3 hours ago, Dannyz said:

Jack has advised the club he will sign the 4 year contract in front of him. The formalities will follow. The delay is around AFL confirmations on 2021 caps and list sizes. 

I'm not saying I don't believe you, but if he's going to sign the contract, what would caps and list sizes have to do with his signature? That seems at odds...

2 minutes ago, A F said:

I'm not saying I don't believe you, but if he's going to sign the contract, what would caps and list sizes have to do with his signature? That seems at odds...

Not really.  The club could be saying if the cap is $x, you will get deal A, if it is $y you will get deal B.  He says he is happy to sign either, but obviously can't sign anything until the cap is known. And presumably there'd be a sliding scale between x and y.

I get that the game is a job for players, but I don't like hearing that a guy with so much history tied to the club has basically refused to take unders (which is still likely to be way above the top tax bracket - surely he was offered $300-400k) in order to secure his signature.

I know McCartney was big on instilling a culture of guys taking unders, so that the club could manage its list better and keep the core together. Geelong do this and Hawthorn did this for years.

If true, I don't like it and to me that's not leadership at all.

39 minutes ago, Diamond_Jim said:

Four(?) years for Jack and another year for Jones....

I suppose it makes sense but I think both are a year too long.

When list sizes are reduced and salary caps are tight few players if any  IMO should get more than three years

I hear what you’re saying but three years versus four years on a contract doesn’t mean as much these days. If we get to the third year and Jack’s not working out at Melbourne, then a trade will probably happen, hell players have asked for trades one year into a contract, if he’s ruined his body through injury he will retire like a number of other players, if a four year contract gets him over the line I think it’s worth it.
I think Jack is a high quality player and individual that sets super high standards in behaviour, training and attack on the ball and that he will make our club and team better.  I think he will play well for us, heart and soul for all four years and possibly beyond, but I really don’t think four years versus three will make much difference if things go wrong.

Nathan Jones sounds like it’s as much about him coaching from the list as it is about playing, this idea is become common and will get more common with the reduction in the soft FD cap. Burgoyne at Hawthorn, Hodge at Brisbane, Mitchell at West Coast, Heath Shaw to GWS?? it’s a common thing clubs do to get quality people and leadership in-house. Nathan is a club legend, a good person and a good leader who is intelligent enough football wise and emotionally to be a good coach. We’ve all seen the hard way what happens when you let your senior players go elsewhere on mass, Bruce, Yze, J McDonald, Green all left our club at a similar time to be assets to other coaching panels, including premierships, as our list bottomed out and floundered for leadership. We still have a relatively young list with relatively few experienced leaders. Keeping Nathan is a no brainer and if the best way to do it is one year on the list then great.

4 minutes ago, deejammin' said:

Nathan is a club legend, a good person and a good leader who is intelligent enough football wise and emotionally to be a good coach. We’ve all seen the hard way what happens when you let your senior players go elsewhere on mass, Bruce, Yze, J McDonald, Green all left our club at a similar time to be assets to other coaching panels, including premierships, as our list bottomed out and floundered for leadership. We still have a relatively young list with relatively few experienced leaders. Keeping Nathan is a no brainer and if the best way to do it is one year on the list then great.

Understand the role they are trying to give him, just don't see it in him. He was all but finished as a player at the end of 2019, so 2020 was a bonus.

Edited October 1, 20204 yr by BW511

I think Nathan Jones as a playing coach on a 1 year reduced salary is a perfect scenario. He may play 6 games to reach 300, he may not. He is perfect insurance . Despite being in the twilight of his career, his matches this year were serviceable. He had a few poor moments, but overall he was pretty solid. I said to a number of mates throughout the year that I’d prefer Jones as a backup on the list helping younger players in the magoos than keeping players like the Wagners around. No disrespect to the Wagner bros, but they are not AFL standard footballers and were not going to take the list forward. Jones is reliable and can play at the level when required. 

5 hours ago, Demons11 said:

Adelaide did with Dangerfield 

That is incorrect. A trade was made but an FA bid was never officially placed or matched.

