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

[alex_is_on_fire]

Interesting tweets

 

[Scorpus]

Interesting tweets

That last one is a load of shit. If restricted free agency was never meant to exist, and it would be abolished when used, why even bother making it in the first place?

 

[daniel_4tw]

WTF.

It's not like the matching the contract is a loophole or a mistake. It's the rules that the AFL rolled out, and this is the exact situation they expected teams to use it for.

Vic outrage is laughable.

I hope we do match and force a trade. Even if it's to show other clubs that they can't just waltz in and steal our players for free.

 

[alex_is_on_fire]

That last one is a load of shit. If restricted free agency was never meant to exist, and it would be abolished when used, why even bother making it in the first place?

I think the club needs to persevere with the "we will match the Geelong offer" but behind close doors talk to the AFL about changing (improving) the compensation clubs receive.

 

[Rory Walkerfield]

That last one is a load of shit. If restricted free agency was never meant to exist, and it would be abolished when used, why even bother making it in the first place?

I love the argument. RFA was never meant to be used. Classic logic Jay you ****ing muppet.

 

[Scorpus]

I think the club needs to persevere with the "we will match the Geelong offer" but behind close doors talk to the AFL about changing (improving) the compensation clubs receive.

I agree. Though in some ways I would prefer:

• Clubs being allowed to trade players wherever, without their consent
• Free agency as it currently is, with restricted and unrestricted categories
• No compensation for losing a free agent

Free trade would make up for no compensation as a club could trade a restricted free agent to wherever they want

 

[pjcrows]

Wouldn't surprise me if Reid has directly leaked that we are going to match whatever is offered.

 

[alex_is_on_fire]

I agree. Though in some ways I would prefer:

• Clubs being allowed to trade players wherever, without their consent
• Free agency as it currently is, with restricted and unrestricted categories
• No compensation for losing a free agent

Free trade would make up for no compensation as a club could trade a restricted free agent to wherever they want

I think these changes will occour when the new CBA is signed.

 

[Allefgib]

Hahaha.... is he trying to say restricted fa was not meant to exist?

If you cant match how else is it restricted?

If ppl dont want it to exist they should thank us for having the courage to get it abolished...

 

[Scorpus]

The main problem with the current trading/free agency system is that there is a chance a club can lose a player and not be able to replace them with someone of similar quality.

The system needs to be modified so that clubs can actively and fairly replace players

 

[Cole Dammett]

'However, Dangerfield’s welfare would be a concern as it would leave the line breaking ball-carrier at risk of landing at an unwanted club, adding to the pressure and anxiety of his contract situation.'

Had to laugh at poor Dangerfield's welfare! Have some perspective, goddammit.

 

[Pdub]

Hathorne could have matched; if they wanted to. No One stopped them. They chose not to and the godfather deal toward not matching was just an easy excuse.

As soon as the AFL remove comprensation, watch teams match every RFA deal or trade flight risk players a year before their deal expires.

I think we will see some massive changed to the trading system with the new AFL CBA

Hawthorn didn't match because they were worried Buddy would stay if they did and they couldn't afford to have him on a 10 year contract, because that is ridiculous. Hawthorn won't get rescued by the AFL like Sydney will be when it goes pear shaped.
We only match if would be happy for him to stay and play for the offer we use to match.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

Don't see how Geelong could go round stating that without it warranting some level of investigation from the AFL. Are they saying they've already got an agreement with Dangerfield, despite him being a contracted player? They wouldn't be that stupid.

What I can imagine actually happened is that Geelong was telling recruits that they've got no intention of bottoming out. They're targeting players like Dangerfield, Henderson, and Selwood and intend to continue to push for premierships.

Crows were investigated for Betts after Mick's throwaway lines, cats should now be investigated of the Afl are consistent...

 

[alex_is_on_fire]

Hawthorn didn't match because they were worried Buddy would stay if they did and they couldn't afford to have him on a 10 year contract, because that is ridiculous. Hawthorn won't get rescued by the AFL like Sydney will be when it goes pear shaped.
We only match if would be happy for him to stay and play for the offer we use to match.

