Rumour Bluemour Discussion XLI

[RPCB]

Interesting this. If he has ‘transgressed’ and was seemingly unavailable for 4 weeks and then 12 weeks surely he has broken the terms of his contract ?

I did laugh during the trade period with the Charlie situation whereby people would ring into SEN and say ‘if Carlton don’t trade Charlie to Geelong he should just say he will sit out the year and they can pay him $800k for nothing ‘.

The club paid Charlie all that money this year for doing nothing and he didn’t even have to sit out the year.

 

[Bundy Bear Bogan]

I would have suggested Gene Simmons boots. Not someone as… notorious as him.

Too true. In the day I thought he was soo cool..... now i cringe at the thought

 

[swuzzlebubble]

Not sure the afloat and managers would look kindly on clubs pressuring players to take less money

The might prefer it.
Take x% now and it's cash up front and not impacted by anything you earn next year...or receive your monthly contract payments adjusted for any other new earnings.

 

[BrisbaneCFC]

You are typical of people who choose to put the boot into people with problems without trying to understand the facts behind their story!!! Mental health problems are why these people try to "escape" the so called "real world" by using drugs, gambling, booze or smoke like chimneys just to take their minds off their problems, and also to block out the heat from so called experts that are just ignorant of that person and what they are going through every day. It is not a choice, it`s a human weakness that you have to somehow manage 24/7......the only person that really understands their plight is their mental health professional, and they can only guide them through all that stuff. The best thing anyone can do for them is to just hear them out, not judge them!!! *29 years of depression helps you to empathise with others better.......

Doing what Elijah does/ has done, is absolutely a choice. Telling people these things, that they choose to do, are out of their control is beyond ridiculous.

 

[SOSforPM]

With all this commentary on Elijah this year I have often wondered how Ollie is coping.
Could the club be taking in to consideration the effect on the family in giving Elijah a 2026 train on option?
Just in case, this is a question not a statement.

Could be that cutting ties may be best for Ollie if the issues are out of control.

Fingers crossed coming so close to losing it all flicks a switch for Elijah and it’s a nice redemption story though.

 

[jackn]

I don’t see it as bad list management. Part of the issue we’ve had with list spots is due to us adding players via SSP and MSD to cover the long term injuries.

Binnsy being cut while being in contract just means that we valued him less than we did another player who may have been out of contract. Personally, I don’t think you should keep a player you don’t think is worth the spot over one you do because of an extra year on a contract.

Surely that's the definition of bad list management? A guy you rate low enough that you'll sack him with a year left on his contract, shouldn't have a year left on his contract. That's managing a list poorly.

 

[Bamboo Harvester]

Surely that's the definition of bad list management? A guy you rate low enough that you'll sack him with a year left on his contract, shouldn't have a year left on his contract. That's managing a list poorly.

Things change, and we've seen with our club how quickiy they can change.

It only seems like yesterday when people on here were screaming blue murder when Binnsy wasn't getting selected for his senior debut, yet here we are and nobody's complaining that we actually cut ties. Only complaining about having to pay him out.

In hindsight we probably extended his contract a year too long. The positive is that we're now in a position that our salary cap allows us to do it. Onwards and upwards and all that rah rah.....

 

[FitzroyBlueBagger]

The club paid Charlie all that money this year for doing nothing and he didn’t even have to sit out the year.

Multiple times over the past few seasons where the club could and should of, set principles & repercussions for unconditional efforts & standards…

Should not have played Charlie at times due to the ongoing recurring injuries, poor attitude/workrate,

 

[Coona Blues]

Things change, and we've seen with our club how quickiy they can change.

It only seems like yesterday when people on here were screaming blue murder when Binnsy wasn't getting selected for his senior debut, yet here we are and nobody's complaining that we actually cut ties. Only complaining about having to pay him out.

In hindsight we probably extended his contract a year too long. The positive is that we're now in a position that our salary cap allows us to do it. Onwards and upwards and all that rah rah.....

The list changes made already and a promising draft haul have been somewhat of an auto correct this year. Our “List Progression” is now very workable. The only big problem is that Cody will eat up so much draft capital next year, followed by the (likely) Tassie draft limits our progression.

