View Full Version : Explanation of Hawks/Dogs/Dons Deal
superstar
17 Oct 2003, 17:59
People have been critical of the hawks and dogs in this deal. Some are saying the dogs could have claimed Rawlings anyway, and needn't have traded pick 6. Others are saying the hawks should have simply kept pick 6. But neither of these were viable options.
1. Rawlings does not want to go to the dogs. If no trade went through, he would rather re-sign with the hawks than enter the draft.
2. The Dogs had to ensure that Rawlings WOULD enter the draft by ensuring the hawks could not possibly afford to keep him.
3. Hawks needed another defender. Enter Essendon, the opportunists. They get pick 6 and Alvey from the Dogs, send Jacobs to Hawthorn. Hawks send a nobody in Veale as a cover-up to make the deal official
RESULT: Rawlings has no choice but to enter the draft, and the hawks cannot short-change the dogs by re-signing him. Both clubs get what they wanted, and Essendon cash in on a masterful opportunity.
Dodgy, but smart.
since rawlings didn't get traded, doesn't that mean that we don't have to pay any of his wages in the salary cap? if you follow what i mean.
The best part about this is there is nothing the AFL can do about it.
This trade will go down in history. Mark my word.
Jacobs for Pick #6 & Alvey...ahhhh how sweet it is.
Ausgard
17 Oct 2003, 18:09
Originally posted by feher
since rawlings didn't get traded, doesn't that mean that we don't have to pay any of his wages in the salary cap? if you follow what i mean.
No - Rawlings nominates his wage as whatever he wants
If you are willing to pay it - you draft him
this is what everyone means when they say that nick stevens should nominate $800,000 so that he can get to collingwood
Basically no one would want to pay that if they thought he would then up and leave next year as well
GhostofJimJess
17 Oct 2003, 18:11
Unless Rawlings decides to sit out of footy for a year ... and just nominate himself for the National Draft in 2004 !!?
He'd be well within his rights ethically, as he seems to be have been the individual whose been shafted here.
windsock
17 Oct 2003, 18:14
Essendon fans seem pretty smug about this one considering they've just given up a bloke who is a certain starter every week. Now I'm not doubting that it's a great deal from the Dons' point of view, but I'd at least be a little attached to the blokes who are certain starters at my club every week*.
*Except Troy Makepeace
Originally posted by Ausgard
No - Rawlings nominates his wage as whatever he wants
If you are willing to pay it - you draft him
this is what everyone means when they say that nick stevens should nominate $800,000 so that he can get to collingwood
Basically no one would want to pay that if they thought he would then up and leave next year as well
i'll try and explain it a bit clearlier.
Since the hawks did not trade rawlings, none of his contract next year will count towards the salary cap? when he gets drafted, follow? that is what i would like to know
rednugget
17 Oct 2003, 18:19
Originally posted by windsock
Essendon fans seem pretty smug about this one considering they've just given up a bloke who is a certain starter every week. Now I'm not doubting that it's a great deal from the Dons' point of view, but I'd at least be a little attached to the blokes who are certain starters at my club every week*.
*Except Troy Makepeace
We also needed to free up cap space so someone had to go. Jacobs is the player but instead of getting nothing like Blumfield & Heffernan last year the Dons have secured a very good deal with some smart trading.
Originally posted by windsock
Essendon fans seem pretty smug about this one considering they've just given up a bloke who is a certain starter every week. Now I'm not doubting that it's a great deal from the Dons' point of view, but I'd at least be a little attached to the blokes who are certain starters at my club every week*.
*Except Troy Makepeace
I rated Jacobs highly, and am disappointed to see him go. But the fact of the matter is, he wanted more money, and was on his way out the door anyway. Players come and go, that is part of footy. All we as supporters can hope for is that the administration get appropriate compensation for them. In this case, we got more than adequate compensation!
IceTemple
17 Oct 2003, 18:23
QUOTE:
this is what everyone means when they say that nick stevens should nominate $800,000 so that he can get to collingwood
I did not think a player could do this? This has happened in the past hasn't it and the AFL fined someone over it?
GhostofJimJess
17 Oct 2003, 18:27
I actually rate Jacobs pretty highly as a player ... certainly made great strides in 03.
But a high pick like No. 6 could be gold. Particularly in exchange for a player most Bomber fans would, I'd expect, not have in their best 10 or 12 players at the club.
I'm still not 100% convinced the Tiges did the right thing by offloading it in the first place.
