No Oppo Supporters Re-signing Tex, Danger and Sloane *** Crows Only ***

[skoobydoo]

I cant see where anyone has mentioned that Aish has told Brisbane that he is not ready to sign. He has all year to do that. Sounds a lot like Dangerfield's situation.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2014-12-07/aish-in-no-rush

Should we take this as a positive sign? Whilst we wouldn't be happy to lose Danger is Aish a good replacement.

Aish's signing is just 'not news', whereas Danger would be going back to Victoria.

 

[Godallblighty]

You're right, it's not news. Because Aish is nothing more than a promising youngster who is yet to do anything in the game. Dangerfield on the other hand is a star whose leaving to go anywhere would be news, not just Victoria.

 

[rezagun]

I would be very, very surprised if Geelong is the club that offers a "ridiculous" deal, they are already the front runner for Patrick's services if he should opt to leave simply because of LOCATION to his family and friends not to mention it goes against Geelong's long held club culture mantra that has seen a lot of their best players take "unders".

However I'm sure that the same can't be said for some of the "super" inner Melbourne clubs who can offer plenty of off field "sweeteners" that are probably not available in Adelaide, especially in the media where personally I think Patty has shown a hankering to get involved.

Sydney also played this card previously, but have changed their systems to allow for 'special' players to join them. All of the sydney boys knew that in order to keep pushing for premierships these huge deals had to be made. Without tippet and franklin sydney would be a good team but wouldnt be where they are now. Cola plays a big part in this but with geelongs veterans payments and a lack of highly paid good young talent they will throw the book at him. I hope he stays and genuinely believe he is waiting to see what happens with adelaide this season. But if you had say a 8 year deal worth a million and a bit a year compared to a 5 year 800 k deal youd have a pretty tough choice.

 

[Stiffy_18]

The talk of $800k - $900k per year for Dangerfield is seriously wishful thinking by people. That would be a bargain and we are not going to get that. Dangerfield will be the first Adelaide player to be on a cool $1m a season (or more) if he stays. I am confident, but cautious that he will remain a Crow but it will cost at least a million a season. Any other talk is seriously wishful thinking.

While I think Danger would take some discount to stay with Adelaide provided that he thinks he can win the flag with us, he is not going to take a massive cut as the offers he would be getting from other teams are well in excess of $1m per season.

Remember he is a restricted free agent which means that other teams will try and give him a huge deal that to try and scare Adelaide off matching it. $800k - $900k is peanuts. You match that all day every day.

 

[Red mist]

The talk of $800k - $900k per year for Dangerfield is seriously wishful thinking by people. That would be a bargain and we are not going to get that. Dangerfield will be the first Adelaide player to be on a cool $1m a season (or more) if he stays. I am confident, but cautious that he will remain a Crow but it will cost at least a million a season. Any other talk is seriously wishful thinking.

While I think Danger would take some discount to stay with Adelaide provided that he thinks he can win the flag with us, he is not going to take a massive cut as the offers he would be getting from other teams are well in excess of $1m per season.

Remember he is a restricted free agent which means that other teams will try and give him a huge deal that to try and scare Adelaide off matching it. $800k - $900k is peanuts. You match that all day every day.

Not if he accepts it. 900k seems plausible to me for say a five yr term. These so called huge offers can be ignored.

 

[Gets!]

Sloane announcement this week?!

 

[Stiffy_18]

Not if he accepts it. 900k seems plausible to me for say a five yr term. These so called huge offers can be ignored.

Oh please!!!! If Geelong comes along with an offer of $1.5m per season for 5-6 years you think he would turn him back on $600k a season?!

Give me a break! That is not going to happen and neither should it. Career of a footballer is limited to about a decade, and each and every one of them should be looking to earn the most amount for that period as it is a once in a lifetime opportunity. If in the scenario I outlined above Dangerfield takes the $900k from us he would be seriously dumb. It would be like you taking 60% of your market value in your profession. I wouldn't do it and I am sure thatno one else here would either.