Just now, Pollyanna said:

That is incorrect. A trade was made but an FA bid was never officially placed or matched.

Because they would have matched, clutching at straws there mate 

Just now, Demons11 said:

Because they would have matched, clutching at straws there mate 

It didn't happen.  Let's stick to the facts. Yes Adelaide may well have matched if Geelong bid FA but that is not what actually happened. Why not post that, which is the truth.

Tom Morris informed before on Fox Footy that Jack Viney's management have advised Geelong that he will not be going there as as Jack has agreed to a contract extension. 

3 hours ago, A F said:

I get that the game is a job for players, but I don't like hearing that a guy with so much history tied to the club has basically refused to take unders (which is still likely to be way above the top tax bracket - surely he was offered $300-400k) in order to secure his signature.

I know McCartney was big on instilling a culture of guys taking unders, so that the club could manage its list better and keep the core together. Geelong do this and Hawthorn did this for years.

If true, I don't like it and to me that's not leadership at all.

Yes, but Geelong and Hawthorn have consistently had something else to compensate for contracts under the market rate: premierships.

2 hours ago, Demons11 said:

Because they would have matched, clutching at straws there mate 

Who's clutching at straws???!!

26 minutes ago, dazzledavey36 said:

Tom Morris informed before on Fox Footy that Jack Viney's management have advised Geelong that he will not be going there as as Jack has agreed to a contract extension. 

i really hope so

25 minutes ago, Moonshadow said:

Yes, but Geelong and Hawthorn have consistently had something else to compensate for contracts under the market rate: premierships.

Indeed.

4 hours ago, A F said:

I get that the game is a job for players, but I don't like hearing that a guy with so much history tied to the club has basically refused to take unders (which is still likely to be way above the top tax bracket - surely he was offered $300-400k) in order to secure his signature.

I know McCartney was big on instilling a culture of guys taking unders, so that the club could manage its list better and keep the core together. Geelong do this and Hawthorn did this for years.

If true, I don't like it and to me that's not leadership at all.

It's called negotiation and would happen in most contract situations.  start low, counter offer then agree.  Viney is clearly worth a lot more than 3-400K per year. you have no idea if he took unders or not.

He would be turning down more money from other clubs to stay with an unsuccessful club, which equals loyalty and leadership

30 minutes ago, DubDee said:

It's called negotiation and would happen in most contract situations.  start low, counter offer then agree.  Viney is clearly worth a lot more than 3-400K per year. you have no idea if he took unders or not.

He would be turning down more money from other clubs to stay with an unsuccessful club, which equals loyalty and leadership

Yeah, I get how contract negotiations work, thanks very much. The reality is someone like Viney has been paid a large sum of money over the years (millions and millions of dollars by the age of 26) and this latest offer would almost certainly be a minimum $300k. And you're saying that's not enough value to his worth.

The fact he may or may not have turned down other offers is irrelevant. By demanding more, he's putting list management into jeopardy. You may call that loyalty and leadership, I don't.

We're not talking about $30,000 here, we're talking about a significant amount of money. I'm not sure what world some people are living in. The median Australian income for 2019 was $48,360 before tax. This is pre COVID. And we're talking about a person here that is on $300,000+! Are you kidding me?

30 minutes ago, A F said:

Yeah, I get how contract negotiations work, thanks very much. The reality is someone like Viney has been paid a large sum of money over the years (millions and millions of dollars by the age of 26) and this latest offer would almost certainly be a minimum $300k. And you're saying that's not enough value to his worth.

The fact he may or may not have turned down other offers is irrelevant. By demanding more, he's putting list management into jeopardy. You may call that loyalty and leadership, I don't.

We're not talking about $30,000 here, we're talking about a significant amount of money. I'm not sure what world some people are living in. The median Australian income for 2019 was $48,360 before tax. This is pre COVID. And we're talking about a person here that is on $300,000+! Are you kidding me?

