1 hour ago, Redleg said:

Wow, 53 pages and not done yet, on whether a player, not a star, signs a new contract with us.

Yeah ...... and there's been more 'mail' in this thread than ever passed through the GPO !

12 hours ago, picket fence said:

Frankly I'm over the Judd Mc Vee will he, wont he, bottom line had 1 reasonably good year and average in other , to be perfectly frank I could'nt care less if he goes or stays, NEXT!

You have to have some sympathy for the player. He's good but not good enough to force immediate offers from other clubs.

Is it really his fault that these other clubs are dithering.

Que Sera Sera

6 minutes ago, demoncat said:

I watch a lot of American sports and would argue the NFL and NBA have had a wider range of teams genuinely competing for championships over the last few years than in the AFL, and I think part of this is that there are less barriers to teams improving their rosters via trade

For example, teams have significantly more cap space in these leagues, meaning smaller teams/teams with less highly paid players have significantly more money to offer prospective players

Compare that to the AFL where, other than TDK recently, the monetary difference between joining a smaller/less successful club and a big/successful club isn’t enough to sway most players - i.e. there is really no incentive for a good player to go to a North compared to a Collingwood when their earning ability is largely the same

Granted that is more to do with player payments - which I think should be far higher - but it’s one example

Another is teams having more rights to trade players/contracts without consent of players. This is obviously a far more contentious issue, but in my opinion the AFL needs to give more control to clubs to trade their players. The relative lack of player movement combined with players only wanting to move to successful clubs, doesn’t give smaller/less successful clubs many levers to improve their list. Again, I’m not arguing for players not having consent, but it’s an area I think the league needs to push the balance back towards the clubs.

Then there are a range of other smaller measures like being able to trade players a team has drafted on draft night, further future trading of draft picks, more malleable contracts that give players and clubs more opportunities to trade throughout the life of the deal etc.

Don’t get me wrong, the AFL does a lot of things much better than international sporting codes, and I know our clubs not being private will limit a lot of the contract issues I raised, but I don’t think the league is pulling all the levers it can to give all clubs a genuine shot at success

Thanks. Really good explanation.

I've always wondered about the very high total player payment floor. I have no doubt lowering it would create unintended consequences, but it does seem counterintuitive that West Coast can choose to pay only 5 percent less in total than, say, Brisbane or Geelong.

The only other thing I would point out, which is stating the bleeding obvious, is that you can trade your way to significant improvement... but you can also trade your way into a list disaster. I completely agree that if the system tilts everything towards inequality, it should be changed. But I do question whether more trading options leads inexorably to more equality. Some of the boldest trading in the last 20 years has led to an abject lack of success. To put it another way, the trading system can't stop Essendon from repeatedly shooting itself in the foot.

17 minutes ago, ElDiablo14 said:

How is it OK for teams to lose their top 5 picks after 2 years? Don't even get me started on JHF.

I find the frustrating as well - it makes a mockery of the equalising power of the draft.

But... I don't hear many Melbourne supporters complaining about Jake Lever. Left after the same number of years and roughly the same number of games as Jackson.

2 minutes ago, The Taciturn Demon said:

I find the frustrating as well - it makes a mockery of the equalising power of the draft.

But... I don't hear many Melbourne supporters complaining about Jake Lever. Left after the same number of years and roughly the same number of games as Jackson.

True, I am all for a real equalisation. Same rules apply to everyone including us.

27 minutes ago, ElDiablo14 said:

I have mentioned it before but I find it farcical that these draft rookies only get a 2 year contract.

It should be 3+1 at least (team option on the 4th year).

Under the current drafting rules, the top 20 draftees are initially given three year contracts.

Other draftees are given two year contracts and rookies/PSD one year.

Of course, these contracts may be extended at a later date if both parties agree.

5 minutes ago, Demonstone said:

Under the current drafting rules, the top 20 draftees are initially given three year contracts.

Other draftees are given two year contracts and rookies/PSD one year.

Of course, these contracts may be extended at a later date if both parties agree.

I thought with Jackson we started at 2 years. He got extended one year at the end of 2020, that is why he was out of contact at the end of 2022 (when he left for Freo).

21 minutes ago, The Taciturn Demon said:

Thanks. Really good explanation.

I've always wondered about the very high total player payment floor. I have no doubt lowering it would create unintended consequences, but it does seem counterintuitive that West Coast can choose to pay only 5 percent less in total than, say, Brisbane or Geelong.

The only other thing I would point out, which is stating the bleeding obvious, is that you can trade your way to significant improvement... but you can also trade your way into a list disaster. I completely agree that if the system tilts everything towards inequality, it should be changed. But I do question whether more trading options leads inexorably to more equality. Some of the boldest trading in the last 20 years has led to an abject lack of success. To put it another way, the trading system can't stop Essendon from repeatedly shooting itself in the foot.

100%

At the end of the day, being a well run club will give you the best chance at premiership success, and no amount of player movement will ever change that

Just now, ElDiablo14 said:

I thought with Jackson we started at 2 years.

Yep. The rules have been changed since then.

12 hours ago, Ghostwriter said:

How do you know any of this for sure? You’re obviously believing what the media fed you, and that’s your prerogative. I might also believe what was reported had I not heard differently from the very people about whom the rumours swirled. But even then I wouldn’t reply with “LOL of course he did” when challenging someone who’s telling you what they’ve been told straight from the horse’s mouth, so to speak.