With likely “questions” on Fogarty, Boyd and maybe Young at the end of ‘26 along with assessing veterans like Saad, Newman and Haynes down back (already have replacements developing nicely) along with single year McGovern and the end of Zac Williams large contract, we should have an orderly rotation, while hopefully having their replacements ready.

The big watch for me is how we integrate Smith, Lord, Camporeale and then Walker in to the midfield. Blokes like Moir, Ison and Chesser also have claims to enter the mix, while Ainsworth and maybe Motlop look at cameos alongside Williams. Ollie and Moo also have traits which could see them in the midfield some day. The future looks very healthy.

 

[DangerousD]

I don’t see it as bad list management. Part of the issue we’ve had with list spots is due to us adding players via SSP and MSD to cover the long term injuries.

We came into the trade period with two extras on the list (White and Young), who had replaced Jagga and Kemp. So we had to make two extra cuts to the list just to get us down to where we should be. Doesn’t have to be White and Young necessarily, but they would have both known that they were a chance of being delisted at the end of the season. I remember a bit of angst around us not moving Newman to the list and activating another spot - if we did that would be looking at making yet another cut.

Binnsy being cut while being in contract just means that we valued him less than we did another player who may have been out of contract. Personally, I don’t think you should keep a player you don’t think is worth the spot over one you do because of an extra year on a contract. Ofcourse cap space sometimes says you have to, but clearing so much cap space this off season opened up our options to do so. Same with Elijah, but that one feels like an even more complex situation - being able to pay him out and train on to earn a spot (if one opens up) seems like a good option, particularly for those who wanted to see him given one final chance.

We shouldn’t have been in the situation where Binns had a multiple year contract to begin with, Durdin was the same, Boyd another who’s the same.

The last few years has seen us give 2 year deals to players who aren’t even in the best 22 and would have no clubs trying to poach them, which then means we have to trade them or delist them mid contract to free up spots.

Hollands is a bit different as he is a best 18 player, but with Binns, we need to pay him out and then pay the player who replaces him, it’s not good business, we also did this recently with LOB as well.

 

[dangertroy]

Surely that's the definition of bad list management? A guy you rate low enough that you'll sack him with a year left on his contract, shouldn't have a year left on his contract. That's managing a list poorly.

This is hindsight, or results oriented thinking. Your judging the decision to extend him two year with the information available now, not with the information available at the time.

Binns was signed for an additional two years six months into his initial two year draft contract. He was picking up 25-30 disposals in the VFL every week and projecting as a good prospect. A two year extension for a draftee at what I’m sure would have been minimum chips wasn't unusual. This place didn’t go crazy when we extended him - it was applauded and he went on to make the VFL team of the year as an 18 year old.

Cut to now. His development hasn’t been as linear as we would like. He hasn’t stepped up to AFL level, and the coach was… displeased… with his performances. We’ve brought in several players who play his position. He still has a year to go, but it’s a small contract and we’ve got salary space. Do you keep him on because he showed promise a few years ago, or cut him now? If you keep him, then you can’t resign McGovern - who we need more positionally than we do Binns.

In hindsight, we could have offered him one year instead of two - we did for Lemmey at the same time. But Lemmey was coming from further back and wasn’t showing what Binns was, and a one year extension is unusual as compared to a two year extension. Maybe it looks a bit silly now, but it was the right call at the time.

Maybe he gets picked up by the eagles and becomes an all Australian winger. Our decision to cut him now will look silly in hindsight, but it’s the right call now.

You can’t look back at a decision with new information and say it was a bad choice. You can only make a decision with the information you have in front of you, and I think the LM team got it right both then and now.

 

[swuzzlebubble]

You can’t look back at a decision with new information and say it was a bad choice

You've just obsoleted BigFooty

 

[marcmurphy3]

This is hindsight, or results oriented thinking. Your judging the decision to extend him two year with the information available now, not with the information available at the time.

