List Mgmt. 2017 List Management: Contracts, Trading, Drafting, Academy

[Danny88]

If I was the coaches and management I'd get Josh in and have a chat with him as well as Cogs and Dyl and ask how much money they've turned down, and why they did.

That would be a very unprofessional way to handle a contract negotiation

Imagine that in the corporate world.... you would get the sack!

 

[Giant Pete]

That would be a very unprofessional way to handle a contract negotiation

Imagine that in the corporate world.... you would get the sack!

Geelong used to do it with Brian cook.

 

[Danny88]

Geelong used to do it with Brian cook.

If that's true it would have to remain in the USED TO category

 

[dlanod]

If that's true it would have to remain in the USED TO category

What is wrong with it, assuming you get Cogs and Dylan's permission beforehand?

 

[ClockworkOrange]

Scott throwing a gazillion dollars at Josh is a cry for help from a failed coach at a failing club.

Decent people dispose of used tissues more thoughtfully than Scott disposes of all-time greats like Boomer.

Not even Bucks would have lost to the Cats with Scott's 3/4 time lead last weekend. Here's an idea, maybe Boomer might have helped? And he wouldn't have cost 9 million. Scott has surely lost their dressing room.

And Scott's membership is so flatlined that the Roos may as well stay on to look for housing in Tassie after their loss this Saturday, as they'll inevitably be relocated there in one of our Premiership seasons.

The Giants are North's 'Vietnam', and they'd need half our squad - not just Josh - to save Scott's job.

So good luck to Scott in chasing Josh, Heeney, Dusty and other players who are unlikely to want to board the blue and white Titanic.

 

[Determinant]

If it's real, and there isn't a lot to suggest it isn't, it would be extraordinary if he were to knock it back if we can't go close to matching it.
He doesn't play footy as a fan of the giants, he plays it as a professional, with a far more limited employability than most of us.

 

[Royal Flush]

Your club is 0-2 and wants a win, its puts media pressure on a 22yo who is a key player for us. Agreed if the offer is legit there is nothing to be gained, cant recall any other deals in this ballpark ever being leaked.

The agents leak it. Kelly was supposed to have resigned in February, so dare I say the offer has been suggested prior to this week when it has been leaked.
Whilst I'd like Kelly , the length of contract is a bit on the risky side.

Sent from my EVA-L09 using Tapatalk

 

[Danny88]

What is wrong with it, assuming you get Cogs and Dylan's permission beforehand?

Because it's a highly unprofessional way to negotiate a contract. You could allude to shiels contract by saying the offered figure is similar to the type of contract some of the best in the club are on but it's a different story to march shiel into a negotiation as was suggested and outline why he took the lesser contract. It could do massive disservice to team harmony and I doubt the AFLPA would remain on the sideline- they would want to make a stand to ensure that doesn't become the norm.

 

[Bokonon_]

Because it's a highly unprofessional way to negotiate a contract. You could allude to shiels contract by saying the offered figure is similar to the type of contract some of the best in the club are on but it's a different story to march shiel into a negotiation as was suggested and outline why he took the lesser contract. It could do massive disservice to team harmony and I doubt the AFLPA would remain on the sideline- they would want to make a stand to ensure that doesn't become the norm.

I agree if it was demanded, his decision is whether to sign or not and how much he chooses to reveal is his business. If he's signed it's not really a negotiation though and who cares why?

 

[dlanod]

Because it's a highly unprofessional way to negotiate a contract. You could allude to shiels contract by saying the offered figure is similar to the type of contract some of the best in the club are on but it's a different story to march shiel into a negotiation as was suggested and outline why he took the lesser contract. It could do massive disservice to team harmony and I doubt the AFLPA would remain on the sideline- they would want to make a stand to ensure that doesn't become the norm.

Again, I said "assuming you get Cogs and Dylan's permission beforehand". That's a different story to "marching shiel into a negotiation". You're assuming it would be confrontational. I'm assuming it would not have to be - these guys are teammates and frequently mates, a friendly chat rather than "hey ****wit, these guys signed for unders so man up!"

