9 hours ago, daisycutter said:

Well, they will spend all of January in a post Christmas hangover, and the season for them will finish in August and the calendars will be binned, so not too much harm done. ?

On 11/13/2020 at 10:35 PM, A F said:

I saw them all play, except Robbie (I was born in '87). Oliver is miles ahead of any of them. His elite consistency is better than any of them. And I rate midfielders higher than ruckmen, forwards and wingers.

Not really sure what you mean by his mate Cripps. They're quite different ages and I doubt Clarry would go to Carlton, but he might go elsewhere.

And as for @old dee, @Little Goffy, I'm not particularly distressed and I'm very calm haha. Just don't feel like laying the boots into Collingwood for losing best 22 players.

As good as he is Oliver is not even in the orbit of Lyon,  pre-injury Schwarz or Neitz. Yze probably has him beat too, on grounds of ball use.

10 hours ago, dice said:

No, and I don't have proof. All I have is the word of a very respectable person at Carlton.

Obviously, it is all just hearsay but I guess we will see what eventuates next year with Oliver's contract negotiation.

That's your problem right there: an oxymoron.

50 minutes ago, pitmaster said:

As good as he is Oliver is not even in the orbit of Lyon,  pre-injury Schwarz or Neitz. Yze probably has him beat too, on grounds of ball use.

Disagree. The guy was an AA mid in his third season. Has them all covered.

6 hours ago, A F said:

Disagree. The guy was an AA mid in his third season. Has them all covered.

And Neitz was AA in his second year as a centre half back vs some of the best CHF the games seen. 
 

Schwartz would have been the best player in the league if not for his knees. Oliver will go down as a great MFC player and a very good AFL player on form. I hope he gets better but he needs to work on a lot of things other than raw numbers.

It just gets worse...now the CEO is making a fool of himself on SEN.

Lyon is hammering him and rightfully so...

OMG!!!  Their CEO just said on SEN that they will go to the AFL to get some sal cap relief because of the 'unusual' circumstances, adding they hope they get a 'fair outcome'! 

Late Edit: To clarify.  The sal cap relief talk was related to paying out the Beams contract.  He has had mental health issues for several years.  General chat is that he is owed $500k for the next two years.  If AFL allows this relief it should for all other players whose contracts are paid out for any issue or injury eg KK for us.

The rest of the league should be annoyed if an exception is made for them.  Especially Sydney who were penalised with 'special, once-off Sydney only' trade restrictions for the Buddy contract.  Post Buddy the AFL changed the rules if an FA retires early the full amount is still in the sal cap which is possibly preventing them from retiring him early.  And the AFL didn't give extra sal cap space last year to GCS for the large list size, claiming the sal cap is sacrosanct.

I have no sympathy for Syd or GCS but Coll should be treated the same.

Pies wanted to fix their sal cap so they chase FA and OOC players.  It will be an enormous advantage for them to chase these guys if they get sal cap relief. 

Self imposed damage.  Pies, live with it like all other clubs do.

@rjaydid I correctly hear what the CEO said about seeking sal cap relief from the AFL - wouldn't want to mislead DL's.

Edited November 15, 20204 yr by Lucifer's Hero

Why do Collingwood need salary cap relief Ned guy said it was a media beat up 

Loving your good work as usual @Lucifer's Hero. But it's Phillips not Williams - you've got a glitch there :)

50 minutes ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

OMG!!!  Their CEO just said on SEN that they will go to the AFL to get some sal cap relief because of the 'unusual' circumstances, adding they hope they get a 'fair outcome'! 

That’s the same Collingwood that objected to Melbourne getting draft relief after two years of barely winning a game. 

Collingwood’s “unusual circumstances” have manifested this year - if they want relief, let them wait another three or four years before it gets onto the AFL’s agenda.

Did the Collingwood CEO explain what those "unusual circumstances" might be (or might have been)? Did anyone ask him? 

10 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

Did the Collingwood CEO explain what those "unusual circumstances" might be (or might have been)? Did anyone ask him? 

I listened to the tape again and they were talking about Beams payout (said to be $500k for the next two years).

I've edited my earlier post to reflect this.

Just now, Lucifer's Hero said:

I listened to the tape again and they were talking about Beams payout (said to be $500k for the next two years).

I've edited my earlier post to reflect this.

Thanks. I expected the Dayne Beams debacle would figure highly. In effect, Collingwood might be trying to make "use" of Beams' mental illness (I hope that's the appropriately sensitive term to use) to explain why they have found themselves in this position. If that's correct, I think they might be making an argument with broader application than just themselves. I can see the possibility of a global rule change where players forced out of the game through mental illness or concussion have their payments fully or partially discounted from the salasry cap. That would then make it easier for clubs and players to resolve these forced retirements expediently and without adding to the psychological strain on the players.

