On 09/11/2018 at 12:38, DeeSpencer said:

Why do you care? They are using a list spot on a retired player to pay out the contract owed to them. We have no shortage of list spots. The rookie list really has no difference to the main list these days, moving a senior player on to the rookie list does nothing to help or harm us.

Because it's cheating the salary cap. Pay a player big overs to get him to sign. Then just hit delete and it all goes away when he's past it? It'll happen again with Buddy for sure.

It's cheating, and we could've done the same thing with HL, but I'm really glad we didn't. We aren't cheats.

Have a look at the 2 clubs doing it. 2 of the most successful in the recent era, who were seemingly able to sign any player they wanted with an unlimited cap. Well it's just caught up with them, and rather than let them suffer at the bottom of the ladder, the AFL has given them a free pass.

  On 09/11/2018 at 13:16, FireInTheBelly said:

Because it's cheating the salary cap. Pay a player big overs to get him to sign. Then just hit delete and it all goes away when he's past it? It'll happen again with Buddy for sure.

It's cheating, and we could've done the same thing with HL, but I'm really glad we didn't. We aren't cheats.

Have a look at the 2 clubs doing it. 2 of the most successful in the recent era, who were seemingly able to sign any player they wanted with an unlimited cap. Well it's just caught up with them, and rather than let them suffer at the bottom of the ladder, the AFL has given them a free pass.

1. Free agent money apparently is locked in to the cap. So I wouldn't be certain it will happen with Buddy.

2. Tippett wasn't a free agent. Bizarre circumstances meant he was a drafted player and wasn't even still on his initial Swans contract

3. They are using a list spot and paying money for a player who has retired due to injury. How exactly does that help them?

The only salary cap saving they are getting  is the basic 80k rookie wage. The rest of his negotiated salary will be included in the cap.

  Quote

Clearly, Tippett has accepted a deal in which he will be paid only a portion of that contract. Tippett was understood to have a contract that would have paid him more than $2 million over those three years, but the Swans will not have to pay him for 2020 and will wipe the slate clean after retaining him on the rookie list in 2019.

 

The Swans felt it was preferable to keep Tippett on the rookie list. Typically a club saves about $80,000 from their salary cap when re-drafting an expensive player on to their rookie list.

Under the AFL rules, a player must remain on one of the lists - senior or rookie - if he is being paid.

The Swans could not reach a settlement and pay Tippett, who joined the club after the 2012 flag on a huge contract, without keeping him on the list, despite the reality that he will not play for them again.

Personally I can't see how paying a retired player is some form of cheating. They're wasting a rookie spot and a bunch of cap space on a guy who won't even play. I wish they did that with more players!

  On 09/11/2018 at 12:14, Redleg said:

Vince, Melksham, Hibberd, Pedo, Hannan and Frost all playing this year say hello.

Only Pedo and Frost were  'rejects'. Hannan was a reserves player therefore an untried recruit and the other 3 had notched up quite a bit of kudos at their own clubs.

  On 09/11/2018 at 12:14, Redleg said:

Vince, Melksham, Hibberd, Pedo, Hannan and Frost all playing this year say hello.

Hannan was a VFL listed player.  He had never been on an AFL list.

Edited November 10, 20186 yr by ProDee

  On 09/11/2018 at 13:34, DeeSpencer said:

1. Free agent money apparently is locked in to the cap. So I wouldn't be certain it will happen with Buddy.

2. Tippett wasn't a free agent. Bizarre circumstances meant he was a drafted player and wasn't even still on his initial Swans contract

3. They are using a list spot and paying money for a player who has retired due to injury. How exactly does that help them?

The only salary cap saving they are getting  is the basic 80k rookie wage. The rest of his negotiated salary will be included in the cap.

Personally I can't see how paying a retired player is some form of cheating. They're wasting a rookie spot and a bunch of cap space on a guy who won't even play. I wish they did that with more players!

It doesn't have anything to do with free agents, I'm not sure why you've mentioned that and this is probably the wrong place to discuss, however; I can't find the salary cap rules re the rookie list, but I found this:

Certain payments are excluded from the cap, and concessions are available for some players, in particular "veteran" players (those over the age of 30 and/or who have completed 10 seasons with their current club) and "nominated" rookie list players, who are discounted by 30% or 50% for purposes of the cap, depending on the number of these players at each club.

