News Brad Crouch to Saints (STK make offer; Band 3, ADL to match?)

[FR0GGY]

speaking of which, what if the AFL are negotiating with us NOT to bid on JUH before giving us pick 2?

I say go hell for leather even if we get pick 2

 

[douglyzia]

speaking of which, what if the AFL are negotiating with us NOT to bid on JUH before giving us pick 2?

Can the AFL suspend and fine themselves for draft tampering?

 

[mistylake]

From what I can tell, band 1 requires brad to be in the top 2-3 paid players per club on average across the league. I can see getting close on a 3 year deal, but not if it's 5 years. Nothing to do with Gill or Barrett, just that I can't see the numbers stacking up. And gut feel from between the lines of what's out there from club is that we won't be matching a 5 year deal. Now the salary dump plan might work, but I reckon it's our only hope.

Something that hasn't really come up and I know that it hasn't occurred in the past and outgoing free agents have been dealt with separately. But the AFL's own mud map mentions accumulation. If Hartigan doesn't earn us compo, can the loss of him be added to Brad as it's onky 1 pick. Whereas in the past, maybe there's not been a scenario where a compo earning player has left alongside a non-earner. Just a question being posed, NFI if we've already seen it and it's a no go.

Atkins also a free agent worth compo.

 

[Southerntakeover]

Leaving aside that it's still absurd: the Saints reward for paying band one is that they get to keep their own picks, we absolutely do not have list space for two spuds given likely list number reductions.

We should be maximising our chances at hitting on prospects.

 

[ams4crows]

Pick 2 is a pipe dream, it just is not happening. The AFL will not allow it because they hate us.

 

[mattymac]

Watch us take 2 saints players and still get band 2.

Peak crows haha

 

[Stan16]

Pick 2 is a pipe dream, it just is not happening. The AFL will not allow it because they hate us.

I'm not sure why everyone thinks the AFL is going to jeopardize the deal.. if we hit the contract numbers we are entitled to a pick after our first, which just happens to be 2.

End of story, if they don't give it to us, I'm very confident our management won't be happy and will probably mess up the draft by bidding on a tonne of father sons/academy players.

 

[BrissyCrow]

The whole point is, Were gonna take those 2 players from saints on a salary dump so they can pay crouch the extra money to land us pick 2, it's smart by them they don't have to give up there draft picks.

Understand that logic and I pray it works but so far all the talk is that Crouch will only get a low offer. Anyway people are talking on here as if its a done deal and they are just getting their hopes up or dreaming.

 

[BrissyCrow]

I'm not sure why everyone thinks the AFL is going to jeopardize the deal.. if we hit the contract numbers we are entitled to a pick after our first, which just happens to be 2.

End of story, if they don't give it to us, I'm very confident our management won't be happy and will probably mess up the draft by bidding on a tonne of father sons/academy players.

Wouldn't it be an interesting couple of months if the AFL screw us over and we take them to court. Wont happen but Oh I would love that so much.

 

[baldandbroke]

About time we had one of these draft / trade scenarios fall our way ... I'd love to have OTHER clubs complain about the leg up we got in 2020 for years to come.

"What bullsh!t! I mean they got all three of XXXXX, XXXXX and XXXXX in one draft ... bloody Crows always get looked after by the AFL :-( "

 

[1970crow]

1970, I believe we've been through all this before. I think that the AFL policy is ambiguously worded and that the "nett" applies only if someone goes out and someone comes in. I think they have clarified that multiple outs are not netted. Otherwise, you could send a job lot of spud FAs out and nett to a high pick.

That explains "nett". It doesn't explain "total points" in that sentence. All I've read is reiteration as to events that have occurred so far. I'm not saying it can work, what I'm saying is that I can't recall an example where it's been put to the test. If our only experience is a club, saybus, getting compo for each player individually, then the sentence hasn't been tested, so nobody here knows, they're just assuming.

With regards to the sending out a lot of spuds, that's not really how it works. Compo is provided because a club has lost these spuds to other clubs via the free agency system. The AFL's own words suggest they do look at the loss as a whole and award picks. We need an example to be certain. I can't think of one.

