On 01/11/2018 at 23:28, Lucifer's Hero said:

Yes.  It was very odd that Sydney traded him for just pick 61...

Some post-trade/DFA player movements are interesting...

• Hawks delist the contracted, Will Langford ('for list management reasons').  He is then a DFA, he announces his retirement, then a week later the Hawks announce they will rookie him as a DFA so he doesn't go into a draft. Hawks to rookie Langford
• Brisbane coax the contracted Jarryd Lyons to join them (after the trade period closes) and GCS conveniently acquiesce and delist him and he becomes a DFA.  Brisbane get a contracted player for zip, Gold Coast get nothing in return...?? Lyons to Brisbane
• Mumford seems to qualify as a DFA, altho delisted last year, and can go to club of his choice ie bypass the draft Mumford to GWS

From a far, these look premeditated to happen post the trade period closing as no attempt was made to trade Langford or Lyons and neither requested a trade.  And, there seems to be a new rule for Mumford:  I think the rule is that if a player retires he needs to wait a certain number of years and come back thru the draft, but not entirely sure how that works.  

The DFA status gives clubs a convenient way to 'manage' their list  'by-pass' draft/trade rules.  The whole area of what is a DFA is becoming very murky!

I don't really see a major problem with the first two of these:

• Hawks have delisted Langford with a year to go on his contract - that will be counted in 2019 salary cap if they paid him out.  Maybe by re-drafting him as a Rookie whose pay does not count in the cap they are able to get away with this - slightly dodgy but OK.  AFAIK DFAs have to go on the primary list and anyway Hawthorn should not be able to pick up its own DFA.
• Don't really see too much wrong with the Lyons deal from a rules point of view.  Clubs should be allowed to delist and pay out contracted players and when that player is delisted another club should be able to pick him up as DFA.  It is surprising that GC want to get rid of a ball- winner but that's a different question mostly answered by @grazman
• Surely GWS has to redraft Mumford.  There were some rules put in place around this following the Mal Michael "retirement" a few years back.  GWS should not be able to pick up its own delisted player as DFA - only another club should be allowed, therefore draft IMO.  So that appears the most dodgy one to me.

  Quote

 

And the 32-year-old could join the Giants’ list as a rookie without the risk of rival clubs, who’ve shown interest in Mumford, swooping in the draft due to new AFL list rules.

“After speaking with the AFL, our understanding is that Shane has the ability to walk directly to the club of his choice as of the 1st of December without having to nominate for the draft,” Mumford’s manager Anthony McConville told the Herald Sun.

 

Would like to hear what these new AFL list rules that allow this are

Edited November 2, 20186 yr by Fifty-5

  On 02/11/2018 at 03:46, Fifty-5 said:

I don't really see a major problem with the first two of these:

• Hawks have delisted Langford with a year to go on his contract - that will be counted in 2019 salary cap if they paid him out.  Maybe by re-drafting him as a Rookie whose pay does not count in the cap they are able to get away with this - slightly dodgy but OK.  AFAIK DFAs have to go on the primary list and anyway Hawthorn should not be able to pick up its own DFA.
• Don't really see too much wrong with the Lyons deal from a rules point of view.  Clubs should be allowed to delist and pay out contracted players and when that player is delisted another club should be able to pick him up as DFA.  It is surprising that GC want to get rid of a ball- winner but that's a different question mostly answered by @grazman
• Surely GWS has to redraft Mumford.  There were some rules put in place around this following the Mal Michael "retirement" a few years back.  GWS should not be able to pick up its own delisted player as DFA - only another club should be allowed, therefore draft IMO.  So that appears the most dodgy one to me.

Would like to hear what these new AFL list rules that allow this are

So MFC could grab Cyril Rioli? If he wanted to play in 2020! Hypothetically only 

Edited November 2, 20186 yr by spirit of norm smith
X

  On 02/11/2018 at 01:58, Lucifer's Hero said:

Yes, 'weird' manoeuverings! 

