View Full Version : Selection 1 PSD Tradable?
Is it?
Sorry if it's been asked and answered allready.
I am relating this heavily to the Judd trade talk.
For example; Judd is very keen to head to his original supporting club and Melbourne were only keen to use their first selection but WCE asked for more...
Could Melbourne trade for the PSD selection one to not only threaten WCE with it, but use it if required?
Remembering we could relate this to any club who Judd committed to......
Could give us something decent in return...
But I'm not sure on whether it is allowed to be traded.
Is it?
Sorry if it's been asked and answered allready.
I am relating this heavily to the Judd trade talk.
For example; Judd is very keen to head to his original supporting club and Melbourne were only keen to use their first selection but WCE asked for more...
Could Melbourne trade for the PSD selection one to not only threaten WCE with it, but use it if required?
Remembering we could relate this to any club who Judd committed to......
Could give us something decent in return...
But I'm not sure on whether it is allowed to be traded.
Nah mate, we're stuck with it.
Which, this year, appears to be a bloody good thing.
Darth_Tiger
22 Sep 2007, 01:29
psd picks are untradeable.
Cheers.
Worth asking about :p
psd picks are untradeable.
I think Clubs can make an agreement to overlook players in exchange for something though. This whole Judd trade looks like getting nasty especially if Collingwood get involved. :)
I think Clubs can make an agreement to overlook players in exchange for something though. This whole Judd trade looks like getting nasty especially if Collingwood get involved. :)
Officially, probably not, but I doubt it could be stopped, but equally, it couldn't be enforced.
I think Clubs can make an agreement to overlook players in exchange for something though. This whole Judd trade looks like getting nasty especially if Collingwood get involved. :)
I read Hutchy's brainstorm this morning and got a chuckle out of it to be honest.
If we're getting a deal to let Judd slip, shouldn't we be demanding the same as West Coast?
A Carlton-Richmond Veale deal would mean we'd have to be equally compensated for Judd's loss, which means a lot more than pick 3 on its own. I know its ambitious to ask as much as West Coast considering Judd's not a Richmond listed player, but we surely couldn't let Judd slip unless we got the same as what West Coast would want.
Did that make sense?
I read Hutchy's brainstorm this morning and got a chuckle out of it to be honest.
If we're getting a deal to let Judd slip, shouldn't we be demanding the same as West Coast?
A Carlton-Richmond Veale deal would mean we'd have to be equally compensated for Judd's loss, which means a lot more than pick 3 on its own. I know its ambitious to ask as much as West Coast considering Judd's not a Richmond listed player, but we surely couldn't let Judd slip unless we got the same as what West Coast would want.
Did that make sense?
It does make sense. Doesn't really make a difference to us, because the pick and player trade cost will be the same for the Blues regardless. I'd be absolutely amazed if the Weagles gave up pick #3, +/- player +/- pick 20 to the Tiges for nothing though. From the reports coming out of Weagleland, it seems that they are slowly coming to terms with the reality of the situation, and the fact that they will lose Judd for under market value. Their focus at the moment is to try to force Judd to nominate all 4 Clubs as a potential destination, so they can increase their bargining power. They have already said they don't want to trade with the Pies, and will be absolutely furious if Judd only nominates them as a possible destination. Going to be an interesting few weeks. :)
It does make sense. Doesn't really make a difference to us, because the pick and player trade cost will be the same for the Blues regardless. I'd be absolutely amazed if the Weagles gave up pick #3, +/- player +/- pick 20 to the Tiges for nothing though. From the reports coming out of Weagleland, it seems that they are slowly coming to terms with the reality of the situation, and the fact that they will lose Judd for under market value. Their focus at the moment is to try to force Judd to nominate all 4 Clubs as a potential destination, so they can increase their bargining power. They have already said they don't want to trade with the Pies, and will be absolutely furious if Judd only nominates them as a possible destination. Going to be an interesting few weeks. :)
Well, yeah, our best shot at him is if he undermines the eagles in only selecting one club, and preferably not Carlton. But really, I'm yet to see a deal that could get done, either side seems outraged every time a hypothetical trade gets tossed up. Granted, most hypotheticals I've seen have been formulated by 13 year old bigfooty users, but I also heard the eagles saying they'd want both Thomas and Pendlebury from the Tarts. Which is great news for us. They're delusional.
I don't like to hear that they're coming around to losing him for under market price. The longer they're delusional, the better for us.
