25 minutes ago, A F said:

It won't. The next 4-5 years will be beyond stagnant. 

I don't like the one year contract. Commit a bit longer. We took the punt on you at pick 3. I'll take the one year, but not particularly happy about it.

Rarely disagree with you AF on footy, but on the economy I think you're wrong. The Australian economy is well placed and will improve from here through 2021, and be back where we would have been in 2-3 years (i.e. forecast GDP, unemployment, trade, etc...).

Data - https://www.rba.gov.au/publications/smp/2020/nov/economic-outlook.html

Edited November 18, 20204 yr by PaulRB

Hopefully the short extension is Jackson and his manager backing him in for a big pay day after a very good 2021 season rather than Jackson keeping one eye on his home state.

Very good news that he's got a contract beyond 2021.

3 hours ago, TeamPlayedFine39 said:

I assume his management took the one year, while the cap is low, then will look for a real payday when he’s proven himself this year and next.  If the economy improves by end of 2021, his next contract could be huge.

I agree because regardless, no one knows what the cap and list sizes will be in 2023 right now.

He has also spent more time in the hub than in Melbourne city. I can understand a base reluctance to commit for too long.

Any extension that means a player is not out of contract at the end of a coming year is gold. 1 year or 3 years. Doesn't matter in that regard as long as there is no media storm during the season. 

Also, every time someone signs for longer people lament their loss of form, saying they got lazy with security etc. For those people, short extensions should also be gold.

 

5 minutes ago, PaulRB said:

Rarely disagree with you AF on footy, but on the economy I think you're wrong. The Australian economy is well placed and will improve from here through 2021, and be back where we would have been in 2-3 years (i.e. forecast GDP, unemployment, trade, etc...).

Data - https://www.rba.gov.au/publications/smp/2020/nov/economic-outlook.html

Agree with your point on the general economy but the AFL media money could well come under pressure.

Hard to see much growth in physical attendance which could bring pressure on admission charges (under the guise of upselling)

13 minutes ago, PaulRB said:

Rarely disagree with you AF on footy, but on the economy I think you're wrong. The Australian economy is well placed and will improve from here through 2021, and be back where we would have been in 2-3 years (i.e. forecast GDP, unemployment, trade, etc...).

Data - https://www.rba.gov.au/publications/smp/2020/nov/economic-outlook.html

We'll see mate. Hope I'm wrong, but can't see enough job creation.

From your RBA article - "The unemployment rate peaks at a little below 8 per cent in coming months, before gradually declining in 2021 and 2022 to just above 6 per cent at the end of the forecast period." 6 per cent is a million people that can work, without it. That's a stagnant and inefficient economy, which will have socialised impacts that will heighten the problem.

The RBA have modelled a 50% contraction in the housing market next year and all the big banks have put billions aside to offset the loan defaults.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-10-27/rba-warns-coronavirus-economic-recovery-will-be-unpredictable/12819312

As for AFL contracts, I think player movement with the AFLPA has gone to ridiculous levels. This hyper player freedom of movement tears at the fabric of the game IMO. It begins to resemble the hollowness of so many American 'franchise'-driven sports.

3 minutes ago, Diamond_Jim said:

Agree with your point on the general economy but the AFL media money could well come under pressure.

Hard to see much growth in physical attendance which could bring pressure on admission charges (under the guise of upselling)

well jim, in 4-5 years time there is every chance that the afl won't look like australian rules football, what with all the meddling and continual rule changes :)

Great news for MFC. Smart move by Dogga and the Dees to extend by a year and see how far his development goes in the next 12 months. 

2 minutes ago, Diamond_Jim said:

Agree with your point on the general economy but the AFL media money could well come under pressure.

Hard to see much growth in physical attendance which could bring pressure on admission charges (under the guise of upselling)

Hard to get a clear read on the media marketplace, as the past year has seen the emergence of more aggregation streaming platforms (Netflix, Stan, Apple, etc...) all looking to competing with Foxtel for subscribers, and Aussie Rules demands a premium in this context as it brings with it a very large and dedicated subscriber base. I.e. it's bankable.

We’re a very insecure fan base. It’s an unattractive trait.