Vindaloo Mat
17 Oct 2003, 18:29
Originally posted by IceTemple
QUOTE:
this is what everyone means when they say that nick stevens should nominate $800,000 so that he can get to collingwood
I did not think a player could do this? This has happened in the past hasn't it and the AFL fined someone over it?
players can do that. The problem is that if Collingwood then pick him up then they must pay him $800,000. They cannot draft him and then agree $300,000. o if COllingwood want to pay him that amount good luck to them.
He needs to place a p[rice on his head which is affordable to Collingwood....and if it is affordable to Collingwood then it is probably affordable to Carlton or 14 other clubs along the way (including Port)....so.....
BigCat1
17 Oct 2003, 18:45
Originally posted by superstar
People have been critical of the hawks and dogs in this deal. Some are saying the dogs could have claimed Rawlings anyway, and needn't have traded pick 6. Others are saying the hawks should have simply kept pick 6. But neither of these were viable options.
1. Rawlings does not want to go to the dogs. If no trade went through, he would rather re-sign with the hawks than enter the draft.
You are a dead set knob jockey. Rawlings will never, I repeat never play for Hawthorn again. He is livid and the AFL is now investigating whether the Dogs and hawks colluded into sending him into the PSD according to channel 10. The hawks have screwed him over big time.
Manangatang 3rds have more hope of landing Rawlings than the hawks do.
superstar
17 Oct 2003, 19:20
Originally posted by BigCat1
You are a dead set knob jockey. Rawlings will never, I repeat never play for Hawthorn again. He is livid and the AFL is now investigating whether the Dogs and hawks colluded into sending him into the PSD according to channel 10. The hawks have screwed him over big time.
Manangatang 3rds have more hope of landing Rawlings than the hawks do.
Exactly, we couldn't afford him anyway. THe dogs had to make sure of this you tool.
WHo did the cats draw up the hgihway? David Loats. ahhahaa
Crow-mosone
17 Oct 2003, 19:37
Originally posted by superstar
People have been critical of the hawks and dogs in this deal. Some are saying the dogs could have claimed Rawlings anyway, and needn't have traded pick 6. Others are saying the hawks should have simply kept pick 6. But neither of these were viable options.
1. Rawlings does not want to go to the dogs. If no trade went through, he would rather re-sign with the hawks than enter the draft.
2. The Dogs had to ensure that Rawlings WOULD enter the draft by ensuring the hawks could not possibly afford to keep him.
3. Hawks needed another defender. Enter Essendon, the opportunists. They get pick 6 and Alvey from the Dogs, send Jacobs to Hawthorn. Hawks send a nobody in Veale as a cover-up to make the deal official
RESULT: Rawlings has no choice but to enter the draft, and the hawks cannot short-change the dogs by re-signing him. Both clubs get what they wanted, and Essendon cash in on a masterful opportunity.
Dodgy, but smart.
excellent analysis. basically we give you pick 6, to shut the f*ck up, and not sign or trade the guy. very creative thinking on all sides.
Baron Baldrick
17 Oct 2003, 20:21
Must say Superstar - fairly good analysis.
One thing tho - probably unlikely.
What if Rawlings does not nominate for the PSD - ie. opts to sit out a year.
Where does that leave the Dogs ? (spose with Stevens hey)
If there's any sort of agreement with the Hawks over Rawlings - could/would they take any action?
as an aside - I think the Hawks have paid a pretty big price to spite Jade.. Doesn't look like they've positioned themselves too well to improve their side from this year..
Cheers
scooter600x
17 Oct 2003, 20:30
Originally posted by Baron Baldrick
What if Rawlings does not nominate for the PSD - ie. opts to sit out a year.
All players without clubs are automatically entered into the PSD by the AFL.
superstar
17 Oct 2003, 22:07
Originally posted by Baron Baldrick
What if Rawlings does not nominate for the PSD - ie. opts to sit out a year.
Cheers
The man breathes $$$. He's not going to turn his back on $300 000 + a year, to pursue other interests.
GhostofJimJess
17 Oct 2003, 22:08
Originally posted by scooter600x
All players without clubs are automatically entered into the PSD by the AFL.
What if he "retires" ??
Anja_Nees
17 Oct 2003, 22:50
He could take a year out if he wanted to, but he's sure as hell not going to earn $300,000+ for it and when he comes back clubs will be a lot less likely to offer him that money again. Realistically, he may as well play for the dogs for a year and if he doesn't like it then he can ask to be traded. Given what the dogs could get for him if he has a good year, I doubt they'd mind.
