Welcome to Demonland: Jake Lever

[deelete my account 1,194]

18 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

can you reword that. i didn't fully understand

when jake nominates his required contract price/duration at either psd or nd it is a minimum requirement which the club he goes to must honour but could exceed  (e.g. the duration) but jake is only obliged to agree to his minimum.

it would be a brave club to take him on 1 year (at high price) knowing he will request a trade at end of year, and hoping they could turn him around during that year.

his other option (not really likely) is to stand out of footy. not sure if it is for 1 year or 2 years now

That partially answers it. I was curious about the duration.If they will only offer 3 years and he sign's it, does that mean he can not break a contract and nominate for the draft next year but can only be traded? 

Edited October 4, 2017 by Deeprived Childhood

[daisycutter 29,621]

2 minutes ago, Deeprived Childhood said:

That partially answers it. I was curious about the duration. If they will only offer 3 years and he sign's it, does that mean he can not break a contract and nominate for the draft next year but can only be traded? 

correct. but he would be within his rights (and pre-nominated min requirement) to only sign a 1 year contract , but with mfc he could happily sign for more years perfectly legally 

[deelete my account 1,194]

Just now, daisycutter said:

correct. but he would be within his rights (and pre-nominated min requirement) to only sign a 1 year contract , but with mfc he could happily sign for more years perfectly legally 

But the threat would be that if North picked him, he would nominate for Pre season draft next year and they could not get a trade for him?

[Nasher 33,616]

1 hour ago, DavidNeitz9 said:

A picture has emerged of @jleverr at a dump disposing of items that 7 News understands were @adelaide_fc related items. #7News

Headline: Man goes to tip while packing up house to move interstate.

FMD.

[brendan 3,437]

Adelaide media are morons 

[daisycutter 29,621]

13 minutes ago, Deeprived Childhood said:

But the threat would be that if North picked him, he would nominate for Pre season draft next year and they could not get a trade for him?

exactly. not only that, but the next year mfc could play hardball and for example pick him up for a 2nd round pick. not saying they would do that but no-one else would touch him so they probably could

[Lampers 563]

19 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

correct. but he would be within his rights (and pre-nominated min requirement) to only sign a 1 year contract , but with mfc he could happily sign for more years perfectly legally 

Look at this link.

If a player nominates terms it is for two seasons, not one. The player is tied to the club who drafts him for two years unless there are other circumstances that Lever doesn't qualify for (e.g. Drafted for the first time at 24+ years of age).

[daisycutter 29,621]

1 minute ago, Lampers said:

Look at this link.

If a player nominates terms it is for two seasons, not one. The player is tied to the club who drafts him for two years unless there are other circumstances that Lever doesn't qualify for (e.g. Drafted for the first time at 24+ years of age).

well that changes it a little, maybe a lot...........good pickup

maybe then up the bluff factor and ask 1M/yr for 2 years

mfc offers 1m + 1m + 0.5m + 0.5m

others forced to offer 1m + 1m and run the risk he leaves after 2 years for nothing

becomes more a case of russian roulette

[deelete my account 1,194]

11 minutes ago, Lampers said:

Look at this link.

If a player nominates terms it is for two seasons, not one. The player is tied to the club who drafts him for two years unless there are other circumstances that Lever doesn't qualify for (e.g. Drafted for the first time at 24+ years of age).

Isn't that the NAB national draft not not psd ?  

[Pates 9,660]

I gotta say, I'm actually getting a little bit of pleasure out of how the Crows/Adelaide media are throwing the toys out of the crib on this. Seriously how much more pathetic can they get with it? I will acknowledge this though, they've had some good players leave them recently to "go home" and it appears they will be losing two more in Lever and Cameron.

But they opened the door for this situation by trying to pay such unders to Lever in the first place, Lever may have burnt the bridge but they poured out the gasoline. 

I still feel like Pick 10 and 27 is fair, maybe we can try to upgrade the second round pick or add a sweatener to it.

[Sydee 4,449]

7 hours ago, MurDoc516 said:

I'm assuming if it got to that we would do a million dollar deal for 1 year and then sign him down to a 3 year 750k a year deal aftr that?

Huh? That sounds a bit like draft tampering too doesn’t it ?

[Lampers 563]

6 minutes ago, Deeprived Childhood said:

Isn't that the NAB national draft not not psd ?  

The document covers PSD too.

My understanding is in the past a player like Lever where their contract expired but they weren't delisted would only be able to nominate for PSD. Think Nick Stevens, Jamie Shanahan.