To add to the Lyons intrigue, I just saw this:  "He was in exclusive company this year with Brownlow medallist Tom Mitchell, Patrick Cripps and new teammate Lachie Neale as the only players to average at least 24 disposals, 13 contested possessions and seven clearances...and part of why some industry figures AFL.com.au spoke to were so taken aback.  One called Gold Coast's decision "mind blowing", while another said "I'd have him in a heartbeat".  Lyons to Brisbane

I can see why GCS no longer believed in him but to let a contracted and seemingly good player go, without testing his trade value, for zero return is mind-boggling, to say the least! 

As you say - watch this space to see what future trades bring.

I just assumed Lyons to the Lions was somehow organised by the media to give them more opportunities to write the simple puns they seem to love.

  On 02/11/2018 at 01:41, djr said:

Didn't we do the same with Jetta some years back?

Yes and by doing so risked him being picked up by a rival club. Fortunately that didn't happen.

Now apparently you can arrange to delist a player, who then retires, immediately changes his mind and can then be added back onto your rookie list.

If it wasn't blatant cheating of the rules you wouldn't need to go through all that, and just say player X is moving back to the rookie list, done.

It's laughable. Someone suggested rookie list wages aren't in the cap? We should do the same with our 4 highest paid players, and then recruit 4 new superstars on the same wages. If it's ok for the Dorks.

  On 02/11/2018 at 05:07, FireInTheBelly said:

Yes and by doing so risked him being picked up by a rival club. Fortunately that didn't happen.

Now apparently you can arrange to delist a player, who then retires, immediately changes his mind and can then be added back onto your rookie list.

If it wasn't blatant cheating of the rules you wouldn't need to go through all that, and just say player X is moving back to the rookie list, done.

It's laughable. Someone suggested rookie list wages aren't in the cap? We should do the same with our 4 highest paid players, and then recruit 4 new superstars on the same wages. If it's ok for the Dorks.

He has to be drafted, that's they key point.  The move of salary cap is dodgy I agree but he has to be drafted onto the Rookie list.

  On 02/11/2018 at 05:10, Fifty-5 said:

He has to be drafted, that's they key point.  The move of salary cap is dodgy I agree but he has to be drafted onto the Rookie list.

The way I read it was they are throwing him straight onto the rookie list without risking the draft, is that incorrect?

  On 02/11/2018 at 05:51, FireInTheBelly said:

The way I read it was they are throwing him straight onto the rookie list without risking the draft, is that incorrect?

The first paragraph probably explains it:

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2018-11-01/hawks-to-rookie-langford-in-crafty-list-move

  Quote

DESPITE Will Langford's delisting and subsequent retirement, he will be re-drafted by Hawthorn as a rookie next month for list management reasons.

 

  On 02/11/2018 at 06:01, Fifty-5 said:

The first paragraph probably explains it:

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2018-11-01/hawks-to-rookie-langford-in-crafty-list-move

 

Ok thanks for that, sounds more like it. They've just played it beautifully to ensure no other clubs pick him up. Similar to the 'The Ball Maneuver'

  On 02/11/2018 at 06:05, FireInTheBelly said:

Ok thanks for that, sounds more like it. They've just played it beautifully to ensure no other clubs pick him up. Similar to the 'The Ball Maneuver'

I don't know what you are talking about - ANY other club could draft him in the Rookie draft if they have a pick before Hawthorn.

Hawks want to delist Langford.  He has a year to run on his contract and understandably wants the money and says he'kll retire.  If the Hawks pay him out it counts in their salary cap.  Hawks tell Langford don't retire, we'll re-draft you in the rookie draft and pay you the money outside the cap.  Any club could draft Langford before the Hawks do and they'd have to pay him standard Rookie wages - it's a risk Langford is taking.

Edited November 2, 20186 yr by Fifty-5

  On 02/11/2018 at 06:07, Fifty-5 said:

I don't know what you are talking about - ANY other club could draft him in the Rookie draft if they have a pick before Hawthorn.

