Speculation Bailey Smith

Remove this Banner Ad

jackenny said:
Man, Bevo isn’t ‘stepping aside of his own accord’. He’s contracted until the end of 2025. He’ll need to be tapped on the shoulder and paid out, just like any other coach/player moved on before their contract is up. I genuinely can’t see Bevo as the type to pull the pin OF HIS OWN ACCORD with one year to go (as a competitor, as someone who doesn’t want to lose out on approx. 7 figures).
Click to expand...

Bevo does the unexpected constantly. It's his trademark.
 
jackenny said:
Man, Bevo isn’t ‘stepping aside of his own accord’. He’s contracted until the end of 2025. He’ll need to be tapped on the shoulder and paid out, just like any other coach/player moved on before their contract is up. I genuinely can’t see Bevo as the type to pull the pin OF HIS OWN ACCORD with one year to go (as a competitor, as someone who doesn’t want to lose out on approx. 7 figures).
Click to expand...
What?

Thanks for telling it like it is, you must be the club president.

A payout only needs to be 6 months
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Strapping Young Lad said:
Respectfully disagree about the Pies.
Oldest list in the comp with only 1 top 10 pick under 28 years old on the list(Nick D). There is no gun key forward available for them as a FA.

With the amount of players they need to replace over the next 1-2 years they are a very big chance of dropping off the cliff right when Tassie start sucking up all the top end picks. Horrible timing.

Cats have at least kept rolling over players in bringing in young talent(Bruhn, Henry, Clarke, O’Sullivan).
Click to expand...

Hey, I hope you are correct re pies 😂
 
PurpJuice said:
It doesn’t work like that, Dogs can say no, he’s not a free agent. I encourage you to do some research on the topic.

From a good source, Pies are out of the Baz race. They have realised they don’t have the currency to get the trade done. It’s between Hawks and Dogs.
Click to expand...
What do you mean "don't have the currency"? They'll use a future pick.
And with his history it would be a dick move by us to pull a stunt.
And with his age and high profile, I could see the health advocates making a big song dance. I don't think we'd want to risk that sort of publicity
 
Doggy said:
What?

Thanks for telling it like it is, you must be the club president.

A payout only needs to be 6 months
Click to expand...
Think about it logically: if payouts ‘only need to be six months’, why do contract extensions or lengthy contracts even exist at all? Why are contracts being drawn up for, say, three years (under the guise of security) if an employer can dishonour that contract at any time and ‘only needs to payout six months’? Are you confusing basic unfair dismissal laws with this situation?
 
jackenny said:
Think about it logically: if payouts ‘only need to be six months’, why do contract extensions or lengthy contracts even exist at all? Why are contracts being drawn up for, say, three years (under the guise of security) if an employer can dishonour that contract at any time and ‘only needs to payout six months’? Are you confusing basic unfair dismissal laws with this situation?
Click to expand...
Maybe come back when you know how it all works based on recent changes within the AFL.

At no point were we talking about other industries, but nice try with your attempted talking down. Only one of us would be a lawyer, and it's not you.

For some reason you think Beveridge is safe until the end of 2025. Quite simply, he is not. He is likely ro be moved on, one way or another.
 
Last edited:
Doggy said:
Maybe come back when you know how it all works based on recent changes within the AFL.

At no point were we talking about other industries, but nice try with your attempted talking down. Only one of us would be a lawyer, and it's not you.

For some reason you think Beveridge is safe until the end of 2025. Quite simply, he is not. He is likely ro be moved on, one way or another.
Click to expand...
Yes, and in this industry you have coaches like Hardwick penning five year contracts - and using your logic, the Suns could sack him right now and ‘only’ pay him for six months. Do you not see where you’re clearly incorrect here? Or can you not handle being corrected? Because you’re being a bit sensitive if you think this is me talking down to you.