Originally posted by scooter600x
All players without clubs are automatically entered into the PSD by the AFL.
No they aren't. There is a deadline for them to nominate.
This was introduced because of scam involving Alex Ishchenko and the Kangaroos. Ishchenko announced his retirement and then the Roos drafted him. From then on all delisted players had to nominate for the relevent drafts.
Originally posted by Baron Baldrick
What if Rawlings does not nominate for the PSD - ie. opts to sit out a year.
Doesn't help him. Then he'd be in the 2004 national draft and still would have no say in who selected him.
essnickess
18 Oct 2003, 00:01
Originally posted by feher
i'll try and explain it a bit clearlier.
Since the hawks did not trade rawlings, none of his contract next year will count towards the salary cap? when he gets drafted, follow? that is what i would like to know
his contract ended, therefore he has no obligation to hawthorn (vice versa), hawthorn owe rawlings nothing. dogs will pay 100% of his wage
nightcrawler
18 Oct 2003, 01:52
Originally posted by Ausgard
No - Rawlings nominates his wage as whatever he wants
If you are willing to pay it - you draft him
this is what everyone means when they say that nick stevens should nominate $800,000 so that he can get to collingwood
Basically no one would want to pay that if they thought he would then up and leave next year as well
Stevens won't get to collingwood this year. Probably not ever. For a start the Blues can afford to pay stevens $800,000 this season. If the can't already, you can bet that McKay will retire within the week now that Stevens is in the PSD.
Secondly, as Blues fans have said all along, Stevens is happy to play for Carlton. He may have preferred Collingwood, but he will play for the Blues. See todays age if you still don't believe us.
http://realfooty.theage.com.au/articles/2003/10/17/1066364489282.html
If I was Rawlings I'd make my price $500,000, and **** the Bulldogs over once I'd got the guaranteed money.
R00StaR
18 Oct 2003, 05:23
I have little doubt the dogs will get a high profile player, but odds are it will be Stevens more so than Rawlings. As people have mentioned the players get to call the $$$$. Stevens cant out price himself and still expect to end up at Collingwood. Where as Rawlings can nominate a 1 year deal worth $1mill. Only 2 clubs can afford to pay that and remain under the cap, (North and the Dogs bcos of their current 92.5% cap). So if the Dogs want him for that 1 year and I would guess that’s all they get from him after they dogged him the way they did then they coff up the mill per year. But North pay the one mill for 1 year and Rawlings agrees to a futher 3 year deal at min pay per year.
Not only could this bite the dogs badly by way of missing their target, they may well have destroyed their ability to negotiate with other clubs. Seriously, who would want to deal with them now knowing they may turn around and back door ya?
Yes im a Roo supporter and sad we missed Jade, but this isn’t sour grapes. Im just pointing out that Jade can also manipulate the draft legally and the Dogs may have caused more harm than good to their reputation.
OldSchool
18 Oct 2003, 08:02
26yo players like Rawlings do not try to get around the system when it comes to signing contracts. I would expect him to sign a lucrative 2 or 3 year deal, most likely 3 year deal, with the Doggies.
At the end of 2004 he may request a trade but the process just starts again. I expect him to enjoy being at the Doggies and I think he will make a solid contribution. The Dogs will be a big improver in 2004 because they have added a player like Rawlings.
It was an aggressive ploy to get the player they wanted all along but you should expect that for any team that finished last
Originally posted by Vindaloo Mat
players can do that. The problem is that if Collingwood then pick him up then they must pay him $800,000. They cannot draft him and then agree $300,000.
Not quite. The two parties can agree to whatever sum they like however the original price is what is counted in the salary cap.
Demonheart
18 Oct 2003, 12:06
Can Rawlings nominate for the November draft? If he does then he may not end up at the doggies.
Originally posted by Demonheart
Can Rawlings nominate for the November draft? If he does then he may not end up at the doggies.
yes, but he won't be able to get as much money ... i think, there maybe a maximum he can ask for in that draft, which is probably going to be a lot less then from the pre-season.
Originally posted by bozza
Jacobs for Pick #6 & Alvey...ahhhh how sweet it is.
Simply brilliant....almost poetic. :)
Yet another masterful stroke of brilliance, by the master...Sheeds!
Westy_Boy
18 Oct 2003, 16:53
Originally posted by R00StaR
Where as Rawlings can nominate a 1 year deal worth $1mill. Only 2 clubs can afford to pay that and remain under the cap, (North and the Dogs bcos of their current 92.5% cap).
