10 minutes ago, Redleg said:

Yes you do if the parties agree and if not, you are not putting in as much either with less pressure on lifestyle.

All AFL careers end sometime and to get to 30 is pretty good in the AFL.

Agreed, but it would be rare for that to happen whilst contracted.  

Generally speaking, AFL footballers love playing AFL football; and you're a long time retired.   I can't imagine why Garland would want to retire, with a year to go on his contract, from a team on the verge of finals, after toughing out the last decade??

However if retirement's what he really wants - then that's his decision.  Coercion from the club is unfair after taking him off the free agency table with a 3 year contract.

5 minutes ago, TeamPlayedFine39 said:

Agreed, but it would be rare for that to happen whilst contracted.  

Generally speaking, AFL footballers love playing AFL football; and you're a long time retired.   I can't imagine why Garland would want to retire, with a year to go on his contract, from a team on the verge of finals, after toughing out the last decade??

However if retirement's what he really wants - then that's his decision.  Coercion from the club is unfair after taking him off the free agency table with a 3 year contract.

Hang on, he got a 3 year deal he was happy with, he has played 6 games in the first year of that contract and got paid in full, then no games this year as injured and gets paid in full and can still get paid this year whether he plays or not. Then again we could make him do all the work and not play him once, watching him go out as a has been. Unfair, no not at all, actually very fair and even generous for what we have got back.

PS. We don't owe anybody a game.

Edited September 17, 20177 yr by Redleg

No match payments whilst injured would have been a big financial hit, and we'd be giving him another whack as he'd get none of them in a settlement.  Collin would have played senior games this year; most likely would have played round one given our kpd stocks at the time.

And whilst we don't owe anyone a game, we should honour contracts, particularly of those who are veterans of the club and are coming off a serious injury.

4 minutes ago, TeamPlayedFine39 said:

No match payments whilst injured would have been a big financial hit, and we'd be giving him another whack as he'd get none of them in a settlement.  Collin would have played senior games this year; most likely would have played round one given our kpd stocks at the time.

And whilst we don't owe anyone a game, we should honour contracts, particularly of those who are veterans of the club and are coming off a serious injury.

I am honouring the contract and paying him, just not playing him.

Just now, Redleg said:

I am honouring the contract and paying him, just not playing him.

So no retirement??

Just now, TeamPlayedFine39 said:

So no retirement??

Yes retirement.

1 minute ago, Redleg said:

Yes retirement.

Yeah... forced retirement... that's not honouring a contract.  

Club offered him 3. The club gives him 3.

In sports the world over there are numerous players on extended deals that end up being side-line players in their final year or 2.  It's a legacy of pro-sports. 

And all the clubs would be in the same boat.  Or at least getting to that point.  The better performed teams have the luxury of being able to off-load a veteran player or 2. 

We off-loaded Evans a few years ago but it was said that he was only going to receive up to about 150k or thereabouts. 

Unless we front-loaded his 3 year deal, I'm imagining that Garland might be on 250k - 300k next season ... so calling time on the bloke could get a bit dicey.

1 minute ago, TeamPlayedFine39 said:

No match payments whilst injured would have been a big financial hit, and we'd be giving him another whack as he'd get none of them in a settlement.  Collin would have played senior games this year; most likely would have played round one given our kpd stocks at the time.

And whilst we don't owe anyone a game, we should honour contracts, particularly of those who are veterans of the club and are coming off a serious injury.

Players these days are generally on agreed set yearly amounts so the days of match payments are largely a thing of the past.  It might still happen for certain players but the players union pushed for guaranteed amounts years ago.

That's my understanding of how the salaries are set up ... if not, it would be a logistical nightmare trying to spend as close to 100% of the salary cap as possible. 

4 minutes ago, Macca said:

In sports the world over there are numerous players on extended deals that end up being side-line players in their final year or 2.  It's a legacy of pro-sports. 

And all the clubs would be in the same boat.  Or at least getting to that point.  The better performed teams have the luxury of being able to off-load a veteran player or 2. 

We off-loaded Evans a few years ago but it was said that he was only going to receive up to about 150k or thereabouts. 

Unless we front-loaded his 3 year deal, I'm imagining that Garland might be on 250k - 300k next season ... so calling time on the bloke could get a bit dicey.

Players these days are generally on agreed set yearly amounts so the days of match payments are largely a thing of the past.  It might still happen for certain players but the players union pushed for guaranteed amounts years ago.

That's my understanding of how the salaries are set up ... if not, it would be a logistical nightmare trying to spend as close to 100% of the salary cap as possible. 

Does that account for the difference between a player who plays 22 AFL matches as apposed to someone like Kennedy who plays 22 VFL matches??

Maybe that have revamped the match payment system, but that seems unusual.

7 minutes ago, TeamPlayedFine39 said:

Yeah... forced retirement... that's not honouring a contract.  

Club offered him 3. The club gives him 3.

No worries, no one on a contract to be retired or traded anymore. They serve their contract in full on our list.

The list is stuffed.

Just now, Redleg said:

No worries, no one on a contract to be retired or traded anymore. They serve their contract in full on our list.

The list is stuffed.

Of course you can trade a contracted player!  Do you really not see the difference???

 

Anyway, I'll bow out now.  I've said my piece and the threads not about me.  All the best to Garland, great servant of the club and played his best football when we were at our worst.  I have a lot of respect for him.

Maybe he'll be there 2018, maybe he won't.

2 minutes ago, TeamPlayedFine39 said:

 

 

  All the best to Garland, great servant of the club and played his best football when we were at our worst.  I have a lot of respect for him.

