No Oppo Supporters 2019 General AFL Discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.
So Boyd retired and His 2019 payments will be reduced and contract for 2020 and 2021 will be cancelled


Buddy retires hypothetically and we wear it completely?

Have I missed something
 
Amazing how 1 game has changed the entire perception of that contract.

Still a horrible deal overall imo.
 
Amazing how 1 game has changed the entire perception of that contract.

Still a horrible deal overall imo.
If umpires hadn't carried them across the line (against either us or GWS - take your pick) it'd be seen as one of the worst trades of the modern era, surely.

Surprised they can just cancel the contract completely given it was a major factor in getting him to the Dogs. Hope he gets the help he needs though.
 
Boyd with Bulldogs: 52 games, 42 goals, 1 flag in 5 years
Tippett with Swans: 74 games, 137 goals, 0 flags in 5 years

Tippett's deal was always maligned and he had over 3x the goals and didn't miss as many games. The flag is the difference though.
 
Boyd with Bulldogs: 52 games, 42 goals, 1 flag in 5 years
Tippett with Swans: 74 games, 137 goals, 0 flags in 5 years

Tippett's deal was always maligned and he had over 3x the goals and didn't miss as many games. The flag is the difference though.


Seems also the payout of the contract is different

Am I missing something this Boyd contract seems like some bullshit loophole we have no access too
 
Never mind trade v free agency for bud

But what about tippett
FA vs trade argument is still pretty stupid anyway. Surely a first round pick or whatever they gave up doesn't equate to the millions of dollars they now don't have to pay. I get they are the rules, but kind of stacks the deck against interstate clubs (more particularly GWS and GC) once again, given their hands are often forced when Vic players request trades home.

Does seem weird anyway. Tippett picked up in the draft then re-signed and we still had to pay out his contract. Be curious to hear an explanation.
 
FA vs trade argument is still pretty stupid anyway. Surely a first round pick or whatever they gave up doesn't equate to the millions of dollars they now don't have to pay. I get they are the rules, but kind of stacks the deck against interstate clubs (more particularly GWS and GC) once again, given their hands are often forced when Vic players request trades home.

Does seem weird anyway. Tippett picked up in the draft then re-signed and we still had to pay out his contract. Be curious to hear an explanation.


Guess we technically reached a settlement with Tippett maybe we should of been more forceful
 

tombomb

Norm Smith Medallist
Sep 8, 2007
8,999
18,025
melbourne
AFL Club
Sydney
So Boyd retired and His 2019 payments will be reduced and contract for 2020 and 2021 will be cancelled


Buddy retires hypothetically and we wear it completely?

Have I missed something

Yeah, and what will the club do about it?! SFA. Just cop it.

We are more concerned about Adam Goodes being booed 5 years ago.
 
Boyd with Bulldogs: 52 games, 42 goals, 1 flag in 5 years
Tippett with Swans: 74 games, 137 goals, 0 flags in 5 years

Tippett's deal was always maligned and he had over 3x the goals and didn't miss as many games. The umpiring is the difference though.

EFA
 
Yeah, and what will the club do about it?! SFA. Just cop it.

We are more concerned about Adam Goodes being booed 5 years ago.
This is a bizarre post as far as club self-loathing goes. We haven't said anything about that saga in years and makes sense we would want to protect the legacy of one of the greatest ambassadors for the club and league ever.
 
Yeah, and what will the club do about it?! SFA. Just cop it.

We are more concerned about Adam Goodes being booed 5 years ago.
And so they should be IMO.

But hopefully we get our backs up about how it seems that if an almost identical situation was to arise the "rules" would determine a different outcome entirely. Which is unfair & crap IMO.
 
Regardless of Tippett and Franklin, I still think this is rubbish.

The Bulldogs convinced Boyd to join them with a long, expensive contract. That's a risk they took to virtually force GWS into giving up Boyd. They should be forced to honour that contract. I think GWS have more reason to be pissed off with this than we do. If we had hypothetically traded for Buddy and the same thing happened, what are the chances of Hawthorn thinking this would be a perfectly reasonable result?

Admittedly it's a shame that this becomes the talking point, but the Bulldogs took a massive risk, and it's a joke that they can get out of it like this. Wouldn't have expected the same outcome if he'd done multiple ACLs.
 

tombomb

Norm Smith Medallist
Sep 8, 2007
8,999
18,025
melbourne
AFL Club
Sydney
Regardless of Tippett and Franklin, I still think this is rubbish.

The Bulldogs convinced Boyd to join them with a long, expensive contract. That's a risk they took to virtually force GWS into giving up Boyd. They should be forced to honour that contract. I think GWS have more reason to be pissed off with this than we do. If we had hypothetically traded for Buddy and the same thing happened, what are the chances of Hawthorn thinking this would be a perfectly reasonable result?

