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

[Bacon8]

I agree. And I think it is strange that there seems to be zero hurry to get any of these contracts done. Dougies should be the simplest and yet even that isn't getting done. Does it all hinge on Dangers? If so, what if he is leaving? Suddenly we're going to have three guys who aren't signed and Danger suddenly says hey guess what I'm gone.

We will still have heaps of salary cap space, with less than 50% of our players contracted for 2016.

I don't think it's "zero hurry", I think it's working out the right balance.

 

[rezagun]

We will still have heaps of salary cap space, with less than 50% of our players contracted for 2016.

I don't think it's "zero hurry", I think it's working out the right balance.

View attachment 124590

The one that sticks out like a sore thumb there is mckay.

 

[feenix67]

Hypothetical:

Danger's management has spoken with the Cats who have tabled a five year, $5 million deal.

The offer on the table from the Crows is five years, $4 million

Danger has informed the Cats that he will accept their offer, and plays 2015 knowing it will be his last for the Crows.

In round 6, he does a knee* and will be out of the game for 12 months. As a result, the Cats withdraw the deal, instead offering him a 3 year, $2.4 million deal. They cite his ACL as bringing uncertainty to his long term future or effectiveness.

Questions:

1. If Danger has "agreed" to the Cats initial offer, is it binding?
2. If it's not, and the second offer is valid, is the player at a disadvantage in not being able to agree to terms and sign a contract (with another club) prior to the expiry of his existing contract.
4. Are the players allowed to sign a "Heads of Agreement" type document that states the players commitment to sign with another club at the end of their contract, the terms and conditions of the new contract they will be signing, and any circumstances in which either party may withdraw (eg injury).
5. Assuming (in the above scenario) the Cats are within their rights to adjust their offer following Danger's injury, is the inherent risk associated with not signing an extension with the Crows worth the chance to move back to Geelong?

My point:

If the players arent allowed to sign a heads of agreement (or if said heads of agreement isnt binding), then why would a player risk his long term security by playing out till the end of a contract? All players want to sign extensions to sure up their future. If a player is not doing so, then he's risking that injury or loss of form will effect his future value. Moreso as he gets older. A bird in the hand, and all that.

So Im thinking that there's more to this Free Agency mechanism than meets the eye. Demetriou was the king of rubbery rules to make something work. Are players secretly being allowed to sign Heads of Agreement? Does the AFLPA really believe so much in Free Agency that they would allow their players to be exposed to such risk? Are clubs really that invested in securing Free Agents that they would sign documents that would bind them to a contract 12 months out? If a club knows their player is going to be leaving at the end of their contract, shouldn't they be entitled to renegotiate the value of that contract (given that within that contract is an implied burden of cost of any injury sustained)?

The more I think about it, the less sense it makes.

*I do not wish any injury on Danger.

 

[dylan123]

Haven't checked this thread for a month and I'm 100 pages behind.... Yeah nah.

 

[Danoz]

Haven't checked this thread for a month and I'm 100 pages behind.... Yeah nah.

tl:dr version; wank, spit, cry, rant, discuss. Nothing has actually happened.

 

[Tex Support]

I think he's already going to get as good as adelaide can pay regardless of how good this year is. Hasnt roo said he'll be adelaides first million dollar a year player? How much more could we afford to give?

On a very basic level, I would've thought we'd bring (and Team Danger would expect) a 7 figure average to the table.

That's from a position of having absolutely no idea, and then finding myself in a weird hypothetical where I was asked to take over the negotiations.

All the other factors in the equation give me a headache just thinking about it haha...

 

[Niximus]

Hypothetical:

They can't have anything binding yet, as passage to a particular team can't be guaranteed.

Hypothetically if Danger had reached agreement with Geelong on a contract, that contract still needs to be submitted to the AFL during the free agency window. If we choose to match it, then passage to Geelong relies on a suitable trade being negotiated. If that doesn't happen, it relies on other teams not selecting him in the draft.

Port had agreed to terms with Daniel Gorringe, but then pulled out of the trade.

