List Mgmt. 2025 List Management discussion

[botts]

They don't. They have no assets to get someone of this quality

His manager has to make him aware of this. Surely ?

 

[BrutThough]

His manager has to make him aware of this. Surely ?

If we believe Caro, all his manger is aware about right now is his potential commission

 

[SainterinSydney]

I'd like to put it to the forum, as almost a poll, if hypothetically Nas asks for a trade back to SA and nominates Port, who here would be happy for us to stand our ground and do a Luke Ball (i.e. if we aren't satisfied by Port, he goes to PSD) or we eat our bluff and take what deal we can get?

I'm almost leaning towards standing our ground and saying he will go to the PSD. I feel like this has almost become a referendum on the future of the club (though I adhere to the no player is above the club).

This is all hypothetical--as I don't think it will get to that point.

 

[Murraj1966]

I'd like to put it to the forum, as almost a poll, if hypothetically Nas asks for a trade back to SA and nominates Port, who here would be happy for us to stand our ground and do a Luke Ball (i.e. if we aren't satisfied by Port, he goes to PSD) or we eat our bluff and take what deal we can get?

I'm almost leaning towards standing our ground and saying he will go to the PSD. I feel like this has almost become a referendum on the future of the club (though I adhere to the no player is above the club).

This is all hypothetical--as I don't think it will get to that point.

Yep tell him you’re not getting past West Coast so your choices are Perth or Melbourne time to pick

 

[stfan]

They don't. They have no assets to get someone of this quality

Yes agree. Port are not even positioned to offer a poor deal for Nas (Unless they cough up a gun). Crows pretty much too.

While some are ranting on about Nas's midfield form pushing up his contract price, they seem oblivious that will have also been pushing up Nas's trade cost.

Port does not have a 1st Round Pick, and given the Crows form they will finish Top 2-4, so their first pick will blow right back of poor value. And the Crows do not have a 2nd rounder as they have traded it.

Next year first round picks would be of dubious vale. Especially the Crows.

That really means both Clubs would need to trade a Gun to land Nas.

 

[stavro#4]

No words twisted at all. You said we had no new talent. We have a great bunch of kids that should rise over the next few years.
I don't care about length of contract, we need his signature on the contract, if he wants 2 at 2 million give it.
If we can't keep him for 2028, we have stuffed up completely and need to take the draft capital.
All these scenarios about no new talent is just rubbish. Say we don't get TDK, we still have say a million a year to shake a tree and get a salary dump etc.
We are allowed to go after talent next year. Butters is OOC, for example.

To flag we have millions then get pissy because your best player wants some of it is incredibly short sighted by the club in my view.

So again, we flagged we have millions to attract talent to play with Nas and achieve success

We have had an incredibly hard time attracting players. All those clubs retained their talents for equal to or less than our offers.

But seemingly it’s not acceptable that the saints are offering the same money as those clubs and being told it has to be a lesser contract term.

You complain how the competition is stacked against us and then demand that we act differently to how every other club acts when keeping their own stars.

Did Gold Coast match the Rowell offer?
Did North beat our LDU offer?

 

[phantom13]

That is a very black and white read of our history and sounds like the kind of bollocks you hear Carlton supporters say about us. Plenty of mitigating circumstances that don't come anywhere near excuses. We're all frustrated but that is just garbage

Not excuses now but mitigating circumstances.

 

[phantom13]

So again, we flagged we have millions to attract talent to play with Nas and achieve success

We have had an incredibly hard time attracting players. All those clubs retained their talents for equal to or less than our offers.

But seemingly it’s not acceptable that the saints are offering the same money as those clubs and being told it has to be a lesser contract term.

You complain how the competition is stacked against us and then demand that we act differently to how every other club acts when keeping their own stars.

Did Gold Coast match the Rowell offer?
Did North beat our LDU offer?

So you’re for letting him walk and restarting the rebuild again.

If he walks over money even you were adamant a fortnight ago that would be stupidly, now it’s no good.

No doubt you’ll argue it was right at the time like usual but you can’t really claim we don’t just accept mediocrity anymore.

Paying Nas more to stay and banking we can improve with him and build to a contender is a risk, just as letting him go is.

I know which risk I’d rather we take.