Binns was signed for an additional two years six months into his initial two year draft contract. He was picking up 25-30 disposals in the VFL every week and projecting as a good prospect. A two year extension for a draftee at what I’m sure would have been minimum chips wasn't unusual. This place didn’t go crazy when we extended him - it was applauded and he went on to make the VFL team of the year as an 18 year old.

Cut to now. His development hasn’t been as linear as we would like. He hasn’t stepped up to AFL level, and the coach was… displeased… with his performances. We’ve brought in several players who play his position. He still has a year to go, but it’s a small contract and we’ve got salary space. Do you keep him on because he showed promise a few years ago, or cut him now? If you keep him, then you can’t resign McGovern - who we need more positionally than we do Binns.

In hindsight, we could have offered him one year instead of two - we did for Lemmey at the same time. But Lemmey was coming from further back and wasn’t showing what Binns was, and a one year extension is unusual as compared to a two year extension. Maybe it looks a bit silly now, but it was the right call at the time.

Maybe he gets picked up by the eagles and becomes an all Australian winger. Our decision to cut him now will look silly in hindsight, but it’s the right call now.

You can’t look back at a decision with new information and say it was a bad choice. You can only make a decision with the information you have in front of you, and I think the LM team got it right both then and now.

Agreed. A 2 year extension for an 18 year old showing as much promise as Binns was is pretty standard. At that stage it would have been tough to fathom him being off an afl list entirely 3 years into his career.

 

[dangertroy]

We shouldn’t have been in the situation where Binns had a multiple year contract to begin with, Durdin was the same, Boyd another who’s the same.

The last few years has seen us give 2 year deals to players who aren’t even in the best 22 and would have no clubs trying to poach them, which then means we have to trade them or delist them mid contract to free up spots.

Hollands is a bit different as he is a best 18 player, but with Binns, we need to pay him out and then pay the player who replaces him, it’s not good business, we also did this recently with LOB as well.

See above for my thoughts on Binns. I don’t think the 2 year extensions are unusual, particularly for depth players. None of the players you cited are likely on big money. They may of had some interest, and it was easier to give them a two year deal to stay than them being offered three year deals somewhere else. Or we could let them go, and replace them with an unknown quantity through the draft.

Durdin was showing enough - he had a bad run with injuries that have robbed him of development, and I’ll admit I’m biased, but I could have seen him as best 22.

Boyd is one of the best kicks in a team crying out for good kicks. No idea what he’s done to upset Vossy, but he should have played a lot more this year.

LOB was a little complicated because we delisted him to put him on the rookie list, so was a delisted free agent. Showed enough as a rookie for an extension, but again, the two years may have been because there was some interest as a DFA.

I’ll raise you Motlop though. To me that should be a one year contract. But again, was some interest from SA, so a 1 year contract probably wasn’t going to cut it if he had interest somewhere else. The fact we’ve brought in a few smaller forwards means we’re probably not thinking a long term future for him.

Also to be clear - I don’t want us making a habit of cutting players in contract. We’ve done it three times in the past few years, but I think it’s been the right call each time.
LOB was cut, didn’t get picked up in the VFL, now playing for Wangaratta. Binns, I think it’s the right call. Hollands is complicated. Talent wise, the two year extension was probably unders, but may have been made with his issues in mind. Our choice now is either cut him or keep him, either way we are paying him out. Cutting him, but letting him train on for a rookie spot is probably the best compromise.

 

[dangertroy]

You've just obsoleted BigFooty

But we can still use it to say I told you so, even when we didn’t…

 

[The Bighouse]

See above for my thoughts on Binns. I don’t think the 2 year extensions are unusual, particularly for depth players. None of the players you cited are likely on big money. They may of had some interest, and it was easier to give them a two year deal to stay than them being offered three year deals somewhere else. Or we could let them go, and replace them with an unknown quantity through the draft.

Durdin was showing enough - he had a bad run with injuries that have robbed him of development, and I’ll admit I’m biased, but I could have seen him as best 22.

Boyd is one of the best kicks in a team crying out for good kicks. No idea what he’s done to upset Vossy, but he should have played a lot more this year.