 

[Danoz]

They can't have anything binding yet, as passage to a particular team can't be guaranteed.

Hypothetically if Danger had reached agreement with Geelong on a contract, that contract still needs to be submitted to the AFL during the free agency window. If we choose to match it, then passage to Geelong relies on a suitable trade being negotiated. If that doesn't happen, it relies on other teams not selecting him in the draft.

Port had agreed to terms with Daniel Gorringe, but then pulled out of the trade.

And it was rumoured Gibbs had agreed to terms with us, but pulled out.

 

[Bonkers000]

If danger was to try to leave via fa, does anyone actually think we will match the offer?

 

[NikkiNoo]

If danger was to try to leave via fa, does anyone actually think we will match the offer?

Rumours from sources with good prior form have suggested that this is the clubs intention.

 

[Heafy83]

The one that sticks out like a sore thumb there is mckay.

I don't get all this anguish around McKay

Yes he's not our best player and sits on the fringe of our best 22 but he is in his prime and at worst is a very good depth player.

Whos to say he didn't approach the club and offer them a great, low cost, deal to secure his long term future?

It seems to me his deal came out of the blue and was an easy one to put together due to how quickly it was done.

Secondly McKay must be doing something right. He has had THREE, yes THREE, different coaches with different game styles imply he is in our best 22. I would suggest that 3 AFL coaches would have a little more of an idea about him than anyone individually or as a collective group on this board.

You win premierships with your best 28-30 players not your best 22. Do you think Spangher is in the Hawks best 22? No but he sure as was a great stop gap when players were injured.

This board needs to get over it, otherwise its going to be a long 4 years. BTW rezagun this is not aimed at you. You were just the last unlucky one to mention the player.

 

[Danoz]

Rumours from sources with good prior form have suggested that this is the clubs intention.

If Danger/his manager/club he's allegedly going to know this, why would they even bother trying to go through FA? It would just be a waste of time, and would be easier just to try to trade straight off the bat?

 

[alex_is_on_fire]

Heafy83 - if its not him, it will be someone else. This board would find a way of whinge about a player after we won the GF by 119 points.

Plenty of whipping boys before Dmack and plenty will come after him.

Symes
Knights
DMack
Rutten (by a select few)

just to name a few players

 

[Wood_Duck]

Rumours from sources with good prior form have suggested that this is the clubs intention.

Yes, I have the same information from very good sources.
......................hence my belief that the club expect him to be leaving.

 

[Danoz]

Yes, I have the same information from very good sources.
......................hence my belief that the club expect him to be leaving.

Club expecting him to leave, but don't know for sure, surely. I'd think it's just a hedge position. "Danger, we don't know your intentions, but if you choose to go via FA, we're going to match whatever is offered to you"

 

[Wood_Duck]

Club expecting him to leave, but don't know for sure, surely. I'd think it's just a hedge position. "Danger, we don't know your intentions, but if you choose to go via FA, we're going to match whatever is offered to you"

No doubt its their fall back position.

 

[Allefgib]

And it was rumoured Gibbs had agreed to terms with us, but pulled out.

In both those cases though - if the trades had gone through - would the original offer tended by the club in question be 'binding'?
Surely clubs agree to terms with a player before a trade is made - or they won't understand the potential impact to their salary cap!

So at what point to such offers become 'binding' given, I assume (please correct me if you guys know more!), they can't submit a contract to be ratified until the actual trade has occurred? Or does it all get submitted at once, trade paperwork and player contracts?

 

[rezagun]

I agree. And I think it is strange that there seems to be zero hurry to get any of these contracts done. Dougies should be the simplest and yet even that isn't getting done. Does it all hinge on Dangers? If so, what if he is leaving? Suddenly we're going to have three guys who aren't signed and Danger suddenly says hey guess what I'm gone.

Wouldnt be surprised if its hinging on an incoming player from another club who is still undecided.

I don't get all this anguish around McKay

Yes he's not our best player and sits on the fringe of our best 22 but he is in his prime and at worst is a very good depth player.