In any case, no, I am not saying Bevo is safe - but the fact is he is contracted until the end of 2025 and that puts things in favour of him staying for another year.
 
jackenny said:
Yes, and in this industry you have coaches like Hardwick penning five year contracts - and using your logic, the Suns could sack him right now and ‘only’ pay him for six months. Do you not see where you’re clearly incorrect here? Or can you not handle being corrected? Because you’re being a bit sensitive if you think this is me talking down to you.

In any case, no, I am not saying Bevo is safe - but the fact is he is contracted until the end of 2025 and that puts things in favour of him staying for another year.
Click to expand...
Sheesh.... you've done zero research here.

It was a 6 month payout and it has been increased to 12 months as of late last year.

There are a ton of articles. Go and look it up for yourself
 
Doggy said:
Sheesh.... you've done zero research here.

It was a 6 month payout and it has been increased to 12 months as of late last year.

There are a ton of articles. Go and look it up for yourself
Click to expand...
You’re aware this rule only applies to debt-ridden clubs dependent on the AFL, right? And a club specifically has to apply for it? What makes you think this rule is applicable to Bevo’s and the Bulldog’s case?
 
I doubt the outcome of bevo & Libba will change Baz's decision. It's all about the right deal.

  • We hear he wants around 1.3mil and that seems to be only 100k off the offer Geelong have given.
  • Pies offer is probably less than Geelong but probably back ended.
  • Hawks offer is unknown but they should have a warchest so It's likely going to be his best.
  • Dogs newest offer is rumored 3yrs and larger than the 2 year offer they rumored earlier in the year.

I think the offers he has now depend if he wants a long contract or a shorter contract that he can push for more later. It's unknown what clauses the deals have too.

I would based on pure money and growing up supporting the club he'd go to Hawks. It's unknown if he has any sense of loyalty with the dogs or his relationship with the club will sway him like JUH did.
 
jackenny said:
You’re aware this rule only applies to debt-ridden clubs dependent on the AFL, right? And a club specifically has to apply for it? What makes you think this rule is applicable to Bevo’s and the Bulldog’s case?
Click to expand...
There is no information saying they have to be debt ridden to get the pay out. All it says is the Coach guaranteed a pay out of 12 months so It's still going to cost a lot more money to pay out and also get a new coach. There is no pay out cover for clubs for sacking a coach. The only change is now 20% of the coach's salary is outside the soft cap as well as costs for setting up a new coach to the club.

Why dogs didn't consider sacking Bevo last season because he had a new contract and they would had to pay him the full amount of his contract which would have made things more expensive than to wait a year.
 
Ash1337 said:
There is no information saying they have to be debt ridden to get the pay out. All it says is the Coach guaranteed a pay out of 12 months so It's still going to cost a lot more money to pay out and also get a new coach. There is no pay out cover for clubs for sacking a coach. The only change is now 20% of the coach's salary is outside the soft cap as well as costs for setting up a new coach to the club.

Why dogs didn't consider sacking Bevo last season because he had a new contract and they would had to pay him the full amount of his contract which would have made things more expensive than to wait a year.
Click to expand...
It’s a rule that only applied to clubs that the AFL deemed dependant on funding / debt-ridden on an ad-how basis. It lasted all of three years because it was a knee-jerk reaction to football department culling during Covid. The rule ultimately left poor clubs even poorer as they could no longer compete with richer clubs when competing for coach’s (including development and assistant coaches) signatures.

E.g.

St Kilda uncover a very talented development coach, a talented up-and-coming assistant coach, but are in the hunt for a new head coach.

Suddenly, Collingwood swoops in and offer their development coach a two year contract (the Saints can only offer them up to six months because the AFL deemed they suck), so they’re out of the race and will lose a quality development coach.

Now Hawthorn are after their up-and-coming assistant coach - they’re offering a two year deal, too - well, tough luck for the Saints again, just aren’t able to compete for signatures thanks to that rule.

Maybe they’ll have better luck on the hunt for a new head coach? And that coach will look the goods two years into their coaching tenure? What’s that, Richmond are offering them a four year deal to poach them? How can the Saints compete with that?