Good post

this I would call a Burn Notice

37 minutes ago, A F said:

Yeah, I get how contract negotiations work, thanks very much. The reality is someone like Viney has been paid a large sum of money over the years (millions and millions of dollars by the age of 26) and this latest offer would almost certainly be a minimum $300k. And you're saying that's not enough value to his worth.

The fact he may or may not have turned down other offers is irrelevant. By demanding more, he's putting list management into jeopardy. You may call that loyalty and leadership, I don't.

We're not talking about $30,000 here, we're talking about a significant amount of money. I'm not sure what world some people are living in. The median Australian income for 2019 was $48,360 before tax. This is pre COVID. And we're talking about a person here that is on $300,000+! Are you kidding me?

No doubt he and everyone else, needs to take the list and future success of the club into account but he deserves to get his share of the money. He is one of our best players and should be getting paid well above AFL average. comparisons to average Aussie income are irrelevant. So he should be ok with many players getting double his wage, some of whom aren't as valuable as he is?  you must be joking?

you really think quality senior players in the LG at Geelong are on 300K?

6 hours ago, A F said:

I get that the game is a job for players, but I don't like hearing that a guy with so much history tied to the club has basically refused to take unders (which is still likely to be way above the top tax bracket - surely he was offered $300-400k) in order to secure his signature.

I know McCartney was big on instilling a culture of guys taking unders, so that the club could manage its list better and keep the core together. Geelong do this and Hawthorn did this for years.

If true, I don't like it and to me that's not leadership at all.

Agree and I dont think Geelong really want him, less so after tonight. Vineys style is not what they need. I didnt warch but sounds Port have flair as well as pressure.

46 minutes ago, DubDee said:

No doubt he and everyone else, needs to take the list and future success of the club into account but he deserves to get his share of the money. He is one of our best players and should be getting paid well above AFL average. comparisons to average Aussie income are irrelevant. So he should be ok with many players getting double his wage, some of whom aren't as valuable as he is?  you must be joking?

you really think quality senior players in the LG at Geelong are on 300K?

Well, hang on. You're imposing what you think he's worth. What happens if the club took the view that it doesn't see him as "one of our best players"? 

Jake Lever may have been worth say $650k a couple of years ago, in order to get him to change clubs. He's a good player, but if we want to keep building our list, his next contract should be worth less (unless AFL wage inflation brings it in line with his last contract by then).

Likewise, Jack's last contract, might have been $650k, when he was one of our best midfielders and a captain or soon to be, captain of the club. But value shifts all the time. If you are a leader, I would expect you to take what is in line with similar players of similar worth. And the point I'm also making is that it's not like these guys are going to be destitute at the end of this tax year.

1 hour ago, A F said:

Yeah, I get how contract negotiations work, thanks very much. The reality is someone like Viney has been paid a large sum of money over the years (millions and millions of dollars by the age of 26) and this latest offer would almost certainly be a minimum $300k. And you're saying that's not enough value to his worth.

The fact he may or may not have turned down other offers is irrelevant. By demanding more, he's putting list management into jeopardy. You may call that loyalty and leadership, I don't.

We're not talking about $30,000 here, we're talking about a significant amount of money. I'm not sure what world some people are living in. The median Australian income for 2019 was $48,360 before tax. This is pre COVID. And we're talking about a person here that is on $300,000+! Are you kidding me?

Disagree, to some extent, A F.

The average player wage is about $365k. He'd be valued in the industry at much more than that. I'm only guessing, but maybe $650k??? Not sure

If we want to keep him, pay him what he's worth. Of course we'll try and low ball him, but the reality will be somewhere near what he's worth on the open market

A lot of posters compare AFL player wages with the average punter's wage. Or compare the job circumstances of the AFL to us mere mortals. It's not apples with apples. There's so much money in the footy industry at that level. It's not realistic to compare Jack's contract with yours or mine. It's a completely different workplace, just about polar opposite

(I stand corrected A F, if you are in fact an AFL footballer!)