8 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

Thanks. I expected the Dayne Beams debacle would figure highly. In effect, Collingwood might be trying to make "use" of Beams' mental illness (I hope that's the appropriately sensitive term to use) to explain why they have found themselves in this position. If that's correct, I think they might be making an argument with broader application than just themselves. I can see the possibility of a global rule change where players forced out of the game through mental illness or concussion have their payments fully or partially discounted from the salasry cap. That would then make it easier for clubs and players to resolve these forced retirements expediently and without adding to the psychological strain on the players.

Fair points but why should concussion or mental health be treated differently for sal cap purposes than retirements for career ending, physical injuries.  None of them are foreseeable.

If relief is to exist in sal caps it needs to be based on a considered policy in consultation with other clubs not a knee-jerk reaction to a Coll problem.  With adequate protections built in so retirements aren't misrepresented by clubs.

Edited November 15, 20204 yr by Lucifer's Hero

Buckley is just waffling on

SALARY CAP Mismanagement 

a Disgrace 

Tell it like it is

39 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

Did the Collingwood CEO explain what those "unusual circumstances" might be (or might have been)?

Incompetence?

If Beames was playing they would have exactly the same problem. 

All self-inflicted incompetence managing their salary cap.

Collingwood need to familiarise themselves with the concept of moral hazard. Proper list management goes out the window if the AFL starts subsidising bad TPP decisions made by clubs. The pies chose to bring back Beams and they chose to back end their contracts. They need to live with the consequences.

If they didn't do the correct due diligence or they thought the upside was worth the risk on Beams that is on them ala Melb with KK.

14 minutes ago, george_on_the_outer said:

If Beames was playing they would have exactly the same problem. 

All self-inflicted incompetence managing their salary cap.

Exactly 

Generally, I agree with the above posts about "buyer beware", the difference (or lack thereof) between mental and other physical injuries and risk management by clubs. However, I can see the AFL seeking to simplify processes to manage concussion and other player welfare issues. I'm not in favour of wholesale change, but I am also not comfortable with case-by-case consdierations without fixed and firm parameters. That gets into the secret herbs and spices territory.

Should Collingwood get dispensation for salary cap problems based on the Beams situation (noting that this is just conjecture at this stage on our behalf)? I don't think so. But I do think there is scope for having a discussion about how best to manage all issues associated with players' mental health and concussions.  

1 minute ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

Generally, I agree with the above posts about "buyer beware", the difference (or lack thereof) between mental and other physical injuries and risk management by clubs. However, I can see the AFL seeking to simplify processes to manage concussion and other player welfare issues. I'm not in favour of wholesale change, but I am also not comfortable with case-by-case consdierations without fixed and firm parameters. That gets into the secret herbs and spices territory.

Should Collingwood get dispensation for salary cap problems based on the Beams situation (noting that this is just conjecture at this stage on our behalf)? I don't think so. But I do think there is scope for having a discussion about how best to manage all issues associated with players' mental health and concussions.  

But they knew his situation before he was resigned. The risk was easily identified 

Buyer Beware 

2 hours ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

OMG!!!  Their CEO just said on SEN that they will go to the AFL to get some sal cap relief because of the 'unusual' circumstances, adding they hope they get a 'fair outcome'! 

Late Edit: To clarify.  The sal cap relief talk was related to paying out the Beams contract.  He has had mental health issues for several years.  General chat is that he is owed $500k for the next two years.  If AFL allows this relief it should for all other players whose contracts are paid out for any issue or injury eg KK for us.

The rest of the league should be annoyed if an exception is made for them.  Especially Sydney who were penalised with 'special, once-off Sydney only' trade restrictions for the Buddy contract.  Post Buddy the AFL changed the rules if an FA retires early the full amount is still in the sal cap which is possibly preventing them from retiring him early.  And the AFL didn't give extra sal cap space last year to GCS for the large list size, claiming the sal cap is sacrosanct.

I have no sympathy for Syd or GCS but Coll should be treated the same.

Pies wanted to fix their sal cap so they chase FA and OOC players.  It will be an enormous advantage for them to chase these guys if they get sal cap relief. 

Self imposed damage.  Pies, live with it like all other clubs do.

@rjaydid I correctly hear what the CEO said about seeking sal cap relief from the AFL - wouldn't want to mislead DL's.

Yep, you heard it right...unbelievable.

I wonder how secure Brodie Grundy is feeling. He signed a 7 year deal but clearly that doesn't mean much at theat club. 

They still have the De Goey case hang over them.

I wonder if they will seek AFL cap relief it this goes the wrong way.

Probably will want a priority pick as well.