Remove this Banner Ad

List Mgmt. 2021 Trade Thread - Part I

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Delisted;
-

Traded;
-

Retired;
Jake Carlisle
Shaun McKernan

Current Players Out of Contract;
3. Zak Jones - Link
6. Sebastian Ross (RFA) - Link
7. Luke Dunstan (RFA) - Link
13. Jack Lonie - Link
15. Jack Billings (RFA) - Link
18. Patrick Ryder - Link
24. James Frawley - Link
25. Dean Kent - Link
38. Oscar Clavarino - Link
39. Darragh Joyce - Link
41. Paul Hunter - Link
42. Max Heath - Link
45. Sam Alabakis - Link


To see the full list (it gets updated regularly) visit this thread;

List & Contract Status

SENIOR LIST 1. Jack Higgins 2. Marcus Windhager 3. Zak Jones 4. Lance Collard 5. Brad Crouch 6. Sebastian Ross 7. Nasiah Wanganeen-Milera 8. Bradley Hill 9. Jack Steele 10. Mitchito Owens 11. Hunter Clark 12. Max King 13. Ryan Byrnes 14. Liam Stocker 15. Paddy Dow 16. Daniel Butler 17. Isaac...
www.bigfooty.com www.bigfooty.com
 
The_Steadier said:
It sounds like you are agreeing with me- im saying it's not instantly irresponsible in all situations to offer a 26 year old 7 years.

What im NOT saying is that it's a good idea to always offer 26 year old guns long term deals.

I too think gws have been idiotic in signing up so many players up to long, big money deals.
I'm not saying it's always a good idea- but I am saying it can have its place depending on the circumstance.

For instance- our current circumstance is that we are entering our flag window with our list peaking in the next few years.
And we could easily accommodate a long term signing of a gun mid while still being able to look after re-signing the likes of steele, marshall, clark etc.


FYI- it appears the situation is even more messed up for GWS than I thought.
Kelly can exercise his option for 1 million a year x 8 years!

Wowzer.

Surely they will be highly motivated to move him on (ie pay some of his salary)?

www.afl.com.au

Contract status 'irrelevant': Giants reveal stand-in skipper

Star mid to step up during the injury-enforced absence of Stephen Coniglio and Toby Greene
www.afl.com.au www.afl.com.au
Click to expand...
I think you can only pay some of someone’s salary if you trade them while they’re still contracted (like Treloar last year). Not sure if that would apply for someone who is OOC but has a trigger-clause.

The annual money is probably not the issue. Guys choose one club over another who would have paid them more every year (best case in point being when Shiel reportedly chose Essendon at $800K PA over our supposed offer of around $1.2mil PA, or Dangerfield choosing Geelong for piles less money than he could have gotten elsewhere), but it’s the 8 years that would make it hard to compete with.
 
Beard of Zeus said:
I thought it was for Byrnes?
Which Twomey then said could have been the steal of the Draft at that late selection.

On Pixel 4a using BigFooty.com mobile app
Click to expand...


Pretty sure he went with a late pick to the Tigers that would nearly have been able to be made up with points and still get Leo. He went really late. I think we just didn't rate him.
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

SaintsSeptember said:
Bryrnes was pick 51 , Richmond bid on Biggy at 54, we took Connolly at 64, then Jack Bell in the rookie draft.
Click to expand...


I'm not sure what the points would have been but you imagine you could have cobbled together a few late late picks and listed him if we'd wanted to. My Richmond mate says he looks okay but doesn't sound like he's killing it yet. He's meant to be a supreme athlete. He said he's ruck sized but would be better suited to a wing, he reckons he's super fast and has good hands.
 
aussierulesrules said:
I think you can only pay some of someone’s salary if you trade them while they’re still contracted (like Treloar last year). Not sure if that would apply for someone who is OOC but has a trigger-clause.

The annual money is probably not the issue. Guys choose one club over another who would have paid them more every year (best case in point being when Shiel reportedly chose Essendon at $800K PA over our supposed offer of around $1.2mil PA, or Dangerfield choosing Geelong for piles less money than he could have gotten elsewhere), but it’s the 8 years that would make it hard to compete with.
Click to expand...

nah there is definately no restriction on the old club paying part of the salary of an out of contract player.

It doesn't matter if the player is in or out of contract when agreeing to be traded- because all trades result in a brand new contract.

(The players status as OOC or contracted would only matter if clubs actually took over existing contracts of contracted players)

It's not the case that the new club ever actually "takes over" the contract of a contracted player.
They simply create a new one of the same value and length as the contracted player already has (while their old contract with their former club is terminated by mutual agreement)

For instance, with hannebury- it LOOKED like we "took over" his sydney contract, but we didn't really.
We simply agreed to create a new contract w hanners that happened to be exactly the same length and value as what sydney owed him.

Btw-If there was any such restriction, it would appear in section 9 (rules and limitations on player movements)


As you can see, the AFL rules around trades are entirely silent about the possibility of two clubs paying the wages of a player.

