i don't even believe it's really all that flat where you live, unless you live in shepparton

Hey i live in shitterton, ....um.... i mean Shepparton

Hey i live in shitterton, ....um.... i mean Shepparton

as have quite a few handy footballers

Aaron black...great foil for Hulk

Aaron black...great foil for Hulk

I have a feeling he may go back to WA, especially if the McCarthy deal doesn't work out for Freo.

I really like that there aren't many (if any) leaks from the club. Shows how far we've come off field in such a short period of time.

But the problem is, damn it's boring at the moment & maybe nothing is actually happening (Been rejected and there isn't much on)

Either way I'll settle for the presentation given to Hoges I keep hearing about

The important word is 'portioned'.

On the surface they need to carry the (reported) $1m salary till 2022

However, today's value of $1m pa for 7 years is $6.250m approx.

You would think, any payout would be a (lower) negotiated figure.

Lets say for example the negotiated payout is 50% ie $3.125m.

If that is (ap)'portioned' over the 7 years it is approx $450k pa.

With the new TV rights that would be a lesser burden in their sal cap.

Then again they may argue extenuating circumstances with the AFL and have that reduced further.

Haven't Hawthorn dodged a bullet!

When the Buddy Deal was in the works, Hawthorn initially said that they would match any offer the Swans made. The Swans sought to bypass this capability by offering Buddy the absurdly long deal he is currently on which sees him on their list until he is 36 or so. They rightly believed that the Hawks would decline to match a deal of that length. Sadly for them, nobody believed that they really intended to go through with it, with the strong suspicion that they were planning on re-negotiating a shorter deal once they had him at the club. The AFL for once got it right and blocked any such move by informing the Swans that they would let the deal stand ONLY if the swans agreed that the yearly wages listed in the contract would be subtracted from their cap each year regardless of whether Buddy was still playing. In essence, if he suffered a career-ending injury in his first game for the club, they would still be without his portion of the salary cap for the next nine years. Sydney agreed to this stipulation. Unless they have somehow managed to strongly front-end his contract I think they're up the creek on this deal.

Interesting on the trade radio front that Carlton are trying to nab first round picks for everything. Delusional, or just starting the bargaining process by asking a high price and planning to come down to reality? I really don't see either Henderson or Yarran fetching a first round pick.

Honestly, Howe and 25 for 16 sounds like an error in translation. Possibly

Howe + 25

for

16 and freo's second pick, 35

Freo moves from 35 to 25. Gives up 16 and gains Howe.

Melbourne gives up Howe, moves from 25 to 16, and gains 35.

When the Buddy Deal was in the works, Hawthorn initially said that they would match any offer the Swans made. The Swans sought to bypass this capability by offering Buddy the absurdly long deal he is currently on which sees him on their list until he is 36 or so. They rightly believed that the Hawks would decline to match a deal of that length. Sadly for them, nobody believed that they really intended to go through with it, with the strong suspicion that they were planning on re-negotiating a shorter deal once they had him at the club. The AFL for once got it right and blocked any such move by informing the Swans that they would let the deal stand ONLY if the swans agreed that the yearly wages listed in the contract would be subtracted from their cap each year regardless of whether Buddy was still playing. In essence, if he suffered a career-ending injury in his first game for the club, they would still be without his portion of the salary cap for the next nine years. Sydney agreed to this stipulation. Unless they have somehow managed to strongly front-end his contract I think they're up the creek on this deal.

Interesting on the trade radio front that Carlton are trying to nab first round picks for everything. Delusional, or just starting the bargaining process by asking a high price and planning to come down to reality? I really don't see either Henderson or Yarran fetching a first round pick.

I get the buddy deal. There is a lot of talk around about him retiring due to 'mental illness' etc and he will not play AFL again. Apparently, the Swans are negotiating a payout with him. My comments were against this background: In essence this payout figure will be apportioned in the salary cap not the original contract value.

I get the buddy deal. There is a lot of talk around about him retiring due to 'mental illness' etc and he will not play AFL again. Apparently, the Swans are negotiating a payout with him. My comments were against this background: In essence this payout figure will be apportioned in the salary cap not the original contract value.

I just question whether they have any possible grounds for a reduced payout. The deal was pretty clear from the beginning that if he broke down they were still on the hook for the full amount. That's what they agreed to in return for being allowed to bypass the RFA rules. I see no reason for the AFL to negotiate.

If Carlton get first rounders (as they are asking) for Henderson and Yarran, then some supporters here should raise their asking value for the likes of Howe and a couple of others.

I just question whether they have any possible grounds for a reduced payout. The deal was pretty clear from the beginning that if he broke down they were still on the hook for the full amount. That's what they agreed to in return for being allowed to bypass the RFA rules. I see no reason for the AFL to negotiate.

if they settle for a reduced amount there will always be suspicion of a back-door deal via some white knight

i'd be very surprised if he retired for mental health issues alone as surely these are at least potentially treatable

of course there could always be some other not revealed issue(s)

The important word is 'portioned'.

On the surface they need to carry the (reported) $1m salary till 2022

However, today's value of $1m pa for 7 years is $6.250m approx.

You would think, any payout would be a (lower) negotiated figure.

Lets say for example the negotiated payout is 50% ie $3.125m.

If that is (ap)'portioned' over the 7 years it is approx $450k pa.

With the new TV rights that would be a lesser burden in their sal cap.

Then again they may argue extenuating circumstances with the AFL and have that reduced further.

Haven't Hawthorn dodged a bullet!

The Dawks have some form in this area, think Jonathan Hay and Nathan Thompson, both traded out for good picks but struggled with their own mental demons at their new club. I am sure they wanted to do all they could to help Hay and Thompson and would have disclosed all they knew, they are the family club after all.