 

Agree on that.

3 minutes ago, TeamPlayedFine39 said:

Does that account for the difference between a player who plays 22 AFL matches as apposed to someone like Kennedy who plays 22 VFL matches??

Maybe that have revamped the match payment system, but that seems unusual.

My understanding is that if a player is on 300k for a year, he receives all that amount whether he plays zero games or all 22 games.

That's what they mean when they talk about guaranteed contracts.  There's probably the odd performance based contract but if all players were on match payments as well as a 'retainer',  just imagine having to try and manage the salary cap?

The clubs would probably be happy with the guaranteed contracts from a logistical point of view ... otherwise they run the risk of only spending 90% of the cap or in the worse case scenario, 110% of the cap.  That's Carlton territory.

27 minutes ago, TeamPlayedFine39 said:

Of course you can trade a contracted player!  Do you really not see the difference???

I think Garland would have to agree to the deal and I think he probably would if it was handled the right way.

If he was told it was highly unlikely that he'd play seniors and that he could have all the financial rewards of his contract but in addition get on with his life after footy he'd probably take it.

But as I say, it has to be agreed to.  If Garland didn't agree I'd support your position and not "retire" him.

Even if Garland was told that his opportunities were limited,  he'd end up getting game time in the seniors because of our lack of real depth and the occurrence of injuries.

But often the obvious doesn't need to be said ... Garland would know where he stands and he is contracted.  I doubt he'd be happy playing in the 2nds so we'd be getting full commitment from the bloke regardless of whether he's good enough.

There's a few other contracted players who are in the same sort of bracket.  Looking ahead to the 2019 season and beyond, there's quite a few who won't make it that far.

Keep in mind each club must turnover at least three players each year. Three must subsequently be obtained via the National Draft.

Rarely a club turns over just three. A club will often draft more than three and trade in additional players, thus the turnover is often between five and eight.

This is a key reason why JKH this year, and Trengove and Spencer last year were offered one-year contract extensions. Each club must balance their delistings. Like Jetta a few years ago, JKH may come good, alternatively, he may not. Likewise, Trengove and Spencer were given a similar opportunity this year for which they failed.

What our club, or any club, doesn't ever want is to be forced into delisting quality players as a consequence of poor list management.

Thus, it is beneficial to stagnant the delistings. Getting rid of Garland now will not provide us any real value (e.g. a free spot on the list which we should be fine acquiring anyway). Instead, it would still chew into the salary cap and place more pressure on the list management for next year.

Garland would have played seniors early in 2017 if he wasn't injured.

if Lever comes though he'll be further down the depth list in 2018.

We're talking about Garland or a pick in the 60s, it's not a major issue either way.

1 minute ago, Fifty-5 said:

 

We're talking about Garland or a pick in the 60s, it's not a major issue either way.

Sydney's entire back 6 came through the Rookie list and that comes after the picks in the 60's, just as an example of what you can miss.

I would rather give a young kid a chance, than hang on too long to a player who is not best 22, coming off a knee reco and who will likely be gone at the end of the season.

Anyway it is not my decision.

9 minutes ago, Redleg said:

Sydney's entire back 6 came through the Rookie list and that comes after the picks in the 60's, just as an example of what you can miss.

I would rather give a young kid a chance, than hang on too long to a player who is not best 22, coming off a knee reco and who will likely be gone at the end of the season.

Anyway it is not my decision.

One thing to consider is the relative strength of the relevant drafts and the fact that draftees are on two-year contracts.  Whilst Garland is clearly in his last year (s) it might he more elegant from a list perspective for his list spot to be cleared at the end of next season.  Also relevant is how easily it will be to free room on the list the year after.  You dont want to be having to delist/expose players you want to keep, also don't want to be locked into a kid with a low round pick this year when you might need the list room at the end of next year for better kids/draft.

 

quite feasible Maynard and Keilty need to be added to senior list at end 2018 as well and with draftees that could mean five spots to clear minimum hypothetically.

Sorry just realised made same

point as made earlier!

1 hour ago, Fifty-5 said:

Garland would have played seniors early in 2017 if he wasn't injured.

if Lever comes though he'll be further down the depth list in 2018.

We're talking about Garland or a pick in the 60s, it's not a major issue either way.

Garland isn't AFL level depth. He's not a key defender, nor is he a lockdown 3rd tall. What does he offer at AFL level?

Time to cut him and free up a list space.

 

Need to find another tall ruck/fwd in rookie draft or late in main draft.  Keegan Brooksby or Jack Hannath are only two players that come to mind. If Maxy went down, we would be fu&$(/d.

12 minutes ago, spirit of norm smith said:

Need to find another tall ruck/fwd in rookie draft or late in main draft.  Keegan Brooksby or Jack Hannath are only two players that come to mind. If Maxy went down, we would be fu&$(/d.

And yet we seemed more competitive wthout him this season.

We need clearers more than tappers, as a priority imho.

14 minutes ago, spirit of norm smith said:

Need to find another tall ruck/fwd in rookie draft or late in main draft.  Keegan Brooksby or Jack Hannath are only two players that come to mind. If Maxy went down, we would be fu&$(/d.

No we would not be stuffed as you suggest. Our best games were when both Gawn and Spencer were injured. Have a top ruckman is not the disadvantage you suggest in modern football.

1 hour ago, beelzebub said:

And yet we seemed more competitive wthout him this season.

We need clearers more than tappers, as a priority imho.

Spot on bb.