Lack of an express rule about these situations doesn't mean they can't happen (because of course they do happen often). All that means is that standard australian contract law governs it instead of a specific AFL rule.

And std contract law allows a contract where multiple parties pay the wages of an employee.

The only way a club could get into trouble is if they tried to directly pay (with cash etc) another club for a player or draft pick- ie with no player or draft pick exchange.
That would contravene section 9.4 of the AFL rules.
 
Last edited:
I would like to think were are asking the question of Coleman Jones, Sam Hayes or Peter Ladhams. Dal Santo has also talked up Darcy Fort.

One of the young rucks with mobility in the MSD along with the Key defender out of WA that was delisted by Geelong.
 
OxSaint said:
I would like to think were are asking the question of Coleman Jones, Sam Hayes or Peter Ladhams. Dal Santo has also talked up Darcy Fort.

One of the young rucks with mobility in the MSD along with the Key defender out of WA that was delisted by Geelong.
Click to expand...
The way Crossley is starting to perform in the VFL he's probably going past all of them and would cost nothing
 
The_Steadier said:
nah there is definately no restriction on the old club paying part of the salary of an out of contract player.

It doesn't matter if the player is in or out of contract when agreeing to be traded- because all trades result in a brand new contract.

(The players status as OOC or contracted would only matter if clubs actually took over existing contracts of contracted players)

It's not the case that the new club ever actually "takes over" the contract of a contracted player.
They simply create a new one of the same value and length as the contracted player already has (while their old contract with their former club is terminated by mutual agreement)

For instance, with hannebury- it LOOKED like we "took over" his sydney contract, but we didn't really.
We simply agreed to create a new contract w hanners that happened to be exactly the same length and value as what sydney owed him.

Btw-If there was any such restriction, it would appear in section 9 (rules and limitations on player movements)


As you can see, the AFL rules around trades are entirely silent about the possibility of two clubs paying the wages of a player.

Lack of an express rule about these situations doesn't mean they can't happen (because of course they do happen often). All that means is that standard australian contract law governs it instead of a specific AFL rule.

And std contract law allows a contract where multiple parties pay the wages of an employee.

The only way a club could get into trouble is if they tried to directly pay (with cash etc) another club for a player or draft pick- ie with no player or draft pick exchange.
That would contravene section 9.4 of the AFL rules.
Click to expand...

That’s not really the right way to think about it. Commercially it’s as if the players are contracted to the AFL, even though that’s not exactly the form.

So once a player signs a contract, an AFL entity (one of the clubs) is going to pay that money, one way or another. The fact that the counterparty changes is a meaningless detail in practice.

Money changing hands for part of a player’s contract isn’t their concern. They can have confidence that they get paid one way or the other. (Except in extraordinary circumstances like covid.)
 
bird_man said:
The way Crossley is starting to perform in the VFL he's probably going past all of them and would cost nothing
Click to expand...


He's more Marshall than Ryder though, he's a forward ruck more than a ruck forward. Most of those are guys are more true rucks. I think he'd be a good fit though, he's a big tough mean unit who will scare defences, as a combo with King it would be a a nice point of difference and he plays a more alpha type of footy that we lack. To me you'd take him and give him a go at least, nothing to lose by it.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

bergholt said:
Commercially it’s as if the players are contracted to the AFL, even though that’s not exactly the form.
Click to expand...

Yes the afl fully fund total player payments of each club, so yes you can make the argument that the AFL are indirectly the employers of players.
But the clubs are their own legal entities (despite being in practice wholly reliant on the league). As such, players are still ultimately employees of the clubs- ie the clubs give them their pay cheques, tell them what to do and when... and control when they hire and fire them.

Player contracts are actually tripartite agreements- the player, the club and the league all sign and have set obligations and responsibilities. So it's a murky world.

But going back to the original point- all of that (ie where the players pay comes from etc) is irrelevant when looking at whether contracted players can be traded if the proposed trade involves 2 clubs using their TPP allocation to fund the players wage.
 
BrutThough said:
We rated him as a rookie so weren't going to match any bid that come for him in the draft.
Click to expand...

That makes sense , would we have got him as CatB?
You can keep CatB's cheap for 3 years, whereas a player on the main list costs more and has a 2 year contract.
Richmond will need to decide whether to keep him or not end of year.
This is exactly why clubs are a bit reticent to take talls, especially development rucks, out of the draft.

My understanding is that Biggy played most of his footy as a ruck , but at 197, he's never going to struggle to be anything special.
Alabakis (spelling?) may well wash out , but if he makes it he's 211. Sandilands was crap when he started.
 
SaintsSeptember said:
That makes sense , would we have got him as CatB?
You can keep CatB's cheap for 3 years, whereas a player on the main list costs more and has a 2 year contract.
Richmond will need to decide whether to keep him or not end of year.
This is exactly why clubs are a bit reticent to take talls, especially development rucks, out of the draft.

