Lucifers Hero

A concern of the 'Frenzy footy' over two weeks is if a club is scheduled to play 2-3 of the top teams on 4 or 5 day breaks. At least if the AFL announce the full round by round fixture (without dates and times) it is less open to AFL manipulation. I have the same concern if a club is unduly disadvantaged by a heavy travel schedule during the frenzy time. The AFL showed this year that it was completely unfair in its rostering of travel/breaks. Publish the whole thing (without dates and times) up front is the fairest way to go.

i understand that. But what is the advantage of not disclosing the broad schedule of who plays who round by round. What matters to ch7 is the time slot. It doesn't matter to them who the Home team is or the venue.

They could release the full fixture for each round showing: who players who, the Home team and the venue and leave dates and times open. They can still control the specific time slots of each round's dates and times, to keep sponsors happy. A week or two of 'Frenzy footy' can also be scheduled in to the overall fixture. At least fans will have some chance of scheduling interstate travel or other special events. I don't see the point of leaving the whole thing open ended.

Just as well the AFL turned down the request to pay Beam's early retirement from the AFL's Medical Fund (or whatever they call it) thus protecting Coll TPP. Near certainty Geelong would have made the same request for Steven's early retirement.

I'm well aware of why he went to Brisbane. It is his leaving Brisbane that I was referring to.

That was my point.

From the article: "Players contracted beyond 2021 will have the opportunity to push up to five per cent of their salary into 2022 and 2023". The AFL is actively promoting back-ending contracts and for clubs to do what has brought Coll undone - pushing money out to future years. I wonder how many Coll players will take that option: back ending already back ended contracts...

Sure Pies knew he had mental health (and other) issues but they didn't expect him to play only 9 games in 4 years and collect a cool $2.0. My comment was about Beam's character - took Brisbane for a ride and now the Pies. I'm very happy to see them wallow in their self made mess, daisy. May it long continue.

A bit short but the signing we have been waiting for. Well done all.

That is a DL myth.

Another late change to some drafting rules! Until now clubs with Academy/FS/NGA players could only have the same number of draft picks as list spots. "This has been to stop clubs from stockpiling late draft picks with the intention of only using them to pay for highly rated draftee...which was an early loophole of the live bidding system". late-draft-rule-tweak Now, "...the League gave clearance for clubs to use points from draft picks even if they are not going to use the selections to draft players". ie they can have more draft picks than list spots. Clubs that will benefit with players in the top 25 of the draft: Hawks, Bulldogs, Pies, Freo, Swans, Ess, Richmond, Port, Suns. Drafting of these players has become a farce. Clubs can draft elite players for a stack of otherwise useless high picks. One would think the AFL would remove the 20% points discount to offset the advantage this rule change creates. I'm not a fan of rules that advantage only some clubs. Thankfully from next year NGA clubs will lose much of their priority access to these players.

essendon-s-review This part is very similar to what Pert said about us: "Just understanding exactly what it is - you know, we're not Richmond, we're not some other team. We need to understand the game style that's going to work for us and be able to communicate that to our players, but also to our members and our fans..."They (players) want more probably consistency in game style and, you know, better able to recognise it rather than having it just play out on the field, you're not quite sure how to define it.'' I think they are further behind finals success than us.

That is excellent news. It would have set a terrible precedent and unfair to those clubs that have carried medical terminations in their sal cap. If Beams wanted to help the club he would sacrifice some or all of the next two years leftin his contract. Tom Boyd (who also retired for mental health reasons) had the good grace to forfeit all monies owing. Instead, Beams has been paid about a $1m over the last two years for playing just 9 games. After front ending his contract at Brisbane, when it dropped back he went to the Pies to top up again. I would imagine his Coll team mates wouldn't be too happy about back ending their own contracts to accommodate his just to watch him not turn up.

@DeeZone LOL, I assume the tears are because I'm not updating the chart. Just for you, here it its: Updated for Oscar's delisting. Nietschke is shown as a 2021 Rookie, even tho it won't be official until draft night. We now have 39 on the list. With 4 senior list spots, and 1 Rookie spot to total the allowed 44. As mentioned in another thread I expect Brown and Chandler to be delisted and Lockhart ? to be promoted.

I can never take any joy when anyone who has worn the red and blue is delisted. I will post a new chart in a few days to allow for any further changes. Edit: I have posted the update charted below.

Thanks for wearing the red and blue with pride, Oscar. Really hope someone takes him as a DFA.