I can only say it a finite number of times before my patience abandons me, which is pretty much right now. You believe what you wanna believe, even if it comes from Tom Morris et al.

You can insult me all you like thinking it’s from the media, but no, it’s straight from the club

Same way I knew we were in for Derksen long before the media did

Same way I know McVee is [censored] off about his midfield time

Same way I know Rivers will also go home if he doesn’t get some in real time

You’re not the only one with contacts

8 minutes ago, Demonstone said:

Yep. The rules have been changed since then.

Did that happen because of the JHF situation?

It was part of a collective bargaining agreement between the AFL and the Players Association in 2023.

This was 12 months after JHF's departure from North, but I'm unsure if there is any connection.

5 hours ago, Deez21 said:

You can insult me all you like thinking it’s from the media, but no, it’s straight from the club

Same way I knew we were in for Derksen long before the media did

Same way I know McVee is [censored] off about his midfield time

Same way I know Rivers will also go home if he doesn’t get some in real time

You’re not the only one with contacts

I don’t have “contacts” and I don’t have “mail” - I chat to folks at Gosch’s and some of them happen to be players and coaches and medics and admin staff.

34 minutes ago, Ghostwriter said:

I don’t have “contacts” and I don’t have “mail” - I chat to folks at Gosch’s and some of them happen to be players and coaches and medics and admin staff.

I am getting this close to calling Judd a poo poo head.

tell him to announce itttttttttttt

7 hours ago, Diamond_Jim said:

You have to have some sympathy for the player. He's good but not good enough to force immediate offers from other clubs.

Is it really his fault that these other clubs are dithering.

Que Sera Sera

You really have got no idea

12 hours ago, Fritta and Turner said:

As opposed to beleiving some random on a footy forum???

(I've had enuff)

Who said it was "as opposed to"?

Edited yesterday at 10:381 day by Dr. Gonzo

11 hours ago, sue said:

Of course some people have good 'mail'. But just because someone posts that according to their mail, X is true (and they don't give any hint of the source of that mail), that carries much less weight with me than someone who gives their source. Unless the poster has a good historical record of their 'mail' being correct, I don't see why I should give it much credit without a source being quoted.

I have to give more weight to someone who says their source is first hand talking to a player than a bland 'my mail is'. Of course it could still be wrong, things change etc and I dare say that some people could invent a conversation (not saying GW would ever do that).

I judge the worth of someone's info based on their posting history regardless of if they name their sources.

Each person can believe what they want, it's up to them, they don't need to justify themselves 🤷

6 hours ago, Deez21 said:

You can insult me all you like thinking it’s from the media, but no, it’s straight from the club

Same way I knew we were in for Derksen long before the media did

Same way I know McVee is [censored] off about his midfield time

Same way I know Rivers will also go home if he doesn’t get some in real time

You’re not the only one with contacts

Your mail comes across a little flimsy. That 5 year coaching offer to Bevo seemed fanciful.

It feels a bit like you’re conflating two things on this one; going home and the opportunity for a position a player most wants.

I guess you’re saying they’re unsettled. Fair enough.

Rivers looks content to me. I only see him departing if the club wish to include him in a specific trade, possible.

Judd however is more of a mystery. I’m thinking he wants to hear from the coach before locking in. And I’d highly respect that, it shows his personal ambition to expect the most out of himself which has been a bit of a trademark.

Just now, Deez21 said:

LOL of course he did

Issue is so did ANB Trac and Oliver and club was in no position to let him go

Club said wait a year and he agreed and club did well to turn it around

12 hours ago, No10 said:

Your mail comes across a little flimsy. That 5 year coaching offer to Bevo seemed fanciful.

It feels a bit like you’re conflating two things on this one; going home and the opportunity for a position a player most wants.

I guess you’re saying they’re unsettled. Fair enough.

Rivers looks content to me. I only see him departing if the club wish to include him in a specific trade, possible.

Judd however is more of a mystery. I’m thinking he wants to hear from the coach before locking in. And I’d highly respect that, it shows his personal ambition to expect the most out of himself which has been a bit of a trademark.

Wasn't the first time this year we approached Bevo and thought we'd try again.

I see Morris is just reporting the club May is out. Another tick to my flimsy source

Edited 16 hours ago16 hr by Deez21

Lol, half the planet thought May was a chance to be moved on or want to move on. It's been media babble for over a month.

What I'm really curious about is whether waiting on May's exit was a factor in McVee delaying...

That's a brutal theory on just how sharp some club divisions might be.

2 hours ago, Little Goffy said:

Lol, half the planet thought May was a chance to be moved on or want to move on. It's been media babble for over a month.

What I'm really curious about is whether waiting on May's exit was a factor in McVee delaying...

That's a brutal theory on just how sharp some club divisions might be.

There was some suggestion even through last season that there were rifts. Bit like tides they came and went in strength but there was some underlying schism .

They certainly haven't played at times like they're all on the same page.

Update: Despite west coast offering a nice deal and Adelaide having a look, McVee is going to resign on a two year deal. Spoke with King and Lamb. Assured of how it looks for him in 26. This is a key signing for King early days in his tenure.

Fantastic news.

4 minutes ago, Dannyz said:

Update: Despite west coast offering a nice deal and Adelaide having a look, McVee is going to resign on a two year deal. Spoke with King and Lamb. Assured of how it looks for him in 26. This is a key signing for King early days in his tenure.

When will it be formally announced?