Rumour GFC 2022 Player Trading, Drafting FA, Rumours and Wish lists
- Thread starter Turbocat
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Status
I agree... but than I said the same thing about Jeremy Cameron
Jhye Clark 13
07, 09, 11, 22
- Feb 16, 2007
- 80,884
- 98,723
- AFL Club
- Geelong
- Other Teams
- Bulldogs, Pelicans, Saints
Cameron was always coming to Geelong.
CatToTheFuture
Brownlow Medallist
- Aug 18, 2018
- 25,682
- 40,960
- AFL Club
- Geelong
They do need to have it in their cap but it's just dollars and years. So if we offer $6m over 5 years then Melbourne can match with a contract that has $6m dollars paid in full in 2027.
That loophole is the entire reason gws were able to match. They realistically couldn't afford the contract they matched with but it doesn't matter because Jez wasn't going to sign it anyway.
He even said he never decided if he was only a few weeks before he said yes..n
I thought- but could be wrong- they have to use the same years but could spread the money differently?
If Melbourne offer Brayshaw $500,000 pa and he thinks he is worth more and meets Geelong who offer $700,000, he is in a win win situation. If Melbourne match, he gets what he is worth and doesn’t have to leave, and if Melbourne don’t match, he gets what he wants at Geelong. There is no need for him to demand that Geelong trade if it is matched, and Geelong cannot of course guarantee a trade as Melbourne might make a ridiculous demand. Cats would only do that if they had to have him, like they did with Cameron, but Brayshaw is not in that class. Cats could well decide to only get him as a RFA with no trade.
- Thread starter
- #3,632
Lets face it...there has only ever been one match so we are talking a theoretical situation.
The way I understand it... they have to show they have the capacity to pay within the cap. I presume that the clever richards can find a way to find room if they want to. Perhaps ask players to alter and move contracts.. to create room if they have to. If they end up having to pay it might put them in a Treloar situation eventually.
With Cameron... I think they were already paying him similar money to what we offered, perhaps even more..so matching was not hard... but as we have seen , they are squirrel gripped with about 4 long term contracts on big money... add Cameron and who knows how they keep players like Taranto etc happy as they come into new contracts. I think in a way its similar to us with GS jr... we dug deep and offered a big amount that if he had stayed would probably have seen us lose a couple of players.
In the end..if I had to bet ... Id say neither are on our list in 2023, so it probably will stay theoretical.
Last edited:
- Sep 26, 2017
- 26,507
- 43,552
- AFL Club
- Geelong
Oh that old chestnut … from the Ablett playbook
Of course. Pretty fair indicator of their character as well.
They chose not to come to Geelong b/c they couldn't get the 'conditions' they wanted. They knew they would not be allowed to get away with their antics.
They ruled themselves out after realizing Geelong's standards were ones they could not, or would not, meet.
CatToTheFuture
Brownlow Medallist
- Aug 18, 2018
- 25,682
- 40,960
- AFL Club
- Geelong
Nah, the money is only counted by year not by month or anything so spreading it differently means spreading differently over years
CatToTheFuture
Brownlow Medallist
- Aug 18, 2018
- 25,682
- 40,960
- AFL Club
- Geelong
If you can't guarantee the trade if matched brayshaw will go to a club who will
Barrage is a good player with clubs chasing him. Might be a different story if we were his only suitor, but in that case the trade wouldn't be better than compo anyway. We'd be looking at a different player scenario more like Crouch where the pick was basically what he was worth
- Thread starter
- #3,637
If he tells Melb he wants out ...I doubt he will do it to just get more money. It would be a part of it but ist probably about role as well.
Could he sets his mind to going at 500 but switche to stay again at 700? I guess its possible but its also possible once he decides to move , then he will want move. There are probably examples of either outcome. I think I heard McStay was low balled by Bris, then given a much bigger offer by Collingwood... which now Bris have matched. Yet the way I heard it , now he is still debating the move.
I don't think he would seriously consider us if we told him... sorry if they match we will withdraw our interest. My thinking is a player wants to hear that you love them and you want them, and will do what ever to bring them here etc. , even though all players know there is a limit that all clubs would put on any trade situation.
I suspect he stays. Perhaps a move to play with his brother would appeal but they look to have eyes elsewhere. Does he really move from Melb to us?
- Thread starter
- #3,638
In matching ..cant they average it or something...it doesn't have to be exactly the same structure
edit..
