5 minutes ago, ElDiablo14 said:

We are the MFC, no farms but stock market. 😎

Was thinking that too. Maybe some of our players might find themselves as being on some board of directors as well? (I guess part of that could include share offerings as bonus/incentives - the possibilities are endless).

Incidentally, I read a recent Fox Footy season preview/ladder prediction (yeah, I know about the 50th such article of the off-season so far) and it made the comment to the effect that we'd gone heavy on the draft, as due to not being one of the bigger clubs, we wouldn't be able to attract qualuty players until we'd showed we had a significant base of players/performance to do so. Pretty much an admission that free agency and equalisation measures aren't working / don't mix.

Anyone can be critical of the player contracts we handed out in retrospect, but I really think that needs to be balanced by the issue that we aren't really on an even playing field, with some of the big clubs far more able to attract and retain either for unders or with the aid of out of cap payments.

My view is that our department made the right calls at the time and that other factors (Gus, Trac severe injuries) and player management issues wrecked what could otherwise have been a golden era. Just think of the backlash if our stars had have walked elsewhere in 2022/2023.

Salary cap is irrelevant, as has been pointed out.

You have to pay certain percentages regardless of circumstances.

Our problem is we are not using it to pay footballers to play football, or to pay the current players what they are worth.

We will be forced to pay 100% just to pay our actual players, and then the ones who aren't playing for many years to come.

Retiring players has next to zero effect, as you bring on new players, and others further down the pecking order seek to get increased salary when they come off the low paid rates.

We won't be able to "bank" like St.Kilda did. Or to pay "market rates" to those current footballers who are actually on the field.

Those players will then go looking for better offers, when the time comes.

5 minutes ago, Rodney (Balls) Grinter said:

Incidentally, I read a recent Fox Footy season preview/ladder prediction (yeah, I know about the 50th such article of the off-season so far) and it made the comment to the effect that we'd gone heavy on the draft, as due to not being one of the bigger clubs, we wouldn't be able to attract qualuty players until we'd showed we had a significant base of players/performance to do so. Pretty much an admission that free agency and equalisation measures aren't working / don't mix.

Anyone can be critical of the player contracts we handed out in retrospect, but I really think that needs to be balanced by the issue that we aren't really on an even playing field, with some of the big clubs far more able to attract and retain either for unders or with the aid of out of cap payments.

My view is that our department made the right calls at the time and that other factors (Gus, Trac severe injuries) and player management issues wrecked what could otherwise have been a golden era. Just think of the backlash if our stars had have walked elsewhere in 2022/2023.

Yes they were good decisions at the time.

Clayton was borderline Brownlow level player.

Petracca was our Norm Smith medallist.

Angus Brayshaw a pillar of the team.

Little we knew back at the start of season 2022 things would turn out this way just 3 years later.

Similar to what I'm suggesting above, I think free agency has wrecked equalisation and the salary cap. I see two solutions, which may be viewed as somewhat radical:

Limit / equalise the number of players able to be signed on as free agents per club over a rolling time period of say 5 - 10 years.

Allow clubs to trade players against their will.

The AFLPA needs a clip behind the ears. The notion of free agency and restriction of trade shouldn't really apply to sporting codes the same way as they do regular employment. How long much longer will people tolerate the unevenness in the competition before they start giving up on following it? Forming of the VFL/AFL commission and having it create an enviroment where any team could succeed, was viewed by many to be a cornerstone of the sucess of the Aussie rules code in Australia for a number of years, but I think that ethos is significant floundering with each successive CEO that views running the premier league and code as a whole as a business more than a sport.

...rant over

... for today!

Edited 9 hours ago9 hr by Rodney (Balls) Grinter

5 minutes ago, ElDiablo14 said:

Yes they were good decisions at the time.

Clayton was borderline Brownlow level player.

Petracca was our Norm Smith medallist.

Angus Brayshaw a pillar of the team.

Little we knew back at the start of season 2022 things would turn out this way just 3 years later.

All of those deals were too long, unquestionably. All the risk with deals of that length is with the club, zero with the players. They get paid regardless of how they perform, or even if they don't turn up to the club.

We're just lucky that the Suns were happy to take Petracca's deal off our hands once we decided we didn't want him. Otherwise we could have ended up paying him to play elsewhere as well.

People are in dreamland if they don't think the Pickett deal will cause us problems at some stage.

57 minutes ago, DeeSpencer said:

Wasn't in March. Was reported in March, actual extension was some time in the 2024 season to prevent him running off to Carlton, despite being contracted for 2025. Which isn't all that much better.

Thanks. Still no reason to extend his deal. Stupid waste of money.

2 hours ago, Fat Tony said:

The fact that we signed May in March last year for another year requires an investigation. Our list management is amateur.

On a small base with heavy incentives for a (at the time) starting 18 player. Only thing that is amateur is your comment.