Admittedly it's a shame that this becomes the talking point, but the Bulldogs took a massive risk, and it's a joke that they can get out of it like this. Wouldn't have expected the same outcome if he'd done multiple ACLs.

I think the issue isnt that the bulldogs can get out of the contract. If Boyd retires or negotiates a pay out, then that goes in the salary cap but I have no issue with the rest being removed.

The issue is that that Mike Fitzpatrick acted like Don Corleone when things didn't go his way and demanded retribution when we upset his grand plan for GWS. First the trade ban, and then to force all the directors to sign a piece of paper (i guess it was either their signature or their brains) saying the money would stay in the salary cap until the 9 years were up.
 

melbournehammer

Premiership Player
Apr 22, 2013
4,135
5,018
AFL Club
Sydney
Dont people here actually understand how the two different systems work ?

Buddy was a FA. He was offered a contract which his existing club had the right to match. Had we offered something else they may have matched it and therefore he never becomes a swan. The system's integrity depends on the honouring of the contract otherwise the FA system doesnt work. If you could just

Boyd was a trade. Griffen left as did a high draft pick (one thing GWS have done brilliantly hence their never ending stream of talent).

The risk of the trade is on the dogs but the player and his salary are open to change depending upon circumstances. He will be getting some of the salary paid as did tippett - the amount of which will be a negotiation between the club and the player.
 
Dont people here actually understand how the two different systems work ?

Buddy was a FA. He was offered a contract which his existing club had the right to match. Had we offered something else they may have matched it and therefore he never becomes a swan. The system's integrity depends on the honouring of the contract otherwise the FA system doesnt work. If you could just

Boyd was a trade. Griffen left as did a high draft pick (one thing GWS have done brilliantly hence their never ending stream of talent).

The risk of the trade is on the dogs but the player and his salary are open to change depending upon circumstances. He will be getting some of the salary paid as did tippett - the amount of which will be a negotiation between the club and the player.
Yes. Boyd was ineligible to be a FA though and the Bulldogs pried him from GWS with the godfather contract. It was a factor in getting him to the club, they should be forced to honour it. FA shouldn't really even come into consideration.
 
Oct 9, 2001
18,059
15,823
2, 4, 6, 8
AFL Club
Sydney
Yes. Boyd was ineligible to be a FA though and the Bulldogs pried him from GWS with the godfather contract. It was a factor in getting him to the club, they should be forced to honour it. FA shouldn't really even come into consideration.

Boyd was still contracted for another year at GWS and as a result they didn't have to trade him regardless of the godfather contract made by the Bulldogs or not. Hawthorn on the other hand had the option to match our offer for Buddy and that goes with any other FA offer made.

Also GWS were able to get rewarded in draft picks and a player that Hawthorn weren't able to with Buddy.
 
Oct 9, 2001
18,059
15,823
2, 4, 6, 8
AFL Club
Sydney
Buddy was a free agent. Allowing us to restructure his deal would not be in the spirit of free agency and the AFL have not allowed Free Agents at other clubs who have retired early to waive their amount owed under the cap or rework their contracts. This area they have been consistent about for once.

Tippett was a draft pick who put a contract price against his name to ensure he ended up at our club. He restructured the last part of his contract so he got more years for the less money. So when he retired due injury his settlement had to spread out over a longer period to suit our cap position. He very well could've taken less money under a settlement, but our cap position didn't allow us to keep him off the list until now.

Boyd's was traded to the Bulldogs and his contract was heavily front loaded (he was paid $1.7 million of his $7million in 2016) and his settlement could very easily be covered under the Bulldogs cap this year as a result.
 
The AFL has concluded that Rampe had no intention of shaking the post. Seriously what was he doing ?

I mean to me it seemed like he was trying to get some leverage in case it needed to be touched on the line. That seems a whole lot more logical than shaking a post.
 
Buddy was a free agent. Allowing us to restructure his deal would not be in the spirit of free agency and the AFL have not allowed Free Agents at other clubs who have retired early to waive their amount owed under the cap or rework their contracts. This area they have been consistent about for once.

Tippett was a draft pick who put a contract price against his name to ensure he ended up at our club. He restructured the last part of his contract so he got more years for the less money. So when he retired due injury his settlement had to spread out over a longer period to suit our cap position. He very well could've taken less money under a settlement, but our cap position didn't allow us to keep him off the list until now.

Boyd's was traded to the Bulldogs and his contract was heavily front loaded (he was paid $1.7 million of his $7million in 2016) and his settlement could very easily be covered under the Bulldogs cap this year as a result.


Tippett must of been less willing to take a cut

I saw on twitter (so take it with a grain of salt) Tippett was annoyed with swans handling of injuries etc so was stubborn in negotiation
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back