 

[Bokonon_]

Again, I said "assuming you get Cogs and Dylan's permission beforehand". That's a different story to "marching shiel into a negotiation". You're assuming it would be confrontational. I'm assuming it would not have to be - these guys are teammates and frequently mates, a friendly chat rather than "hey *******, these guys signed for unders so man up!"

Now I get it. I didn't really see the point but I do now. Still wonder if these things happen informally anyway. I think each guy that resigns puts a little pressure on the others to do the same. Surely guys like Lobb and Haynes last year and Williams this year will help with the other guys.

 

[Danny88]

Again, I said "assuming you get Cogs and Dylan's permission beforehand". That's a different story to "marching shiel into a negotiation". You're assuming it would be confrontational. I'm assuming it would not have to be - these guys are teammates and frequently mates, a friendly chat rather than "hey *******, these guys signed for unders so man up!"

But it can't happen. Irregardless of how it happens, merely approaching those two to talk ask permission is grossly unprofessional.

 

[dlanod]

But it can't happen. Irregardless of how it happens, merely approaching those two to talk ask permission is grossly unprofessional.

You still haven't said why it's unprofessional. That's what I'm trying to get to the bottom of. I get that you think it's unprofessional, you've said so at least four times now, but why is it considered unprofessional? Why can't it happen? What is the actual problem with it?

 

[Raymann]

You still haven't said why it's unprofessional. That's what I'm trying to get to the bottom of. I get that you think it's unprofessional, you've said so at least four times now, but why is it considered unprofessional? Why can't it happen? What is the actual problem with it?

I would think that it would be considered unsporting and clubs have long memories when it comes to trading

 

[kulak]

I don't like it. If I were Shiel in that scenario I'd feel pretty uncomfortable that I was even asked.

It's one thing to have the leadership group add gravity to player discipline by making it their call to decide on club imposed suspensions for things like being late to training.

It's something else to formally request they advocate to their teammates why they should take less money.

Shiel and Cogniglio would already be well aware of the discussion. If they want to privately advocate to Kelly he should stay for less money, they can do that already.

If they have chosen not to do that, and then the club asks them to, then it might feel a bit 'unsporting'.

 

[Danny88]

You still haven't said why it's unprofessional. That's what I'm trying to get to the bottom of. I get that you think it's unprofessional, you've said so at least four times now, but why is it considered unprofessional? Why can't it happen? What is the actual problem with it?

AFL is a business. we all accept that. It actually follows a very corporate structure. In the business world contract talks and wages are intended to be hush hush as different roles are often allocated different wages. In professional sport, it is very much the same. Sure the media talks a lot about figures and salary, thats their job but inside the business thats a good way to put a player off.

For example, a player like Scully has obviously bought into the club and took a wage reduction last year to allow us to keep some of the list together. Thats great and the fact we publicised it indicates he is OK with it being in the public eye. Perhaps he was sick of the million dollar man tag. But that doesn't apply for all players. I have already said that it could be alluded to but to outright compare contract $$ is ludicrous. It places pressure on a player to sign for unders where the approach needs to be from a more positive mindset ie they have bought into the club, want success, their personal life is fulfilling they are happy in the environment. The culture risk of comparing dollar figures and pressuring players to sign out of a supposed guilt for wanting a figure close to their worth is too much IMO

 

[Bokonon_]

AFL is a business. we all accept that. It actually follows a very corporate structure. In the business world contract talks and wages are intended to be hush hush as different roles are often allocated different wages. In professional sport, it is very much the same. Sure the media talks a lot about figures and salary, thats their job but inside the business thats a good way to put a player off.

For example, a player like Scully has obviously bought into the club and took a wage reduction last year to allow us to keep some of the list together. Thats great and the fact we publicised it indicates he is OK with it being in the public eye. Perhaps he was sick of the million dollar man tag. But that doesn't apply for all players. I have already said that it could be alluded to but to outright compare contract $$ is ludicrous. It places pressure on a player to sign for unders where the approach needs to be from a more positive mindset ie they have bought into the club, want success, their personal life is fulfilling they are happy in the environment. The culture risk of comparing dollar figures and pressuring players to sign out of a supposed guilt for wanting a figure close to their worth is too much IMO

Sorry to go off at a tangent but I dont accept AFL is a business, it's a sport.
It has to act in a businesslike manner in part to ensure viability sure. That's not the same thing. It does not have the same goals as a business clearly, which is to maximise profits to the owners.
Otherwise I get your point.