Hawks want to delist Langford.  He has a year to run on his contract and understandably wants the money and says he'kll retire.  If the Hawks pay him out it counts in their salary cap.  Hawks tell Langford don't retire, we'll re-draft you in the rookie draft and pay you the money outside the cap.  Any club could draft Langford before the Hawks do and they'd have to pay him standard Rookie wages - it's a risk Langford is taking.

That can’t be right. If Hawks have delisted him and he is contracted, he must be paid his contractual amount. It can’t be that another club then just drafts him as a rookie or whatever and he forfeits what he is owed. 

You cant simply avoid what is owed by delisting a player and hoping someone else takes him. Maybe the other club might pay the base fee but Hawks would have to pay the rest. Otherwise it would be a restraint of trade and breach of contract.

Edited November 2, 20186 yr by Redleg

  On 02/11/2018 at 06:07, Fifty-5 said:

I don't know what you are talking about - ANY other club could draft him in the Rookie draft if they have a pick before Hawthorn.

Hawks want to delist Langford.  He has a year to run on his contract and understandably wants the money and says he'kll retire.  If the Hawks pay him out it counts in their salary cap.  Hawks tell Langford don't retire, we'll re-draft you in the rookie draft and pay you the money outside the cap.  Any club could draft Langford before the Hawks do and they'd have to pay him standard Rookie wages - it's a risk Langford is taking.

He's said he won't play for any other club and will retire if he can't play for the dorks. would you draft him? I don't think there's any risk for him, but you never know I suppose. If a club wanted him, they'd approach him to sign as a DFA, and they wouldn't waste a draft pick.

Regarding the wages, a contract is a contract, and if he were to be picked up by another club, that club would then have to honour the existing wage details. It's probably heavily back-ended as well, meaning a new club would have to pick up the higher wages - which they won't do.

Time will tell, let's see what happens. If after all is said and done and he's rookied to them, I'd love to see the years wages he's on, and what their salary cap payments are. We'll never get to see it, but London to a brick, if he was on the main list they'd be over.

 

8 places left on our list. 

6 main list + 2 rookies. 

Space for 1-2 delisted free agents.  

With picks 23,28,54,62,91 there should be at least 1 free agent to be seriously considered. 

  On 02/11/2018 at 10:37, FireInTheBelly said:

He's said he won't play for any other club and will retire if he can't play for the dorks. would you draft him? I don't think there's any risk for him, but you never know I suppose. If a club wanted him, they'd approach him to sign as a DFA, and they wouldn't waste a draft pick.

Regarding the wages, a contract is a contract, and if he were to be picked up by another club, that club would then have to honour the existing wage details. It's probably heavily back-ended as well, meaning a new club would have to pick up the higher wages - which they won't do.

Time will tell, let's see what happens. If after all is said and done and he's rookied to them, I'd love to see the years wages he's on, and what their salary cap payments are. We'll never get to see it, but London to a brick, if he was on the main list they'd be over.

 

 Looks like you've finally got it!

  On 02/11/2018 at 08:03, Redleg said:

That can’t be right. If Hawks have delisted him and he is contracted, he must be paid his contractual amount. It can’t be that another club then just drafts him as a rookie or whatever and he forfeits what he is owed. 

You cant simply avoid what is owed by delisting a player and hoping someone else takes him. Maybe the other club might pay the base fee but Hawks would have to pay the rest. Otherwise it would be a restraint of trade and breach of contract.

Yes it can, a contract can be terminated if both parties agree to the termination conditions.  Langford agrees not to be paid out, maybe he's doing the Hawks a favour, maybe they are gonna pay him even more as a rookie.  Then he's re rookied and he gets paid outside the cap.  It's dodgy but it's within the rules.  You're the lawyer : )

  On 02/11/2018 at 11:23, Fifty-5 said:

Yes it can, a contract can be terminated if both parties agree to the termination conditions.  Langford agrees not to be paid out, maybe he's doing the Hawks a favour, maybe they are gonna pay him even more as a rookie.  Then he's re rookied and he gets paid outside the cap.  It's dodgy but it's within the rules.  You're the lawyer : )

Isn't it more about protecting 2018's cap number from a big pay out than 2019's salary cap? 