 

[stavro#4]

So we're clearly not up to it right now...is the answer to our problems to bring in a ruck who is as good as our current ruck but twice the price?

Keeping in mind that this new ruck is useless unless he's the number one ruck and will be on a seven year contract which means there basically zero chance of us retaining Dodson throughout that time.

There is no fan base better at talking up potential talent like we are.

Dodson has played 0 AFL games. Anointing him as the next anything is stupid.

TDK is a proven ruck. He makes our current ruckman who has desires to leave expendable.

It isn’t hard to understand.

 

[stfan]

We'd still have a massive warchest, not having given it all to TDK.

The Warchest does not work like that. Warchest is not like normal money that you just keep in a Bank account.

It is rather a % of your salary cap.

The AFL limits how long "banked" money can be used to overspend your salary cap in some years by underspending in others. You have to use it within that period, or it just vanishes.

Plus it will be affected by other contracted deals.

The Saints have built up a Warchest where we need to actually spend a lot on contracts next year. No TDK will make that hard to do. A longterm Nas Contract could help, but evidently Nas will not commit to more than 2 which hamstrings us a lot.

 

[stavro#4]

So you’re for letting him walk and restarting the rebuild again.

If he walks over money even you were adamant a fortnight ago that would be stupidly, now it’s no good.

No doubt you’ll argue it was right at the time like usual but you can’t really claim we don’t just accept mediocrity anymore.

Paying Nas more to stay and banking we can improve with him and build to a contender is a risk, just as letting him go is.

I know which risk I’d rather we take.

I don’t want nas to walk.

I have no issue paying nas as long as we get a long term commitment. They go hand in hand.

As it stands he is getting paid equal to his interstate offers. There is nothing wrong with that

 

[Tom12]

I'd like to put it to the forum, as almost a poll, if hypothetically Nas asks for a trade back to SA and nominates Port, who here would be happy for us to stand our ground and do a Luke Ball (i.e. if we aren't satisfied by Port, he goes to PSD) or we eat our bluff and take what deal we can get?

I'm almost leaning towards standing our ground and saying he will go to the PSD. I feel like this has almost become a referendum on the future of the club (though I adhere to the no player is above the club).

This is all hypothetical--as I don't think it will get to that point.

I think it will get to that point. If Butters is not in the deal then it has to be two future firsts and a young player.

They'll have to get creative in getting the assets together - short of that then he will be walked to the draft.

 

[BrutThough]

Yes agree. Port are not even positioned to offer a poor deal for Nas (Unless they cough up a gun). Crows pretty much too.

While some are ranting on about Nas's midfield form pushing up his contract price, they seem oblivious that will have also been pushing up Nas's trade cost.

Port does not have a 1st Round Pick, and given the Crows form they will finish Top 2-4, so their first pick will blow right back of poor value. And the Crows do not have a 2nd rounder as they have traded it.

Next year first round picks would be of dubious vale. Especially the Crows.

That really means both Clubs would need to trade a Gun to land Nas.

I also dont think their fans understand they will need to give something that can be used immediately too. You cant expect to take our best player without anything to show for it for 12-24 months (before considering development time).

 

[Joffaboy]

So again, we flagged we have millions to attract talent to play with Nas and achieve success

We have had an incredibly hard time attracting players. All those clubs retained their talents for equal to or less than our offers.

But seemingly it’s not acceptable that the saints are offering the same money as those clubs and being told it has to be a lesser contract term.

You complain how the competition is stacked against us and then demand that we act differently to how every other club acts when keeping their own stars.

Did Gold Coast match the Rowell offer?
Did North beat our LDU offer?

What has FS and NGA's got to do with retaining the best player in the comp? If you have the best ( arguably) player all norms are out the door.
If you are a small club that can't attract other clubs players, your number one priority is to retain your current stars, then look to see what is on offer.
Incredible to think a middling ruckman will get paid 300k a year more than our best player by a country mile, and not only a ruckman but one that has stated he doesn't want to come to the Saints.

Bizarro world to think we will pay 500k overs to get a signature from a player from another club, but not pay a player what they want for him to STAY at the club when they are the best player at your club.
You can't see how incomprehensible this is to the average punter?

