-
AFLW 2025 - AFLW Trade and Draft - All the player moves
-
Mobile App Discontinued
Due to a number of factors, support for the current BigFooty mobile app has been discontinued. Your BigFooty login will no longer work on the Tapatalk or the BigFooty App - which is based on Tapatalk.
Apologies for any inconvenience. We will try to find a replacement.
Analysis 2017 List Management Discussion Part II
- Thread starter BrisbaneCFC
- Start date
- Tagged users None
🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.
- Status
Ken Navies
Team Captain
- Jul 15, 2014
- 443
- 1,042
- AFL Club
- Carlton
Know they were filthy when Sydney not GWS got Buddy..
Have they bent the rules when it comes to this since then?
Tend to agree...obviously would love lynch but that's a lot of money...would be highest in the game.
And I reckon we would still need to give up a Treloar like trade.
Lynch isn't old but he's not that young anymore either...
I know he's a star but I'm surprised to hear we are offering 1.6 million for one player given what we've heard so far about sos being rather stingy and diligent with managing contracts...I guess it could be to free up money for a big fish like this but I'd have thought we would go for Hawthorn/gws/Geelong route of not paying huge for one or two players.
Log in to remove this Banner Ad
It's all relative as we may have position our TPP to swallow up a heavily front-loaded contract.
By the way; Lynch would be a FA and in the meantime, the TPP has been bumped up substantially and will grow incrementally, yearly.
We can't just look at situations in isolation, although without all the facts at hand, that's all we have.
Jimmae
Brownlow Medallist
This would be an RFA deal designed to price GC out of matching it.
Does front-loading matter for an offer sheet? Can't imagine the salaries year-by-year need to exactly match, just the total contract value.
Can't see any price GC wouldn't match to force a trade like Adelaide and Geelong with Dangerfield.
Tbh they'd be negligent not to...I'd certainly expect Carlton to do the same if we were in that position instead of just accepting the compo.
True...I guess we will have a very young team in a years time with some older guys moving on we will have many players on our List 20 or under...which typically means lower contracts as well especially for the draftees in their first 2 year contract still.
Front load the shit out lynchs contract first 2 years as we would struggle to reach minimum cap anyway especially with CBA increase and then when other kids start deserving more money, tom's contract goes down to under $1 million which is fine.
Just putting it forward from our perspective and not what may come back to us.
If Tom Lynch wants to come to us, we'll find a way without the impost of a GC salary-match.
The way we treat the contract salary is then made to suit with our planning.
This stuff doesn't happen on an in-the-moment situation. It's planned at least one year out and even two.
Jimmae
Brownlow Medallist
No kidding, what I'm suggesting is that front-loading probably only accomodates our TPP structuring, not the ability to price GC out of things.
The AFL would be tearing their hair out if the first year value is all it took.
- Apr 20, 2006
- 10,440
- 14,257
- AFL Club
- Carlton
Only just over 1% for two years then 2% for the next three years after that so it'll still be ridiculous money.
Also every other club will know we are paying one player nearly 13% of our salary so I can imagine everyone coming after our young guns as soon as they come out of contract.
- Apr 20, 2006
- 10,440
- 14,257
- AFL Club
- Carlton
Yeh it does you have to match any front loading
Adelaide did not match - just threatened that they may and so did a trade.
Geelong paid picks because they were not paying a very high salary for Danger.
Would GC pay $1.6m for a player who does not want to be there? Would be a very risky strategy if Lynch really wanted to go.
Lynch is arguably the most sort after player in the game if he is available...can't see a similar situation not happening.
GC will threaten to match or actually match to force a trade no doubt. Yes its risky for them but we'd also be under immense pressure to get the deal done after all the courting we would have done and at that point massive publicity about Lynch nominating Carlton.
Rarely Rong
Debutant
- Jul 31, 2017
- 57
- 338
- AFL Club
- Carlton
Whilst I don't want to lose players for nothing I'm more than comfortable losing players for something, especially when you aren't in finals/premiership contention.
Hawks lost buddy, look what happened there. Adelaide lost Danger and are 2 games clear. Both got unders and somehow their list strengthened.
West Coast culture and weak can't win outside of Wa mentality is the biggest issue.
Culture/leadership/unity etc is key!
Last edited:
- Nov 27, 2016
- 20,564
- 40,634
- AFL Club
- Carlton
- Nov 27, 2016
- 20,564
- 40,634
- AFL Club
- Carlton
Even if that is the way it is now (first year only), AFL would change the rules to allow GC to match whole contract.
On SM-N920I using BigFooty.com mobile app
- Nov 27, 2016
- 20,564
- 40,634
- AFL Club
- Carlton
Why woul we pay that much? Seriously, its hard enough getting a team together. How do you expect to keep them together when there is no parity in contracts?
You can talk about culture all you want, but if 1 bloke is getting double or triple what most of the other guys are getting, you can expect players to be disgruntled and leave.
On SM-N920I using BigFooty.com mobile app
The issue with WC has nothing to do with the likes of Shuey and Gaff, more about players like Masten and LeCras.
Our club had a similar issue in the past, playing guys on reputation rather than output, finally that seems to have changed
🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.
Ahoy there Mr Planks, but are we referring to an offer to come over during THIS trade period, or are we talking an offer for when he becomes a free agent?
- May 14, 2012
- 8,334
- 13,245
- AFL Club
- Geelong
12 months time, but there was no draft and trading 2018 thread.
2018 makes sense. If SOS believes we are a chance at getting Lynch and adding BSOS, seems this trade/draft period will yield our midfielders
Maybe i'm just naive...but i'm surprised to learn we've made an offer to Lynch well over a year out from next years trade period when we intend to sign him.
I mean i expect clubs to talk to players from a long way out but to have an offer of substance with $$$ and contract length terms already surprises me.
Reckon we need more than just this years trade period to focus on midfielders...if we add Lynch and BSOS to our list we'll have a lot of KPP players on our list...some good players will be squeezed out of our best 22.
Can see us trading some surplus talls for mids to re-balance.
- Status
Similar threads