Say Langford was owed 400k in 2019. If he's delisted now that 400k has to go in to 2018's salary cap. Redrafting him as a rookie allows them to pay out some fraction in to the 2018 cap and then hold the rest over for next years cap. Also I think it's only the base of a rookies wage that is cap free, not the total. So they might agree on paying him 300k to retire now, dump 200k in to the 2018 cap and then have 100k to pay him next year to be on the rookie list.

Also I think the AFL were going to allow clubs to draft 1 extra rookie on the eve of the season so they'll get the list spot back.

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/afl-to-introduce-mid-season-rookie-draft-in-2019-20181004-p507sq.html

To be honest I'm surprised we haven't done the same with Jeff Garlett. Maybe we are waiting for the drafts or to see how he comes back in preseason, but I can certainly see us getting him to retire so we can add another rookie by March 15.

Just throwing out a bit of a curve ball - what about getting back Kyle Cheney to the MFC for small backman depth?

  On 02/11/2018 at 03:46, Fifty-5 said:

 

Would like to hear what these new AFL list rules that allow this are

According to the new 'Mumford Rule' any one of the AFL's pet expansion teams that has a list need, may create a new rule to enable them to aquire that player through whatever means possible.

Will really get on my nerve if this transpires.  I was really hoping GWS were going to struggle to put up a credible ruck option.  As an asides he does play pretty angry Mumford - he has taken white line fever to a whole new level.

  On 02/11/2018 at 11:23, Fifty-5 said:

Yes it can, a contract can be terminated if both parties agree to the termination conditions.  Langford agrees not to be paid out, maybe he's doing the Hawks a favour, maybe they are gonna pay him even more as a rookie.  Then he's re rookied and he gets paid outside the cap.  It's dodgy but it's within the rules.  You're the lawyer : )

But if you are right, he loses money he is entitled to. That makes no sense. They would have to agree that if someone else takes him, rookie or normal draft, that they would make up the difference.

I think to be drafted or rookied you have to register for the draft. That means he could be taken say by Freo as a rookie and yanked out of Victoria on a base rookie salary. That just can’t be right. Why would he take that chance when he doesn’t need to?

Just looked up Salary Cap rules and apparently “ nominated” rookie list players, can have 30-50% of their salary outside the cap, depending on the number of rookie list players  on the club’s list. That still doesn’t change my comment in relation to this issue as it is of no benefit to Langford.

Edited November 2, 20186 yr by Redleg

  On 02/11/2018 at 22:11, Redleg said:

But if you are right, he loses money he is entitled to. That makes no sense. They would have to agree that if someone else takes him, rookie or normal draft, that they would make up the difference.

I think to be drafted or rookied you have to register for the draft. That means he could be taken say by Freo as a rookie and yanked out of Victoria on a base rookie salary. That just can’t be right. Why would he take that chance when he doesn’t need to?

Just looked up Salary Cap rules and apparently “ nominated” rookie list players, can have 30-50% of their salary outside the cap, depending on the number of rookie list players  on the club’s list. That still doesn’t change my comment in relation to this issue as it is of no benefit to Langford.

I think if you look at a combination of @DeeSpencer, @FireInTheBelly and my posts above you'll get at the truth.  Hawthorn save salary cap probably in 2018 so they don't go over, Langford gets some consideration somewhere to make up for foregoing the last year's contract payment and other clubs won't pick him because he will retire if they do.  It's bending the rules.

i agree there is risk for Langford.  Why is he doing it?  Generational love for the Hawks despite being delisted.  They are going to pay him even more some other way? There's a few plausible explanations.