That's clearly out-dated, and I have no idea what or who a 'nominated' rookie is, but If that's still correct, they've made a huge offer for a player to ward off other clubs. Now he's done they don't want that money in the cap anymore, so they move him to the rookie list where they save up to 50% of his wages.

Buddy signed a 10 year contract on huge dollars. If (I think it's more like when) he retires early they'll be trying to wipe those dollars off their cap, in the exact same way. Their massive bid for Buddy beat off GWS, who would've felt they couldn't fit him in their cap. How would they feel if that happens, and the bid that beat them off ends up being halved?

I should add, thank the lord he didn't go to GWS as they'd probably have a flag in the kick by now.

  On 10/11/2018 at 00:07, dieter said:

Only Pedo and Frost were  'rejects'. Hannan was a reserves player therefore an untried recruit and the other 3 had notched up quite a bit of kudos at their own clubs.

Not sure how you call some of them rejects and others not, when the list of players you gave all played with their previous club and were traded, just like the guys I mentioned, except for Hannan from the VFL.

Ultimately they were all rejects or weren’t, as they were traded or delisted by their club and therefore rejected and not kept.

What is your definition of a reject, if different to what I have just posted? 

Edited November 10, 20186 yr by Redleg

  On 10/11/2018 at 01:36, Redleg said:

Not sure how you call some of them rejects and others not, when the list of players you gave all played with their previous club and were traded, just like the guys I mentioned, except for Hannan from the VFL.

Ultimately they were all rejects or weren’t, as they were traded by their club and therefore rejected and not kept. 

That's not correct, then hogan, Neal, and beams are rejects, many traded players their clubs wanted to keep them, the 2 from essendon where not rejected they wanted to leave a club that let them down, a reject is someone no one wants, you are wrong don't be a Fonzie.

  On 10/11/2018 at 01:11, FireInTheBelly said:

It doesn't have anything to do with free agents, I'm not sure why you've mentioned that and this is probably the wrong place to discuss, however; I can't find the salary cap rules re the rookie list, but I found this:

Certain payments are excluded from the cap, and concessions are available for some players, in particular "veteran" players (those over the age of 30 and/or who have completed 10 seasons with their current club) and "nominated" rookie list players, who are discounted by 30% or 50% for purposes of the cap, depending on the number of these players at each club.

That's clearly out-dated, and I have no idea what or who a 'nominated' rookie is, but If that's still correct, they've made a huge offer for a player to ward off other clubs. Now he's done they don't want that money in the cap anymore, so they move him to the rookie list where they save up to 50% of his wages.

Buddy signed a 10 year contract on huge dollars. If (I think it's more like when) he retires early they'll be trying to wipe those dollars off their cap, in the exact same way. Their massive bid for Buddy beat off GWS, who would've felt they couldn't fit him in their cap. How would they feel if that happens, and the bid that beat them off ends up being halved?

I should add, thank the lord he didn't go to GWS as they'd probably have a flag in the kick by now.

Free agents are locked in to the cap due to the compensation and other factors. I raised that because you raised Buddy. Buddy's contract is locked in to the salary cap for the full length of the deal. See here:

https://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/teams/hawthorn/ty-vickery-salary-to-be-included-in-hawthorns-2018-cap-despite-retirement/news-story/56fc77cb474a66e7723c01df151ae8b8

The veterans list is completely outdated. Forget about that.

Tippett had a dodgy ankle, didn't want to do the rehab, reached an agreement with the Swans to retire for a settled pay out instead of staying on the list in 18/19/20 and cashing his payment without ever playing. That's all fair and above board.

The only saving for the Swans is the 80k that they would've spent on another rookie but now save by keeping Tippett on the rookie list using a spot.

Mutually agreeing with a player for them to retire and then paying them out with a rookie spot is no advantage at all. Sydney and Hawthorn have done it because they have tight salary caps not as a form of getting around the cap. The Crows have done it as well. Other teams with more cap room have put retirement payments in to earlier years and saved a list spot.