Well, yeah, our best shot at him is if he undermines the eagles in only selecting one club, and preferably not Carlton. But really, I'm yet to see a deal that could get done, either side seems outraged every time a hypothetical trade gets tossed up. Granted, most hypotheticals I've seen have been formulated by 13 year old bigfooty users, but I also heard the eagles saying they'd want both Thomas and Pendlebury from the Tarts. Which is great news for us. They're delusional.
..
The reality is the Weagles will have at most only 4 offers to choose from and likely only 2. So in reality it is a very small "open market". The best on offer is a top-5 pick plus player at this stage. Can't see anyone getting together a 2 top-5 pick offer, and the Weagles want top-3 or better to secure Morton. The Pies will struggle to get a top-10 pick let alone a top-5 pick. :)
I read Hutchy's brainstorm this morning and got a chuckle out of it to be honest.
If we're getting a deal to let Judd slip, shouldn't we be demanding the same as West Coast? ..
Just one more point, it seems the Tiges do in fact have salary cap pressure that prevents then from offering the same as what the Blues and Dees are offering. so if Judd falls into the PSD it looks like he could easily price himself beyond the reach of the Tiges. I guess this completely takes the Tiges out of the trade. Too bad. :)
Just one more point, it seems the Tiges do in fact have salary cap pressure that prevents then from offering the same as what the Blues and Dees are offering. so if Judd falls into the PSD it looks like he could easily price himself beyond the reach of the Tiges. I guess this completely takes the Tiges out of the trade. Too bad. :)
Have you got a reliable source that has told you this?
I've read these forums and got contradictory reports from various posters. Some believe we're in the box seat with our salary cap and some believe we've got pressure.
Just looking at this squad I would be more inclined to believe the former as we don't exactly have too many players that'd demand a whole lot.
If you have a reliable source beyond these forums then I'll be happy to take your point, if not, I'm inclined to believe we're financially capable of drafting Judd.
Have you got a reliable source that has told you this?....
It did surprise me, but apparently there are several current contracts at Tigerland that stuff things up for this year at least. It is a salary cap issue. How much are you paying Brown and Simmonds? That could be the problem. I guess there's always a chance they could re-negotiate them, but it seems pretty unlikely, and will be almost impossible to match what the Blues offer in $ terms. Perhaps that's why Judd didn't consider the Tiges. The Dees have plenty of room. Not so sure about the Dons though. If the Blues get Judd, they'll heavily front-load his contract, to allow room for the growth in salary of our young developing players. :)
It did surprise me, but apparently there are several current contracts at Tigerland that stuff things up for this year at least. I guess there's always a chance they could re-negotiate them, but it seems pretty unlikely, and will be almost impossible to match what the Blues offer in $ terms. Perhaps that's why Judd didn't consider the Tiges. The Dees have plenty of room. Not so sure about the Dons though. If the Blues get Judd, they'll heavily front-load his contract, to allow room for the growth in salary of our young developing players. :)
Apparently, but who told you this? Anyone who'd know? or BigFooty...
If it's reliable, then do you know which players? I'm under the assumption Richo and Brown may be taking up a fair chunck as well as Coughlan and KJ if they signed contracts at the right time. Other than that I can't think of anyone that'd take up room, prompting me to believe that there's space galore.
Apparently, but who told you this? Anyone who'd know? or BigFooty...
If it's reliable, then do you know which players? I'm under the assumption Richo and Brown may be taking up a fair chunck as well as Coughlan and KJ if they signed contracts at the right time. Other than that I can't think of anyone that'd take up room, prompting me to believe that there's space galore.
Rumour from about 3 sources. Who knows how true it is. Would make sense given the fact that Judd hasn't bothered with the Tiges, and the Tiges haven't really gone after Judd that hard. BTW I'd be amazed if the Dons have much room left in their Salary Cap given how many oldies are on their list. :)
Rumour from about 3 sources. Who knows how true it is. Would make sense given the fact that Judd hasn't bothered with the Tiges, and the Tiges haven't really gone after Judd that hard. BTW I'd be amazed if the Dons have much room left in their Salary Cap given how many oldies are on their list. :)
From what I gather, Richmond will have a chat with Judd just to ensure he accepts the idea of going there if it becomes inevitable. Leads me to believe that we will have a nibble. This also may be with his manager, who said on SEN that he is open to the idea and must be open to the idea.