Did they knowingly send a similar problem in Buddy off to one of their major competitors for the FA compo that looked like unders at the time?

Honestly, Howe and 25 for 16 sounds like an error in translation. Possibly

Howe + 25

for

16 and freo's second pick, 35

Freo moves from 35 to 25. Gives up 16 and gains Howe.

Melbourne gives up Howe, moves from 25 to 16, and gains 35.

Yep I'd say that's about right.

We aren't in a position to do 2 for 1 deals. We need quantity of good young players as much as quality. It gives you depth, it drives competition, creates better development environment etc.

If we are to give Howe up for a 9 spot upgrade we need a 2nd useful pick in there as well.

Personally though, I doubt Freo will be interested in Howe. They need to go hard for McCarthy and seal the deal.

The Day's Highlights [5/10/15]

New Essendon coach John Worsfold has indicated the Bombers may be interested in recruiting Harley Bennell from the Suns. Worsfold told NAB Trade Radio today the Bombers were interested, but would need to research his commitment into upholding the club's standards first.

The club's standards for what? Irony?

"John Worsfold, on behalf of Essendon Football Club, wishes to inquire as to your seriousness about avoiding drugs".

if they settle for a reduced amount there will always be suspicion of a back-door deal via some white knight

i'd be very surprised if he retired for mental health issues alone as surely these are at least potentially treatable

of course there could always be some other not revealed issue(s)

suspicion ?

A given

Edited October 5, 20159 yr by beelzebub

I just question whether they have any possible grounds for a reduced payout. The deal was pretty clear from the beginning that if he broke down they were still on the hook for the full amount. That's what they agreed to in return for being allowed to bypass the RFA rules. I see no reason for the AFL to negotiate.

I think you're confusing the two issues.

If Buddy retires, Sydney can negotiate a payout figure which is the money he will receive in his bank account.

However Sydney will still need to include Buddy's salary as it stands in his contract in their salary cap. He won't receive this money buy it will still count against their cap until 2022.

Also Buddy's contract depreciated over the course of the 9 years. So for instance year 1 would be $1.5m, year 2 $1.3m etc until year 9 which may only be $700k.

I think you're confusing the two issues.

If Buddy retires, Sydney can negotiate a payout figure which is the money he will receive in his bank account.

However Sydney will still need to include Buddy's salary as it stands in his contract in their salary cap. He won't receive this money buy it will still count against their cap until 2022.

Also Buddy's contract depreciated over the course of the 9 years. So for instance year 1 would be $1.5m, year 2 $1.3m etc until year 9 which may only be $700k.

Buddy's contract is Sydney's anti-COLA. If this occurs the ramifications for the next 5 years would be enormous in terms of losing stars to other clubs. If you were Luke Parker why stay at a club offering unders when the highest paid player is not able to contribute.

Not sure if it's been mentioned elsewhere, but Josh Mahoney will be on Trade Radio this arvo with some updates about the clubs dealings for the off season. Should give us a little idea of what we're up to.

NAB Trade Radio News - Tuesday October 6, 2015

Coming up today:

2pm: Damian Barrett and Terry Wallace round out the day with all of the latest potential deals, with Melbourne's Josh Mahoney joining the program for an update from the Demons.

Paul Conners name is quite prevalent in that summary. Is there something more to it? Or does he just have a large stable? Connors strikes me as a bit of used car sales man or real estate agent type.

I imagine Paul Connors was interviewed and hence the reason for his name appearing so often. However, Connors has for years chosen the deliberate strategy of using the media in an effort to force better deals out of clubs (either better money for players who remain or better terms of trade, so to speak, to enable transfers). The comments he is reported to have made about Jack Watts strike me as suggesting that Watts will be remaining at Melbourne, at least for 2016. If Watts was moving, I would expect a more bullish statement from Connors trying to engineer a deal.

When the Buddy Deal was in the works, Hawthorn initially said that they would match any offer the Swans made. The Swans sought to bypass this capability by offering Buddy the absurdly long deal he is currently on which sees him on their list until he is 36 or so. They rightly believed that the Hawks would decline to match a deal of that length. Sadly for them, nobody believed that they really intended to go through with it, with the strong suspicion that they were planning on re-negotiating a shorter deal once they had him at the club. The AFL for once got it right and blocked any such move by informing the Swans that they would let the deal stand ONLY if the swans agreed that the yearly wages listed in the contract would be subtracted from their cap each year regardless of whether Buddy was still playing. In essence, if he suffered a career-ending injury in his first game for the club, they would still be without his portion of the salary cap for the next nine years. Sydney agreed to this stipulation. Unless they have somehow managed to strongly front-end his contract I think they're up the creek on this deal.

Interesting on the trade radio front that Carlton are trying to nab first round picks for everything. Delusional, or just starting the bargaining process by asking a high price and planning to come down to reality? I really don't see either Henderson or Yarran fetching a first round pick.

Without any insight, I read the deal differently - by making the deal over a long period of time, with the yearly increase in the salary cap - they made an offer knowing that he wouldn't play to 36 but the payments are spread out over a longer, more manageable period. The major risk is of course injury.

Connors is such a [censored], imploring Adelaide to accept the compensation and let Dangerfield go.

Just let the clubs handle it.

Connors is such a [censored], imploring Adelaide to accept the compensation and let Dangerfield go.

Just let the clubs handle it.

I would have thought his job is to get the deal done in the best interests of his client. We can opine all we like as to what those bests interests are, but I would suggest that Connors is in a better place to judge that, than anyone on DL. He is retained by Dangerfield to do just that.

..... and Adelaide would, rightly, ignore everything he said.

..... and Adelaide would, rightly, ignore everything he said.

I suppose that is what I'm trying to get at. What is the point of his constant statements about it? Adelaide won't change tact or strategy just because of his whining.