Free Agency Tom De Koning - Joins St Kilda as an RFA, Carlton get Band 1 compensation (Pick 9)

[Jeremias]

This thread might be going for a while. Please respect board rules and each other.

As a starting point, let's leave any references to 'culture' at the door.

Thread bans and infractions will be handed out as necessary.

Thanks.

 

[Philhawk]

The club that currently holds that player has a 3 day window to decide to match or not. Whilst very unlikely, within that three day period if the club has not yet submitted paperwork to match then there is this unique rule.

As I say, very unlikely it would ever come to this point, but here is the rule for you.

(k) Nothing in this Rule 17.5 prevents a Restricted Free Agent’s Current Club making an offer, or a Restricted Free Agent accepting an offer from his Current Club, in relation to a Player’s services on different terms to the Offer within three days of the Current Club receiving the Offer from the AFL.

In this example, why would TDK’s agent agree to anything less than the amount offered by the Saints?

Why would SOS, in this example, assist Carlton by telling them of their intention to not match within the 3 days, when waiting 3 days would force a rival club to not renegotiate and pay more?

 

[Forty3]

In this example, why would TDK’s agent agree to anything less than the amount offered by the Saints?

Why would SOS, in this example, assist Carlton by telling them of their intention to not match within the 3 days, when waiting 3 days would force a rival club to not renegotiate and pay more?

I’m bringing this up because certain people on this board have made it loud and clear that under no circumstances will St Kilda enter into a trade situation.

If that is the case, which apparently seems to be public knowledge, there is a hypothetical scenario where Carlton, now in procession of the full contract terms on offer from the other team, have the ability to put forward an offer on differing terms, like less money per year but more years.

I will say it again, this is incredibly unlikely. But I posted as the rule was requested.

 

[Philhawk]

I’m bringing this up because certain people on this board have made it loud and clear that under no circumstances will St Kilda enter into a trade situation.

If that is the case, which apparently seems to be public knowledge, there is a hypothetical scenario where Carlton, now in procession of the full contract terms on offer from the other team, have the ability to put forward an offer on differing terms, like less money per year but more years.

I will say it again, this is incredibly unlikely. But I posted as the rule was requested.

Thank you for sharing, it wasn’t intended to critique your reply.

I think it’s less about public knowledge and more about what the most likely course of action will be.

They won’t trade an absurd amount of first round picks, nor will they inform Carlton that they won’t do so until Carlton has matched.

 

[CatToTheFuture]

no. You cannot bluff on the matching. If you "make it known" they´re going to match, then you are telling TDK that you are going to match. If you offer TDK 1M a year and he says he wants to go to St. Kilda because they offered him 1.7, you cannot "make it known" that you are going to pay him 1.7 and then only pay him 1M!

the reason other clubs have been able to "force a trade" is because they really were willing to match the salary. As I said, you cannot bluff it!

Gws could not in reality match the salary for Cameron. They just knew he wasn't staying after bridges were burned.

TDK on the other hand is saying he wants to stay but money. If there's a match then you're taking away his reason to leave in the first place.

 

[stavro#4]

I’m bringing this up because certain people on this board have made it loud and clear that under no circumstances will St Kilda enter into a trade situation.

If that is the case, which apparently seems to be public knowledge, there is a hypothetical scenario where Carlton, now in procession of the full contract terms on offer from the other team, have the ability to put forward an offer on differing terms, like less money per year but more years.

I will say it again, this is incredibly unlikely. But I posted as the rule was requested.

The rules as presented by articles on the AFL website contradict what you are saying.

Once the offer is presented. You can only match that offer in terms of total dollars and years. You can’t negotiate lower.

The player for example TDK. Will get the rumoured 1.7m over 7 years. He won’t get less if you match.

 

[Sarcoidevo]

That is actually not entirely true. After the saints paperwork is lodged, Carlton has 3 days to decide what they want to do.
If they are preparing to match and SOS comes out and says in no uncertain terms will he be trading anything for TDK. Then Carlton do have the ability, within that 3 day period to negotiate a contract with TDK that doesn't have to match the offer.

