Rumour Bluemour Discussion XL - ‘Silly Season’ in full swing 😱

[Aphrodite]

#BUMP from February


Re: 'Alleged' rumours resurfacing ...

Folks, this is the way things are here.

Posters are responsible for what they post. Moderators can not attest to the accuracy or otherwise of any rumour posted.

Moderators will intervene for a couple of reasons.

1. If a thread is threatening to be derailed because of a post.

2. If invested parties request the removal of material.

None of this draws a conclusion as to the accuracy or otherwise of the original post.

There is no need to further speculate. What will be will be.

Also, you need to remember that this thread like all parts of this forum is bound by the rules of poster conduct. If you want to express skepticism towards a rumour that's fine, but having a crack at posters who are contributors to this forum is simply not on and will be acted upon.

Simply put, don't be a dick.

Thanks all!

 

[TwiggleyFanClub]

They had lunch to talk it through afterwards so I'm guessing we relayed to them what would be needed to satisfy us.

What did Mackie order?
If he got the lobster it means we get Neale or Holmes plus the picks. Everybody knows that.

 

[TwiggleyFanClub]

I CAN! ...and jolly-well DO!

...AND I believe Naicos was robbed of the jolly brownlow!!!!






too far?

Now you're just being silly.

 

[The Fantom]

This would be a great deal for us. Just not sure if it would cause us any salary or list size issues if we took on two players. Also, struggle to see Swans doing this

Swans would do it in a heartbeat… weak draft this year and the two Swans players are a dime a dozen. How about we keep Charlie and develop some players?

 

[CaptainCharisma]

Ok calling it: 11, F1, Hayward, McInerny.

We should have a competition and see who’s closest to the pin.

It will come down to 11, F1 and Hayward maybe with some nominal pick swaps here or there. Possibly something that helps us land Khamis.
The second decent player would be nice but I don’t think Sydney will bite at it.

I think it’s the reasonable middle ground. Sydney probably think they’ve paid slightly too much and we think we’re getting slightly unders.

Just want it done so we can move on now and I’ll find some happiness that Charlie doesn’t get his true wish to go to Geelong.

Still think he will tear it up at the Swans though, might have a sneaky Coleman dabble to ease the pain if he kicks 80+ for them next year.

 

[marcmurphy3]

Question for those in the know: Is it true that Charlie's contract was front-ended? And if he goes to another club, does his salary re-set higher to "market", or does it stay where it is? I think if its the former, should Charlie have to re-pay the club the overpayments in the first years of his contract? If its the latter, should the club he goes to have to pay a chunk of the salary of whomever they send across to us....to balance out that they are paying unders in their salary cap for Charlie.
Perhaps I'm over-complicating things. I just think the club needs to be compensated by somebody if a player on a front-loaded contract decides later on he wants to move on.

Doesn't work like that.

If we trade him, his contract with us is essentially torn up. Anything we have already paid him is gone. He then negotiates a new deal with Sydney for whatever.

 

[marcmurphy3]

It will come down to 11, F1 and Hayward maybe with some nominal pick swaps here or there. Possibly something that helps us land Khamis.
The second decent player would be nice but I don’t think Sydney will bite at it.

I think it’s the reasonable middle ground. Sydney probably think they’ve paid slightly too much and we think we’re getting slightly unders.

Just want it done so we can move on now and I’ll find some happiness that Charlie doesn’t get his true wish to go to Geelong.

Still think he will tear it up at the Swans though, might have a sneaky Coleman dabble to ease the pain if he kicks 80+ for them next year.

I actually reckon Swans are missing a few more pieces then just a FF and its yet to be seen whether Cox can coach.

Reckon they could surprise and not bounce by as much as expected. Reason I dont mind their F1.

 

[CaptainCharisma]

Doesn't work like that.

If we trade him, his contract with us is essentially torn up. Anything we have already paid him is gone. He then negotiates a new deal with Sydney for whatever.

I thought the new club just takes on the existing contract.

If Charlie deal was $7m for 7 years but we paid $4m already then Sydney pay remaining $3m over 4 years

 

[marcmurphy3]

I thought the new club just takes on the existing contract.

If Charlie deal was $7m for 7 years but we paid $4m already then Sydney pay remaining $3m over 4 years

Not at all. They negotiate their own deal. It's a new contract.