LJ has never given the slightest impression that he was unhappy. He came across as a genuine enthusiastic big kid at the B&F. Let’s not fret about what may or may not happen and just watch this lad grow and develop over the next couple of years. He’s going to be special.

Btw have we had 3 better youngsters than LJ, Rivers and Pickett? I can’t recall. Exciting times ahead imv.

Well we are lucky 

as Demon supporters even if the state government imposes a limit of 25%
we can still sit in comfort  with about the normal  amount of crowd  well apart from the pies and tigers 

hope to see some footy in 21 !!

7 minutes ago, A F said:

We'll see mate. Hope I'm wrong, but can't see enough job creation.

From your RBA article - "The unemployment rate peaks at a little below 8 per cent in coming months, before gradually declining in 2021 and 2022 to just above 6 per cent at the end of the forecast period." 6 per cent is a million people that can work, without it. That's a stagnant and inefficient economy, which will have socialised impacts that will heighten the problem.

The RBA have modelled a 50% contraction in the housing market next year and all the big banks have put billions aside to offset the loan defaults.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-10-27/rba-warns-coronavirus-economic-recovery-will-be-unpredictable/12819312

As for AFL contracts, I think player movement with the AFLPA has gone to ridiculous levels. This hyper player freedom of movement tears at the fabric of the game IMO. It begins to resemble the hollowness of so many American 'franchise'-driven sports.

Maybe its how we see things, I don't see an economy growing its employment (lowering the unemployment rate) by 2% over two years as a "stagnant" nor "inefficient". Its not running at full capacity, and there is an ongoing human cost which is unacceptable so we agree on that. 

Housing is a worry i agree, as soon as we closed the borders to new arrivals and foreign students we killed the golden goose of an ever expanding housing market (the bubble burst). So the question is when will a vaccine allow mass migration to recommence and foreign student to return..? my guess would be late 2021, so the bubble will start to reinflate then... I'm sure the Banks will be ok.

Edited November 18, 20204 yr by PaulRB

The first two year contract price for draftees is at a mandated base rate.

Does anyone know if you extend for say two years can the initial second year salary be increased ?

Thanks

10 minutes ago, PaulRB said:

Maybe its how we see things, I don't see an economy growing its employment (lowering the unemployment rate) by 2% over two years as a "stagnant" nor "inefficient". Its not running at full capacity, and there is an ongoing human cost which is unacceptable so we agree on that. 

Housing is a worry i agree, as soon as we closed the borders to new arrivals and foreign students we killed the golden goose of an ever expanding housing market (the bubble burst). So the question is when will a vaccine all mas migration to recommence and foreign student to return..? my guess would be late 2021, so the bubble will start to reinflate then... I'm sure the Banks will be ok.

The housing market has not burst though. It's growing exponentially. The suburb I live in has grown 17.5% this year alone. QE will shift the financial institutions from bonds to housing and shares. The housing market growing is fine if people can service their debt, but household debt is double wage income after tax, so clearly it is unsustainable. 

And I think anything less than full employment minus frictional employment is inefficiency. That's a lot of lost productivity in the economy and lost wages that can stimulate aggregate demand and actually increase profits for business. It's no brainer economics. Anyway, seems we disagree and that's fine.

How do you feel about the way AFL contracts are going? The freedom of movement. It's being justified in a very similar way to the EU. You can't stop the market. Well, yes, you can. You regulate it and maintain a bit of ethics and morality. If a club has taken a chance on you, you're being paid very well, I no longer buy the argument that players have a short amount of time in the game to maximise their financial gain, and therefore should be allowed to move to whatever club they want to.

I can see why the club extended Jackson for an extra year, but I'm sure they would have preferred an extra two years.

10 minutes ago, A F said:

The housing market has not burst though. It's growing exponentially. The suburb I live in has grown 17.5% this year alone. QE will shift the financial institutions from bonds to housing and shares. The housing market growing is fine if people can service their debt, but household debt is double wage income after tax, so clearly it is unsustainable. 

And I think anything less than full employment minus frictional employment is inefficiency. That's a lot of lost productivity in the economy and lost wages that can stimulate aggregate demand and actually increase profits for business. It's no brainer economics. Anyway, seems we disagree and that's fine.