LOB was a little complicated because we delisted him to put him on the rookie list, so was a delisted free agent. Showed enough as a rookie for an extension, but again, the two years may have been because there was some interest as a DFA.

I’ll raise you Motlop though. To me that should be a one year contract. But again, was some interest from SA, so a 1 year contract probably wasn’t going to cut it if he had interest somewhere else. The fact we’ve brought in a few smaller forwards means we’re probably not thinking a long term future for him.

Also to be clear - I don’t want us making a habit of cutting players in contract. We’ve done it three times in the past few years, but I think it’s been the right call each time.
LOB was cut, didn’t get picked up in the VFL, now playing for Wangaratta. Binns, I think it’s the right call. Hollands is complicated. Talent wise, the two year extension was probably unders, but may have been made with his issues in mind. Our choice now is either cut him or keep him, either way we are paying him out. Cutting him, but letting him train on for a rookie spot is probably the best compromise.

Motlop is the same as Binnsy IMO, absolutely no need for 2yrs and could have even made way for list numbers. Will struggle to play 1’s if all fit, like Fogarty, but JM will be on contract for another year. Both playing more midfield in the VFL.

Interest from SA was dropped (likely because of Durd’s availability and preference as a player).

 

[Soapy V]

Motlop is the same as Binnsy IMO, absolutely no need for 2yrs and could have even made way for list numbers. Will struggle to play 1’s if all fit, like Fogarty, but JM will be on contract for another year. Both playing more midfield in the VFL.

Interest from SA was dropped (likely because of Durd’s availability and preference as a player).

I want to see Motlop fully fit and in a functioning forward line. I see a lot of AFL qualities on him and also like him having stints in middle. Reads ball well and can use it

I really believe that if we can establish standards and a good game style he will improve a lot

 

[passmark]

Such a waste, could’ve been a star

Yep, A real footballer in the Sidebottom mould (no not saying as good) .

One of those players that just see different options.

 

[swuzzlebubble]

Yep, A real footballer in the Sidebottom mould (no not saying as good) .

One of those players that just see different options.

 

[Red_man2008]

In that circumstance CC could just play the mental health card like JUH. Hard to not pay him.

Dogs were relieved that JUH played the indigenous game without permission that gave them a right to terminate him. Suns wanted the dogs to pay JUH $300k and they refused.

JUH didn’t play in the indigenous game in the preseason. He was there with the team but wasn’t permitted to suit up. So his contract wasn’t terminated by the club. The mental health card is still applicable here.

 

[Big Delut]

JUH didn’t play in the indigenous game in the preseason. He was there with the team but wasn’t permitted to suit up. So his contract wasn’t terminated by the club. The mental health card is still applicable here.

I think he might've been referring to the recent indigenous game with Eddie Betts, Jeff Garlett etc.

 

[Rugged Blue Bagger]

I want to see Motlop fully fit and in a functioning forward line. I see a lot of AFL qualities on him and also like him having stints in middle. Reads ball well and can use it

I really believe that if we can establish standards and a good game style he will improve a lot

I hope so... My biggest concern with Mots is his ability to handle the big stage / pressure. Especially those easy set shots in front of goal.
Seems you either have 'it' or 'not'

 

[passmark]

View attachment 2464960

The OG.

Looked great in a WA guernsey!!!

 

[marcmurphy3]

Lots of clubs would be happy giving Mots a 2 year deal. Even if he is useless next year, someone would take him via trade. No risk there to us.

I get not wanting non locked best 22 players on multi year deals for flexibility. But you need to balance that with offering good enough deals to keep the players you want to keep. Also, in most cases the downside is very low. For all the carry on about Binns contract, the consequence is we pay out 1 year on a very low contract.

 

[Just Kreuzing]

Agreed. A 2 year extension for an 18 year old showing as much promise as Binns was is pretty standard. At that stage it would have been tough to fathom him being off an afl list entirely 3 years into his career.

Problem with our list management though is we identified VFL possessions as “promise” and maybe needed to look at disposal quality or hurt factor along with pace as a priority given the way our list looked in regards to these areas and the way the game was changing.