But the rules changed quite some time ago to allow the player to choose which draft they want to be in. Luke Ball did this almost a decade ago.

It would be to Lever's advantage to be in the National Draft as competing clubs are trading off possibility of the best u/18 prospects vs. Lever when selecting.

If he nominates for PSD, the clubs are only tossing up between players already overlooked with around 100 selections and Lever.

Lever is far less likely to last to Melbourne's pick 10 in PSD than he is to last to Melbourne's pick 10 in the ND.

I still reckon a trade for 10 and 27 will happen, maybe with some face saving "meh" pick swaps too.

[mo64 5,875]

I suppose the Crows angst towards Lever is similar to ours and Scully. Both had only been at the club a short time, which makes it harder to accept.

At least Lever told the club a month ago of his decision, which allowed them to up their offer to McGovern.

I just don't understand why AFL clubs and the players, have a hard time reconciling with losing a player, when every year they are all out to poach players from other clubs.

The Storm actually allowed the 4 players who were leaving the club to lead the side off the ground in their Prelim win, which was their final home game. It was so the crowd could thank the players for their service, and vice versa.

[Demon Disciple 12,180]

2 minutes ago, Lampers said:

I still reckon a trade for 10 and 27 will happen, maybe with some face saving "meh" pick swaps too.

so long as it is not pick 88

[Dr.D 1,771]

watts and pick 10 to the pies for pick 6.

pick 6 and 27 for lever. 

Watts is a glorified casey player so i think a deal like this is fair.

[Demon Disciple 12,180]

3 minutes ago, Dr.D said:

watts and pick 10 to the pies for pick 6.

pick 6 and 27 for lever. 

Watts is a glorified casey player so i think a deal like this is fair.

Effectively Watts, pick 10 and 27 for Lever. That is way too much, unless we get something decent back as well.

[Demons11 7,032]

14 hours ago, JTR said:

Levers manager was on SEN this morning.

On the question of "what if another club can offer Adelaide something better than what Melbourne can put up for trade" he said "Jake will only be dealing with Melbourne. He wont sign off on anything from any other club"

Welcome to the MFC Jake Lever!

He also said other clubs offered more money than us

[qwerty7 326]

22 minutes ago, mo64 said:

I suppose the Crows angst towards Lever is similar to ours and Scully. Both had only been at the club a short time, which makes it harder to accept.

At least Lever told the club a month ago of his decision, which allowed them to up their offer to McGovern.

I just don't understand why AFL clubs and the players, have a hard time reconciling with losing a player, when every year they are all out to poach players from other clubs.

The Storm actually allowed the 4 players who were leaving the club to lead the side off the ground in their Prelim win, which was their final home game. It was so the crowd could thank the players for their service, and vice versa.

slightly different because Scully told us all he was staying, but most disgustingly, promised a dying jim stynes he would too. Scully is a rat and deserves every ounce of hate directed towards him

By the sounds of it, Lever hasn't made any promises to Adelaide this year that he knew he wouldn't be able to keep

Edited October 4, 2017 by qwerty7

[Lampers 563]

The other factor in Melbourne's favour is the longer the Lever situation drags out, the less likely any other clubs will keep $750k-$1m space in their cap "just in case". If other clubs keep the space and wait, there is a massive chance they will miss other trade opportunities and still end up not getting Lever if Melbourne and Adelaide agree to an 11th hour trade.

It won't hurt Melbourne though because they know exactly the space they need to reserve in the cap, plus they "ring fence" 10 and 27 as unavailable for other trades and can keep working on those other trades with that in mind.

It could get to a point where Melbourne are the ONLY club who literally can accomodate his contract demands, and could select him with the last pick in the draft.

Melbourne could be really brutal if they wanted to and engineer things so Adelaide get nothing.

There is a small risk of another club hastily renegotiating existing contracts to open up cap space but that would require agreement of multiple players and therefore very unlikely to happen.

If Melbourne are smart, and I hope they are, they will have a figure they could pay Lever if he goes into the draft. Say $1m each year for two years, but if a trade can be brokered Lever signs at $750k * 4 years instead This makes it even less likely other clubs would draft him should it come to it.

[deelete my account 1,194]

2 minutes ago, Lampers said:

The other factor in Melbourne's favour is the longer the Lever situation drags out, the less likely any other clubs will keep $750k-$1m space in their cap "just in case". If other clubs keep the space and wait, there is a massive chance they will miss other trade opportunities and still end up not getting Lever if Melbourne and Adelaide agree to an 11th hour trade.

