Lucifers Hero

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.

That is exactly what I thought! He is their most likely target of the FA's coming up in the next few years.

In the past I've been critical because he doesn't impact the scoreboard enough. So I had a look at some of his 'heat maps' and he spends nearly all his his time in the middle or d50. It made me wonder whether he does not have licence to go inside our fwd50 too often. So the answer to my criticism of lack of score board impact could be the role he is asked to play. Will keep a closer eye on this next year. Given the rumours around him at EOS he and his role will be interesting to watch next year.

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.

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.

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.

I think there is some chance of prising #12 from Freo if they think their preferred player will slide but again we are competing with Coll and GWS who hold superior trading hands. We might have to throw in 18, 19 and 28 to get a mid 1st round pick. But if we are planning to take only one player and we can get him then why not. Another option is to sit on 18 and 19 and if our preferred play slides take him with 18 then be prepared, on draft night, to trade immediately trade out 19 to a club whose preferred player is ready to be taken off the board. At that point it will attract a premium. Sooo many options... I'm thinking a lot of 1st round pick swaps might happen on draft night depending on who slides down the order.

fwiw I read on another website that Brisbane offered picks 18 and 19 to Ess for pick 8 and they turned it down. So I don't like our chances of getting any of their picks. Especially (as noted earlier) GWS and Collingwood hold a better hand. I note from the Phantom Draft threads that there is a wide variation of players in the top 20ish range so I'm ok if we have to go to the draft with 18 and 19 as some good players will slide.

Not if they can get 14 and 16 (2,228 pts) from Collingwood or 13 and 15 (2,324 pts) from GWS. Not so much for the points value being better but they are much higher picks than ours. And Ess hold an abundance of late picks: 6, 7, 8, 44, 77, 85, 87. Because clubs only need to take 1 (or 2) draftees picks like #50 and higher will only really be of value to clubs wanting points for FS/NGA/Acad players.

Because the marketing department don't talk to the football department. We solved a similar calendar problem by eliminating them altogether.

He has 5 years remaining on his Collingwood contract.

Apparently we only need to take one draftee and Mahoney has said we might keep a list spot vacant for future drafting (eg PSSP and mid season). So its hard to guess how many picks we will take. I would think one or two and upgrade Lockhart with pick 89. But it depends on whether we can trade up 18 and 19. Or trade up 28 and 50. Or some combo. I really doubt we will take 4 draftees (plus maybe Lockhart) so we will need to consolidate the picks we have somehow. If we can't I can see us converting 2 of our picks to a future pick. The picture will be a bit clearer once list and draft numbers are finalised and if we have some delistings in the coming weeks.

Thanks for those. He looks like he is practicing forward leading patterns, particularly in the first video.