Dangerfield re-signs

[Slippery Pete]

This is wonderful news for the AFC.

My ONLY concern is that it's only for two years. Now, he's 20, wouldn't the club have offered him a 3, 4 or even 5 year deal?

The fact that it's only two years tells me there was a bit more negotiating happening on Dangerfield's side than what the club would have been comfortable with. Doesn't give me a great deal of comfort that we wont have these same issues in 2 years time - and he'll only be 22 or 23 and by then probably one of the best players in the competition.

Sorry to put a negative on this but I think it's an important point to raise.

 

[Macjoe]

Yeeha!

Last paragraph of the "Bock to Stay" article on the AFC website today confirms that Danger IS EXPECTED TO SIGN in next couple of days.

http://www.afc.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/4417/newsid/99169/default.aspx

"Contrary to reports, promising onballer Patrick Dangerfield has not put pen to paper on a new two-year deal with the club, but has agreed to terms and is expected to sign in the coming days."

 

[-CG-]

This is wonderful news for the AFC.

My ONLY concern is that it's only for two years. Now, he's 20, wouldn't the club have offered him a 3, 4 or even 5 year deal?

The fact that it's only two years tells me there was a bit more negotiating happening on Dangerfield's side than what the club would have been comfortable with. Doesn't give me a great deal of comfort that we wont have these same issues in 2 years time - and he'll only be 22 or 23 and by then probably one of the best players in the competition.

Sorry to put a negative on this but I think it's an important point to raise.

As someone said before I can only guess that it's to do with money. If he continues down the same path he is on now and improves he will be worth more in a couple of years than what he is now.

 

[Slippery Pete]

As someone said before I can only guess that it's to do with money. If he continues down the same path he is on now and improves he will be worth more in a couple of years than what he is now.

Surely they can have some kind of performance based clause where his salary is negotiable up to a certain level, based on B&F votes or something similar.

Has there been a more sought after 20 year old's signature in recent memory? I can't think of one.

 

[Slippery Pete]

well he said on Melbourne radio last week he wasn't going anywhere....just yet

He will go home eventually if remains just another player at the club. Give him the captaincy and then it becomes a whole new ballgame. Kernahan and Pavlich are examples of that.

Post of the year.

He MUST be given the captaincy next year. Much harder to leave the club in two years time as the captain then as just another player.

 

[The Sloane Ranger]

This is wonderful news for the AFC.

My ONLY concern is that it's only for two years. Now, he's 20, wouldn't the club have offered him a 3, 4 or even 5 year deal?

The fact that it's only two years tells me there was a bit more negotiating happening on Dangerfield's side than what the club would have been comfortable with. Doesn't give me a great deal of comfort that we wont have these same issues in 2 years time - and he'll only be 22 or 23 and by then probably one of the best players in the competition.

Sorry to put a negative on this but I think it's an important point to raise.

why would danger sign for 3-5 years it would be a very poor commercial decision on his behalf

in another two years Danger will have 50+ games under his belt and will be better player and his market value would have increased significantly, not to mention the next TV rights deal will also have a impact on the salary cap.

danger has made the right commercial decision, its his next contract that he will be looking at cashing in

 

[Slippery Pete]

why would danger sign for 3-5 years it would be a very poor commercial decision on his behalf

in another two years Danger will have 50+ games under his belt and will be better player and his market value would have increased significantly, not to mention the next TV rights deal will also have a impact on the salary cap.

danger has made the right commercial decision, its his next contract that he will be looking at cashing in

Call me petty, but I would have liked to have seen three.

 

[Vader]

Post of the year.

He MUST be given the captaincy next year. Much harder to leave the club in two years time as the captain then as just another player.

Leigh Colbert & Chris Judd wave hello.

Seriously though.. the players vote on who they want as Captain, the player is NOT appointed by the coaching staff. Even if the Captain were appointed, appointing someone in the hope of preventing them leaving is just plain stupid.

 

[Vader]

Call me petty, but I would have liked to have seen three.

My guess is that the club would have liked to have seen 3. Signing on for 2 makes a LOT of sense from Dangermouse's perspective.

 

[Niximus]

Call me petty, but I would have liked to have seen three.

Would you be happy to lock your wage in for the next three years? I know I wouldn't and I wouldn't have anywhere near the potential increase in pay that Patty has in 2 years time.

For him, it could be the difference of hundreds of thousands of dollars in 2013. I'd be a little disappointed if he had signed for 3 as we'd have signed an idiot.

 

[Slippery Pete]

Leigh Colbert & Chris Judd wave hello.

Seriously though.. the players vote on who they want as Captain, the player is NOT appointed by the coaching staff. Even if the Captain were appointed, appointing someone in the hope of preventing them leaving is just plain stupid.

There were exceptional circumstances surrounding Judd's departure - that's not a good example at all.

Of course it would be silly to appoint someone as captain just to stop them leaving - that's why I didnt say appoint, Tippett, Walker, Sloane, McKay, Otten, Henderson - all interstaters. I think we all agree that Dangerfield is captaincy material.

I think even more people agree that following the Leading Teams critieria and allowing the players to choose the captain would be the height of folly in this instance. Does anyone here want Nathan van Berlo as captain?

