SA Footy

MW wrote:Everyone knows no club will take a player that will not play for them. Pure and simple. They can beat their chest all they want. Unless Geelong want to be generous in all this and offer a trade rather than getting him for nothing, he walks.

MW wrote:Unlike the AFL to make an example of the Crows

MW wrote:You reckon Daniel pinned his brother down and demanded information?
Western Bulldogs are sore losers mate pure and simple. Luke Beveridge has proven through the year he makes excuses for losses.

Booney wrote:
Campo, under the circumstances of his appointment, was never going to be able to be a hard task master. There was no way he could come down on this group like a tonne of bricks, regardless of their form this year. As such he's been a soft touch, hardly invokes fear as a bloke who could deliver the old school spray. Mind you, I think that is few and far between in the modern game, analysis and training is the way to get players to lift not so much yelling and swearing, but I think a coach still needs to look like he has the ability to go tropo at any moment. Campo hardly puts the wind up anyone.

MW wrote:Everyone knows no club will take a player that will not play for them. Pure and simple. They can beat their chest all they want. Unless Geelong want to be generous in all this and offer a trade rather than getting him for nothing, he walks.

whufc wrote:

MW wrote:You reckon Daniel pinned his brother down and demanded information?
Western Bulldogs are sore losers mate pure and simple. Luke Beveridge has proven through the year he makes excuses for losses.

No I'm saying Michael may have happily given information because of his situation at the Dogs

jakovasaurus wrote:Players who are under contract or restricted free really shouldn't have any final say in where they end up via a trade. (If RFAs have offer sheets matched)


Only unrestricted free agents should have that right to pick their employer.

This current system of players being able to tell clubs who they must deal with is an absolute joke.

MW wrote:CEY wants to get to Gold Coast. Apparently some family are there. Good luck cracking that midfield when they are healthy!

HH3 wrote:

jakovasaurus wrote:Players who are under contract or restricted free really shouldn't have any final say in where they end up via a trade. (If RFAs have offer sheets matched)


Only unrestricted free agents should have that right to pick their employer.

This current system of players being able to tell clubs who they must deal with is an absolute joke.

They should just adopt the NFL contract system, where if he's out of contract at the end of the season, he negotiates with clubs as a FA and his former club gets nothing.

Maybe adopt a "franchise tag" system too, which is where the club pays him the same as the top paid player at his position to keep him another year. Then he can go anywhere.

Compensation picks not only are advantageous to a club that can't keep a player, but disadvantages every other club after them in the draft.

bennymacca wrote:

whufc wrote:

MW wrote:You reckon Daniel pinned his brother down and demanded information?
Western Bulldogs are sore losers mate pure and simple. Luke Beveridge has proven through the year he makes excuses for losses.

No I'm saying Michael may have happily given information because of his situation at the Dogs

so tell me again how this is the crows' fault? Or you just trolling again?

MW wrote:

HH3 wrote:

jakovasaurus wrote:Players who are under contract or restricted free really shouldn't have any final say in where they end up via a trade. (If RFAs have offer sheets matched)


Only unrestricted free agents should have that right to pick their employer.

This current system of players being able to tell clubs who they must deal with is an absolute joke.

They should just adopt the NFL contract system, where if he's out of contract at the end of the season, he negotiates with clubs as a FA and his former club gets nothing.

Maybe adopt a "franchise tag" system too, which is where the club pays him the same as the top paid player at his position to keep him another year. Then he can go anywhere.

Compensation picks not only are advantageous to a club that can't keep a player, but disadvantages every other club after them in the draft.

By your model, the big clubs will just get stronger and the weak clubs weaker.

HH3 wrote:
No they won't.

The salary cap would negate the top teams stockpiling players. The only way that could happen is if they all agree to take pay cuts to all play in one team.
What is seen in the NFL, is players chase the money. So teams that may not have a good roster, hence have room under the salary cap, can offer the big bucks.
You would see Melbourne chasing players, without the burden of having to trade picks with a team that the player isnt even contracted to.

Booney wrote:

HH3 wrote:
No they won't.

The salary cap would negate the top teams stockpiling players. The only way that could happen is if they all agree to take pay cuts to all play in one team.
What is seen in the NFL, is players chase the money. So teams that may not have a good roster, hence have room under the salary cap, can offer the big bucks.
You would see Melbourne chasing players, without the burden of having to trade picks with a team that the player isnt even contracted to.

Which is exactly how Hawthorn have got Lake, Frawley etc to come into already successful teams.

Sydney with Franklin and Tippett, they've still signed Hannebery to a long term deal, why? Happy to take a pay cut to play in a strong team.

**** the NFL and it's systems. Completely different market, completely different sportsmen, **** me, the ego on some of those wankers over there.

Booney wrote:

HH3 wrote:
No they won't.

The salary cap would negate the top teams stockpiling players. The only way that could happen is if they all agree to take pay cuts to all play in one team.
What is seen in the NFL, is players chase the money. So teams that may not have a good roster, hence have room under the salary cap, can offer the big bucks.
You would see Melbourne chasing players, without the burden of having to trade picks with a team that the player isnt even contracted to.

Which is exactly how Hawthorn have got Lake, Frawley etc to come into already successful teams.

Sydney with Franklin and Tippett, they've still signed Hannebery to a long term deal, why? Happy to take a pay cut to play in a strong team.

**** the NFL and it's systems. Completely different market, completely different sportsmen, **** me, the ego on some of those wankers over there.

Booney wrote:

HH3 wrote:
No they won't.

The salary cap would negate the top teams stockpiling players. The only way that could happen is if they all agree to take pay cuts to all play in one team.
What is seen in the NFL, is players chase the money. So teams that may not have a good roster, hence have room under the salary cap, can offer the big bucks.
You would see Melbourne chasing players, without the burden of having to trade picks with a team that the player isnt even contracted to.

Which is exactly how Hawthorn have got Lake, Frawley etc to come into already successful teams.

Sydney with Franklin and Tippett, they've still signed Hannebery to a long term deal, why? Happy to take a pay cut to play in a strong team.

**** the NFL and it's systems. Completely different market, completely different sportsmen, **** me, the ego on some of those wankers over there.

whufc wrote:

Booney wrote:

HH3 wrote:
No they won't.

The salary cap would negate the top teams stockpiling players. The only way that could happen is if they all agree to take pay cuts to all play in one team.
What is seen in the NFL, is players chase the money. So teams that may not have a good roster, hence have room under the salary cap, can offer the big bucks.
You would see Melbourne chasing players, without the burden of having to trade picks with a team that the player isnt even contracted to.

Which is exactly how Hawthorn have got Lake, Frawley etc to come into already successful teams.

Sydney with Franklin and Tippett, they've still signed Hannebery to a long term deal, why? Happy to take a pay cut to play in a strong team.

**** the NFL and it's systems. Completely different market, completely different sportsmen, **** me, the ego on some of those wankers over there.

Unfortunatly one of Andy D's legacies is that most things he did was copied straight from the NFL

That looks as if it still continuing

If it happened in the NFL 5 years ago it's no far from coming into the AFL soon