Forgive me for perhaps over-analysing, but if you just realised of our cap pressure at 3:15 when you first posted about it, how can you have the info from 3 different sources by now and still be on BigFooty chatting to me? Again, I might be over-analysing but it's a question worth asking.
From what I gather, Richmond will have a chat with Judd just to ensure he accepts the idea of going there if it becomes inevitable. Leads me to believe that we will have a nibble.
Forgive me for perhaps over-analysing, but if you just realised of our cap pressure at 3:15 when you first posted about it, how can you have the info from 3 different sources by now and still be on BigFooty chatting to me? Again, I might be over-analysing but it's a question worth asking.
Think about that Salary Cap rumour. The Tiges have Richo, Brown, Johnson, Polak, Simmonds, and Coughlan all on big contracts. The Blues have Stevens and Fev on big contracts, and that's it. Do you really think the Tiges could offer the $'s the Blues are offering Judd? :)
Think about that Salary Cap rumour. The Tiges have Richo, Brown, Johnson, Polak, Simmonds, and Coughlan all on big contracts. The Blues have Stevens and Fev on big contracts, and that's it. Do you really think the Tiges could offer the $'s the Blues are offering Judd? :)
Speculative regarding all the Richmond players. We'd need some figures to play with before we get into that debate.
Every one of those players (with the exception of Simmonds) I could make a case that there contract is not as substantial as you believe. And I don't think Simmonds' contract is very substantial, just long.
DeepThroat007
23 Sep 2007, 19:15
Goes to show how much you Know parrot, Richo is on the Verterens list which requires half his salary to be counted, coughlan is out of contract so his salaray wont command as his talent will allow, brown signed a reduced contract to repay the tigers for seeing through his tough time, polak had no cuurency when traded and simmonds signed a $1 million contract for 5 years, which means he earns $200,000 a year (great move by miller) $ 100,000 less then krakour who will be traded or delisted, please salary cap issues for us is a joke, move on.
Goes to show how much you Know parrot, Richo is on the Verterens list which requires half his salary to be counted, coughlan is out of contract so his salaray wont command as his talent will allow, brown signed a reduced contract to repay the tigers for seeing through his tough time, polak had no cuurency when traded and simmonds signed a $1 million contract for 5 years, which means he earns $200,000 a year (great move by miller) $ 100,000 less then krakour who will be traded or delisted, please salary cap issues for us is a joke, move on.
:eek:
Why the flying f*** are we paying him $300,000 a year?
Was that some Frawleyism in 2004?
DeepThroat007
23 Sep 2007, 20:15
I think he was signed in 04 or 05 for $290k(approx) a year for 2 or 3 years. The tigers thought he was going to take off, so they signed him up b4 his contract expired.
Goes to show how much you Know parrot, Richo is on the Verterens list which requires half his salary to be counted, coughlan is out of contract so his salaray wont command as his talent will allow, brown signed a reduced contract to repay the tigers for seeing through his tough time, polak had no cuurency when traded and simmonds signed a $1 million contract for 5 years, which means he earns $200,000 a year (great move by miller) $ 100,000 less then krakour who will be traded or delisted, please salary cap issues for us is a joke, move on.
Richo is on veterens list - I'll take that point. Simmonds is on a large backended contract. Browns contract ain't that small BTW. Polak IS on big money. Unless Coughlan is going to be delisted he'll be on a sizable contract. Johnsons on a big contract etc etc. All I'm saying is the word is the Tiges have much much less room than the Blues in their salary cap. Not suprising since only Fev and Stevens have big contracts at Carlton. :)
marco polo
23 Sep 2007, 20:28
Richo is on veterens list - I'll take that point. Simmonds is on a large backended contract. Browns contract ain't that small BTW. Polak IS on big money. Unless Coughlan is going to be delisted he'll be on a sizable contract. Johnsons on a big contract etc etc. All I'm saying is the word is the Tiges have much much less room than the Blues in their salary cap. Not suprising since only Fev and Stevens have big contracts at Carlton. :)
I've heard Simmonds contract was more front-heavy? Begs the question...which of us has listened to the unreliable bigfooty poster ;)
Richo - Veteran's list, and I believe Joel Bowden can join him this year with the departure of Gasper, which you'd think would free up a fair amount of space.
Coughlan himself will probably realise that he will be signing a reduced contract with the Tiges, considering he has barely played for two years.
