Whats stopping Dangerfield going in the draft and nominating a $1.5m deal for 1 year, something that other clubs won't be able to match, then Geelong adjust a few contracts for next year so they can fit him in at that price and then once done extend his contract at a lower amount for x years?
Dutchy wrote:Whats stopping Dangerfield going in the draft and nominating a $1.5m deal for 1 year, something that other clubs won't be able to match, then Geelong adjust a few contracts for next year so they can fit him in at that price and then once done extend his contract at a lower amount for x years?
May be wrong but think its got to be a 2 year deal minimum but yes that can be done. Doubt they woukd head down that path though. Could get ugly now, with the new compo laws Danger is technically a band 2 player due to his low contract price. The AFL are going to let the Crows know what compo pick he would get
HH3 wrote:So would people think of the Crows as badly as they do of Kurt Tippett, for making Danger go somewhere besides where he comes from?
People say they dont like Tippett because he went to Sydney instead of the Gold Coast.
Would they not like the Crows because they make Danger go to a Melbourne club instead of Geelong.
Is this another "if the player does it, he's a dog, but it's ok for the club to do it" thing.
Surely the Crows are well within their rights to trade with whoever does them the best deal
Much like Tippett was well within his rights to go to Sydney
Free Agency is a dog eat dog world
The crows should be able to do that. But unfortunately cannot.
That's the biggest problem I have with afl's bullshit attempt at free agency. Players still have to sign off on trades.
Players hold clubs to ransom with trades, dictating who clubs can talk to. This whole "nominating club of choice" should just be that, instead it's "this is where I'm going, not gonna sign off on anything else, work it out with them and only them"
Dutchy wrote:Whats stopping Dangerfield going in the draft and nominating a $1.5m deal for 1 year, something that other clubs won't be able to match, then Geelong adjust a few contracts for next year so they can fit him in at that price and then once done extend his contract at a lower amount for x years?
May be wrong but think its got to be a 2 year deal minimum but yes that can be done. Doubt they would head down that path though. Could get ugly now, with the new compo laws Danger is technically a band 2 player due to his low contract price. The AFL are going to let the Crows know what compo pick he would get
This could almost force their hand in matching any offer too. If the AFL say based on his lower than expected contract offer they are only going to get a say 2nd round pick now, they wont have much choice but to match the offer. It seems so much simpler if they just said the free agent can go where he likes after 8 years but if that club wants him then they must give something up.
hola acabo de hacer que el yo se resuelve lo que este los medios en español
Booney wrote:I think that's the key, the club getting the player should give something up.
In this case, the AFL could say to Geelong he's worth a first round and second round pick, as such, your first pick is now in round 3.
But who are the AFL to decide what he's worth to a club?
His value should be determined by what a club is willing to give up for him. They should allow every interested club to bid on him (picks and players) and if Geelong really want him, they should have to match the best offer.
Booney wrote:I think that's the key, the club getting the player should give something up.
In this case, the AFL could say to Geelong he's worth a first round and second round pick, as such, your first pick is now in round 3.
But who are the AFL to decide what he's worth to a club?
His value should be determined by what a club is willing to give up for him. They should allow every interested club to bid on him (picks and players) and if Geelong really want him, they should have to match the best offer.
The AFL can't be trusted IMO.
I think the player needs to be able to say his preferred destination but I like your system.
Perhaps Geelong make the first offer, the AFL and Adelaide accept it or reject it then it's open slather for offers with Geelong getting last right of refusal.
MW wrote:If Crows only get 2nd round pick for Danger that would be a joke. How can they just change the rules a week before the free agency period!
the report i read said that the new guidelines mean that if the player is over 25 and in the top 5% of paid players then he would be Band 1. It said Danger would be the only player this year that would meet that criteria
Booney wrote:I think that's the key, the club getting the player should give something up.
In this case, the AFL could say to Geelong he's worth a first round and second round pick, as such, your first pick is now in round 3.
Like all the rest. Wouldn't have minded getting more than what we got for Bundy last year (Not FA of course just an observation). Our supporters get frustrated sometimes when our club does everything they can to get players to their desired locations. Some Cats want us to be a bit more hard ass at the trade table but I'm not sure what that achieves.
You can understand the Crows wanting decent compensation, we had a wail when we lost Ablett and did OK out of that one but what are other clubs who have had free agents 'given up'?
Booney wrote:I think that's the key, the club getting the player should give something up.
In this case, the AFL could say to Geelong he's worth a first round and second round pick, as such, your first pick is now in round 3.
Like all the rest. Wouldn't have minded getting more than what we got for Bundy last year (Not FA of course just an observation). Our supporters get frustrated sometimes when our club does everything they can to get players to their desired locations. Some Cats want us to be a bit more hard ass at the trade table but I'm not sure what that achieves.
You can understand the Crows wanting decent compensation, we had a wail when we lost Ablett and did OK out of that one but what are other clubs who have had free agents 'given up'?
regards,
REB
probably the difference is Danger is the first Restricted free agent that is likely to have a matched offer from their original club. Quite a bit different to Buddy or Frawley for instance who were never going to get similar deals at their current club, or Betts who carlton decided to let walk even though they could have matched if they chose to