I love how fans want loyalty from players expecting it to be a one way thing. It is not! Its business now! People want Danger to sign for well under the market value because of loyalty but are happy to throw a loyal, local lad like Bernie Vince under the bus so that we could get a 2nd round draft pick. Unfortunately, people are selective about it and its wrong.

I want Dangerfield to stay, we cannot afford to lose him, but I am willing to pay him the market value to keep him. Others want him to stay, but at a discounted price.

 

[Niximus]

Walsh has already said 'you don't win premierships paying one player $1.2m', I'm ok with us taking that position.

If someone offers him a massive contract and he leaves, so be it.

We'll offer him a fair contract, he can take it and shoot at a flag with his mates, or not.

 

[Red mist]

Oh please!!!! If Geelong comes along with an offer of $1.5m per season for 5-6 years you think he would turn him back on $600k a season?!

Give me a break! That is not going to happen and neither should it. Career of a footballer is limited to about a decade, and each and every one of them should be looking to earn the most amount for that period as it is a once in a lifetime opportunity. If in the scenario I outlined above Dangerfield takes the $900k from us he would be seriously dumb. It would be like you taking 60% of your market value in your profession. I wouldn't do it and I am sure thatno one else here would either.

I love how fans want loyalty from players expecting it to be a one way thing. It is not! Its business now! People want Danger to sign for well under the market value because of loyalty but are happy to throw a loyal, local lad like Bernie Vince under the bus so that we could get a 2nd round draft pick. Unfortunately, people are selective about it and its wrong.

I want Dangerfield to stay, we cannot afford to lose him, but I am willing to pay him the market value to keep him. Others want him to stay, but at a discounted price.

Sure that's fine, but I don't believe his market value is 1.5mil. He can have that if that's the case. I don't believe Geelong will offer anywhere near that. The pressure from the media regarding his future is out of control stupid. Look at SEN asking what Trigg thinks for example. Just dumb. I also believe Danger will also weigh up the pressure he will encounter if he does take a massive money offer. I'm not sure if I would want to get smashed by media and supporter base every week if you arent producing the goods. The Guy who loves the quiet life of Moggs Creek sure has a lot to consider.

 

[JPetro83]

I cant see where anyone has mentioned that Aish has told Brisbane that he is not ready to sign. He has all year to do that. Sounds a lot like Dangerfield's situation.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2014-12-07/aish-in-no-rush

Should we take this as a positive sign? Whilst we wouldn't be happy to lose Danger is Aish a good replacement.

Yeah but this will be the headline in october 'Aish has selected Port Adelaide as his club of choice he would like to be traded to"

 

[Red mist]

Yeah but this will be the headline in october 'Aish has selected Port Adelaide as his club of choice he would like to be traded to"

Curb your enthusiasm.

 

[Stiffy_18]

Walsh has already said 'you don't win premierships paying one player $1.2m', I'm ok with us taking that position.

If someone offers him a massive contract and he leaves, so be it.

We'll offer him a fair contract, he can take it and shoot at a flag with his mates, or not.

With all due respects to Walsh, it is not up to him to dictate the terms of someone's contract. The days of coach being heavily involved in this are long gone thank god. That's why we have list managers these days.

Sure that's fine, but I don't believe his market value is 1.5mil. He can have that if that's the case. I don't believe Geelong will offer anywhere near that. The pressure from the media regarding his future is out of control stupid. Look at SEN asking what Trigg thinks for example. Just dumb. I also believe Danger will also weigh up the pressure he will encounter if he does take a massive money offer. I'm not sure if I would want to get smashed by media and supporter base every week if you arent producing the goods. The Guy who loves the quiet life of Moggs Creek sure has a lot to consider.

Thats a whole heap of assumptions. I am sure that Dangerfield is very capable of handling it if there is a contract with a few extra zeros at the end of it.

I used Geelong as an example but I am more worried about Hawthorn and Collingwood to be honest.

