Universal Love Eddie Betts extends contract until 2020

[jenny61_99]

I don't think it is a silly policy either but neither should we be hard and fast about it either. I do think the idea of managing over 30 contracts will slowly phase out due to FA.

Agreed. Got to be done on a case by case basis.

 

[MRB37]

I don't think it is a silly policy either but neither should we be hard and fast about it either. I do think the idea of managing over 30 contracts will slowly phase out due to FA.

Yep. You'll also probably see more Jenkins like instances where guys who are 26-28 will seek one last long 4-5 year contract rather than taking a 2-3 year one. We probably wouldn't have offered him that deal previously since it takes him past his 30's.

 

[Sanders]

I don't think it's a silly policy. The majority of 30+ players don't fare well, and the detioration is rapid. Just look at Thommo. Eddie and Harvey are the exception rather than the rule.

that doesn't address what I said

 

[Bicks]

 

[Jeffcrowe]

Fair chance that in 2020 Jenkins and Eddie are on the list but struggle to make the side

In eddie's case - who cares , he's worth it

 

[Jeffcrowe]

The thing is we know Eddie is quality, he's the type of player you take a punt on. It also means if youre offering your better players long term deals you also need to take a more conservative approach with average players like Mackay, VB and Reilly which historically hasn't been the case. Otherwise your going to have a lot of your list tied up and every year we know we need to make changes.

Agreed and that's even before factoring in his mentoring , marketing and atmosphere he brings to a game

No brainer even if he struggles in his last year it's worth it

Jenkins length is far more of a concern

 

[The Sloane Ranger]

I don't think it is a silly policy either but neither should we be hard and fast about it either. I do think the idea of managing over 30 contracts will slowly phase out due to FA.

A policy in strict definition is a hard an fast position with little room to move

If you want to have a general rule that is applied on a case by case situation this is more of a guiding principle

Sounds like to me that the AFC have completely dissolved the policy position

 

[WetCrow1991]

I like this contract. Not Jenkins one. Should have traded the big seagull.

 

[diligaf473]

Jenkins doing sideline comments during 36ers again. Who does he do an interview with during a time out? The one and only Eduardo. Betts had a dig at Jenkins saying that he (Jerka) will still be playing after my (Eddie's) three year contract ends.

 

[jenny61_99]

that doesn't address what I said

Well that makes us even, because your response to my post didn't either.

 

[Danger in Texas]

Fair chance that in 2020 Jenkins and Eddie are on the list but struggle to make the side

In eddie's case - who cares , he's worth it

Reckon Eddie will be in the 22 up until he retires.

I doubt JJ will, wouldn't be surprised if Elliott is in his spot

 

[Sanders]

Well that makes us even, because your response to my post didn't either.

hard to be wrong twice in only one sentence but you just managed!

 

[jenny61_99]

hard to be wrong twice in only one sentence but you just managed!

Bully for you. Move along please.

 

[Sanders]

Bully for you. Move along please.

You're very sensitive for a point you made and wanted to argue

My original post was not off topic, it was bang on topic.

A policy of not giving market based contracts to people aged 30 or above is stupid, I mean really, really dumb in the free agency world

If we don't someone else will.

It's an indefensible policy in the modern game, which is in conflict with your twice stated view.

 

[Glenno23]

Agreed and that's even before factoring in his mentoring , marketing and atmosphere he brings to a game

No brainer even if he struggles in his last year it's worth it

Jenkins length is far more of a concern

JJ's body will hardly be banged up by hard contested footy

 

[jenny61_99]

You're very sensitive for a point you made and wanted to argue

My original post was not off topic, it was bang on topic.

A policy of not giving market based contracts to people aged 30 or above is stupid, I mean really, really dumb in the free agency world

If we don't someone else will.

It's an indefensible policy in the modern game, which is in conflict with your twice stated view.

I think for the most part, the policy has served us well. How many 30+ players have we lost to other clubs? If they are good enough to stay, they'll be offered a contract. In this case, a longer than one year contract was a no-brainer, and kudos to the club for recognising that. It remains to be seen if a three year extension on top of this year is too long.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Crows had a firm no multi year contracts for players over 30 policy.