Where do you get this shlt from?
$1million spare would have both clubs at 82% of the cap - 10% below the minimum percentage that everyone must spend. Clubs have never, ever fallen through the salary cap floor, and yet you suddenly reckon that there's not one, but two clubs who are bugeting on going in to next season $600,000 odd (or 2 top shelf players) below this set minimum? FMD.
Originally posted by R00StaR
they may well have destroyed their ability to negotiate with other clubs. Seriously, who would want to deal with them now knowing they may turn around and back door ya?
Which club (that we were in direct dealings with) did we backdoor? Hawthorn were after Jacobs or Bolton - the only way that was going to happen was by Sheedy agreeing to release either of them, and the best offer he received was Pick 6 and Alvey. In order to put us in a position to possibly get a good player, we paid a ridiculous price which trumped your offer - simple as that.
Backdooring the Roos would be more along the lines of putting a big juicy contract in front of Motlop (when he was thinking of leaving) and offering you nothing more than Pick 34 in return because of our bargaining position. A similar thing happened to us last year with Penny, but you'd be hard pressed to find our supporters bitching and moaning about St Kilda's involvment - most of us saw it for what it was - a rival club seeing an opportunity to get a quality player onto their list and taking full advantage of it.
R00StaR
18 Oct 2003, 21:00
The 1mill was just an example of asking a large one year contract, hot shot. So what, we call it 600k then, the dogs and roos can pay it I have no doubt. But what happens when he wants 600k the following year from the dogs? Will they be happy to constantly over pay him? Where as North can pay it also, but as mentioned elsewhere he accepts min wages for the following years on his new contract.
The Dogs have been sneaky so Rawlings will be well within his rights to make em pay big time if they really want him. Then there still no guarantee his heart will be in it.
The Dogs did not out bid us for Rawlings at all. Show me the paper work that shows you did a deal for Rawlings! You cant I hear you say? Next clubs will be paying donations to other clubs for Millions so they wont deal with other clubs and get their man via the draft. The Dogs may have started a game that they or any of the poorer clubs can afford to play.
:rolleyes:
OldSchool
19 Oct 2003, 01:04
Originally posted by R00StaR
The Dogs may have started a game that they or any of the poorer clubs can afford to play.
:rolleyes:
Didn't the Roos buy a premiership all those years ago by chasing after a number of senior players from other teams ?
It was considered shocking at the time, a real blight on the game but that seems to be forgotten by the roo faithful.
The point being every team has tried one way or the other to get around the system and the Dogs did just that this year.
The AFL has plenty of options to make sure that it doesn't happen again.
The Dogs went very hard after the one player they really wanted and have found a way to give themselves the best possible chance of getting him.
He will come around as his manager is indicating.
Really the Roos supporters should just walk this one off and ask themselves did the Kangas put the best possible offer that they could on the table ?
The answer is no they didn't.
The offer was good and you might even say fair but the Hawks didn't see it that way
R00StaR
19 Oct 2003, 03:01
Originally posted by OldSchool
Didn't the Roos buy a premiership all those years ago by chasing after a number of senior players from other teams ?
It was considered shocking at the time, a real blight on the game but that seems to be forgotten by the roo faithful.
The point being every team has tried one way or the other to get around the system and the Dogs did just that this year.
The AFL has plenty of options to make sure that it doesn't happen again.
The Dogs went very hard after the one player they really wanted and have found a way to give themselves the best possible chance of getting him.
He will come around as his manager is indicating.
Really the Roos supporters should just walk this one off and ask themselves did the Kangas put the best possible offer that they could on the table ?
The answer is no they didn't.
The offer was good and you might even say fair but the Hawks didn't see it that way
I have no problem with us not getting him. If our first 2 picks weren’t good enuff then its too expensive imo. Im just stating that Rawlings can play 'the game' too. Also when it comes down to it pick 6 was a bribe not to do a deal, whats stopping monetary bribes next year? The AFL cant force clubs to deal, so whos to say what a hefty donation is for?
OldSchool
19 Oct 2003, 08:24
Originally posted by R00StaR
I have no problem with us not getting him. If our first 2 picks weren’t good enuff then its too expensive imo. Im just stating that Rawlings can play 'the game' too. Also when it comes down to it pick 6 was a bribe not to do a deal, whats stopping monetary bribes next year? The AFL cant force clubs to deal, so whos to say what a hefty donation is for?
