AAAAAAAAHH AAAAAAgoblins insIDe me getAAAAHHH AHHH
- Sep 21, 2017
- AFL Club
- North Melbourne
- Other Teams
That's his second post on it today as well. Something like "Oh Brady that's how you treat loyal servants" when it came out Atley and Dumont were gone.fu** that's embarrassing haha. I went through a few more posts, the bloke is melting into a puddle over North not trading Xerri
I don't believe it has we're just out and out brutal as we turnover our list looking for number 5. Froggy doesn't have any elite skills and that is no longer in the ' nice to haves'.
Not sure what you are saying here. We have the capacity under the salary cap to expand our coaching staff without said spending going against our footy dept spending. It is a great concept, and will not harm our integrity in any way shape or form. Confused by that suggestion to be honest.Would rather we weren't doing this, the soft cap is a benefit to us as a smaller club. Messing with the system could come back to hurt us, and our integrity, in the future.
Clubs like ours push for soft cap limits so we don't get caught out in a coaching/footy department arms race. Using our list dollars as a loophole makes it harder for us to argue against the soft cap being lifted again in the future, if that is what we want to argue.Not sure what you are saying here. We have the capacity under the salary cap to expand our coaching staff without said spending going against our footy dept spending. It is a great concept, and will not harm our integrity in any way shape or form. Confused by that suggestion to be honest.
yep.Do we run an update page? So we've lost Tarrant, Walkers, Tysons, Dumont, Campbell, Menadues, Hams, Atley. And have bought in CCJ.
So is that 7 list spots?
Ahh I see what you mean. If Lynch is signed and plays footy for us in some capacity, be it VFL or AFL it should be fine. If we choose to allocate a list spot to a playing coach then can't see the issue longer term. Key part there being 'playing' coachClubs like ours push for soft cap limits so we don't get caught out in a coaching/footy department arms race. Using our list dollars as a loophole makes it harder for us to argue against the soft cap being lifted again in the future, if that is what we want to argue.
I don't think it makes any difference to them whether its our picks or Richmonds. I don't think they get any benefit in terms of saving a pick in the later 40s for another shot at a draftee.As expected, the Pies dealt with Richmond for the pick 27 trade instead of us, I never understood why some folks thought they would want our lower picks instead. Having said that, Richmond seems to have overpaid for 27, the thinking was 38 and 40 was already better points wise, but they had to throw in their future 3rd. 3 3rd rounders for pick 27 isn't good value anyway, considering we're talking about 11 spots (38 this year) lower and in the 20s - 30s range, not top 10 sliding down to top 20.
Think there wouldn't be a massive difference in the players available at 27, compared to third rounders, so I wouldn't have been happy for us to give up 3 in the trade - we've still got some holes that we could find decent players to fill, in those ranges.
I suppose it is fortunate that guys like Danger are kept at arms leangth from these types of negotiations.......Always no fun at this time of year to see the guys get moved on having given everything to get and stay on a list and pursue a career that most of us would give a limb to do. The 'club first' mantra we hear trotted out in interviews etc. comes across pretty hollow on occasions like this.
The two fewer list spots available are really making their presence felt across the board this year. It still shocks me that the AFLPA went with an even cut across the board rather than scale it based on income and tried harder to keep list numbers the same as pre-COVID.
You'd think a few % off for players like Dangerfield wouldn't hurt as much as for someone who's on a rookie list contract, plus he's been imbibing from the teat of big $$$ contracts for years pre-COVID so has essentially set himself up for life unless he does something stupid. Of course the media ignores this fact, still wanting to stay pally pally with Danger and the other big stars on big bucks whilst more of their team mates are shown the door through no fault of their own.
It just seems like players who are like the bottom 10 or so in terms of list spots and contracts probably have next to no say at AFLPA board level. Just looking at their website it looks like Froggy was one of the player reps and potentially was part of the decision that probably prematurely ended his AFL career.