* In order to qualify as a matching offer, the player’s existing club must make an offer on the same terms as the new offer tabled by the player in respect of the following matters: 1) contract length; 2) base payments; 3) total match payments; 4) total ASA payments; 5) total performance incentives based on AFL awards or honours, club best-and-fairest finish or games played (not including finals). Any incentives for team performance are not required to be matched. A player may not table an offer to be matched for less than a two-year contract length.
* For salary cap purposes, actual payments made to players by either club (being new or existing) may be allocated evenly over the contract length. For example, if a player is offered a three-year deal for base payments of $400,000, $100,000 and $100,000, and ASA payments of $40,000, $10,000, $10,000, the club that matches these payments may allocate $200,000 per year under the TPP limit and $20,000 per year under the ASA limit.
* If a club has elected to allocate payments evenly over the contract length and the contract to be matched contains an asymmetrical bonus or match payment structure, actual non-guaranteed payments made shall be allocated evenly over the remainder of the contract length. For example, if a player is offered a three-year deal with $10,000 match payments in year one, but zero match payments in years two and three, any match payments paid to the player in year one may be allocated evenly across all three years of the contract for salary cap purposes.
AFL free agency: how it works
An explanation of how the free agency process works in the AFL. The free agency peroid is between October 1-19.
Pure_Ownage
TheBrownDog
I know technically thats true but i respectfully disagree on this one.
If you watch the amazon prime doco it makes clear.melbourne are short cap and took dunstan on min wage as they have little cap.
All it takes when they match is the other club to walk away and they are stuck with brayshaw on 700 and now everyone knows they physically cant fit jackson in the cap so freo or wce have the leverage to offer real unders (worst case wce in psd). Which is why if brayshaw signs somewhere else they wont match they will take the band 2 compo and move on and try to keep jackson with the money imo.
- Thread starter
- #3,640
Sounds logical. I think there would be a line, and some sort of risk assessment v possible gain. Even making us using a R1 rather letting us keep might seem advantageous. If our offer is way more than they were thinking then yes. What are the numbers do you feel. It seems less than 500 is old hat. Id have to think Melb would have been planing to pay him more than that.
Agree. And you can't look past the fact only two FAs have been traded for picks, and both have been to Geelong, which is clearly annoying.
But I think the difference is that Danger and Cameron were A+ players, like top 5 in the league at the time. Neither Brayshaw (or De Goey) are in that ball park, so the chance of us trading are much lower. Cameron was worth 3 first rounders, so GWS had incentive to force the trade knowing they'd get a lot more than the compo; and they had the cap space to keep him there. But Melbourne would get pick 18ish as compo, and maybe 10-15 if forcing a trade, which is a marginal gain, so they're not going to bother. Especially is it means matching a contract they can't afford
MacStradbroke
Norm Smith Medallist
- Jul 19, 2015
- 6,861
- 20,057
- AFL Club
- Geelong
Remember when we had posters (and there were many) arguing that we overpaid for Danger. Truly amazing, they were Geelong supporters too.
- Apr 9, 2015
- 5,630
- 9,524
- AFL Club
- Geelong
- Other Teams
- Melbourne Renegades
There’s still a few around saying we overpaid for both of them. It’s all about performance isn’t it? If you look at Tim Kelly at the eagles that trade is criticised because Kelly has gone backwards since he left as have them eagles. Danger and Jezza have performed at a level that has improved the team they went to.
What I mean is if we offered-
Yr1- 1m
Yr2- 1m
Yr3- 1m
Match would have to do $3m over three years but the breakdown per year can vary.
CatToTheFuture
Brownlow Medallist
- Aug 18, 2018
- 25,682
- 40,960
- AFL Club
- Geelong
Yeah, so they put $3m in year 3 where they have only a handful of players contracted.
On paper every side in the league can match any contract that's 3+ years
Alot of people been saying the same thing about him, I think its worth a try
It was overpaying when considering what other clubs have given up for free agents. Compare Lynch vs Cameron. I know which deal was the better one for the respective clubs
- Oct 14, 2012
- 4,061
- 6,363
- AFL Club
- Geelong
- Other Teams
- West Ham DEN Broncos BOS Celtics
But... he was a restricted free agent, yes?
Still think picks 15 and 18 was a bargain TBH.
Pure_Ownage
TheBrownDog
Thats not our fault if gws finished bottom 3 like gc did that year they would have taken compo for cameron. When the compo is tied to ladder position thats what you get.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