"Under the little-known AFL rule, if a player is offered a third year on the rookie list he can reject it and automatically become a free agent and move to his club of choice". roos-to-use-little-known-rule-to-poach-bulldogs-defender

With trades done and dusted and the first Club lists due on Friday (and another the following Friday) I'd expect some announcements for our OOC players this week. State of the Nation, mfc view: Current List is 40. (36 Senior players, 3 'A' Rookies and 1 'B' Rookie) Our OOC players: 3 Seniors: Bedford, Jordon, OMc. 4 Rookies: M. Brown 'A', Lockhart 'A', Chandler 'A' and Bradtke 'B' Allowed List in 2021 is 44: (Max of 38 Senior players, and up to 6 rookies (total of A+B). Spots available is 4: 2 Senior spots and 2 rookie spot Potentially 5 draft picks (18, 19, 28, 50, 89). Clubs need to take only one player at this years draft. The advantage of rookies is the first $80K of their sal is not included in the sal cap. so up to a $480k sal cap buffer. afaik if we want to keep Lockhart we need to promote him to the seniors as rules don't allow 3 years as a rookie. We can use pick 89 for this. Mahoney said we would keep a list spot open eg DFA, PSSP, mid season drafts. This would probably be a rookie spot. If I had to guess on our OOC players: Bedford and maybe OMac rookied. Lockhart promoted using pick 89. M Brown and Chandler delisted. Bradtke retained. This would give us an additional 1 senior spot (total of 3) and 1 additional rookie spot (total of 3). That should cover our draftees, DFA's and a spare list spot. And, draft picks 18, 19, 28 and 50 swapped in some way to give us 3 picks for draftees, taking 3 senior spots available. Footnote: Hope my logic and arithmetic is right

A good article on how FA and trade negotiations are changing. trade-lessons-not-at-any-price "We have entered the era of the conditional commitment, the era of clubs saying to players we want you but not at any price". " Essendon were forced to adopt the new mantra...when they were told what it would take to get Josh Dunkley in the door...There is a legitimate criticism that once the Bombers made promises to Dunkley, they needed to go harder in trading for him" Key FA Lessons: "...unrestricted free agents are more valuable than ever now that clubs are more pragmatic and open to matching...". "...to secure a first-round draft pick as compensation, clubs need to offer at least $800,000 a year on a contract". "More clubs after the Cameron trade will approach free agency differently. The conversation with prospective free agents will now begin “we want you but not at any price". Or put differently, they'll say we want you but we are not trading for you, we will have you if we get you for nothing". Lets hope the AFL doesn't upset this by changing the FA matching rules. The AFLPA will be pushing for anything that enables players to get where they want as easily as possible. I like that that player's existing clubs are taking tough stands. For too long it has been been players calling the shots and holding all the cards.

This trade period has been a wake up call for him and he wisely, isn't just preparing for a spot in mfc team next year, he is preparing for his footy career post 2021. With a decent season (VFL or AFL) and barring injury he will attract trade interest next year. One year of his salary will be a lot more palatable to another club than two this year. Moreso with a sal sweetner from us. Hope he can prove the naysayers wrong.

Its about time someone in the industry calls out Essendon's tactics. They tried the same with Dunkley but it didn't work. I really hope the AFL doesn't have a mini trade day this year to help Dunkley get to Ess. It just plays into their hands and encourages their tactics. Good to see GWS stand their ground on clubs trying to poach talent for petty cash. It might mean Hatley walks into the pre-season draft (ala GCS with Martinr) but at least they are drawing a line in the sand. Short term pain, long term gain.

Look on the bright side - if we win the premiership pick 18 will become 20-23 after F/S and FA comp picks. So we (roughly) get 2 for the price of 1!! And we get the two players a year earlier.

The rule for early termination/retirement of an acquired FA was brought in after the Buddy contract. My point is if the Beams payout is covered by the AFL medical allowance why couldn't Sydney (or Freo with Jesse, if both willing) do the same. Similar situations: mental health issues, on-going injuries, extended absence from training or games due to those issues.

GWS have set the precedent with the strategy to match and force a trade. Ess definitely will and I would hope we would as well. However, because GWS matched there are moves afoot to make changes to the FA rules so the Cameron 'problem' doesn't happen again. No idea what that means clubs for matching rules. It would be our luck that as our players become FA's, if they go we get a mid or late 1st round comp pick for them. We had better win a flag soon...

Collingwood-and-afl-closing-in-on-medical-payout-for-Beams "A settlement could fall under the league’s medical payout allowance rather than the Magpies’ salary, with the club finding themselves “in no man’s land” and forced to move on four players in the trade period". @La Dee-vina ComediaIts looking like that 'secret herbs and spices' situation you alluded to. They have just had several million sal cap relief over the next few years by trading players. If Beams payout is outside the sal cap that is another $1.0 m sal cap relief over the next two years. They will have their 'fighting fund' to achieve their stated goal to aggressively target FA's and OOC players to stay in premiership contention. Just like the clubs that have incompetently managed finance, recruiting or list management have to take their medicine so should Coll for incompetent sal cap management. I wonder if Freo and Jesse might have considered a medical payout from the AFL. It would be about 2-3 times financially better for Jesse than the one year contract he has at GWS. I wonder if Sydney will consider retiring Buddy who like Beams has had mental health and injury issues and barely played for several years. Tricky precedent for the AFL to allow termination payments outside the sal cap. Hope other clubs are quietly lobbying the AFL to ensure Coll carry the Beams cost in their sal cap.