Question: Did you think that Tippett's market value was $1m per season, or that Buddy's market value was a 10 year deal?

The fact is, what supported perceive to be the market value of the player is very different to that of what clubs are prepared to pay. No one thought Eddie Betts' market value was $500k a season over 4 years after coming off arguably the worst season of his career.

 

[Red mist]

With all due respects to Walsh, it is not up to him to dictate the terms of someone's contract. The days of coach being heavily involved in this are long gone thank god. That's why we have list managers these days.


Thats a whole heap of assumptions. I am sure that Dangerfield is very capable of handling it if there is a contract with a few extra zeros at the end of it.

I used Geelong as an example but I am more worried about Hawthorn and Collingwood to be honest.

Question: Did you think that Tippett's market value was $1m per season, or that Buddy's market value was a 10 year deal?

The fact is, what supported perceive to be the market value of the player is very different to that of what clubs are prepared to pay. No one thought Eddie Betts' market value was $500k a season over 4 years after coming off arguably the worst season of his career.

Fine. I assume the market value is overinflated and I assume we will find overinflated offers difficult to match.
I assume the end result to be more reasonable.
Edit. The 2 player you highlighted are now with Sydney which emphasises their ability to use COLA and overinflate player values.

 

[Allefgib]

With all due respects to Walsh, it is not up to him to dictate the terms of someone's contract. The days of coach being heavily involved in this are long gone thank god. That's why we have list managers these days.


Thats a whole heap of assumptions. I am sure that Dangerfield is very capable of handling it if there is a contract with a few extra zeros at the end of it.

I used Geelong as an example but I am more worried about Hawthorn and Collingwood to be honest.

Question: Did you think that Tippett's market value was $1m per season, or that Buddy's market value was a 10 year deal?

The fact is, what supported perceive to be the market value of the player is very different to that of what clubs are prepared to pay. No one thought Eddie Betts' market value was $500k a season over 4 years after coming off arguably the worst season of his career.

There is no way they bring in Walsh and his team first mentality if it wasn't going to be supported across the full football department.

 

[Stiffy_18]

There is no way they bring in Walsh and his team first mentality if it wasn't going to be supported across the full football department.

That's all well and good but I very much doubt there is 100% agreement across the board on a range of issues and coach most certainly should not have a say in how much a player is earning. That in itself is just fraught with danger.

 

[Niximus]

With all due respects to Walsh, it is not up to him to dictate the terms of someone's contract. The days of coach being heavily involved in this are long gone thank god. That's why we have list managers these days.

He doesn't need to be heavily involved in the contract negotiations himself, but he has flagged a culture change at the AFC to one that emphasises the team over the individual. Everybody needs to be on the same page with this.

 

[Red mist]

That's all well and good but I very much doubt there is 100% agreement across the board on a range of issues and coach most certainly should not have a say in how much a player is earning. That in itself is just fraught with danger.

Fraught with Danger. Good one

 

[Niximus]

That's all well and good but I very much doubt there is 100% agreement across the board on a range of issues and coach most certainly should not have a say in how much a player is earning. That in itself is just fraught with danger.

If we're asking players to sacrifice for the team, and then cough up a big contract for Danger, prepare to have a lot of pissed off players.

The team first mentality loses all impact if we do that. How could Walsh possibly be drilling team before self into the players when we have one exception to that?

If the list manager did as you suggest and operate entirely independently to Walsh's mantra, we would be effectively abandoning it.

It is either the team comes first, or it doesn't.

If we need to be the highest bidder to keep Paddy, we either let him go, or we decide that we're not actually interested in improving the culture.

 

[cmndstab]

The coach won't solely decide what a player is earning, but he obviously has a big influence.

 

[Allefgib]

The coach won't solely decide what a player is earning, but he obviously has a big influence.

Thank you switzerland

Naturally you're right - but I think the key point here is when stiffy says 'heavily involved' what does he mean?

