Traded Jack Bowes [Traded to Geelong with #7 for F3]

[FreddyTwoShoes]

A lot of people here think the league can (and should) veto this deal on the basis of "fairness".

Genuine question: Do the league even have that power?

And don't say they did it on the "mega deal". My understanding is that was initially vetoed specifically to prevent one of the clubs breaking actual draft rules (must use x picks over x years).

I'm happy to be corrected if I'm wrong.

 

[WetCrow1991]

A lot of people here think the league can (and should) veto this deal on the basis of "fairness".

Genuine question: Do the league even have that power?

And don't say they did it on the "mega deal". My understanding is that was initially vetoed specifically to prevent one of the clubs breaking actual draft rules (must use x picks over x years).

I'm happy to be corrected if I'm wrong.

They have the power to do whatever they want, including allowing this bullshit deal.

 

[FreddyTwoShoes]

They have the power to do whatever they want, including allowing this bullshit deal.

Sigh. Another genuine question then: Have they ever intervened before, on the basis of "fairness"?

 

[citizen-erased]

Genuine question: Do the AFL have the power to reject a trade on the basis of "fairness"?

My understanding of the rejection of the initial "mega deal" was that it would result in one of the clubs actually breaking the rules of trading (i.e. trade away rather than use a certain number of picks over a certain number of years). I.E. It wasn't rejected based on "fairness".

Yeah
Pick trades are supposed to be largely even affairs. Hence why the AFL reviews them

The question here is whether 50 -> 7 matches the contract dump.
Freo took brodie and got 19 but gave up a 2nd and 4th. (30s and 60s)
We got wright for a 4th (no pick our way)

 

[citizen-erased]

Sigh. Another genuine question then: Have they ever intervened before, on the basis of "fairness"?

Dees and swans had a series of pick swaps rejected a year or so back. Was apparently a touch lopsided

 

[living_in_syd]

I reckon hocking obviously has so many connections at the afl still and knows how to push the envelope on these lop sided deals. Not sure any other club gets away with this.

 

[citizen-erased]

Reportedly 2.2m over four years.

Currently owed around 1.6m over two years.

So a two year extension that works out at roughly 300k a season.

Why the outrage?

Draws comparisons to daniher for me
Paid an amount for 3 years. Dons get top pick and dont match. Year later, daniher is smoothed out.
Was dodgy.
If picks are being awarded/traded, i think contracts should be locked. Extend away but danihers first 3 years needed to stay in brisbanes cap and bowes' 800k for the next 2 should go into geelongs.
Extend to 4 all you want but he can go to 300k a year then

 

[sydney_gws]

The AFL shouldn't have allowed this one. It's terrible optics.

I don't think salary dumps should exceed 600 points or so.
The trade should have at least been for f2,f3.
Make gold coast trade the 7 for two picks >10, keep one trade other to Geelong.
It will be funny if geelong have few injuries next year and still bowes doesn't get a game.

 

[Kreuuuzeurns]

Draws comparisons to daniher for me
Paid an amount for 3 years. Dons get top pick and dont match. Year later, daniher is smoothed out.
Was dodgy.
If picks are being awarded/traded, i think contracts should be locked. Extend away but danihers first 3 years needed to stay in brisbanes cap and bowes' 800k for the next 2 should go into geelongs.
Extend to 4 all you want but he can go to 300k a year then

Totally agree.

 

[FreddyTwoShoes]

Yeah
Pick trades are supposed to be largely even affairs. Hence why the AFL reviews them

The question here is whether 50 -> 7 matches the contract dump.
Freo took brodie and got 19 but gave up a 2nd and 4th. (30s and 60s)
We got wright for a 4th (no pick our way)

I appreciate the response, but I'm not convinced there are any rules based on "fairness".
Would be interested to hear more about the swans/dees pick swaps you mentioned.

 

[Munich]

There should be rules, yes. Otherwise this rubbish happens where a weak club gets weaker, and the premier gets stronger.

Seems fair to me.

 

[Munich]

What's the over/under on how many games Jack Bowes will play for Geelong next year?
I still don't get why GCS basically gave away pick 7

Wells bamboozles most sides, he's that good.

 

[citizen-erased]

I appreciate the response, but I'm not convinced there are any rules based on "fairness".
Would be interested to hear more about the swans/dees pick swaps you mentioned.

I tried to google.

Havent looked for a while but i thought there was a rule that pick swaps have to be within a % of overall points to each..

This one has a player and salary dump included though. So same rules wouldnt apply.

I dont mind the f3 for 7 and bowes.
But i think the cats should have to bank the same contract gcs shifted...and can add to it if thats what they agree with bowes.
FA should be the same.