1 hour ago, whatwhat say what said:

there's no such thing as 'significant cap room' in the afl

every club must pay at least a minimum 95% of their total cap, with an allowance request to dip down to 92.5% (afaik dogs are the only club to ask and receive this), and a tolerance to 105%, to a even keel over a period of time (i've heard recently it's 2 years, but i thought it was 5 year rolling period)

AFL clubs can front load and back load deals to create space and it compounds. Spending $700k on May this year and $3.5m on Oliver for the next 5 years shows how poor we have managed our list and cap space. We have a bottom 8 list and have lost some ability to bring in players over the next few years. The MFC needs to reset and work out what year we can win it again. Gawn, Mihocek, Steele, Viney and Lever are unlikely to be part of the next premiership team and they make up circa 30% of our cap space. And Oliver and May is another 4-5% each.

I am not saying we should have completely cleaned out the club but there needs to be a timeline and strategy here.

34 minutes ago, poita said:

All of those deals were too long, unquestionably. All the risk with deals of that length is with the club, zero with the players. They get paid regardless of how they perform, or even if they don't turn up to the club.

We're just lucky that the Suns were happy to take Petracca's deal off our hands once we decided we didn't want him. Otherwise we could have ended up paying him to play elsewhere as well.

People are in dreamland if they don't think the Pickett deal will cause us problems at some stage.

If trac wasnt on a long contract we dont get 3 first round picks for him. If he was OOC its 1 max.

The only problem with Kozzy long contract is the club holds all the aces, If he wants to go home early we get what we wont or he stays and thats a Kozzy problem.

Just now, BangBnagBang said:

If trac wasnt on a long contract we dont get 3 first round picks for him. If he was OOC its 1 max.

The only problem with Kozzy long contract is the club holds all the aces, If he wants to go home early we get what we wont or he stays and thats a Kozzy problem.

I actually never had an issue with the Petracca contract or the Kozzy contract. Both are complete professionals who you could trust to live up to their end of the bargain and neither have really had repeated injury issues throughout their careers.

The ones that have been head-scratchers are the Brayshaw one given his concussion history it was always a risk to give him a long term contract. The Oliver deal, given we knew he had some issues internally before it blew up and we proceeded to balk at two opportunities to get him off our books when it did. The Viney one, 4 years for a 29 year old who has had frequent injury interuptions throughout his career is just madness.

6 minutes ago, BangBnagBang said:

On a small base with heavy incentives for a (at the time) starting 18 player. Only thing that is amateur is your comment.

May was 32, looked nearly done and had another year left. The coach was under pressure and we weren't sure if we were still in contention. It was a horible contract which we tied to trade out of 12 months later. It cost us $700k and we got nothing.

We extended Viney because North offered him deal and because Petracca tried to leave and we unsuccesfully shopped Oliver. Now he has another 3 years including this one.

We recuited Mihocek because our forward line sucked but we brought him in three years late.

The decisions make no sense.

5 minutes ago, KozzyCan said:

The ones that have been head-scratchers are the Brayshaw one given his concussion history it was always a risk to give him a long term contract. The Oliver deal, given we knew he had some issues internally before it blew up and we proceeded to balk at two opportunities to get him off our books when it did. The Viney one, 4 years for a 29 year old who has had frequent injury interuptions throughout his career is just madness.

You have to way up the other side.

Brayshaw signs at Freo if we dont offer what we did

Oliver was possiblely our most decorated player when he signed his contact, who knows when issues started or when they where known.

Viney is the concern but dont expect his extra years to be at top dollar and until you know the actual dollars its hard to judge how questionable the 4 year extensions was. He has only played less than 15 games once since his debut season.

18 minutes ago, BangBnagBang said:

You have to way up the other side.

Brayshaw signs at Freo if we dont offer what we did

Oliver was possiblely our most decorated player when he signed his contact, who knows when issues started or when they where known.

Viney is the concern but dont expect his extra years to be at top dollar and until you know the actual dollars its hard to judge how questionable the 4 year extensions was. He has only played less than 15 games once since his debut season.

The Brayshaw one is the one I'm torn over. He was absolutely the heart and soul for that team, but if we ever thought our players would take a sizeable cut to keep the team together and attract new players, that contract out an end to that belief.

We may not have paid market rates for any of those contracts, but we also didn't seem to get a huge discount for any of Gus, Trac, Clarry or Max.

13 minutes ago, BangBnagBang said:

You have to way up the other side.

Brayshaw signs at Freo if we dont offer what we did

Oliver was possiblely our most decorated player when he signed his contact, who knows when issues started or when they where known.

Viney is the concern but dont expect his extra years to be at top dollar and until you know the actual dollars its hard to judge how questionable the 4 year extensions was. He has only played less than 15 games once since his debut season.

6 year deals are for A-graders who have bodies you can rely on. Brayshaw was never that.

I can't remember where I saw it but I do remember seeing a report that the club had been aware of Oliver's issues for a while before they came out. My point was more about us not taking the opportunity to remove a cultural cancer from our list when the terms were in our favour.