Charlie will do very well out of all this. Probably another 6 years at a higher wage, plus the fact we front loaded him.

 

[Blue_Fusion]

How you getting Dean at that point? I don't think 22 does the job.

My view, if we're sitting on 10 and 11, I'd be reasonably happy to just take them to the draft. Covers an unexpectedly early bid for Dean, and the later the bid the more likely we are to retain a pick in the early teens.

The alternative might be 10 and 22 for Pick 7 or 8 from GC. Improves their hand by 150-250pts. If we don't think Richmond or Essendon will bid on Dean then that could work. Draft a kid at 7 or 8, match a subsequent Dean bid with 11.

The debate then is on, say, Pick 7, versus Pick 11 and 22. List spots come into play, but looking at the draft board I think the two picks might be the better play.

We might still trade Acres/Gov/Fogarty for some 3rd rounders...

 

[TENACIOUS]

Durdin came out of the woodwork, the clubs kept that quiet.

Ainsworth and Chesser are good gets and should be best 22 players.

Buku, Charlie, McGovern, Hollands & Acres (maybe) to go. Will there be any more surprises?

* Davies pretty much said “McGovern, Hollands“ are gone this morning, on trade radio.

 

[agro]

Nick Austin winning the trades.....see you later DoDo

I think you’ll find that Essendon* are clearly winning the trade period.

 

[CrippaTheGoat9]

Just curious who would everyone prefer, Miers or Rowbottom?

 

[marcmurphy3]

We might still trade Acres/Gov/Fogarty for some 3rd rounders...

None will net 3rds and 3rds barely carry any points anymore anyway.

 

[marcmurphy3]

Just curious who would everyone prefer, Miers or Rowbottom?

Miers x 1000. Dont want Rowbottom at all.

 

[sweethoney]

Melbourne want picks 7 and 8 for Petrarca. Wonder what our Tdk or Sydney picks could get us from Gold Coast to help them with points

 

[CaptainCharisma]

Not at all. They negotiate their own deal. It's a new contract.

Charlie will do very well out of all this. Probably another 6 years at a higher wage, plus the fact we front loaded him.

Would be an interesting one to clarify. It must be an option to take on existing contract otherwise how does it work when Collingwood continue paying portions of Treloar/Grundy deals or Melbourne with Oliver this year?

Or do they write those payments that into new contracts?

 

[King Cripps]

Still hoping by the end of it all and that is Charlie gets traded that we somehow end up with Humphrey and a f1

 

[marcmurphy3]

If we end up with 10 and 11, I reckon one gets turned into a bunch of late 1st / early-mid 2nd rounders to match bids and the other an F1 or something to that effect.

Not super exciting but seems the most obvious outcome unless we are desperate for someone up the order.

 

[ABigOlDoofus]

Just curious who would everyone prefer, Miers or Rowbottom?

Is this even a question? Yet another inside mid who is slow and can't kick vs. the best kick inside 50 in the comp and the best assist man in the league.

Not even close and Geelong would be mad to trade Miers.

 

[Smegger]

Just curious who would everyone prefer, Miers or Rowbottom?

Miers.

 

[WalshistheGOAT]

Rowbottom + 11 > Suns for 7 + 36

7 + 36 + F1 + Hayward > Carlton for Charlie + F3/2027 F2

7 + 10 > WCE Pick 2 + 53

 

[swuzzlebubble]

 

[reg_lower91]

I thought the new club just takes on the existing contract.

If Charlie deal was $7m for 7 years but we paid $4m already then Sydney pay remaining $3m over 4 years

New deal is negotiated however the new deal can't be of less value for the player.

Value = total value over the course of the agreement. It's why a lot of players add another year or two on without changing the total value, to make it less per annum.

 

[carlton_99]

Swans would do it in a heartbeat… weak draft this year and the two Swans players are a dime a dozen. How about we keep Charlie and develop some players?

I promise you Sydney won't do it in a heartbeat

 

[BIuebagger]

It’s all kicked off.
Rapt with Chesser and Ainsworth.
Not fussed on the F2, even if it feels a little too much. 41 is great for Chesser.
Thank you Durds for your services.
Get Buku and it’s all eyes on Charlie.
Telling Mackie to F off is the cherry on top of today. Keep bringing the goods, Austin.