Brown, as has been mentioned, took a reduced contract, freeing up more room within the salary cap.
I'd say we have a bit more space within the Salary Cap than you're giving us credit for.
I've heard Simmonds contract was more front-heavy? Begs the question...which of us has listened to the unreliable bigfooty poster ;)
Richo - Veteran's list, and I believe Joel Bowden can join him this year with the departure of Gasper, which you'd think would free up a fair amount of space.
Coughlan himself will probably realise that he will be signing a reduced contract with the Tiges, considering he has barely played for two years.
Brown, as has been mentioned, took a reduced contract, freeing up more room within the salary cap.
I'd say we have a bit more space within the Salary Cap than you're giving us credit for.
Let me ask you this question. Do you actually believe the Tiges have more room than the Blues in their Salary Cap? Next year the oldest player on our list will be 27, and we only have 2 large contracts. :)
marco polo
23 Sep 2007, 20:39
Let me ask you this question. Do you actually believe the Tiges have more room than the Blues in their Salary Cap? Next year the oldest player on our list will be 27, and we only have 2 large contracts. :)
I'm not saying we'll have more room than your mob. I'd expect you'd actually have a fair amount of space left.
I'm simply stating a few reasons why i think we'll be able to accomodate Chris Judd, should the opportunity arise.
After all, that is how we got onto all this talk of contracts isn't it?
Let me ask you this question. Do you actually believe the Tiges have more room than the Blues in their Salary Cap? Next year the oldest player on our list will be 27, and we only have 2 large contracts. :)
I certainly believe it would be difficult for Judd to out-price the Tiges.
We've got too much in the coffers.
You may have more room in the cap, and probably do, but I'm reasonably confident we can afford him.
Unless he puts in like $2m a year - which he won't do.
I'm not saying we'll have more room than your mob. I'd expect you'd actually have a fair amount of space left.
I'm simply stating a few reasons why i think we'll be able to accomodate Chris Judd, should the opportunity arise.
After all, that is how we got onto all this talk of contracts isn't it?
The point is though, if the Blues do have more room under their Salary Cap, and Judd falls into the PSD, he could put a price on his contract that the Tiges couldn't accomadate, and thereby get picked up by the Blues. Nick Stevens did that to the Bulldogs a few years ago. Even if Judd doesn't fall into the PSD, the fact that this could happen, gives the Blues more barginning leverage with the Weagles should Judd choose the Blues as one of his preferred Clubs. :)
The point is though, if the Blues do have more room under their Salary Cap, and Judd falls into the PSD, he could put a price on his contract that the Tiges couldn't accomadate, and thereby get picked up by the Blues. Nick Stevens did that to the Bulldogs a few years ago. Even if Judd doesn't fall into the PSD, the fact that this could happen, gives the Blues more barginning leverage with the Weagles should Judd choose the Blues as one of his preferred Clubs. :)
Read my post, he'd have to put up an absolute shitload to get that done.
And I thought the Doggies wanted Rawlings as he was KPP, so they could've got Stevens but they elected not to.
DeepThroat007
23 Sep 2007, 20:58
front end or back end it doesn't matter his deal was $1m for 5years trust me worst case; $500,000 for his final year would mean next year would be very light and visa vera if his years were reversed, we could easily fix Judd's contract to suit(ie. back end & front end) don't forget he wants a 5 year deal so his contract could be fixed to suit.
As far as Johnson is concerned well his contract wouldn't be as high as Richo's or browns so i couldn't imagine he would hurt us.
Plus Gasper was asked to take a cut then we pushed him out.
Say $300,000 per year
retired
Kingsley $150k
Knoble $150k (approx)
Hall $230k (approx) remember we resigned him when sydney made a play for him.
howat king graham all promoted $70k per year all promoted= $210k
which means we have freed up just over $600k(approx) a year free as of this year.
retired
Kingsley $150k
Knoble $150k (approx)
Hall $230k (approx) remember we resigned him when sydney made a play for him.
Kingsley was on minimum wage - not that it really matters.
Read my post, he'd have to put up an absolute shitload to get that done.
And I thought the Doggies wanted Rawlings as he was KPP, so they could've got Stevens but they elected not to.
The Blues could front-load the contract i.e. 2 mill in the first year and then tapper heavily. :)
The Blues could front-load the contract i.e. 2 mill in the first year and then tapper heavily. :)
If it tapers away then I'm sure Richmond could afford him too.