 

[Vader]

There were exceptional circumstances surrounding Judd's departure - that's not a good example at all.

There's usually exceptional circumstances at play any time a player requests to be traded.

I think even more people agree that following the Leading Teams critieria and allowing the players to choose the captain would be the height of folly in this instance. Does anyone here want Nathan van Berlo as captain?

I'm more than happy to have VB as Captain. Him or Rutten, I'm not fussed. Specifically, I do NOT want Dangermouse as Captain in 2011 because he's not ready for it yet - give him 2 or 3 years and then vote him in.

 

[Slippery Pete]

I wonder how many players North Melbourne players would have voted for Wayne Carey as captain in 1993?

I can tell you - zero. In fact, the decision had very little support from the playing group at the time.

Allowing the players to choose the captain is the most ridiculous thing I have EVER heard.

 

[Slippery Pete]

There's usually exceptional circumstances at play any time a player requests to be traded.

If you look at all that was happening at West Coast at the time, Judd's departure cannot be blamed solely on the "go home" factor.

 

[NTRabbit]

Allowing the players to choose the captain is the most ridiculous thing I have EVER heard.

We are not the only club which uses that method.

 

[srv23]

Call me petty, but I would have liked to have seen three.

Seriously he'd be stupid to sign for 3 years at this point in his career (and his manager would be stupid to advise him to). In 2 years he'll be 22/23, have 50+ games under his belt and if he continues how we all expect him to, he may be close to being one of the elite midfielders of the comp. I don't know what kind of cash his new contract would have him on but say it's around 200-300k a year - in 2 years he may be worth close to 500k a year. Why would he not want to maximise his income? He's a footy player for 10-12 years or so and he has to think about his future finances cause it is still his job. It doesn't mean he's any less loyal to the club -

I think everything that Danger has done so far in his time with the AFC is prove his loyalty to the club with the way he presents himself and the way he goes about it on the ground. We're struggling on-field at the moment, we're about to have one of the biggest transition periods in our history in terms of on-field players and it's still not clear how we're going to cope with that, and there would be 10 Vic clubs who would have been chasing his signature and many willing to throw huge amounts of cash at him yet he has elected to stay loyal to the club that drafted him. Danger seems like a quality young man and I'm sure he'll be wearing the tricolours for another 12 or so years. (Here's hoping anyway) Great news that Danger is staying

 

[Slippery Pete]

We are not the only club which uses that method.

I know - seven other clubs use Leading Teams, although Im not sure how many of them allow the playing group to choose the captain.

 

[NTRabbit]

I know - seven other clubs use Leading Teams, although Im not sure how many of them allow the playing group to choose the captain.

Ten clubs have a leadership group, whether they call it that or not - a captain and 3 vice captains is a leadership group - and at least Hawthorn use an election to get a captain, though the Hawks do not have a leadership group.

 

[Slippery Pete]

Ten clubs have a leadership group, whether they call it that or not - a captain and 3 vice captains is a leadership group - and at least Hawthorn use an election to get a captain, though the Hawks do not have a leadership group.

I dont like it. If you're a player - who are you going to select as captain? They guy who constantly blows smoke up your rear, or the guy who actually demands the best from the playing group.

It is a flawed policy in my book. Players aren't fit to choose their own captain.

 

[jenny61_99]

Ok, so Danger's safe, and Bock has indicated he's not going anywhere so where does that leave us? Knights and Thompson the only two out of contract? Does that mean we HAVE to lose one of them? Or are there other options?

 

[Vader]

Ok, so Danger's safe, and Bock has indicated he's not going anywhere so where does that leave us? Knights and Thompson the only two out of contract? Does that mean we HAVE to lose one of them? Or are there other options?

No law saying we have to lose anyone.

We're already losing Goodwin, McLeod, Edwards, Burton & Hentschel (OK, 2 of those haven't been confirmed yet). We're not under any salary cap pressure. How else could we be forced to lose a player? GC can only take players who are uncontracted - if we can get them all signed up then we don't leave them with any options.

 

[Vader]

I dont like it. If you're a player - who are you going to select as captain? They guy who constantly blows smoke up your rear, or the guy who actually demands the best from the playing group.

It is a flawed policy in my book. Players aren't fit to choose their own captain.

You choose the best "leader" whoever that might be.

I seriously disagree with you that the players aren't fit to choose their own captain. I can't think of anyone better qualified, not even the coaching staff.

 

[jenny61_99]

No law saying we have to lose anyone.

Sorry, I was under the impression that every Club had to give them an uncontracted player.

 

[Vader]

Sorry, I was under the impression that every Club had to give them an uncontracted player.

They are allowed to take 1 uncontracted player from each club. If the clubs are smart enough to ensure that their players are all contracted, then they don't leave GC with many options. There is no obligation on the clubs to gift GC a player at all.

 

[NTRabbit]

Sorry, I was under the impression that every Club had to give them an uncontracted player.

You've got it all twisted around - we don't literally have to give them an uncontracted player, they just have the ability to sign one uncontracted player from each team. If none of your players are uncontracted, then they don't get one, nor are players forced to go to the GCFC if they do not want to, short of being taken by them in the various drafts.