 

[1970crow]

Melbourne did it by playing guys horribly out of position, and offering nonsensical instructions from the bench, so they'd deliberately lose matches

As opposed to the matches in the first 2/3s of the season that they lost when not tanking.

 

[1970crow]

I'd be ashamed if he came out swinging like that. The rant is purely that the compo should not be based on salary, which it is!

He was getting a bit mixed up between the compo for players lost to expansion clubs. But the tirade I was thinking was along the lines of "how ridiculous it is that the compo is hidden and how can clubs be expected to operate in the dark like this. We just lost a b&f winning mid to a very good 5 year deal that is worthy of a decent first round pick and we end up with 19, whatever that will end up being after academy and FS, we don't know."

 

[mistylake]

Both those players seem like reasonable depth players.

If it means pick 2, why not

We might fluke another Keyes but who cares. We need more high picks in this seriously compromised draft.

 

[mistylake]

Are the Victorian kids still nominating for the draft even though they haven’t been able to strut their stuff this year.
Maybe we go for one of these on the projections of last few years.

 

[mistylake]

I'm not sure why everyone thinks the AFL is going to jeopardize the deal.. if we hit the contract numbers we are entitled to a pick after our first, which just happens to be 2.

End of story, if they don't give it to us, I'm very confident our management won't be happy and will probably mess up the draft by bidding on a tonne of father sons/academy players.

I’d definitely be recording that zoom call if we ask the question before settling the matter.

 

[Crow till I die]

speaking of which, what if the AFL are negotiating with us NOT to bid on JUH before giving us pick 2?

But why would they care..in fact i think they would love it..first bid of the night crows call out JUH then the tension as the dogs discuss before inevitably matching the bid. The AFL would love that and would then tell.all and sundry how good the system is

 

[GreyCrow]

Hell, for pick 2, I'd be happy to re-draft Dean Gore.

 

[arsene wenger1]

You need to address the Carlton Board for further information.

CarlTANK was a name given for a reason.

You give them too much credit. There’s a chance that they’re actually just that s***

 

[ftmch]

WE SHALL SEE

Kudos on doubling down with the petulant 'I'll make my point by using upper case' routine.

Sent from my SM-N986B using Tapatalk

 

[baldandbroke]

That explains "nett". It doesn't explain "total points" in that sentence. All I've read is reiteration as to events that have occurred so far. I'm not saying it can work, what I'm saying is that I can't recall an example where it's been put to the test. If our only experience is a club, saybus, getting compo for each player individually, then the sentence hasn't been tested, so nobody here knows, they're just assuming.

With regards to the sending out a lot of spuds, that's not really how it works. Compo is provided because a club has lost these spuds to other clubs via the free agency system. The AFL's own words suggest they do look at the loss as a whole and award picks. We need an example to be certain. I can't think of one.

If anything this does show that the AFL are consistent in their inconsistency.

As you say 1970crow , those words feel like they are open to what the AFL said they would not do ... combine the loss to justify a lower pick.

Maybe it's the way they get out of this. They say we have the flexibility in the system to decide how the compensation is made up.

I mean, read that sentence again ...

​

They couldn't have worded it more ambiguously if they tried!!

 

[Thetrader15]

I'm not sure why everyone thinks the AFL is going to jeopardize the deal.. if we hit the contract numbers we are entitled to a pick after our first, which just happens to be 2.

End of story, if they don't give it to us, I'm very confident our management won't be happy and will probably mess up the draft by bidding on a tonne of father sons/academy players.

Pick 1 - JUH
Pick 2 - B Canpbell
Pick 3 - L Jones

 

[Stan16]

Pick 1 - JUH
Pick 2 - B Canpbell
Pick 3 - L Jones

If we bid on Jones in the top 10 and Port use their 20s pick you get Fantasia.. will they have enough in the bank to match for Jones?

 

[hey shorty]

Pick 1 - JUH
Pick 2 - B Canpbell
Pick 3 - L Jones

Would be quite humourous if we did that.

I reckon we'd end up with Campbell.

 

[hey shorty]

If we bid on Jones in the top 10 and Port use their 20s pick you get Fantasia.. will they have enough in the bank to match for Jones?

Go into deficit.

And I'm guessing they'll trade out some depth players for points