If it tapers away then I'm sure Richmond could afford him too.
You'll need to beat our first year offer. That's how we could price you out of it because of our extra salary cap room. It has been done before. :)
DeepThroat007
23 Sep 2007, 21:06
add to that we don't pay %100 of the cap any way, which i would say from memory we could bought a high priced player last year we didn't have the funds, not case this year. I think we made a $1m profit this year.:thumbsu::)
DeepThroat007
23 Sep 2007, 21:10
why would he accept a high first year offer if almost half goes in tax, the more its loaded up the less money he will recieved i'm sure he would want it spread evenly over the journey of his contract.
You'll need to beat our first year offer. That's how we could price you out of it because of our extra salary cap room. It has been done before. :)
Alright - basically if the contract is too excessive for us, then it'd be too excessive for Carlton.
If it out-prices us, Judd would take up too much of your salary cap to sustain the rest of your list. So you may have more cap room, but not enough to allow you to sign him without severe impact on list as a whole.
marco polo
23 Sep 2007, 21:16
You'll need to beat our first year offer. That's how we could price you out of it because of our extra salary cap room. It has been done before. :)
Not necessarily...
Whether or not you offer Judd a massive front-heavy contract, or we offer him a consistant well-paid contract shouldn't make too big a difference.
Lets face it, it's not like Judd is desperate for cash right at this moment.
At the end of the day, $5 million is $5 million, regardless of how much you get in the first year of the contract.
From memory, Richo wasn't on the veterans list last year because we needed to have 100% of his pay count in order to get to the 92.5% minimum.
That'd imply we could free up 8-900K, probably more when you factor in retirements, and I seem to recall hearing that Brown resigned on a smaller contract earlier in the year.
Not saying we could match/outbid Carlton, but if they did beat us, they'd probably have to go pretty hard.
The other thing I'd be curious about is how the salary cap rules work with the PSD. I know you have to convince the AFL you have room to make any 'bids' you make before you make them, which means contracts have to be in by then. Does that also mean you need to be at/over 92.5% by then? If so, then I'm thinking no Judd contract will be over 7.5% of the salary cap for the first year...ie, ~600K. Sure, maybe a bit of leeway would be allowed, because you're sure to pickup *someone*, but I have doubts that you could have 1.2M free when you can't be sure you'll spend it ( ie, don't have pick 1 ).
Not necessarily...
Whether or not you offer Judd a massive front-heavy contract, or we offer him a consistant well-paid contract shouldn't make too big a difference...
Yes it will because if his first year demands exceed your salary cap you won't be able to pick him in the PSD. That's the point. :)
marco polo
23 Sep 2007, 22:51
Yes it will because if his first year demands exceed your salary cap you won't be able to pick him in the PSD. That's the point. :)
I'd say if it's going to be THAT excessive for us, it may also be too excessive for you...
Remember, Chris Judd won't be your only player, and putting him on a deal so huge that we cannot afford him may not be very beneficial for future contracts (those of Murphy and Gibbs for example).
I'd say if it's going to be THAT excessive for us, it may also be too excessive for you......
You don't understand. Lets just leave it at that. :)
Would Carlton and Judd know what the exact price that would put Richmond out of the market?
...Even though it would be an incredible incredible price which isn't going to happen, I was probably being conservative with $2m with a frontloaded contract.
marco polo
24 Sep 2007, 00:28
You don't understand. Lets just leave it at that. :)
Good idea, this whole thing was getting a tad confusing.
Lets just say that whoever Chris Judd goes to, will be one lucky club indeed.
tigerdan
24 Sep 2007, 01:54
Now listen right here Parrot!
Here are some 'facts' about Richmond's cap space - in that they were reported in the media over the last year or so. That does not necessarily mean they are true (Greg Miller is the source of some).
Richmond are at 92.5%. The spare 7.5% = ~520k on the current cap.
Richo is eligible for the Veterans list but NOT CURRENTLY ON IT. This is because we needed to gobble up his salary to stay above 92.5%. So when we put him on the vets list we will get half his salary freed up. You'd have to assume this is about 200 k of savings.
Joel Bowden will be eligible for the vets list next year. I will stand corrected but I do not think he was on it this year (either had not been 10 year player or we needed to 'waste' his salary for the 92.5%). So that would be maybe 175 k of savings.
So already that is 895 k invented out of thin air.