 

[living_in_syd]

Seems like geelong got all the benefits of a salary dump and no negatives because they can spread it over 4

 

[Jhye Clark 13]

It’s easy when your CEO was the AFL operations manager

 

[HairyO]

Reportedly 2.2m over four years.

Currently owed around 1.6m over two years.

So a two year extension that works out at roughly 300k a season.

Why the outrage?

Also reported to be $1.8m over 4 years.

I also read $2m over 4 years.

Which one is correct?

 

[Jhye Clark 13]

When the ALF keep saying that the system is all about equalisation and then they let a clib give the preminers pick 7.
Sounds real equal, give it two yare and they won't allow this anymore just like NGA.

We don't get NGA like some clubs have..

How about your club?

 

[Jhye Clark 13]

Also reported to be $1.8m over 4 years.

I also read $2m over 4 years.

Which one is correct?

He was actually owed 1.7k over two with the Suns.

 

[FreddyTwoShoes]

I tried to google.

Havent looked for a while but i thought there was a rule that pick swaps have to be within a % of overall points to each..

This one has a player and salary dump included though. So same rules wouldnt apply.

I dont mind the f3 for 7 and bowes.
But i think the cats should have to bank the same contract gcs shifted...and can add to it if thats what they agree with bowes.
FA should be the same.

No worries.

On the last bit, the contract Bowes had with GC is irrelevant to the contract Geelong have offered him, other than Geelong needed to make it "worth his while" to nominate them as his preferred destination. Hence the increase in $ overall.

The downside for the cats is they are wearing the risk of forking out 2M for a player many here think will struggle to get a game. Getting pick 7 to offset that risk is obviously a big win, but it's not for nothing.

 

[Duckimus Prime]

A lot of people here think the league can (and should) veto this deal on the basis of "fairness".

Genuine question: Do the league even have that power?

And don't say they did it on the "mega deal". My understanding is that was initially vetoed specifically to prevent one of the clubs breaking actual draft rules (must use x picks over x years).

I'm happy to be corrected if I'm wrong.

Well then the AFL is definitely playing favourites. Port has taken 7 first round draft picks in the last 4 years, well in excess of the required number.

Or you're really wrong.

 

[FreddyTwoShoes]

Well then the AFL is definitely playing favourites. Port has taken 7 first round draft picks in the last 4 years, well in excess of the required number.

Or you're really wrong.

I didn't say Port was the club that would have been in breach of the rules.

 

[richard parker]

Do Geelong supporters actually think having a CEO that was AFL General Manager of Football as recently as 2021 and significantly changed the rules of the game is not a competitive advantage? He would have been privy to salary information amongst other confidential documents.

Geelong are much more interested in pick 7 than Bowes. Can’t wait to see how significant Bowes is on the field. It’s a terrible look. Corrupt club. Cheating the system. Etc

 

[DanA]

Well then the AFL is definitely playing favourites. Port has taken 7 first round draft picks in the last 4 years, well in excess of the required number.

Or you're really wrong.

There are really only two trade/draft rules relating to picks

1. You must use two first-round picks in four years.
2. You can trade either your future 1st or any combination of your other future draft picks (2nd to 5th), but not both

 

[CatToTheFuture]

Do Geelong supporters actually think having a CEO that was AFL General Manager of Football as recently as 2021 and significantly changed the rules of the game is not a competitive advantage? He would have been privy to salary information amongst other confidential documents.

Geelong are much more interested in pick 7 than Bowes. Can’t wait to see how significant Bowes is on the field. It’s a terrible look. Corrupt club. Cheating the system. Etc

Salary information changes year on year and he doesn't know every players salary individually, there hundreds of players. The cats would have found out about his salary back ending through his manager. They would have found out that information before other people because they were enquiring about him before other people because they were genuinely interested in him.

The rule that allowed this was brought in after Hocking left too. At best he might have said to his list management people, "Hey you know the Suns will need a cap dump" which is basically something every list manager already knew.

So no, I don't buy into your conspiracy theory when there are much simpler and more likely explanations. You sound like a crackpot

 

[CatToTheFuture]

A lot of people here think the league can (and should) veto this deal on the basis of "fairness".

Genuine question: Do the league even have that power?

And don't say they did it on the "mega deal". My understanding is that was initially vetoed specifically to prevent one of the clubs breaking actual draft rules (must use x picks over x years).

I'm happy to be corrected if I'm wrong.

I haven't checked the details on this but I think I overheard on trade radio that original was blocked because port had traded out a future 2nd already and new deal went through because I think gws have port a future 2nd.

No rules were changed or broken is my understanding