That's not the point but. If they wanted to, they could match. They made the choice not to.

 

[Scorpus]

'However, Dangerfield’s welfare would be a concern as it would leave the line breaking ball-carrier at risk of landing at an unwanted club, adding to the pressure and anxiety of his contract situation.'

Had to laugh at poor Dangerfield's welfare! Have some perspective, goddammit.

Poor Dangerfield, having to play at an AFL club he didn't choose for nearly a million dollars a year. Really feel for the bloke.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

Interesting tweets

Why is the word "restricted" used on restricted free agent to distinguish from those which are not restricted...

Jay should have basic English skills of he is claiming to be a journalist!

 

[SmegHead]

'However, Dangerfield’s welfare would be a concern as it would leave the line breaking ball-carrier at risk of landing at an unwanted club, adding to the pressure and anxiety of his contract situation.'

Had to laugh at poor Dangerfield's welfare! Have some perspective, goddammit.

Yet all that pressure and anxiety could go away tomorrow if he just stayed...

 

[Pdub]

I think Jay Clark is arguing that it will be unfair to Geelong if we match. What a Tosser.

 

[alex_is_on_fire]

Why is the word "restricted" used on restricted free agent to distinguish from those which are not restricted...

Jay should have basic English skills of he is claiming to be a journalist!

I don't think it's Jay Clake who has got it wrong; I think it's the AFL who are trying to have ot both ways and are praying to god thst no club will match any offer and make them look silly.

I feel the AFL have an issue and they will have to find a way to deal with it.

 

[SmegHead]

If Geelong want Danger so badly and are the only team that have his best interests at heart, then they should have ****ing drafted him in 1997!

 

[SmegHead]

I don't think it's Jay Clake who has got it wrong; I think it's the AFL who are trying to have ot both ways and are praying to god thst no club will match any offer and make them look silly.

I feel the AFL have an issue and they will have to find a way to deal with it.

It will no doubt be changed. The AFL have probably already drafted the change to the FA agreement and are waiting for a team to match RFA before they introduce it.

 

[cmndstab]

I don't think it's Jay Clake who has got it wrong; I think it's the AFL who are trying to have ot both ways and are praying to god thst no club will match any offer and make them look silly.

I feel the AFL have an issue and they will have to find a way to deal with it.

Exactly right. Again, the AFL has come up with a system where they've tried to not just say "okay players can move wherever they like" but have set it up so that, really, that's what can happen.

If clubs start using the system in a way that players can't just move wherever they like, then the AFLPA will put pressure on to change the system so they can. And as always, the AFLPA will get their way.

That being said, I have absolutely no problem being the one club to benefit from the AFL's pissweak efforts to sit on the fence before it gets changed.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

I don't think it's Jay Clake who has got it wrong; I think it's the AFL who are trying to have ot both ways and are praying to god thst no club will match any offer and make them look silly.

I feel the AFL have an issue and they will have to find a way to deal with it.

Jay has got it wrong as we just intend to follow the free agency rules which the Afl agreed to. He is suggesting we ignore the rules which would be incompetent as we would be worse off.

Why distinguish between restricted & unrestricted free agency players of you really want them all to be unrestricted?

The rules are the rules, so the Afl, cats & anyone else can't whinge when we choose to follow them.

 

[alex_is_on_fire]

Jay haw got it wrong as we just intend to follow the free agency rules which the Afl agreed to.

Why distinguish between restricted & unrestricted free agency players of you really want them all to be unrestricted?

The rules are the rules, so the Afl, cats & anyone else can't whinge when we choose to follow them.

because he is just delivering a message.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

because he is just delivering a message.

Which is to not match even though we are fully entitled to & in Afc's best interests to.

Afc have also sent a message that we intend to match within the rules.

No media campaign will change their mind...