Player Watch Rory Sloane - Re-Signed for 2024

Should Rory Sloane retire or play on in 2024?


  • Total voters
    145

Remove this Banner Ad

Given the shitshow that was our footy dept, it's hard to say, but you'd not be surprised if board/admin had their hands all over that decision. We know they forced Reid to negotiate with one arm tied behind his back end of 2017 over Gibbs. And it did come out of the review that Reid should have more influence at a list management level. And we know that both our list management and football strategy committees were polluted with inept board and admin staff.

I’d bet London to a brick the admin needed a good news story heading into the latter half of 2018 after playing off in a GF the previous year, losing key players and at the time we were odds on to miss finals.
 
This is the type of irrational love that pollutes these discussions. Genuinely places Sloane ahead of the entire club. Is it any wonder that any reasonable view is strawmanned.

Agree. The AFL is bigger than the AFC which is bigger than any of its players. A simple concept which is lost on most posters.

As I said, they needed a good news, good feeling story for its membership base.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

That’s ok if he was a mid ranged salary player, but he’d be our highest paid player but hasn’t played like that for the last 2 years and his next 2 will see him decline further. Now we have to find him other roles because he’s not capable of playing the role we are paying him for.

This is panning out exactly like some of us thought it would when we buckled and gave him this long term deal.

It's certainly one of the silver linings of being in a rebuild at the moment, that despite Sloane contract becoming more and more of an albatross as time has gone on, most of the damage is mitigated by us being in a situation where we should be struggling to reach the cap floor regardless. The only real risk is that we keep playing Sloane as a midfielder.

That said, it's certainly more likely that Sloanes deal was backended due to this year initially shaping up as our last "window" year (way back when in 17/'18).
 
Remember when it was announced over the ground against Geelong in July 2018 - here we were giving a 28yo (and would 29yo at the start of the next season) a five year contract - thought at the time, wtf! It should have been a maximum 3 years.

Another glorious decision by our previous administration.

I understand why we did it, after Lever, Danger and Cameron leaving the club couldn't afford to then lose Sloane as well. Getting him to re-sign it was the circuit breaker that the club desperately needed at the time.

Unfortunately though his 5 years deal was a killer and the club most probably didn't anticpate him falling off the cliff as early as he did.
 
I understand why we did it, after Lever, Danger and Cameron leaving the club couldn't afford to then lose Sloane as well. Getting him to re-sign it was the circuit breaker that the club desperately needed at the time.

Unfortunately though his 5 years deal was a killer and the club most probably didn't anticpate him falling off the cliff as early as he did.
The club should have stuck to their guns and offered him 3 or allowed him to leave. The club would have survived with Rory Sloane leaving. At the time I was certain he was leaving no matter what we offered but the interstate offers did seem to dry up giving us leverage the club didn't seem to use.
 
I understand why we did it, after Lever, Danger and Cameron leaving the club couldn't afford to then lose Sloane as well. Getting him to re-sign it was the circuit breaker that the club desperately needed at the time.

Unfortunately though his 5 years deal was a killer and the club most probably didn't anticpate him falling off the cliff as early as he did.

We've always had a fear of the unknown. Look at Kristof's post, totally shut up shop if Sloane left. I mean, if we'd lost Sloane end of 2018, how much worse could it have gotten? We still had plenty of leaders around the place to teach the kids the AFC way. It's hard to imagine a club self destructing any worse and it's weird that the 2 key leaders of the players at the time don't have their involvement brought into question.
 
Think of the bright side re Sloane’s 5 year deal back in 2018. If he had left as a free agent and we had received Band 1 compo (Pick 9 that would have become Pick 10 after we bid on T Thomas), then we would have likely wasted it.

Either by giving it to Carlton as part of the Gibbs trade or by selecting someone like Hately in the National Draft.

On the other hand if we had taken Butters after Jones with that Pick (it was rumoured that we were interested) perhaps we’d be in a significantly better position now.
 
Think of the bright side re Sloane’s 5 year deal back in 2018. If he had left as a free agent and we had received Band 1 compo (Pick 9 that would have become Pick 10 after we bid on T Thomas), then we would have likely wasted it.

Either by giving it to Carlton as part of the Gibbs trade or by selecting someone like Hately in the National Draft.

On the other hand if we had taken Butters after Jones with that Pick (it was rumoured that we were interested) perhaps we’d be in a significantly better position now.