Edited October 1, 20204 yr by Moonshadow

16 minutes ago, A F said:

Well, hang on. You're imposing what you think he's worth. What happens if the club took the view that it doesn't see him as "one of our best players"? 

Jake Lever may have been worth say $650k a couple of years ago, in order to get him to change clubs. He's a good player, but if we want to keep building our list, his next contract should be worth less (unless AFL wage inflation brings it in line with his last contract by then).

Likewise, Jack's last contract, might have been $650k, when he was one of our best midfielders and a captain or soon to be, captain of the club. But value shifts all the time. If you are a leader, I would expect you to take what is in line with similar players of similar worth. And the point I'm also making is that it's not like these guys are going to be destitute at the end of this tax year.

I have been wondering where you are coming from, but I think you must not rate Viney that highly and I do. he might not be a star but he is one of our best players as seen in the BnF. I'd have him as top 6 most important players on the list.  This might be the last contract of his career so I do not begrudge him at all trying to get a reasonable deal. No player is driven to succeed more than Vines so I feel confident he would not shaft the club by being unreasonable.

to say he is holding the club over a barrel by demanding too much or not showing leadership is harsh imo. especially when we have no idea what is really going on

50 minutes ago, Moonshadow said:

Disagree, to some extent, A F.

The average player wage is about $365k. He'd be valued in the industry at much more than that. I'm only guessing, but maybe $650k??? Not sure

If we want to keep him, pay him what he's worth. Of course we'll try and low ball him, but the reality will be somewhere near what he's worth on the open market

A lot of posters compare AFL player wages with the average punter's wage. Or compare the job circumstances of the AFL to us mere mortals. It's not apples with apples. There's so much money in the footy industry at that level. It's not realistic to compare Jack's contract with yours or mine. It's a completely different workplace, just about polar opposite

(I stand corrected A F, if you are in fact an AFL footballer!)

No, that's all fair from an argument standpoint mate.

I'm not an AFL footballer, but I do know the wage of a relatively senior footballer and it's not as high as $365k, even when you factor in match payments. So where have you got that average player wage from? I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm just asking, because my understanding is that the average player wage would be a lot lower than some think. It's still far higher than the median or average wage of Australians though, which is the point I've been making.

Still, you're right, it's not apples with apples, but if he's been offered $300k or more, that is considerably higher or at the least in line with many middle rung FIRE employees, and FIRE are the three industries that basically prop up our GDP, so the top earners.

Anyway, perhaps I'm getting dragged into the microeconomics of Australian society and I should simply concede.

49 minutes ago, DubDee said:

I have been wondering where you are coming from, but I think you must not rate Viney that highly and I do. he might not be a star but he is one of our best players as seen in the BnF. I'd have him as top 6 most important players on the list.  This might be the last contract of his career so I do not begrudge him at all trying to get a reasonable deal. No player is driven to succeed more than Vines so I feel confident he would not shaft the club by being unreasonable.

to say he is holding the club over a barrel by demanding too much or not showing leadership is harsh imo. especially when we have no idea what is really going on

This is quite right. I'm happy to concede I don't know enough about the facts to make an accurate assessment.

10 hours ago, joeboy said:

On SEN about an hour ago:

The original offer for Viney was too low for the player and the counter offer to the club was too high.

Subsequent negotiations have arrived at an acceptable figure for both parties but they are waiting on cap sizes to be ratified by the AFL.

in further news Isaac Smith has expressed strong interest in the Dees’ offer and is weighing up his options 

 

So what you're saying is the player (via player manager) engaged in negotiations in a way that would normally be done.

Good to hear about him and Isaac Smith.

Edited October 1, 20204 yr by Pates

While I will back the club and Jack going forward just not sure what it means for Brayshaw. 

We have re-signed Sparrow and will likely re-sign a few other mids (Jordon, AvB) who will be competing with established mids for game time.  So quite possibly an established mid will be traded and fear it will be Brayshaw being seen as 'excess to our needs' or he gets more midfield time elsewhere.  Less worrying it could be Harmes, or both.