List Mgmt. OFFICIAL: Dangerfield + Pick 50 for Picks 9, 28 and Dean Gore

[Seeds]

Question: if Dangerfield goes into the ND can he say I only want a one year contract for 2million a year? Geelong could get this done if they renegotiate contracts with Selwood and Hawkins so they still get paid the same amount over the life of their contracts but get paid very little next year and a lot the year after (danger gets 2 million next year and close to minimum wage the year after) Other clubs couldn't do this as they know Danger won't bethere beyond the first year. Surely this takes all the risk out of the ND option.

 

[catempire]

Question: if Dangerfield goes into the ND can he say I only want a one year contract for 2million a year? Geelong could get this done if they renegotiate contracts with Selwood and Hawkins so they still get paid the same amount over the life of their contracts but get paid very little next year and a lot the year after (danger gets 2 million next year and close to minimum wage the year after) Other clubs couldn't do this as they know Danger won't bethere beyond the first year. Surely this takes all the risk out of the ND option.

No he can't. He either:

1. Nominates a price for a minimum of two years
2. Doesn't nominate a price and can enter into a contract for one year. He can negotiate the terms after being drafted and arbitration is available if no agreement can be reached. Or he can accept the minimum terms under the CBA.

 

[Burro]

Question: if Dangerfield goes into the ND can he say I only want a one year contract for 2million a year? Geelong could get this done if they renegotiate contracts with Selwood and Hawkins so they still get paid the same amount over the life of their contracts but get paid very little next year and a lot the year after (danger gets 2 million next year and close to minimum wage the year after) Other clubs couldn't do this as they know Danger won't bethere beyond the first year. Surely this takes all the risk out of the ND option.

There has been a lot of discussion about the term of a contract in the ND and PSD 1 or 2 years minimum. Also the terms regarding payments. I am still not clear on it so we might need the AFL to be clear on that. I don't think that the front loaded or high first year amount will be tactic that Danger or Geelong use. It is more about if a club will burn a high draft pick for a player that will never commit and does not want to be there.

 

[Bobby_]

Adelaide would be loving this.
They know our recruiters are complete soft **** of the highest order. Playing hard ball despite the fact they could lose out big time, it would have Wells and co in a complete panic. We only expected to get bent over again but it appears Adelaide want more than that.

Why can't Adelaide look to the Bundy situation and always place the players welfare ahead of everything else?
It's not about the club and it's fans.

 

[Burro]

No he can't. He either:

1. Nominates a price for a minimum of two years
2. Doesn't nominate a price and can enter into a contract for one year. He can negotiate the terms after being drafted and arbitration is available if no agreement can be reached. Or he can accept the minimum terms under the CBA.

I will accept this a being correct because I think catempire has done all the due diligence.

 

[Burro]

Adelaide would be loving this.
They know our recruiters are complete soft **** of the highest order. Playing hard ball despite the fact they could lose out big time, it would have Wells and co in a complete panic. We only expected to get bent over again but it appears Adelaide want more than that.

Why can't Adelaide look to the Bundy situation and always place the players welfare ahead of everything else?
It's not about the club and it's fans.

I don't think Steve Hocking will be soft.

 

[ChappyUK]

Adelaide would be loving this.
They know our recruiters are complete soft **** of the highest order. Playing hard ball despite the fact they could lose out big time, it would have Wells and co in a complete panic. We only expected to get bent over again but it appears Adelaide want more than that.

Why can't Adelaide look to the Bundy situation and always place the players welfare ahead of everything else?
It's not about the club and it's fans.

They are losing Dangerfield. I'm certain Adelaide aren't loving this at all.

 

[Burro]

There is no way Adelaide will be happy with this. No outcome will satisfy them. I think we can understand their pain in this and they are not alone....the AFL need to fix things.

 

[catempire]

I will accept this a being correct because I think catempire has done all the due diligence.

Why thank you. I accept your acceptance!

 

[jim boy]

Question: if Dangerfield goes into the ND can he say I only want a one year contract for 2million a year? Geelong could get this done if they renegotiate contracts with Selwood and Hawkins so they still get paid the same amount over the life of their contracts but get paid very little next year and a lot the year after (danger gets 2 million next year and close to minimum wage the year after) Other clubs couldn't do this as they know Danger won't bethere beyond the first year. Surely this takes all the risk out of the ND option.

Two years as has been pointed out, but yeah otherwise can be done - see Luke Ball's drafting to the pies for an example. Very high contract for two years then went on minimum wage for a year (out of gratitude to collingwood of course)

 

[year of the cat]

Adelaide would be loving this.
They know our recruiters are complete soft **** of the highest order. Playing hard ball despite the fact they could lose out big time, it would have Wells and co in a complete panic. We only expected to get bent over again but it appears Adelaide want more than that.

Why can't Adelaide look to the Bundy situation and always place the players welfare ahead of everything else?
It's not about the club and it's fans.

This will be an interesting test of our resolve. In the past we haven't had the upper hand in the negotiations of Christensen etc so now that we are in the reverse position the club needs to demonstrate that it is no pushover. I'm pretty confident we will be satisfied with the end result.

 

[Burro]

No he can't. He either:

1. Nominates a price for a minimum of two years
2. Doesn't nominate a price and can enter into a contract for one year. He can negotiate the terms after being drafted and arbitration is available if no agreement can be reached. Or he can accept the minimum terms under the CBA.

Just curios, what happens if a contract can not be agreed even with arbitration?

