- Sep 3, 2018
- 4,198
- 5,480
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
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
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
And $80K better off in our salary cap would be my understanding? Smart man that Justin Reid fella.
And trade period is over.We have effectively traded for Hinge, without Hinge being a part of the transaction. It certainly is silly season hahaha
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 thenIt'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.
Bloody long walk from Brisbane.That's Sam Skinnerin the pic but.PLAYERCARDSTART31Sam Skinner
- Age
- 26
- Ht
- 197cm
- Wt
- 99kg
- Pos.
- D/F
CareerSeasonLast 5
- D
- 9.0
- 2star
- K
- 4.0
- 2star
- HB
- 5.0
- 4star
- M
- 1.0
- 1star
- T
- 3.0
- 5star
- MG
- 101.0
- 2star
No current season stats available
- D
- 9.0
- 3star
- K
- 4.0
- 2star
- HB
- 5.0
- 4star
- M
- 1.0
- 1star
- T
- 3.0
- 5star
- MG
- 101.0
- 2star
PLAYERCARDEND
Is it a way to keep him for SANFL games?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
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
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.
Gibbs likely was paid out in full. At best it would have been a 20% reduction.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
We did something stupid in the smartest way possible
We did something stupid in the smartest way possible
Gibbs likely was paid out in full. At best it would have been a 20% reduction.
And $80K better off in our salary cap would be my understanding? Smart man that Justin Reid fella.
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
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.
Why would the AFL care?" 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.
Why would the AFL care?
Surely only the club would care.
Hasn’t Frawley done this?
Couldn’t they just put in place something like the new team would have to pay the payout contract from the old team?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.
Does this mean they are getting rookie pay. Under $100K or whatever it is?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?
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.
Why would the AFL care?
Surely only the club would care.
Hasn’t Frawley done this?