News David Mackay to the Rookie List

[rabidcrow]

And $80K better off in our salary cap would be my understanding? Smart man that Justin Reid fella.

Good call. That would be an excellent reason


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[Bay62]

So is Mitch Hinge a decent player?

Best 22 or depth?

Edit: highlights look ok. Goal from 50m chip kick

Plus he’s a Glenelg boy

 

[Coopers]

We have effectively traded for Hinge, without Hinge being a part of the transaction. It certainly is silly season hahaha

And trade period is over.

Are there not rules anymore?

 

[Crow till I die]

It's like 30 extra points, not gonna make much difference for matching. It's basically us trading a 4th rounder for Hinge. Brisbane wanted to keep him, he wanted to come here, so they delisted him for us so we can sign him as a free agent and so we wouldn't be forced to take the risk (or use a pick) in the draft to get him since we've already earmarked the PSD for Hately.

Currently it is, but after a number of picks get eaten up with NGA bids, how far will it come in?..it might be a low 50's pick by then

 

[Jarmayhem]

Does anyone else find this new rule confusing?

”Footballers get paid a salary...”
“Whoa whoa, slow down egghead!”

 

[ltdamn]

Putting Mackay on the rookie list is the second good decision our list team has made in the last month, along with not budging on Hately and the PSD.

Of course, those are the only two good decisions our list team has made all year, but contextually, they happened this month, so it's been a big November for the lads.

 

[Geoffa32]

That's Sam Skinner in the pic but.

Bloody long walk from Brisbane.

Hope hus hammys pull up allright for preseason.

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

 

[Geoffa32]

I think this actually gives us a genuine incentive not to play Mackay

That's because the more he plays, the more he costs us inside the salary cap. The less he plays, the more of his salary can be paid outside the cap

Is it a way to keep him for SANFL games?

A senior body (lol) to help the younger players in that team.

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

 

[Golumless]

So is Mitch Hinge a decent player?

Best 22 or depth?

Edit: highlights look ok. Goal from 50m chip kick

Plus he’s a Glenelg boy

That tackle too . He's like the anti-Atkins.

For a one highlight career, that could be worse.

 

[Deaneus!]

I mean if I wanted to save $80k I'd have just not recontracted Mackay... that saves money in AND outside the cap.

So Smart is a bit of a stretch.

We did something stupid in the smartest way possible

 

[Murray2503]

I don’t think many were saying we had negotiated with Gibbs to completely get off having to pay his contract out. I think many claimed we had negotiated a settlement less than that of his full contract. Who knows if that’s true or not

Gibbs likely was paid out in full. At best it would have been a 20% reduction.

 

[moogerfooger]

We did something stupid in the smartest way possible

That should replace "we fly as one" on all the merch.

 

[1970crow]

We did something stupid in the smartest way possible

Things are looking up.

 

[1970crow]

Gibbs likely was paid out in full. At best it would have been a 20% reduction.

Your negotiating position is not strong when it's you wanting to him out of the place. Why would or should any player discount in those circumstances when they're fully prepared to turn up to preseason in appropriate shape and ready to put in. Given it looks like we needed to keep Gibbs on the list it's weird that we forced his retirement. If he's such a great leader and mentor to the kids as was mentioned, why not keep him around the club seeing as we're paying him and he remains on the list.

 

[1970crow]

And $80K better off in our salary cap would be my understanding? Smart man that Justin Reid fella.

I'm with you on Reid, but the cap difference between a third rounder that doesn't play and the $80k saved from rookie list would be negligible. This is more about keeping max list spots open for the main draft in case someone slips through to a pick we didn't think we'd use. Or Borlase is bid on later than expected.

 

[Vhaluus]

I think this actually gives us a genuine incentive not to play Mackay

That's because the more he plays, the more he costs us inside the salary cap. The less he plays, the more of his salary can be paid outside the cap

He's a lock for playing at least 50% of games next year.