How do you feel about the way AFL contracts are going? The freedom of movement. It's being justified in a very similar way to the EU. You can't stop the market. Well, yes, you can. You regulate it and maintain a bit of ethics and morality. If a club has taken a chance on you, you're being paid very well, I no longer buy the argument that players have a short amount of time in the game to maximise their financial gain, and therefore should be allowed to move to whatever club they want to.

I can see why the club extended Jackson for an extra year, but I'm sure they would have preferred an extra two years.

No its not burst, and it is a worry.

On freedom of movement, if I don't like my employer I can leave and find another employer.

I don't see how we can deny professional footballers the same freedom. Player freedom mean clubs compete to offer the best program, facilities, support and culture to the player marketplace and they can pick. The period before the players become Free Agents, means clubs can reasonably reap their investment in the players they develop. The salary cap (and soft cap) are essential in restricting the few rich clubs from dominating the competition.

I actually think the AFL have got the balance and limits in this space pretty right, for the benefit of the competition, and rights of the players.

I know if I was drafted to play footy for the Pies, and they were doing things I found uncomfortable, I'd appreciate my right to leave them and decide where next i'd like to work.

Unfortunately for us emotional supporters, it can be a bit heart breaking when one of your guns leaves... but we're used to heartbreak at Melbourne, and bounce back. :)

Edited November 18, 20204 yr by PaulRB

I imagine this kid will be Nic Nat like in the ruck but will take a lot more marks and be much more damaging up forward.

We have something special on our hands!

13 minutes ago, PaulRB said:

No its not burst, and it is a worry.

On freedom of movement, if I don't like my employer I can leave and find another employer.

I don't see how we can deny professional footballers the same freedom. Player freedom mean clubs compete to offer the best program, facilities, support and culture to the player marketplace and they can pick. The period before the players become Free Agents, means clubs can reasonably reap their investment in the players they develop. The salary cap (and soft cap) are essential in restricting the few rich clubs from dominating the competition.

I actually think the AFL have got the balance and limits in this space pretty right, for the benefit of the competition, and rights of the players.

I know if I was drafted to play footy for the Pies, and they were doing things I found uncomfortable, I'd appreciate my right to leave them and decide where next i'd like to work.

Unfortunately for us emotional supporters, it can be a bit heart breaking when one of your guns leaves... but we're used to heartbreak at Melbourne, and bounce back. :)

All of that's fair, RE: freedom of movement.

I don't mean to sound like I disagree with all freedom of movement. The problem I have is that's gone too far one way IMO and actually rewards disloyalty more than loyalty. If players want to leave for more opportunities and because they're not getting on with their employers, sure, but if it's just about chasing an extra $200-300k, I don't like it. But maybe that's just me.

jeez - now on this site as well as the arguments between the eternal optimists and the debbie downers with severe MFCSS re the Melbourne list and contracts,  we're on to the equivalent discussion about the economy!

If history is any guide you should bet against MFC and go long on the housing market.

1 hour ago, hemingway said:

Very philosophical these days. As we have seen over recent weeks, contracts are becoming less important. They reflect intention today (by club and player) but not in the future. Jackson has the opportunity to improve his value over the next two seasons and then have every club including those from WA pursue  him. 

Whether we can hold onto our young talent will be determined by team success and salary cap issues. Even then other variables can play a part such as the Perth go home factor.  For players like Oliver and Petracca it’s success and money. 

Add to success and money, loyalty, but only for some. 

With money, clubs are going to be constrained by salary cap issues, and the Collingwood mess is the current example. At any one time there will always be a club that can work the cap in order to secure a top player. 

Sadly, it’s become a meat market and all clubs will see top players leave. Often player loyalty is to the detriment of the player. You can’t blame the players who have a limited time to make their money and enjoy team success. 

Supporters will have to like  it or lump it. When the team is successful it becomes easier to like it, but seeing players leave a struggling club means that many supporters will lose heart in their club. 

I don’t see the future being a bright one for the older and/or  loyal supporters. The latest set of trades, I find disheartening and not good for the heart and soul of the game. Or the culture of clubs or the AFL. 

Great take out.