Poor Saints. Left with the dregs. Do you wonder if anyone still wants Ross Lyon?

But hey, they only have to payout three/six months, right? What a great trade-off for opening their football department to be picked apart…

Basically, to the Bulldogs credit, their admin foresaw what a disaster that would be and didn’t drink the AFL’s kool-aide.

Now the rule is mostly defunct as of 2023 (for senior coaches, the change has allowed payout clauses for one year or longer). Development coaches and assistants are still a point of contention but watch that get changed in a couple years, too.

Reference: https://www.afl.com.au/news/1095816...hew-nicks-deals-are-shaping-their-seasons/amp

Edit: anyway, that (defunct) rule is irrelevant to this situation. Bevo is very unlikely to be moved on at the end of this year, and Baz is likely to leave for greater opportunity elsewhere (that he isn’t getting with Bevo). Same thing is happening with Caleb Daniel who I am reasonably certain will be at Carlton next year.
 
Last edited:

(Log in to remove this ad.)

jackenny said:
Edit: anyway, that (defunct) rule is irrelevant to this situation. Bevo is very unlikely to be moved on at the end of this year, and Baz is likely to leave for greater opportunity elsewhere (that he isn’t getting with Bevo). Same thing is happening with Caleb Daniel who I am reasonably certain will be at Carlton next year.
Click to expand...

Wow. Is this just a hunch or some inside knowledge? I’m not sure we have a need for Daniel but he’s a handy player.
 
4Seasons said:
What do you mean "don't have the currency"? They'll use a future pick.
And with his history it would be a dick move by us to pull a stunt.
And with his age and high profile, I could see the health advocates making a big song dance. I don't think we'd want to risk that sort of publicity
Click to expand...

lol, pies future first and second wouldn’t be close.
 
CatToTheFuture said:
I dunno. Fair old chance that the pies are about to transition that list and not by choice
Click to expand...
But if that is looking likely all the more reason Bailey wouldn’t want to go there.

Any club at risk of dropping off in the next 2-3 years is going to walk a very perilous path when it comes to securing recruits.
 
Strapping Young Lad said:
But if that is looking likely all the more reason Bailey wouldn’t want to go there.

Any club at risk of dropping off in the next 2-3 years is going to walk a very perilous path when it comes to securing recruits.
Click to expand...
Well his choices at this point are two sides in the top half of the ladder who are transitioning the list and he can lead that transition, or a side not in the top half of the ladder and he can lead that transition.

I think all options have something going for them.
 
Kreuuuzeurns said:
Wow. Is this just a hunch or some inside knowledge? I’m not sure we have a need for Daniel but he’s a handy player.
Click to expand...
Caleb Daniel is still involved in the SANFL, specifically his old club; that’s pretty much it. Just older blokes talking, but they’re worth listening to, IMO - especially when it’s about Carlton people passing through / hanging around the club.
 
jackenny said:
Caleb Daniel is still involved in the SANFL, specifically his old club; that’s pretty much it. Just older blokes talking, but they’re worth listening to, IMO - especially when it’s about Carlton people passing through / hanging around the club.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. Will have to take your word for it. He’s probably the furthest thing from a need at Carlton but he’s a good player nonetheless.
 
Jen2310 said:
According to HS, the pies either want to try to get back into the 1st round (unlikely) or get the player they want at the draft with Hawks 2nd. Targeting talls.
So either we have pulled out of the race for Smith, or attempt to do a future pick.
Click to expand...
Future picks are useless to the Dogs.

We have a few father sons next year
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Elmer_Judd
Recommitted Bailey Smith [OOC 2024]
26 27 28 29 30
Replies
742
Views
43K
Lore
Lore
The Nostradamus
Recommitted Bailey Williams [signs 4 year deal]
2 3
Replies
57
Views
7K
Foxman98
Foxman98
MisterMarcus
Recommitted Bailey Scott [re-signed to 2024]
2 3 4
Replies
92
Views
5K
Kangaroos4eva
Kangaroos4eva

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top