But he wont play the 'game'. His manager has no intention of playing any 'game' and all these posts about the possible scenarios to get around the reality are coming across as sour grapes. Rawlings was never 'yours' he just expressed his preference to play with the Roos. What the club had to do was to make it happen and they didn't.
As a comparison:
I am going to an auction in a couple of weeks and I'm sure there will be 20+ other people biding against me. I have a price I would like to buy the home for and then I have a limit. I hope to get the home somewhere in between those figures. I may miss out on it if someone wants it more and I may regret it a month or so down they track and say to myself "You know I had the capacity to offer more and I really did want that home but I just plain messed up on the day". The one thing I can tell you is if I do miss out on the day it will be my fault not anyones else's.
North put their starting offer on the table and never went to their limit hoping to grab a bargin, what they failed to understand is that there was another bidder that wanted Rawlings more.
Originally posted by OldSchool
North put their starting offer on the table and never went to their limit hoping to grab a bargin, what they failed to understand is that there was another bidder that wanted Rawlings more.
People forget its called the "trade" period.
Borgsta
19 Oct 2003, 15:31
People also forget Jade doesnt actually CARE about North, just wanted to play with his brother.
R00StaR
19 Oct 2003, 17:15
Originally posted by OldSchool
But he wont play the 'game'. His manager has no intention of playing any 'game' and all these posts about the possible scenarios to get around the reality are coming across as sour grapes. Rawlings was never 'yours' he just expressed his preference to play with the Roos. What the club had to do was to make it happen and they didn't.
As a comparison:
I am going to an auction in a couple of weeks and I'm sure there will be 20+ other people biding against me. I have a price I would like to buy the home for and then I have a limit. I hope to get the home somewhere in between those figures. I may miss out on it if someone wants it more and I may regret it a month or so down they track and say to myself "You know I had the capacity to offer more and I really did want that home but I just plain messed up on the day". The one thing I can tell you is if I do miss out on the day it will be my fault not anyones else's.
North put their starting offer on the table and never went to their limit hoping to grab a bargin, what they failed to understand is that there was another bidder that wanted Rawlings more.
And here I was thinking the Dogs did a deal for some kid named Veal. Its funny how everyone say the deal is above board but everyone also talks about this deal being done for Rawlings. Which one is it? It cant be for Rawlings and legal.
As I said, im glad we haven’t given away too much, you pay too much for a house and you can expect it to impact on other things. No regrets from me, I believe we offered a more than fair deal and missed out. Out bided as you say.
As for people saying we tried to steal him. We traded Pickett to where he wanted to go for pick 15, we offered our first two picks for Rawlings the highest being substantially better than pick 15. No fair minded person could possibly say we tried to steal him or rip the Hawks off. But sadly I know this board all to well and fair mindedness isn’t its strong suit.
Originally posted by R00StaR
And here I was thinking the Dogs did a deal for some kid named Veal. Its funny how everyone say the deal is above board but everyone also talks about this deal being done for Rawlings. Which one is it? It cant be for Rawlings and legal.
As I said, im glad we haven’t given away too much, you pay too much for a house and you can expect it to impact on other things. No regrets from me, I believe we offered a more than fair deal and missed out. Out bided as you say.
As for people saying we tried to steal him. We traded Pickett to where he wanted to go for pick 15, we offered our first two picks for Rawlings the highest being substantially better than pick 15. No fair minded person could possibly say we tried to steal him or rip the Hawks off. But sadly I know this board all to well and fair mindedness isn’t its strong suit.
We got nothing for him, that is the way the history books will show it and that is all that matters, it is legal what we did.
as for the fact you offered two picks, well the fact still is we wanted a player(s) in return, and don't even say u could have gave it to ess for jacobs, because ess wanted more for jacobs then that.
Originally posted by R00StaR
No fair minded person could possibly say we tried to steal him or rip the Hawks off. But sadly I know this board all to well and fair mindedness isn’t its strong suit.
How do you what knows fair in Hawthorn eyes?
Fair to you maybe is the answer!
The_Flying_Egg
19 Oct 2003, 18:12
Originally posted by R00StaR
Which one is it? It cant be for Rawlings and legal.
We've exploited the system the AFL have in place but we haven't broke any rules. And before u start saying what a disgrace it is think about what North or any other club would have done in the same situation
If we have broke any rules, both the Dogs and Hawks will get penalised. But neither team will hear anything from the AFL because no rules have been broken. All 3 teams got something out of the trade. The AFL might change the rules of trading to stop this from happening in the future, but they won't stop us getting Rawlings