Whilst unlikely it gets to that, if he and his management decide they don't want to risk going through the draft process and the Saints have made their position clear on not dealing with a trade scenario, then the door is open for Carlton to work out an entirely different contract that would not be 1.7m a year, but it would be fair money and would remove the uncertainty of getting through the draft and ending up at the Saints.

Potentially he doesn't care where he goes as long as he gets the money, but there will be a long cue of clubs with "war chests" before you that I'm sure will have some pretty solid interest if he was to fall into their lap.

So what is the magical contract line for TDK to stay at Carlton and not want to take the Saints offer?

1.5m over 5?
1.4m over 7?

What can Carlton afford without torpedoing their average list or exceeding their Salary Cap?

 

[Sarcoidevo]

By some of the absurd logic in this thread, when every single club in the AFL is about to lose a player to RFA, they should always match as

• the player will help them out and negotiate the salary down to help club out
• the buying club will always cough up extra picks as “the AFLPA would be furious”

Pure insanity.

Yep .... Peak delusion

 

[stavro#4]

Restricted free agents are a little trickier. They have served eight years or more with one club and are in the top 25 per cent of wage earners at that club – often among the 'star' players of a team. Opposition clubs can make an offer to lure these players. If the offer is matched – both in duration and financially – by their current club but the player still wants to move, a trade then has to be struck.

EXPLAINER: All you need to know about the Trade Period

Here's everything you need to know about the Trade Period, Free Agency and more

www.afl.com.au

Nothing there says anything about making less money for more years.

It says matching the offer both in duration and financially.

And then the player makes the decision to stay at his current club on those terms or to leave.

If Carlton was offering TDK the same deal the saints are offering. We wouldn’t be having this discussion. He would have already signed.

 

[Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods]

Mediate.

There is no rule that forces us to trade.

I can’t be any clearer. There is a rule that forces us to discuss one. But not a rule that we must trade.

So if you match this deal with whatever intention. TDK will get paid this 1.7m.

You either accept free agency compo or your pay the 1.7m contract.

It’s really simple. Hope you understand now.

Mate, just stop. I never said the AFL would force you to trade.

What the AFL will demand we trade picks?

If we can't reach an agreement, you're stuck paying the 1.7 mil a year. Thats his value on the free market, thats the premium you have to pay to keep him.

Where did I say this? Is poor comprehension contagious?

 

[Taylor]

That is actually not entirely true. After the saints paperwork is lodged, Carlton has 3 days to decide what they want to do.
If they are preparing to match and SOS comes out and says in no uncertain terms will he be trading anything for TDK. Then Carlton do have the ability, within that 3 day period to negotiate a contract with TDK that doesn't have to match the offer.

Whilst unlikely it gets to that, if he and his management decide they don't want to risk going through the draft process and the Saints have made their position clear on not dealing with a trade scenario, then the door is open for Carlton to work out an entirely different contract that would not be 1.7m a year, but it would be fair money and would remove the uncertainty of getting through the draft and ending up at the Saints.

Potentially he doesn't care where he goes as long as he gets the money, but there will be a long cue of clubs with "war chests" before you that I'm sure will have some pretty solid interest if he was to fall into their lap.

That situation you describe is the current situation.

Carlton have an idea of the offer they are competing with, they can make a deal.

Your fantasy were Tom De Koning is willing to go so far as signing the form 41 to allow St Kilda to lodge the free agency paperwork to bring Carlton to the table to squeeze out some extra money but doesn't want to go isn't realistic. At that point he has already agreed to the St Kilda deal. He has signed the paperwork.

 

[jh38]

Mate, just stop. I never said the AFL would force you to trade.


Where did I say this? Is poor comprehension contagious?

What do you mean by "the AFL will step in to mediate" then?

 

[RAPPA]

With the way Carlton is going, TDK would be willing to go to St kilda for 170k per year.