My understanding is that Biggy played most of his footy as a ruck , but at 197, he's never going to struggle to be anything special.
Alabakis (spelling?) may well wash out , but if he makes it he's 211. Sandilands was crap when he started.
Click to expand...

Can't teach reach!
 
gringo2011 said:
To me you'd take him and give him a go at least, nothing to lose by it.
Click to expand...

mUcemjf.gif
 
gringo2011 said:
He's more Marshall than Ryder though, he's a forward ruck more than a ruck forward. Most of those are guys are more true rucks. I think he'd be a good fit though, he's a big tough mean unit who will scare defences, as a combo with King it would be a a nice point of difference and he plays a more alpha type of footy that we lack. To me you'd take him and give him a go at least, nothing to lose by it.
Click to expand...
So are the other guys mentioned though. Coleman Jones and the guy from Adelaide are both similar types to Marshall.

Tbh, Crossley isn't a great key forward or a great tap ruck but neither is Marshall.

I think two Marshall types would be be able to work though. The fact both can have an influence forward and around the ground would cause some head aches.

I'd love another Ryder but there aren't many around.
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

I would add Marbior Chol ( free agents list) and an old Sandringham player Hayden McLean to that list. I’m surprised Darcy Fort is only 27.. thought he was much older.
OxSaint said:
I would like to think were are asking the question of Coleman Jones, Sam Hayes or Peter Ladhams. Dal Santo has also talked up Darcy Fort.

One of the young rucks with mobility in the MSD along with the Key defender out of WA that was delisted by Geelong.
Click to expand...
 
We don't need bing we need mids!

We currently have pick 6, I'd also ask the question to the pies for a 1st round pick swap we get there 2021 and they get our 2022.

Giving us pick 3 and 6 currently.

If billings gets band 1 compo he can go too!

Take picks 3, 6 and 7 to draft and get at least 2 mids and maybe another fwd.

On DUB-LX2 using BigFooty.com mobile app
 
crasha301 said:
We don't need bing we need mids!

We currently have pick 6, I'd also ask the question to the pies for a 1st round pick swap we get there 2021 and they get our 2022.

Giving us pick 3 and 6 currently.

If billings gets band 1 compo he can go too!

Take picks 3, 6 and 7 to draft and get at least 2 mids and maybe another fwd.

On DUB-LX2 using BigFooty.com mobile app
Click to expand...
Why in the world would Collingwood do that ?

Here you go you have our 1st round pick and we will miss 12months development on a top 10 pick, just makes no sense
 
crasha301 said:
We don't need bing we need mids!

We currently have pick 6, I'd also ask the question to the pies for a 1st round pick swap we get there 2021 and they get our 2022.

Giving us pick 3 and 6 currently.

If billings gets band 1 compo he can go too!

Take picks 3, 6 and 7 to draft and get at least 2 mids and maybe another fwd.

On DUB-LX2 using BigFooty.com mobile app
Click to expand...

Collingwood don’t own their 1st
 
Pies don't have their 2021 first rounder. That's at GWS.


And no club would do that trade
crasha301 said:
We don't need bing we need mids!

We currently have pick 6, I'd also ask the question to the pies for a 1st round pick swap we get there 2021 and they get our 2022.

Giving us pick 3 and 6 currently.

If billings gets band 1 compo he can go too!

Take picks 3, 6 and 7 to draft and get at least 2 mids and maybe another fwd.

On DUB-LX2 using BigFooty.com mobile app
Click to expand...

On Pixel 4 XL using BigFooty.com mobile app
 
Mowman said:
Why in the world would Collingwood do that ?

Here you go you have our 1st round pick and we will miss 12months development on a top 10 pick, just makes no sense
Click to expand...

I agree, its like " hey mate, loan me $100 and i'll give you something between $50 and $150 next year."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Similar threads

Fehring
List Mgmt. 2025 Trade Thread
2 3 4
Replies
93
Views
11K
goodie23
goodie23
Hubnester
  • Locked
List Mgmt. 2025 List Management Discussion - Part IV
399 400 401 402 403
Replies
10K
Views
452K
Saintos The ITK
Saintos The ITK
Hubnester
  • Locked
List Mgmt. 2025 List Management Discussion - Part 3
386 387 388 389 390
Replies
10K
Views
425K
Chief
Chief
Hubnester
List Mgmt. 2025 List Management Discussion - Part V
219 220 221 222 223
Replies
6K
Views
259K
Significant
Significant
Tommy Wigs
  • Locked
List Mgmt. 2025 List Management discussion - part 2
583 584 585 586 587
Replies
15K
Views
618K
Gavinmitchell11
G
Hubnester
Rumour Rumours & Confirmed - Trades, Free Agency & Draft [NO DISCUSSION]
2
Replies
37
Views
9K
StFly
StFly
SainterinSydney
List Mgmt. 2024 Trade Thread - No.3
149 150 151 152 153
Replies
4K
Views
193K
Mr Platinum
Mr Platinum

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top