Edited November 2, 20186 yr by Fifty-5

  On 02/11/2018 at 23:49, Fifty-5 said:

I think if you look at a combination of @DeeSpencer, @FireInTheBelly and my posts above you'll get at the truth.  Hawthorn save salary cap probably in 2018 so they don't go over, Langford gets some consideration somewhere to make up for foregoing the last year's contract payment and other clubs won't pick him because he will retire if they do.  It's bending the rules.

i agree there is risk for Langford.  Why is he doing it?  Generational love for the Hawks despite being delisted.  They are going to pay him even more some other way? There's a few plausible explanations.

Well your last suggestion makes sense. It is a rort, with the player assisting . Player gets a bit more than owed, to go on rookie list, with other clubs warned off and his club saving some salary cap space.

Now I understand.

Couldnt we do that with Jeffy?

  On 02/11/2018 at 15:56, Rodney (Balls) Grinter said:

Just throwing out a bit of a curve ball - what about getting back Kyle Cheney to the MFC for small backman depth?

Not the worst idea going around.  He’d be backup for Jetta or Hibberd in my opinion.  Mostly Casey but handy to call up if needed. 

  On 03/11/2018 at 03:31, spirit of norm smith said:

Not the worst idea going around.  He’d be backup for Jetta or Hibberd in my opinion.  Mostly Casey but handy to call up if needed. 

That was more or less my thinking.  I feel that loosing Vince, Pedo, Bugg, Kent and with the prospect of Lewis slowing and potentially getting injured in his sunset years does leave us a little exposed for mature, experienced players.

From what I've observed, Cheny probably isn't a superstar, but is a pretty solid, reliable type and has only just turned 29.  Whilst he was probably never quite in their best 22, Cheny obviously knew what was required and executed well when called up as a backup player for several top teams in Hawthorn  (during their prime) and Adelaide.  I paid a bit of attention to him when I re-watched our 2018 away game Vs Adelaide the other night and he had pretty tidy foot skills, made good decisions with the ball and has always been a pretty tough, hard and tenacious defender like Nev.

Assuming we could sign him on for a reasonable price, he could be both a good insurance policy and also a mentor down at Casey.  I guess Wagner, JKH and Keilty and Petty would be the other depth backline players we have, but none of them would have the same experience as Cheny and all could probably benifit from playing beside him at Casey.  Don't know if he is future coaching material or not.

Part of me also likes the sentiment of him ending up back in Red and Blue, since I always thought when we moved him on, that he was a goer, which I think has been somewhat proved since.

Edited November 3, 20186 yr by Rodney (Balls) Grinter

  On 02/11/2018 at 01:58, Lucifer's Hero said:

Yes, 'weird' manoeuverings! 

To add to the Lyons intrigue, I just saw this:  "He was in exclusive company this year with Brownlow medallist Tom Mitchell, Patrick Cripps and new teammate Lachie Neale as the only players to average at least 24 disposals, 13 contested possessions and seven clearances...and part of why some industry figures AFL.com.au spoke to were so taken aback.  One called Gold Coast's decision "mind blowing", while another said "I'd have him in a heartbeat".  Lyons to Brisbane

I can see why GCS no longer believed in him but to let a contracted and seemingly good player go, without testing his trade value, for zero return is mind-boggling, to say the least! 

As you say - watch this space to see what future trades bring.

Brisbane are building some nice depth in their midfield too. They'll trouble a lot of teams next year.

Afl.com.au has our needs matched to Jake Neade for more forward pressure.  

  On 02/11/2018 at 11:23, Fifty-5 said:

Yes it can, a contract can be terminated if both parties agree to the termination conditions.  Langford agrees not to be paid out, maybe he's doing the Hawks a favour, maybe they are gonna pay him even more as a rookie.  Then he's re rookied and he gets paid outside the cap.  It's dodgy but it's within the rules.  You're the lawyer : )

I remember there was an article about Collingwood looking into getting GC to terminate May's contract so they could pick him up as a free agent and GC would get a top5 pick FA compo. Hope we looked at that too, he's at an age where he should've come as a FA for us instead of costing us the best young KPF in the league.

Edited November 3, 20186 yr by TheoX