My gut feel is Walsh will have a say in how much is put on the table for Patty, and be someone who will be involved in any decision/consultation process on the final decision. I'd call that 'heavily involved'.

 

[cmndstab]

Thank you switzerland

Naturally you're right - but I think the key point here is when stiffy says 'heavily involved' what does he mean?

My gut feel is Walsh will have a say in how much is put on the table for Patty, and be someone who will be involved in any decision/consultation process on the final decision. I'd call that 'heavily involved'.

Not intended to be a neutral stance I suspect the coach is being asked questions like "is Patty worth keeping at $1m/year? Is he worth being kept at $1.2m/year if it becomes necessary?" Obviously the involvement will be something greater than "is he worth keeping? how good is he?"

I'd say heavily involved - but won't be making the final decision.

 

[Bob Neil]

I believe we should and will start from Walsh's 'team first' mentality and a belief that in the context of the salary cap this means that to build a retain a squad capable of competing for flags that everyone has to accept a discount (say 5-15%) compared to their market value. This is the model that I think Geelong, Hawthorn and Sydney have used in the past decade and 'proved' that it works. However Sydney have now departed from that to make exceptions for 'special cases' and it sounds like Geelong are preparing to.

I think we should be saying to Danger that we recognise your market value is ~$1.0-1.2M per season but we would be doing ourselves (and you) a disservice if we offered you that much as it is inconsistent with the salary cap template we've got for success.

I think Danger himself would intuitively know that the more Geelong offer him the less their ability to create the environment for success that he has said he craves. That's why I've said before that I don't think Geelong can trump our offer in terms of both money and likelihood of success - perhaps one but not both...which makes his decision very hard.

 

[Niximus]

I think Danger himself would intuitively know that the more Geelong offer him the less their ability to create the environment for success that he has said he craves. That's why I've said before that I don't think Geelong can trump our offer in terms of both money and likelihood of success - perhaps one but not both...which makes his decision very hard.

Could they really though?

Geelong have been quite good for a very long time, but at the end of the day the competition will remain cyclical. They will return to the bottom eventually and if they were to win another flag before that happens it would be absolutely remarkable.

IMO the sustained success of the teams that were successful at the end of the 00s is due in part to the two expansion teams. Yes, Geelong and Hawthorn have been very good, but they received a leg-up with the teams outside the 4 moving from a teens pick to the 20s with the top-end talent going to GC and GWS. It was only moving down a few places, but there is a difference between the teens picks and the 20s, and in such a competitive league those differences count.

Even at the top end you have North who finished 13th in 2009, but instead of pick 4-5, they got 17.

 

[little graham]

We will be a basket case club if he leaves. This is the defining moment in our club. We will forever be raided if he goes. If we're having a good year by the half way mark and he doesn't sign, he should not play. No distractions on the club that way.

 

[Niximus]

We will be a basket case club if he leaves. This is the defining moment in our club. We will forever be raided if he goes. If we're having a good year by the half way mark and he doesn't sign, he should not play. No distractions on the club that way.

The sky will not fall if he does leave.

There are two scenarios where he goes.
1) Walsh doesn't appear to be taking the club towards success.
If it looks like Walsh is a rubbish coach and we're staying down the bottom then Paddy going is the least of our problems. If this squad is to be successful, it will be under Walsh, if that is not to be, we are better off setting up for a full rebuild.

Personally I don't think this is likely. I think Walsh/Fagan/Roo have been doing all the right things to bring success to the AFC. If Danger truly wants success he has a good chance of getting it with the Crows.

2) We are massively outbid and he's given a offer too good to refuse.
If #1 doesn't apply and we are looking like we're heading toward success, the only way he'd be going is if some club throws a huge amount of cash at him. If he leaves while we're looking good, then he hasn't bought into Walsh's vision of a team first culture and frankly, we can't have that at the club.



At the end of the day, either he will want to build the team culture at the AFC and push for a premiership, or he'll be about Patrick.