 

[Burro]

This will be an interesting test of our resolve. In the past we haven't had the upper hand in the negotiations of Christensen etc so now that we are in the reverse position the club needs to demonstrate that it is no pushover. I'm pretty confident we will be satisfied with the end result.

I don't understand why we would have the upper hand in the Christensen trade, he wanted to go, there is no point in keeping a player that does not want to stay. Same applies to Danger, that is why you could say we are in the better position.

 

[catempire]

Just curios, what happens if a contract can not be agreed even with arbitration?

Basically, the arbitrator has determine whether the club has made a "reasonable offer" to the player. If yes, the player is bound to the club on those terms (subject to the ability to appeal). If no, then the player can nominate terms for the PSD and if a club selects him there he is bound by those terms.

 

[Art Vandelay_]

I don't think Steve Hocking will be soft.

Of course not. Absolute furphy that we're a soft touch. Our trading history over the last 7-8 years shows that. For the most part a fair trading club.

 

[year of the cat]

I don't understand why we would have the upper hand in the Christensen trade, he wanted to go, there is no point in keeping a player that does not want to stay. Same applies to Danger, that is why you could say we are in the better position.

We didn't have the upper hand in the Christensen trade as he was out of contract and demanding to move to one club. We were in no position to leverage a decent deal. The opposite applies with Dangerfield - an out of contract player, FA, demanding to go to Geelong and Geelong only. We have the whip hand.

 

[LongBomb]

Of course not. Absolute furphy that we're a soft touch. Our trading history over the last 7-8 years shows that. For the most part a fair trading club.

It's just standard Bobby nonsense. Biggest misery guts around

 

[Art Vandelay_]

It's just standard Bobby nonsense. Biggest misery guts around

Not always that way though

In any case I posted our trading history and a couple of unders but for the most part quite fair.

 

[FredLeDeux]

Two years as has been pointed out, but yeah otherwise can be done - see Luke Ball's drafting to the pies for an example. Very high contract for two years then went on minimum wage for a year (out of gratitude to collingwood of course)

A Luke Ball Scheme is now against the Rules, either through the Draft/s or via an RFA Offer.
Which is why all the suggestions of a massive 2-year RFA Offer (followed by a lower-priced contract "extension") by us are misconceived.

 

[vinum coupe]

IF Adelaide can match our offer, it will end up being a trade that both set of supporters aren't happy with.

I can't see any other logical option.
Adelaide would be mad to let us use pick 9 in the draft.

 

[jim boy]

A Luke Ball Scheme is now against the Rules, either through the Draft/s or via an RFA Offer.

I'm pretty sure it was then as well. - But I agree that it is highly unlikely we would pursue that route.

 

[zb14]

Far be it for me to defend Mahlepi, he/she is more than capable of that themselves. I post this as someone interested in the value of our board. What surprises me is to see some of our OWN posters seemingly targeting Mahlepi. People obviously have short memories, as this poster was targeted very aggressively by numerous opposition posters. Sure, he has returned fire, but I doubt he'd ever be able to make up the deficit.

Anyways, the point I really want to make is that Mahlepi is a VERY big ASSETT to this board. He had mail very early in the piece that seemed ridiculously unlikely at the time. Well it is obvious now that if his mail doesn't prove 100% accurate it's gonna get mighty close. It is VERY RARE to have a poster with a quality line of info from the club. We have very few posters like this, and without them, this board is a much poorer place. Whatever you think about his delivery occasionally, what is beyond dispute is that he's stimulated plenty of activity here and that is always a good thing.

 

[catempire]

I'm pretty sure it was then as well. - But I agree that it is highly unlikely we would pursue that route.

There were changes made to the rules post-Ball which make it more clearly illegal to agree to anything (e.g. A future contract extension) and not disclose it to the AFL. However even now the rule would be difficult to enforce if all parties denied there was prior agreement/understanding of the future extension.

 

[FredLeDeux]

I'm pretty sure it was then as well. - But I agree that it is highly unlikely we would pursue that route.

The current Rules are much more extensive in describing "conduct prejudicial", and actually have a clause directed straight at the Ball Schemes, which was not expressly contained in the then-current Rules.
However, I agree, none of the Club, Player or Agent can or will take the risk of the possible draconian penalties for participating in a scheme which is now expressly against the Rules.

 

[Biscut]

Far be it for me to defend Mahlepi, he/she is more than capable of that themselves. I post this as someone interested in the value of our board. What surprises me is to see some of our OWN posters seemingly targeting Mahlepi. People obviously have short memories, as this poster was targeted very aggressively by numerous opposition posters. Sure, he has returned fire, but I doubt he'd ever be able to make up the deficit.

Anyways, the point I really want to make is that Mahlepi is a VERY big ASSETT to this board. He had mail very early in the piece that seemed ridiculously unlikely at the time. Well it is obvious now that if his mail doesn't prove 100% accurate it's gonna get mighty close. It is VERY RARE to have a poster with a quality line of info from the club. We have very few posters like this, and without them, this board is a much poorer place. Whatever you think about his delivery occasionally, what is beyond dispute is that he's stimulated plenty of activity here and that is always a good thing.

I too think Mahlepi is a huge asset to this board. His information seems to have been spot on. I might suggest some posters who take shots at him for whatever reason should rethink it.

If he decided to not share his info with us, what is the point of it all. He is gold to us and should be respected for that.

I could not give a rats tosspot if he goes on the attack to other clubs supporters that want to try and discredit him. He's got the good oil and likes to rub some of that oil on himself occasionally.

Could I hand you the oil bottle Mahlepi!