 

[WalshistheGOAT]

What do you mean by "the AFL will step in to mediate" then?

• AFL Mediation:
  The AFL has a process where it can mediate trade disputes between clubs, acting as a neutral party to help facilitate a resolution.
  
  
• When Mediation is Used:
  If clubs are unable to reach an agreement on a trade, the AFL can step in to mediate, potentially leading to a trade being brokered through their intervention.
  
  
• Example:
  In the past, the AFL has used mediation to try and resolve disputes over the trade value of players, such as in the case of Robert Warnock.
  
  
• Player Consent:
  Even if a club wants to trade a player, the player's consent is required if they have a contract with the club for at least one more year.
  
  
• "Nuclear Option":
  The Herald Sun's Jon Ralph revealed that a player could use the AFL's collective bargaining agreement to force a trade through mediation.

 

[BringFevBack2021]

So what is the magical contract line for TDK to stay at Carlton and not want to take the Saints offer?

1.5m over 5?
1.4m over 7?

What can Carlton afford without torpedoing their average list or exceeding their Salary Cap?

I don't know enough about the rules specifically and I tend to agree that it would be incredibly difficult for us to match and also see it as highly unlikely that TDK and his management would accept less per year with a longer contractual obligation given many players in recent history have retired with time to run on their deals and negotiated payouts with the club.

However, if you are asking what we could afford without nuking the list, fortunately in this scenario you'd imagine we'd have a lot of money coming back to us with:

• Mitch McGovern (Contract expires this year)
• Zac Williams (Contract expires next year)

Believe these blokes are both estimated to be on $800k (lol)

• Sam Docherty (2025)
• Adam Saad (2026)
• Cripps (2028)
• Curnow (2029)
• McKay (2030)
• Cerra (2030)

Would all be taking significant paycuts at next contract or retire at next contract date

And unfortunately, we've only really got Jagga Smith who we'd expect to get a payrise, the rest of the list is middling badly so you'd imagine no significant uptick in pay for anyone else.

Perhaps you'd anticipate Ben and Lucas Camporeale to need some sort of payrise. Probably Cooper Lord and Ashton Moir too.

I think logistically you could make it work no problem, but how much sense does that make to TDK and his management if they actually want to leave the club? Why would they volunteer themselves to St Kilda then work backwards to facilitate a trade with their old club that they want out of, knowing that it might mean their desired club with the financial terms that are more favourable may be put into a position where they can't satisfy the current clubs trade requirements?

In other words, if TDK wants to go to St Kilda and they really are offering $1.7m a year over X years, then I can't see a world where we can possibly match it without losing one of McKay, Cripps, Walsh, Curnow or Cerra.

Which, is obviously not going to happen - unless we are in full rebuild, in which case why tf would TDK stay?

 

[CatToTheFuture]

I don't know enough about the rules specifically and I tend to agree that it would be incredibly difficult for us to match and also see it as highly unlikely that TDK and his management would accept less per year with a longer contractual obligation given many players in recent history have retired with time to run on their deals and negotiated payouts with the club.

However, if you are asking what we could afford without nuking the list, fortunately in this scenario you'd imagine we'd have a lot of money coming back to us with:

• Mitch McGovern (Contract expires this year)
• Zac Williams (Contract expires next year)

Believe these blokes are both estimated to be on $800k (lol)

• Sam Docherty (2025)
• Adam Saad (2026)
• Cripps (2028)
• Curnow (2029)
• McKay (2030)
• Cerra (2030)

Would all be taking significant paycuts at next contract or retire at next contract date

And unfortunately, we've only really got Jagga Smith who we'd expect to get a payrise, the rest of the list is middling badly so you'd imagine no significant uptick in pay for anyone else.

Perhaps you'd anticipate Ben and Lucas Camporeale to need some sort of payrise. Probably Cooper Lord and Ashton Moir too.