 

[Golumless]

Your negotiating position is not strong when it's you wanting to him out of the place. Why would or should any player discount in those circumstances when they're fully prepared to turn up to preseason in appropriate shape and ready to put in. Given it looks like we needed to keep Gibbs on the list it's weird that we forced his retirement. If he's such a great leader and mentor to the kids as was mentioned, why not keep him around the club seeing as we're paying him and he remains on the list.

" while Bryce Gibbs will also be carried as a rookie for administrative purposes after he received a payout for 2021. Once listed, Gibbs will be able to be moved to the inactive list, meaning the Crows can add a player via the Pre-Season Supplemental Selection Period (SSP) ". afl.com

So sounds like this is just the AFL way of preventing a contracted player from "retiring" as a means to walk to another AFL club.

 

[1970crow]

" while Bryce Gibbs will also be carried as a rookie for administrative purposes after he received a payout for 2021. Once listed, Gibbs will be able to be moved to the inactive list, meaning the Crows can add a player via the Pre-Season Supplemental Selection Period (SSP) ". afl.com

So sounds like this is just the AFL way of preventing a contracted player from "retiring" as a means to walk to another AFL club.

I don't think we'd care if he walked to another club. He's on the list because we're still paying him but he can then go onto what is effectively the same as the LTI list allowing replacement.

 

[FR0GGY]

" while Bryce Gibbs will also be carried as a rookie for administrative purposes after he received a payout for 2021. Once listed, Gibbs will be able to be moved to the inactive list, meaning the Crows can add a player via the Pre-Season Supplemental Selection Period (SSP) ". afl.com

So sounds like this is just the AFL way of preventing a contracted player from "retiring" as a means to walk to another AFL club.

Why would the AFL care?
Surely only the club would care.
Hasn’t Frawley done this?

 

[Golumless]

I don't think we'd care if he walked to another club. He's on the list because we're still paying him but he can then go onto what is effectively the same as the LTI list allowing replacement.

I don't think we do either. That said I imagine the AFL does. After all, letting a contracted player retire, then immediately walk to another club makes a farce out of the trade period.

Why would the AFL care?
Surely only the club would care.
Hasn’t Frawley done this?

Frawley was out of contract. Gibbs was not.

The last thing the AFL wants is retirement being used to break a contract and switch teams (not without a punishment at any rate). That pretty much destroys any possible negotiating power the losing team has in regards to its players.

 

[FR0GGY]

I don't think we do either. That said I imagine the AFL does. After all, letting a contracted player retire, then immediately walk to another club makes a farce out of the trade period.



Frawley was out of contract. Gibbs was not.

The last thing the AFL wants is retirement being used to break a contract and switch teams (not without a punishment at any rate). That pretty much destroys any possible negotiating power the losing team has in regards to its players.

Couldn’t they just put in place something like the new team would have to pay the payout contract from the old team?

 

[mistylake]

Carlton also picked up a 300 game player for their rookie list in Eddie Betts. Pretty farcical stuff.

Does this mean they are getting rookie pay. Under $100K or whatever it is?

 

[MarcusP2]

You can pay a rookie whatever you want, but 80k is excluded from the cap.

Does this mean they are getting rookie pay. Under $100K or whatever it is?

On Pixel 2 XL using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[1970crow]

I don't think we do either. That said I imagine the AFL does. After all, letting a contracted player retire, then immediately walk to another club makes a farce out of the trade period.



Frawley was out of contract. Gibbs was not.

The last thing the AFL wants is retirement being used to break a contract and switch teams (not without a punishment at any rate). That pretty much destroys any possible negotiating power the losing team has in regards to its players.

If Gibbs had a suitor he'd be there now with our blessing saving us some of his +$600k. Are you missing the bit where we forced his retirement because we didn't want him at the club anymore?

 

[rabidcrow]

Why would the AFL care?
Surely only the club would care.
Hasn’t Frawley done this?

He has but I don’t think Hawthorn have to pay an extra $500-600k into 2020 for Frawley to retire. We need Gibbs money into next year so we keep him on for that purpose
And then move him off and replace via mid season draft etc


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com