Whos to say he didn't approach the club and offer them a great, low cost, deal to secure his long term future?

It seems to me his deal came out of the blue and was an easy one to put together due to how quickly it was done.

Secondly McKay must be doing something right. He has had THREE, yes THREE, different coaches with different game styles imply he is in our best 22. I would suggest that 3 AFL coaches would have a little more of an idea about him than anyone individually or as a collective group on this board.

You win premierships with your best 28-30 players not your best 22. Do you think Spangher is in the Hawks best 22? No but he sure as was a great stop gap when players were injured.

This board needs to get over it, otherwise its going to be a long 4 years. BTW rezagun this is not aimed at you. You were just the last unlucky one to mention the player.

I just dont rate him and wouldve traded him a couple of years ago when he had some real value. He has been in a downward form spiral since then and while it is important to have depth and good players on the fringe you look at other teams runners in his position and think yeh we made an error there. Example ; brad hill hawthorn, motlop geelong, jetta sydney, stephen hill freo, gaff west coast, polec port, varcoe pies, ellis tigers. All these players kick goals that is the difference. Smith has superseeded many peoples expectations as a dashing defender wingman but wouldnt it be great if we had another in the ilk of one of the above instead of mckay. No offence taken everybody has an opinion. Mine differs to yours.

 

[Allefgib]

Hypothetical:

Danger's management has spoken with the Cats who have tabled a five year, $5 million deal.

The offer on the table from the Crows is five years, $4 million

Danger has informed the Cats that he will accept their offer, and plays 2015 knowing it will be his last for the Crows.

In round 6, he does a knee* and will be out of the game for 12 months. As a result, the Cats withdraw the deal, instead offering him a 3 year, $2.4 million deal. They cite his ACL as bringing uncertainty to his long term future or effectiveness.

Questions:

1. If Danger has "agreed" to the Cats initial offer, is it binding?
2. If it's not, and the second offer is valid, is the player at a disadvantage in not being able to agree to terms and sign a contract (with another club) prior to the expiry of his existing contract.
4. Are the players allowed to sign a "Heads of Agreement" type document that states the players commitment to sign with another club at the end of their contract, the terms and conditions of the new contract they will be signing, and any circumstances in which either party may withdraw (eg injury).
5. Assuming (in the above scenario) the Cats are within their rights to adjust their offer following Danger's injury, is the inherent risk associated with not signing an extension with the Crows worth the chance to move back to Geelong?

My point:

If the players arent allowed to sign a heads of agreement (or if said heads of agreement isnt binding), then why would a player risk his long term security by playing out till the end of a contract? All players want to sign extensions to sure up their future. If a player is not doing so, then he's risking that injury or loss of form will effect his future value. Moreso as he gets older. A bird in the hand, and all that.

So Im thinking that there's more to this Free Agency mechanism than meets the eye. Demetriou was the king of rubbery rules to make something work. Are players secretly being allowed to sign Heads of Agreement? Does the AFLPA really believe so much in Free Agency that they would allow their players to be exposed to such risk? Are clubs really that invested in securing Free Agents that they would sign documents that would bind them to a contract 12 months out? If a club knows their player is going to be leaving at the end of their contract, shouldn't they be entitled to renegotiate the value of that contract (given that within that contract is an implied burden of cost of any injury sustained)?

The more I think about it, the less sense it makes.

*I do not wish any injury on Danger.

Love these sort of hypotheticals.

I reckon most young players feel fairly bullet proof. I'm come around to the opinion in the last week or two that he might leave if we win a flag (mostly for family reasons if I had to take a guess), and if we don't he'll then make the hard decision, so the line about not deciding til later sounds reasonable to me when viewed from that angle. As to the risk... I think it's one alot of young players will accept. Risk/reward trade off. Let's say he does a knee -> even then clubs will throw money at him. Once he's recovered he would still give multiple years of top quality service.

 

[Bacon8]

Wouldnt be surprised if its hinging on an incoming player from another club who is still undecided.