Also, we have had retirements - but it's likely that their salaries would have already been budgeted into next years cap for other players (say, some of Gaspars salary this year has already budgeted on Deledio for next year).
Simmonds was on 5x 200k salary if the reports are true. So effectively he gets cheaper for us each year. A bargain if I ever saw one.
All we need is for some guys who would normally have had a contract renewed to get traded or retire and we will free up more cash. For example, Krakoeur on 275k a year, Coughlan on who knows how much. There's a good chance that neither of them will be at Richmond next year. Likewise there will be lesser lights who will be delisted.
In any case, we are 900k ahead of the 8 ball, and that is without trying real hard or having to do a fire sale. See if you can do the same with the blues - unless you want to trade away Fev!
And like I said, I might be wrong, but the facts about 92.5 an Richo/Bowden were reported in the media. They are not made up.
tigerdan
24 Sep 2007, 01:57
Would Carlton and Judd know what the exact price that would put Richmond out of the market?
...Even though it would be an incredible incredible price which isn't going to happen, I was probably being conservative with $2m with a frontloaded contract.
Even if Carlton did try to front load the contract, they still need to clear AT THE VERY LEAST 1.5 million of cap space from this year (and probably more). If Carlton were at 92.5% (and I have never seen it reported) then they still need to get rid of another 1.5 million worth of space from this year's list.
It was a very shrewd move by the Tigers to not use the vets list this year.
You'll need to beat our first year offer. That's how we could price you out of it because of our extra salary cap room. It has been done before. :)
And they changed the rules. But keep spouting ill-informed cr@p.
Here are some 'facts' about Richmond's cap space - in that they were reported in the media over the last year or so. That does not necessarily mean they are true (Greg Miller is the source of some).
Richmond are at 92.5%. The spare 7.5% = ~520k on the current cap.
[/QUOTE]
No club is that low.
Richo is eligible for the Veterans list but NOT CURRENTLY ON IT. This is because we needed to gobble up his salary to stay above 92.5%. So when we put him on the vets list we will get half his salary freed up. You'd have to assume this is about 200 k of savings.
Richo and Gaspar were on the Vets list this year.
Joel Bowden will be eligible for the vets list next year. I will stand corrected but I do not think he was on it this year (either had not been 10 year player or we needed to 'waste' his salary for the 92.5%). So that would be maybe 175 k of savings.
Putting Bowden on in Gaspar's place won't save us much cap space at all. If anything with Gas's backloaded contract we might be slightly worse off.
So already that is 895 k invented out of thin air.
Thin air is right.
And like I said, I might be wrong, but the facts about 92.5 an Richo/Bowden were reported in the media. They are not made up.
Yeah you could be wrong.
...Even though it would be an incredible incredible price which isn't going to happen, I was probably being conservative with $2m with a frontloaded contract.
Frontloaded contract is BF bs.
They changed the rules. A player can nominate his terms but the successfull club is free to negotiate the deal, and the price is averaged.
So If Judd asks for $6m over 4 years we are oblidged to count (minumum) $1.5m to the cap each year and can pay him $1.5m a year. He can't ask for a frontloaded deal.
The 'trick' with the process is not backloading.
It is for lesser players who ask for 4 x $300k. Any club has to count that contract against the CAP. Clubs therefore get spooked away. The club and player can then negotiate a 4 x $200k in REAL money. All dodgy and needs some trust, but it has been done. Can't pull that with a Judd. No one is going to commit a quarter of their cap space to one player.
Frontloaded contract is BF bs.
They changed the rules. A player can nominate his terms but the successfull club is free to negotiate the deal, and the price is averaged.
So If Judd asks for $6m over 4 years we are oblidged to count (minumum) $1.5m to the cap each year and can pay him $1.5m a year. He can't ask for a frontloaded deal.
The 'trick' with the process is not backloading.
It is for lesser players who ask for 4 x $300k. Any club has to count that contract against the CAP. Clubs therefore get spooked away. The club and player can then negotiate a 4 x $200k in REAL money. All dodgy and needs some trust, but it has been done. Can't pull that with a Judd. No one is going to commit a quarter of their cap space to one player.
Out of interest, when did they change the rules?
In sum, difficult if not impossible, for Judd to bypass the Tigers.
Don Logan
24 Sep 2007, 11:58
And they changed the rules. But keep spouting ill-informed cr@p.
Parrot, you've just been 'owned' by the most incisive, sagacious and knowledgeable BF member. :)