  On 10/11/2018 at 01:47, don't make me angry said:

That's not correct, then hogan, Neal, and beams are rejects, many traded players their clubs wanted to keep them, the 2 from essendon where not rejected they wanted to leave a club that let them down, a reject is someone no one wants, you are wrong don't be a Fonzie.

You are being a Potsie. I wanted an understanding of how he defined a reject. You have said a reject is someone no one wants, yet every player quoted was wanted by someone, us.

Anyway not worth getting in a flap about it.

  On 25/10/2018 at 00:51, DeeSpencer said:

Partington was delisted early for a high pick, not sure he’s much of a player but I can see the appeal of a mid/half forward type. I think he has decent pace/fitness. Skill level and size the concerns

Karpany probably appeals more because of our lack of crumber but he’s been in the system for a long time with little results.

Partington got a few games in 2017 through sheer weight of numbers in the WAFL. He did about what you'd expect of a guy playing his first few games in a midfield that was slow and getting beaten most weeks. 2018 was meant to be his breakout year with no Priddis or Mitchell playing but for some reason didn't get a go. Did alright in the WAFL again - tied for club b&f. I think he could be a good pickup for someone.

Karpany looks a little more flash in the pan small forward type. In the right environment could be pretty good, or could be a dud. Worth a shot for a team looking for a small forward who could just be a freebie gem.

Welcome back to the world of AFL delisted free agency. DPFA2 opened very quietly yesterday and runs till Friday. If you blink you might miss the stampede.

Seriously, what’s the real difference between DPFA1 and DPFA2 and what does this period promise for the players who weren’t picked up in the first?

Delisted free agents apparently can be signed anytime virtually in November.  It’s right up until about 29th November. 

 

I hope he goes well.

Good Luck Tommy Bugg (to the tune of the Clashs Tommy Gun)

  On 14/11/2018 at 03:44, Demonland said:

 

....came from GWS?  Then SoS will definitely pick him.

  On 14/11/2018 at 03:44, Demonland said:

 

Good luck to Tom.  Works hard and gets the very best out of his limited talent.

Always liked the Buggler.  Great bloke but his disposal frustrated everyone including himself.  

Still reckon Bugg offers more than a few others remaining on our list. I’d be happy if we brought him back, though I don’t think that’s going to happen. He’s got great work ethic and competitive attitude, on top of being flexible. He’s the perfect depth player IMO. 

Surely Carlton would pick him up. He’d be in their best 10-15 players.

  On 14/11/2018 at 03:56, george_on_the_outer said:

....came from GWS?  Then SoS will definitely pick him.

This speculation and potential interest from Carlton was a shoo-in. 

  On 14/11/2018 at 23:59, Lord Travis said:

Still reckon Bugg offers more than a few others remaining on our list. I’d be happy if we brought him back, though I don’t think that’s going to happen. He’s got great work ethic and competitive attitude, on top of being flexible. He’s the perfect depth player IMO. 

Surely Carlton would pick him up. He’d be in their best 10-15 players.

Tom Bugg is playing football and he can't kick a football. Carlton are terrible, but I doubt he'd be in their top 10-15 players.

Carlton would be crazy not to pick up Bugg.  They lack players in their mid twenties.  even as a defensive fwd he would be worth it

I liked Buggy and was somewhat sad to see him go.

I wish good luck to him finding a spot on another AFL list - BUT CARLTON??!!  

You are better than that Tommy.

Edited November 15, 20186 yr by Rodney (Balls) Grinter

Seems like Dees are bypassing any depth types.  Assume we r going to load up on 18 year olds? May grab a more mature VFL product like Wagner C or Lockhart.  

  On 16/11/2018 at 11:46, spirit of norm smith said:

Seems like Dees are bypassing any depth types.  Assume we r going to load up on 18 year olds? May grab a more mature VFL product like Wagner C or Lockhart.  

Not just the Dees but most of the clubs.

 It looks as though some of the clubs are going to take advantage of the post draft period stretching into March before finalising their lists.

Well now, DPFA2 faded into obscurity with little more than the whimper we got from Daniel Menzel who crossed to Sydney. 

Is there any more excitement coming our way before next Thursday night’s first round extravaganza?