H, I say it a bit on here but I'm really into NHL, ice hockey, and player movement is almost universally based on the assets worth at that point in time for the coming season/contract period.

Example the captain of the St Louis Blues, who helped win them a Stanley Cup just last season, is now on the Vegas Golden Knights. He wanted to stay but couldnt get the offer he wanted, they brought in a replacement player half way through the season and gave him a new contract. Captain leaves via free agency. 

A fall out of that was Vegas signed the ex Blues player to a huge 8 year contract, so they had to ship out one of there current best defenders for peanuts via trade to a different team. He was happy and settled and playing well for Vegas the last couple of seasons, while under contract.

The NHL players now, the top 1/4 or so, are all looking to add no trade or no movement clauses into contracts where they can't be moved or they can provide a limited list of say 10 team they can't be traded to. 

1 hour ago, PaulRB said:

Rarely disagree with you AF on footy, but on the economy I think you're wrong. The Australian economy is well placed and will improve from here through 2021, and be back where we would have been in 2-3 years (i.e. forecast GDP, unemployment, trade, etc...).

Data - https://www.rba.gov.au/publications/smp/2020/nov/economic-outlook.html

Interesting times economically. Normally, I'll predict anything except the future, but in this case I'll make an exception to my exception:

The neo-liberal era will end in with a great deleveraging, triggered by events undeniably attributable to the effects of anthropomorphic climate change. I'd take a bet that a bunch of big insurance companies, and the reinsurers, go broke from the cumulative disasters..... and take out the banks as they go.

I reckon AF might think the above was plausible, but the question of when is the really salient one: I think the neo-liberal bubble has one more great big blow to go. As we come out of Covid, the world will boom 4-5 years and then BOOM! After that it's a depression, realignment and restructuring, and a low growth future (which I'm fine with). I expect AF won't agree with that timing, but I'm interested to knock the idea around.

One human year is equivalent to five Dogga years. 

It's great news.

I wonder whether those who wish it was a longer contract also bemoan the TMac contract?

53 minutes ago, Cards13 said:

Great take out.

H, I say it a bit on here but I'm really into NHL, ice hockey, and player movement is almost universally based on the assets worth at that point in time for the coming season/contract period.

Example the captain of the St Louis Blues, who helped win them a Stanley Cup just last season, is now on the Vegas Golden Knights. He wanted to stay but couldnt get the offer he wanted, they brought in a replacement player half way through the season and gave him a new contract. Captain leaves via free agency. 

A fall out of that was Vegas signed the ex Blues player to a huge 8 year contract, so they had to ship out one of there current best defenders for peanuts via trade to a different team. He was happy and settled and playing well for Vegas the last couple of seasons, while under contract.

The NHL players now, the top 1/4 or so, are all looking to add no trade or no movement clauses into contracts where they can't be moved or they can provide a limited list of say 10 team they can't be traded to. 

Thanks for that info Cards. Very interesting. Different game, different culture but AFL is still a professional sport so trading is a fact of life. However, would hate to see it become like US pro sport. That’s what I like about the AFL “socialist model” as against leagues that are fully privatised. If you follow the path of private owned clubs, anything goes. Really a dog eat dog world.    

Your last para is a surprising development and may provide a balance.  Thanks for that. 

18 minutes ago, titan_uranus said:

It's great news.

I wonder whether those who wish it was a longer contract also bemoan the TMac contract?

I dislike long contracts. They make players complacent - see B Grundy Collingwood.

Better to extend 2 – 3 years at a time. Keep players on their toes. Yes you’ll have to compensate for the reduced security but that’s preferable than having a dud contract like TMac’s. And I know it means the headache of more frequent renewals and the risk of losing players but at least you know they’re hunger while you have them which should lead to better, more consistent performances which should, in turn increase likelihood of success and keeping said players (I think my circular logic works).

 

Well done Luke. Realized Victoria is The Place To Be! Stay Safe Stay Open!?

49 minutes ago, titan_uranus said:

It's great news.

I wonder whether those who wish it was a longer contract also bemoan the TMac contract?

he's a draftee on base money.

Chalk and cheese

The standard extension for any half decent draftee is two further years.

4 years for T Mac was fine and we got stung. Five years for Viney ???