It won't hurt Melbourne though because they know exactly the space they need to reserve in the cap, plus they "ring fence" 10 and 27 as unavailable for other trades and can keep working on those other trades with that in mind.

It could get to a point where Melbourne are the ONLY club who literally can accomodate his contract demands, and could select him with the last pick in the draft.

Melbourne could be really brutal if they wanted to and engineer things so Adelaide get nothing.

There is a small risk of another club hastily renegotiating existing contracts to open up cap space but that would require agreement of multiple players and therefore very unlikely to happen.

If Melbourne are smart, and I hope they are, they will have a figure they could pay Lever if he goes into the draft. Say $1m each year for two years, but if a trade can be brokered Lever signs at $750k * 4 years instead This makes it even less likely other clubs would draft him should it come to it.

Aren't there clubs like North and St Kilda who are not using their entire cap currently and may not by the end of the trade period? I don't see any rumours of players going there.

Edited October 4, 2017 by Deeprived Childhood

[Lampers 563]

Just now, Deeprived Childhood said:

Aren't there clubs like North who are not using their entire cap currently?

Absolutely, they will have that space today. As do St. kilda by the sounds of it.

But both clubs will be trying to secure targets that WANT to play for them with that space during trade period.

If they can't secure those players and still have the space at the end of the trade period, you're right that they are a threat to get Lever.

Plus we have no idea their attitude to bringing in a player on massive dollars who doesn't want to be there. That could cause big ripples in the existing North and St.Kilda playing group, especially if Lever gets there and mopes about the place. Culture and team harmony must be considerations too.

[deelete my account 1,194]

4 minutes ago, Lampers said:

Absolutely, they will have that space today. As do St. kilda by the sounds of it.

But both clubs will be trying to secure targets that WANT to play for them with that space during trade period.

If they can't secure those players and still have the space at the end of the trade period, you're right that they are a threat to get Lever.

Plus we have no idea their attitude to bringing in a player on massive dollars who doesn't want to be there. That could cause big ripples in the existing North and St.Kilda playing group, especially if Lever gets there and mopes about the place. Culture and team harmony must be considerations too.

Which puts Collingwood pitted squarely in the ring against us. There might be a conspiring of both Adel+Coll parties on this one and has been for months.

Edited October 4, 2017 by Deeprived Childhood

[DubDee 25,915]

Apparently Jake was seen taking a dump on the side of the road just before crossing the SA/VIC  border.

can't relieve my sources on this one, sorry

[Lampers 563]

2 minutes ago, Deeprived Childhood said:

Which puts Collingwood pitted squarely in the ring against us. There might be a conspiring of both Adel+Coll parties on this one and has been for months.

Lever must agree to any trade so unless Collingwood can convince him to change his mind and accept playing for them, it can't happen.

Collingwood could trump Melbourne in the draft, but Adelaide would still get nothing out of that.

It think it's also considered draft tampering to do separate but connected trades, or lopsided trade in exchange for other commitments. That's what Hawthorn and the Bulldogs did with Jade Rawlings many many years ago - a lopsided trade in the Hawks' favour in exchange for them forcing Rawlings into the draft so the Bulldogs could pick him up against his will.

[deelete my account 1,194]

12 minutes ago, Lampers said:

Lever must agree to any trade so unless Collingwood can convince him to change his mind and accept playing for them, it can't happen.

Collingwood could trump Melbourne in the draft, but Adelaide would still get nothing out of that.

It think it's also considered draft tampering to do separate but connected trades, or lopsided trade in exchange for other commitments. That's what Hawthorn and the Bulldogs did with Jade Rawlings many many years ago - a lopsided trade in the Hawks' favour in exchange for them forcing Rawlings into the draft so the Bulldogs could pick him up against his will.

Well the South Australians 'vic bias' complex is anything but rational. Let's hope it never comes to the draft, but if it does and in the extreme for hypothetical sake: 

I would be concerned that if Collingwood got him for pick 6 in the nab draft, he has no choice but to play for two years or not sign, in that case he would be crazy to not sign (if we are not willing to pay him an extra 750k for a missed year in the next contract that we offer in 2018) And if we are willing to pay him for a missed year the following year with a bigger contract offer, how would we go about picking him up next year? 

Edited October 4, 2017 by Deeprived Childhood