It was good enough for most of the greats that have ever played for our club, why isn't it good enough for Eddie?

We did have that policy during a fruitless period of our existence

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

I like this contract. Not Jenkins one. Should have traded the big seagull.

Was JJ's contract definitely 5 years? I vaguely remember 4 + 1 option mentioned somewhere

 

[WetCrow1991]

Was JJ's contract definitely 5 years? I vaguely remember 4 + 1 option mentioned somewhere

Yeah I think that sounds about right, still I would have rather traded him while his value was high and changed up the forward set up, especially since we seem hell bent on running Jacobs into the ground regardless of whether Jenkins is in the side or not.

 

[Vader]

We did have that policy during a fruitless period of our existence

Are you really suggesting that this policy had anything to do with Adelaide's failure to win a flag during that period? Or just more of your usual anti-AFC insinuations?

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Are you really suggesting that this policy had anything to do with Adelaide's failure to win a flag during that period? Or just more of your usual anti-AFC insinuations?

How is it anti-AFC exactly?

We've jettisoned an old policy that didn't work and in part cost us Ben Hudson.

That's good.

Signing Betts is good. Because he's good at football and will be for a long time.

Read the posts. Not the poster's name

 

[Vader]

How is it anti-AFC exactly?

We've jettisoned an old policy that didn't work and in part cost us Ben Hudson.

That's good.

Signing Betts is good. Because he's good at football and will be for a long time.

Read the posts. Not the poster's name

The usual snide insinuation that this policy had something to do with Adelaide's 20 year drought. Why even mention the drought, other than finding a way of putting the club down... as you do in most of your posts. The sad thing is that you don't even seem to be aware of it much of the time. Putting the club down seems to be something you do without even thinking about it.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

The usual snide insinuation that this policy had something to do with Adelaide's 20 year drought. Why even mention the drought, other than finding a way of putting the club down... as you do in most of your posts. The sad thing is that you don't even seem to be aware of it much of the time. Putting the club down seems to be something you do without even thinking about it.

The anti-AFC brigade in this instance were the ones saying the Betts deal was too long, that he wouldn't be in the team by 2020 etc and pointing out that we used to have this really awesome rule about 30 year olds and it was the bestest thing ever

I pointed out that it actually delivered stuff all in tangible benefits so maybe wasn't the greatest gift to football administration some were proclaiming - and that the current method, judging each player contract on its merits, is the way to go.

Good move, AFC.

 

[beartoo]

The anti-AFC brigade in this instance were the ones saying the Betts deal was too long, that he wouldn't be in the team by 2020 etc and pointing out that we used to have this really awesome rule about 30 year olds and it was the bestest thing ever

I pointed out that it actually delivered stuff all in tangible benefits so maybe wasn't the greatest gift to football administration some were proclaiming - and that the current method, judging each player contract on its merits, is the way to go.

Good move, AFC.

Who are you and what have you done with DABM?

 

[Vader]

The anti-AFC brigade in this instance were the ones saying the Betts deal was too long, that he wouldn't be in the team by 2020 etc and pointing out that we used to have this really awesome rule about 30 year olds and it was the bestest thing ever

I pointed out that it actually delivered stuff all in tangible benefits so maybe wasn't the greatest gift to football administration some were proclaiming - and that the current method, judging each player contract on its merits, is the way to go.

Good move, AFC.

Dear God you write some drivel.

Nobody, but nobody, has said that the former policy was "really awesome", or anything even remotely close to that. Nor has anyone written that it was the "greatest gift to football administration". Indeed nobody has written anything about the pluses or minuses of the old policy, all they have done is observed that Betts' contract is a significant break from the previous policy.

So now you feel the need to make s**t up, in yet another sad and pathetic attempt to discredit the club... The old policy was the "bestest thing ever" you mock, completely ignoring the reasoning behind it and insinuating that the policy had a direct bearing on Adelaide's failure to win a flag. What a croc of shite.