is their next contract will be significantly reduced leaving money for those up and coming stars.

[Deecisive 1,651]

I wonder if Dangermouse was to nominate for the draft would another club take a chance and draft him knowing he wants to go to geelong. If he chooses not to play for that team could he be accused of draft tampering.

Could a club with a couple of early picks for instance offer the crows and early pick from this year and next to let him go into the draft so they could then pick him up with the remaining early pick?

[daisycutter 28,487]

I wonder if Dangermouse was to nominate for the draft would another club take a chance and draft him knowing he wants to go to geelong. If he chooses not to play for that team could he be accused of draft tampering.

Could a club with a couple of early picks for instance offer the crows and early pick from this year and next to let him go into the draft so they could then pick him up with the remaining early pick?

in your first example he would have to sit out of football for a year (i think) if he refused to go to the club who drafted him

your second example sounds like draft tampering

[Return to Glory 7,722]

I'm up for anything that stuffs Geelong.

[beelzebub 22,225]

I wonder if Ford will continue sponsorship for too many more years ?