I think logistically you could make it work no problem, but how much sense does that make to TDK and his management if they actually want to leave the club? Why would they volunteer themselves to St Kilda then work backwards to facilitate a trade with their old club that they want out of, knowing that it might mean their desired club with the financial terms that are more favourable may be put into a position where they can't satisfy the current clubs trade requirements?

In other words, if TDK wants to go to St Kilda and they really are offering $1.7m a year over X years, then I can't see a world where we can possibly match it without losing one of McKay, Cripps, Walsh, Curnow or Cerra.

Which, is obviously not going to happen - unless we are in full rebuild, in which case why tf would TDK stay?

It almost doesn't matter though at 1.7m per year. That's 10% of the salary cap. I'm astonished Saints are able to offer it.

 

[Taylor]

fortunately in this scenario you'd imagine we'd have a lot of money coming back to us with

Don't look at it from that perspective, money spent is gone and planned around.

I offer this suggestion, look at it from money already committed to but not spent.

These are the players contracted at Carlton (as far as I know) in each of these years.

2027 (Salary cap $18,440,415):
Cripps, Acres, Pittonet, Cottrell, Smith, Curnow, McKay, Weitering

2028 (Salary cap ~$19m):
Curnow, McKay, Weitering

2029 (Salary cap ~$19.5m):
Curnow, McKay, Weitering

2030 (Salary cap ~$20m):
McKay, Weitering

2031 (Salary cap ~$20.5m):
Weitering

You'll see how much space there is to fit players in that way.

 

[WalshistheGOAT]

Don't look at it from that perspective, money spent is gone and planned around.

I offer this suggestion, look at it from money already committed to but not spent.

These are the players contracted at Carlton (as far as I know) in each of these years.

2027 (Salary cap $18,440,415):
Cripps, Acres, Pittonet, Cottrell, Smith, Curnow, McKay, Weitering

2028 (Salary cap ~$19m):
Curnow, McKay, Weitering

2029 (Salary cap ~$19.5m):
Curnow, McKay, Weitering

2030 (Salary cap ~$20m):
McKay, Weitering

2031 (Salary cap ~$20.5m):
Weitering

You'll see how much space there is to fit players in that way.

Realistically the only year we'd have to worry about matching is 2026 and possibly 2027 after we finish re-signing players this season. We don't have enough players signed up past either year to have any issues in terms of matching the coin.

Hence why the Saints would intend on front loading the crap out of it to have a huge amount of that money come in the first two years when the Blues would be stretched.

 

[BringFevBack2021]

Don't look at it from that perspective, money spent is gone and planned around.

I offer this suggestion, look at it from money already committed to but not spent.

These are the players contracted at Carlton (as far as I know) in each of these years.

2027 (Salary cap $18,440,415):
Cripps, Acres, Pittonet, Cottrell, Smith, Curnow, McKay, Weitering

2028 (Salary cap ~$19m):
Curnow, McKay, Weitering

2029 (Salary cap ~$19.5m):
Curnow, McKay, Weitering

2030 (Salary cap ~$20m):
McKay, Weitering

2031 (Salary cap ~$20.5m):
Weitering

You'll see how much space there is to fit players in that way.

Of course, that's a good point to make too. Let me rephrase then, it'd be foolish to match as we'd still go close to blowing up our cap even with a heavily backended deal.

I don't know, in the pre-season I would've laughed at the notion he could leave, given I thought we'd be top four. I'm obviously a lot less bullish now, and the Saints have a lot of young talent. Sam Walsh's best mate (Dow) plays there too, whose to say Walsh doesn't go, too?

Hard to be positive when your club is a top four club in the first half and a bottom two in the second, week in week out

 

[Elixuh]

Yah, that’s just not how it works.

The sheer amount of copium from certain Blues fans who believe Carlton will match, but then TDK will negotiate down “to help Carlton out”

He might on paper. It’ll depend how much Carlton can pay him outside the cap.