It's hard to imagine our position having deteriorated any further than it did. And it's not like he wasn't front a d centre leading the players whilst it went to s**t. I do get that we still thought we were in a window and needed to keep the crew together. But given where he was at the time and how easily he was tagged out of games when opposition decided they wanted to, giving him 5 years at gun midfielder rates was a terrible call. It's just lucky we've been so s**t that it hasn't cost us anyone good and the disaster that was Gibbs and paying JJ and Betts to not play for us means the starkness of how bad a contract it is has been diluted.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Hardly worth debating. Sloane injury free still has good footy left in him. He is a loyal, important figurehead for the young group. IMO not a big problem for us at the moment.

Sloane has underperformed his contract every year, and the gap continues to escalate between his output and wage.

it’s a huge problem for us as it represents significant dead money.

now, fact is we’re rebuilding and it’s just something we have to live with.
 
I understand why we did it, after Lever, Danger and Cameron leaving the club couldn't afford to then lose Sloane as well. Getting him to re-sign it was the circuit breaker that the club desperately needed at the time.

Unfortunately though his 5 years deal was a killer and the club most probably didn't anticpate him falling off the cliff as early as he did.

Sloane took full advantage of the “we might as well shut up shop” factor to extract a full 5 years when he was already showing signs of decline. It certainly wouldn’t have been our preference to go that far

now, fine. I’m all for players using their leverage and maximising their hand. No ifs no buts.

though perhaps we can shelve the idea of him being a selfless club man?

he got his, took what he could and hasn’t earned a minute of it.
 
Sloane took full advantage of the “we might as well shut up shop” factor to extract a full 5 years when he was already showing signs of decline. It certainly wouldn’t have been our preference to go that far

now, fine. I’m all for players using their leverage and maximising their hand. No ifs no buts.

though perhaps we can shelve the idea of him being a selfless club man?

he got his, took what he could and hasn’t earned a minute of it.
Bang on
 
Was the Captaincy ever talked about as part of his contract negotiations? I can't remember.

I think this was the big furphy. Sloane is a champion player, but it was plain as day in his first stint as co-Captain that he wasn't cut out for it, his performance suffering as a result. I predict McHenry will be similar.
Whatever you think if Texs on-feild performance over the course, he is a natural leader. Sloaney not so much and never was.

Name a new young skipper, play him less in the middle and let him get back to simply playing/leading through on-field example and I back Sloaney in to show a Boak like revival.
 
The club should have stuck to their guns and offered him 3 or allowed him to leave. The club would have survived with Rory Sloane leaving. At the time I was certain he was leaving no matter what we offered but the interstate offers did seem to dry up giving us leverage the club didn't seem to use.

You touched on an interesting point, I have always wondered if we were allowed to drop our offer. I think we should been allowed to but didn't.

I think Sloane was gone but the injury scared other clubs off and he came back the negotiation table with us.
 
Last edited:
I think Sloane is carrying too much weight, leading such a young team with inconsistencies. Next year, hopefully the kids will improve in fitness and confidence, and we can see a more consistent team. With that, Sloane’s performances should also pick up too, finger’s crossed.
 
I think Sloane is carrying too much weight, leading such a young team with inconsistencies. Next year, hopefully the kids will improve in fitness and confidence, and we can see a more consistent team. With that, Sloane’s performances should also pick up too, finger’s crossed.

Yeh, it’s everyone else’s fault. Well spotted.
 
I think Sloane is carrying too much weight, leading such a young team with inconsistencies. Next year, hopefully the kids will improve in fitness and confidence, and we can see a more consistent team. With that, Sloane’s performances should also pick up too, finger’s crossed.
 

I know it’s against the grain of thinking, but the “weight” I’m talking about is also his injuries -eyes, fingers, feet, appendix or whatever else in the recent years. Then also the issue of his stillbirth son, and the grief that he went through.

But to paint a more positive picture, his last 4 games, he was averaging 24-25 possessions. 3 of the last 4 matches were against the top 3 teams of 2021 (Port, Dogs, Dees), and he averaged 23-24 possessions. That seems pretty good stats to me.
 
Was the Captaincy ever talked about as part of his contract negotiations? I can't remember.

I think this was the big furphy. Sloane is a champion player, but it was plain as day in his first stint as co-Captain that he wasn't cut out for it, his performance suffering as a result. I predict McHenry will be similar.
Whatever you think if Texs on-feild performance over the course, he is a natural leader. Sloaney not so much and never was.

Name a new young skipper, play him less in the middle and let him get back to simply playing/leading through on-field example and I back Sloaney in to show a Boak like revival.
Boak's body has always held up. Sloane is 32 in March so hopefully a move to the forward half can take some strain off his body and see a more consistent performance. Making Doedee captain should also allow Sloane to focus solely on his game. I can't see him getting close to the heights of Boak but hopefully we can see some consistent improvement.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top