Rowell and LDU wanted to stay at their clubs, you have said we need to pay more for players because of who we are. Why is it different to an OOC player?

Weirdest take I have ever heard.

 

[austinnn]

Pretty sure you were happy clapping at getting Hill and Howard. Maybe just an overly optimistic type.

Yeah I was, but still didn't feel as confident as I do now. I felt it was a step forward at the time, Howard did end up being the full back we needed after Jake retired even if he's a long way from a gun. Hill - well, that was a bit like TDK now. File it in the "worth a try" folder. Not convinced on either frankly, but you have to go for it to get anything. Overall, I saw that period as a way of bringing outside takent into the club and from winning cultures. Of course, it wasn't enough. Maybe if we had had a coach and leaders worth a damn we could have gone further than two finals. I like that Bassat isnt afraid to make changes if he sees something not working.

When it comes to St Kilda I live in hope, life's too short to constantly be expecting disappointment.

 

[stavro#4]

What has FS and NGA's got to do with retaining the best player in the comp? If you have the best ( arguably) player all norms are out the door.
If you are a small club that can't attract other clubs players, your number one priority is to retain your current stars, then look to see what is on offer.
Incredible to think a middling ruckman will get paid 300k a year more than our best player by a country mile, and not only a ruckman but one that has stated he doesn't want to come to the Saints.

Bizarro world to think we will pay 500k overs to get a signature from a player from another club, but not pay a player what they want for him to STAY at the club when they are the best player at your club.
You can't see how incomprehensible this is to the average punter?

Rowell and LDU wanted to stay at their clubs, you have said we need to pay more for players because of who we are. Why is it different to an OOC player?

Weirdest take I have ever heard.

So why aren’t Port or Adelaide paying overs Joffa?

Why are these clubs retaining players for equal or less than terms but you are telling me we have to pay over ?

 

[Joffaboy]

I don’t want nas to walk.

I have no issue paying nas as long as we get a long term commitment. They go hand in hand.

As it stands he is getting paid equal to his interstate offers. There is nothing wrong with that

He only wants 2 years, so we let him walk because we have promised a middling ruckman the more Naz wants?
Ok.

 

[Ads734]

I think it will get to that point. If Butters is not in the deal then it has to be two future firsts and a young player.

They'll have to get creative in getting the assets together - short of that then he will be walked to the draft.

Just can;t see it happening without asrious asset coming back. Future firsts do SFA tbh.

 

[stavro#4]

He only wants 2 years, so we let him walk because we have promised a middling ruckman the more Naz wants?
Ok.

You are only proving your intelligence here. Not my stupidity.

I’ve asked you why we have to pay more and receive less of a commitment for our own player.

Still waiting for your logic.

 

[jwikked]

Got a feeling Nas will surprise everyone and sign for 4 years

 

[botts]

I think it will get to that point. If Butters is not in the deal then it has to be two future firsts and a young player.

They'll have to get creative in getting the assets together - short of that then he will be walked to the draft.

Not sure we want future firsts. Tassy come in next year and will sweep the draft for the next 3 years

 

[SainterinSydney]

Got a feeling Nas will surprise everyone and sign for 4 years

I like your optimism.

 

[Tom12]

Not sure we want future firsts. Tassy come in next year and will sweep the draft for the next 3 years

That is fair. I think we'd have to see where they come from - Port's future picks will be arguably worth less to us because Nas makes them so much better.

 

[Joffaboy]

So why aren’t Port or Adelaide paying overs Joffa?

Why are these clubs retaining players for equal or less than terms but you are telling me we have to pay over ?

FMD, I don't care what they are offering, you actually don't know what they are offering.
Reported they are offering 2 million for the first 2 years, reported we are 1.2 million short of that.
We need to do EVERYTHING WE CAN AT ALL COSTS to keep NWM. You seem happy to let him walk if the club doesn't get everything it wants i.e 5 years.

What a joke, we have no cards to play, if we want to keep him we pay what he wants gor however long he wants.

Fancy insulting your best player by offering some plodder from another team 1.7 a year and not ponying up the $$ for you to stay .

This is looking more and more like a Battle scenario. We will eventually match the 2cyears but will be too late and NWM will be gone.

 

[karnaby]

x