 

[Taylor]

Realistically the only year we'd have to worry about matching is 2026 and possibly 2027 after we finish re-signing players this season. We don't have enough players signed up past either year to have any issues in terms of matching the coin.

Hence why the Saints would intend on front loading the crap out of it to have a huge amount of that money come in the first two years when the Blues would be stretched.

Restricted free agent contract offers are required to be a two year minimum which could be a problem for Carlton in two ways.

You're right that it makes it hardest to match, the longer the offer the easier it is to hide the salary in the back years where nobody is really contracted and none of that cap is committed - but the AFL now includes the years of the deal in the points system that determines compensation.

So a two year deal, even at huge money, might not be enough to push his total points into the top 5% to trigger band one without those extra points for long term deals. You can see how the points not being issued can turn the same pay in a player over 30 giving no compensation to a player at 25 resulting in a second round pick. It can move a lot.

It could get very interesting. I don't think St Kilda want to take the risk that he then leaves after two years.

 

[WalshistheGOAT]

He might on paper. It’ll depend how much Carlton can pay him outside the cap.

Jeanne shouldn't have any issues making up the difference

 

[WalshistheGOAT]

Restricted free agent contract offers are required to be a two year minimum which could be a problem for Carlton in two ways.

You're right that it makes it hardest to match, the longer the offer the easier it is to hide the salary in the back years where nobody is really contracted and none of that cap is committed - but the AFL now includes the years of the deal in the points system that determines compensation.

So a two year deal, even at huge money, might not be enough to push his total points into the top 5% to trigger band one without those extra points for long term deals. You can see how the points not being issued can turn the same pay in a player over 30 giving no compensation to a player at 25 resulting in a second round pick. It can move a lot.

It could get very interesting. I don't think St Kilda want to take the risk that he then leaves after two years.

Once again though, this scenario would require TDK to essentially allow the Saints to f*** over the Blues. Something that seems incredibly unlikely given he's on many occasions expressed his love for the club and his mates and a desire to stay if the offer is close enough to the mark.

If TDK knew Carlton were going to get a 2nd rounder for him leaving I highly doubt he'd have any part in it.

 

[stavro#4]

Once again though, this scenario would require TDK to essentially allow the Saints to f*** over the Blues. Something that seems incredibly unlikely given he's on many occasions expressed his love for the club and his mates and a desire to stay if the offer is close enough to the mark.

If TDK knew Carlton were going to get a 2nd rounder for him leaving I highly doubt he'd have any part in it.

You are getting a band 1 compo. No one is getting ****ed over.

It’s the buddy Franklin scenario. It is what it is.

TDK in this instance isn’t going to turn around and be like hey. Stkilda - you’re going to need to pay up more for me.

Ultimately he is only coming because of the money. So as long as he gets paid that’s all that’s going to matter. By you or by us.

Your belief that the player is going to get involved in a process because he “loves” Carlton - is some serious supporter copium.

 

[sexyhunk]

Don't look at it from that perspective, money spent is gone and planned around.

I offer this suggestion, look at it from money already committed to but not spent.

These are the players contracted at Carlton (as far as I know) in each of these years.

2027 (Salary cap $18,440,415):
Cripps, Acres, Pittonet, Cottrell, Smith, Curnow, McKay, Weitering

2028 (Salary cap ~$19m):
Curnow, McKay, Weitering

2029 (Salary cap ~$19.5m):
Curnow, McKay, Weitering

2030 (Salary cap ~$20m):
McKay, Weitering

2031 (Salary cap ~$20.5m):
Weitering

You'll see how much space there is to fit players in that way.

didnt adam cerra signed a long term one start of the year.

 

[stavro#4]

It almost doesn't matter though at 1.7m per year. That's 10% of the salary cap. I'm astonished Saints are able to offer it.

Ross Lyon made it clear last night that we are spending 95% of our cap this year and that includes an element of FORWARD paying deals to reach that.

So next year we could pay 105% of the cap and take a fair bit of that TDK salary upfront. Something like $2-2.5m.