It was pretty obvious at the time that Viney was leveraging an offer from North to get an extension. He's had a lot of seasons and pre-seasons interrupted by injury and those things take their toll once guys get over 30. He was already starting to slow down a bit in 2024. No surprise he's going to miss a lot of this year.

4 minutes ago, Mickey said:

The Brayshaw one is the one I'm torn over. He was absolutely the heart and soul for that team, but if we ever thought our players would take a sizeable cut to keep the team together and attract new players, that contract out an end to that belief.

We may not have paid market rates for any of those contracts, but we also didn't seem to get a huge discount for any of Gus, Trac, Clarry or Max.

Goodwin talked a little bit about this in his 'disease of the self' speech after he was sacked last year.

4 minutes ago, KozzyCan said:

I can't remember where I saw it but I do remember seeing a report that the club had been aware of Oliver's issues for a while before they came out. My point was more about us not taking the opportunity to remove a cultural cancer from our list when the terms were in our favour.

Of course they would’ve known. They would’ve known everything. Still they chose to give him that deal…

1 hour ago, poita said:

People are in dreamland if they don't think the Pickett deal will cause us problems at some stage.

It likely will, but that’s the system. Most clubs seemingly only have a choice between overpaying guys with extra years and losing them.

The good side of the deal is the going rate for a superstar has already jumped from Pickett’s 1.5 to 2M and will likely jump further.

So every year we are banking 500k below market rate from him that you can justify as effectively paying off the last 2-3 years.

I see the Pickett deal as similar to Tracc. And a better deal than not putting any protections for concussion in a Brayshaw deal and firing off 18 months early with Clarry

26 minutes ago, DeeSpencer said:

The good side of the deal is the going rate for a superstar has already jumped from Pickett’s 1.5 to 2M and will likely jump further.

Good call.

People immediately asked if he was worth it when it happened.

Unless he falls of a cliff, it will seem like a totally unremarkable annual figure very soon.

4 hours ago, Rodney (Balls) Grinter said:

We just need to start paying in farms like Geelong do.

Farms or palms

46 minutes ago, DeeSpencer said:

It likely will, but that’s the system. Most clubs seemingly only have a choice between overpaying guys with extra years and losing them.

The good side of the deal is the going rate for a superstar has already jumped from Pickett’s 1.5 to 2M and will likely jump further.

So every year we are banking 500k below market rate from him that you can justify as effectively paying off the last 2-3 years.

I see the Pickett deal as similar to Tracc. And a better deal than not putting any protections for concussion in a Brayshaw deal and firing off 18 months early with Clarry

The way I'm seeing it, is that even if circumstances change 3 or 4 years down the track, if the player still has currency, then at least the club has more negotiating power than if they are available for free agency. I.e. we might have got only 1 end of 1st or 2nd round pick for Trac - really highlights the gross inadequacy (and inconsistencies) of FA compensation.

1 hour ago, DeeSpencer said:

It likely will, but that’s the system. Most clubs seemingly only have a choice between overpaying guys with extra years and losing them.

The good side of the deal is the going rate for a superstar has already jumped from Pickett’s 1.5 to 2M and will likely jump further.

So every year we are banking 500k below market rate from him that you can justify as effectively paying off the last 2-3 years.

I see the Pickett deal as similar to Tracc. And a better deal than not putting any protections for concussion in a Brayshaw deal and firing off 18 months early with Clarry

I agree with the rationale behind everything you have said and equate the Kossie contract as being of far more intrinsic value.

3 hours ago, KozzyCan said:

You really would have thought we would have learned our lesson with Brayshaw and Oliver but then we gave Viney a four year extension when he was thirty.

Viney getting four meant his salary dropped from about 800K to 550.

The salary cap is in good shape is my educated opinion. Trac's 1.2M is shifted. McVee was offered as much as 550K to stay. Jiath is earning about what we paid Spargo and in this year we will pay Steele the 600K we don't have to pay Oliver. That increases next year when May comes off the books.

Something to consider with the Pickett deal: he is in year 6. Not signing him big meant he potentially walks and we get a compo pick. On a long term deal, dealing him means we hold the cards and get a more valuable return back. As we did with Petracca. Had Petracca walked after his last contract we would have ended up with pick 10 for him.

I'm fine with the position of our cap.

Fritsch and Salem both come off long-term contracts at the end of this year. Considering their age, if they sign again, it'll be at significantly less money and/or less years relative to their previous deals. One or both might potentially leave to chase another premiership.

We have enough senior players around to develop the current crop of kids until they start hitting their prime years around 2029. We don't need to go heavy on recruiting; it's about drafting and development.

By the end of 2029, Steele, Viney, Lever and Gawn are likely to be done or on their last contract, freeing up cap space. Brayshaw will also be off the books.

We can then go hard on finding trade targets and free agents who want to be part of an up-and-coming squad, much like we did with May, Lever, Hibberd, Melksham and Langdon.

Sounds like we'll have enough space to get Humphrey too.