I just dont rate him and wouldve traded him a couple of years ago when he had some real value. He has been in a downward form spiral since then and while it is important to have depth and good players on the fringe you look at other teams runners in his position and think yeh we made an error there. Example ; brad hill hawthorn, motlop geelong, jetta sydney, stephen hill freo, gaff west coast, polec port, varcoe pies, ellis tigers. All these players kick goals that is the difference. Smith has superseeded many peoples expectations as a dashing defender wingman but wouldnt it be great if we had another in the ilk of one of the above instead of mckay. No offence taken everybody has an opinion. Mine differs to yours.

Shame none of those listed play in his position this year. Mackay (note the 2nd A in his name) is playing a defensive role this year.

 

[Danoz]

Love these sort of hypotheticals.

I reckon most young players feel fairly bullet proof. I'm come around to the opinion in the last week or two that he might leave if we win a flag (mostly for family reasons if I had to take a guess), and if we don't he'll then make the hard decision, so the line about not deciding til later sounds reasonable to me when viewed from that angle. As to the risk... I think it's one alot of young players will accept. Risk/reward trade off. Let's say he does a knee -> even then clubs will throw money at him. Once he's recovered he would still give multiple years of top quality service.

If we made a PF or GF and lost, I'd be leaning towards him staying. Agree with him leaving if we win one though, ties up loose ends nicely.

 

[feenix67]

They can't have anything binding yet, as passage to a particular team can't be guaranteed.

Hypothetically if Danger had reached agreement with Geelong on a contract, that contract still needs to be submitted to the AFL during the free agency window. If we choose to match it, then passage to Geelong relies on a suitable trade being negotiated. If that doesn't happen, it relies on other teams not selecting him in the draft.

Port had agreed to terms with Daniel Gorringe, but then pulled out of the trade.

That being the case, it's a hell of a risk for, say, a 28 year old, who is the player (age wise) for whom free agency was supposedly designed.

You'd want to reallly dislike the club you're at/really want to go back home/really be sick of not playing finals. I wonder how long before this hypothetical becomes a reality. IMO the AFLPA have really put their members at risk for the ideal of free agency. Of course, player agents must love the concept

 

[feenix67]

Let's say he does a knee -> even then clubs will throw money at him. Once he's recovered he would still give multiple years of top quality service.

Big risk still, given salary cap constraints. Just feel like the whole mechanism needs to be tightened and more transparent. Seems to me the only party not bearing any real risk is the player agent. Makes me wonder how much lobbying occurred from that group to get FA up.

 

[Elite Crow]

Heafy83 - if its not him, it will be someone else. This board would find a way of whinge about a player after we won the GF by 119 points.

Plenty of whipping boys before Dmack and plenty will come after him.

Symes
Knights
DMack
Rutten (by a select few)

just to name a few players

Nothing like talking shit to back up your point.

 

[dylan123]

Secondly McKay must be doing something right. He has had THREE, yes THREE, different coaches with different game styles imply he is in our best 22. I would suggest that 3 AFL coaches would have a little more of an idea about him than anyone individually or as a collective group on this board.

You win premierships with your best 28-30 players not your best 22. Do you think Spangher is in the Hawks best 22? No but he sure as was a great stop gap when players were injured.

This board needs to get over it, otherwise its going to be a long 4 years. BTW rezagun this is not aimed at you. You were just the last unlucky one to mention the player.

None of those coaches have brought us to a grand final or even had us looking like being serious contenders outside of the one outlier year in 2012 under Sando. The issue many have is this team has never been good enough and part of that extends to guys like Mackay who have been inside the best 22 during that period yet have never really taken his position by the balls. So again, the issue is, if he's best 22 (on current/previous career form) then we won't ever be a real contender and if he isn't viewed as best 22, then why has he been signed to a 4 year deal? You don't see the like of Hawthorn signing guys like Spangher to 4 year deals.

Role players/depth is important to any side that wishes to be a contender, but they're not the position you should be looking to fill first.