 

[Danny88]

Sorry to go off at a tangent but I dont accept AFL is a business, it's a sport.
It has to act in a businesslike manner in part to ensure viability sure. That's not the same thing. It does not have the same goals as a business clearly, which is to maximise profits to the owners.
Otherwise I get your point.

Thats a whole different kettle of fish lol. But without getting into it I would disagree with you on that one

 

[Bokonon_]

Thats a whole different kettle of fish lol. But without getting into it I would disagree with you on that one

Fair enough.
I get the thrust of your argument and dont disagree.
I do recall Heater saying he was in the ear of Shiel and Cogs everyday before they resigned. Dont have a problem with that informally. Am uncomfortable with a formal process.

 

[dlanod]

AFL is a business. we all accept that. It actually follows a very corporate structure.

Definitely agree here.

For example, a player like Scully has obviously bought into the club and took a wage reduction last year to allow us to keep some of the list together. Thats great and the fact we publicised it indicates he is OK with it being in the public eye. Perhaps he was sick of the million dollar man tag. But that doesn't apply for all players. I have already said that it could be alluded to but to outright compare contract $$ is ludicrous. It places pressure on a player to sign for unders where the approach needs to be from a more positive mindset ie they have bought into the club, want success, their personal life is fulfilling they are happy in the environment. The culture risk of comparing dollar figures and pressuring players to sign out of a supposed guilt for wanting a figure close to their worth is too much IMO

I think there are valid points here as well.

In the business world contract talks and wages are intended to be hush hush as different roles are often allocated different wages. In professional sport, it is very much the same. Sure the media talks a lot about figures and salary, thats their job but inside the business thats a good way to put a player off.

To summarise your point for you, just to make sure I do understand it, you're saying that it's unprofessional because businesses don't like their staff to discuss their remuneration?

If that's the case I understand where you're coming from as I agree that it is a norm in business, but I disagree with the line of thinking and also the implication that it is therefore unprofessional.

In a white collar environment I find employers like to encourage contract talks and wages to be hush hush disingenuous because in general it's intended to create an information mismatch that the employer can exploit to reduce their wage bill and also avoid paying some employees what they're worth, e.g. someone producing more value for the business (or team) may find themselves on a lower salary because they aren't as good at negotiation.

 

[Raymann]

Some mail.
Club confident in retaining Kelly but will have to up the offer 100k per year.
Resigned to losing Smith unless he accepts the reduced offer on his current contract.
Club paid overs last time to help get the Cameron contract over the line. Now want to pay unders because of the Kelly contact offer.

 

[captainMyCaptain]

Some mail.
Club confident in retaining Kelly but will have to up the offer 100k per year.
Resigned to losing Smith unless he accepts the reduced offer on his current contract.
Club paid overs last time to help get the Cameron contract over the line. Now want to pay unders because of the Kelly contact offer.

So would that be 700,000 x 2, and is it for extra years as well?

 

[_GT_]

Some mail.
Club confident in retaining Kelly but will have to up the offer 100k per year.
Resigned to losing Smith unless he accepts the reduced offer on his current contract.
Club paid overs last time to help get the Cameron contract over the line. Now want to pay unders because of the Kelly contact offer.

No surprise that something has to give here. It is a real shame that Smith is at risk. He is showing his versatility as he matures. I hope he stays. Kelly is definitely worth the extra. Any idea of length of the offer to Kelly?

 

[Raymann]

No surprise that something has to give here. It is a real shame that Smith is at risk. He is showing his versatility as he matures. I hope he stays. Kelly is definitely worth the extra. Any idea of length of the offer to Kelly?

2 years

 

[Raymann]

So would that be 700,000 x 2, and is it for extra years as well?

Think so maybe slightly higher somewhere between 700-750 2 years