- Joined
- Jul 3, 2003
- Posts
- 3,616
- Reaction score
- 16
- Location
- By the river
- AFL Club
- Carlton
- Other Teams
- Church of Simon Wiggins
- Banned
- #1
Just to preface my suggestion, I'm neither here nor there on the idea of trading Fevola. As long as whatever decision is relevant to maintaining our status quo within the premiership window, then all is well. In order to do this, I believe we need to trade a like for a like, and keep a forward who is not only capable, but proven to be able to kick 50 goals a year (thus ruling out anyone else on our list).
As such, the only realistic option on the market for that at this point would be some sort of trade involving Barry Hall. In which case, proper list management would mean we'd need to win a flag in the next 2 years or develop someone else in that period of time to be where we should be.
The only other option it seems is to take one step backward to take two backward.
Enter: Gold Coast.
Would we be in any sort of trouble with the AFL and it's drafting/trading rules if, hypothetically speaking, we were to come out and say that Fev was going to do a Cousins/Carey, take a year off, enter rehab for his drinking problems, and get his body/mind right for season 2011, only to later in the year "agree in principle" to a deal that sees us send Fev there for a substantially above market rate of first rounders (2 perhaps 3?)
GC pays half his salary for this season (in return for us allowing him a year to get his shit together and protect their investment), allowing us, regardless of AFL permissions on his salary going into the cap, to chase a big name, free of salary cap pressures. Meanwhile, Fev becomes their marquee player (and really, is there many left for them?), spends most of the year promoting the club, perhaps even taking on a "forwards coach" position with them at VFL level. Fev gets to sit on his arse playing online poker for 750k a year, we get our first rounders, the GC gets their marquee player. Everyone's happy? Or are the AFL concerned it becomes another Veale deal?
Perhaps, even a step forward into the modern world of professional sports, where sports such as the NBA see franchises trade their future draft picks for years to come, quite frequently.
Thoughts?
As such, the only realistic option on the market for that at this point would be some sort of trade involving Barry Hall. In which case, proper list management would mean we'd need to win a flag in the next 2 years or develop someone else in that period of time to be where we should be.
The only other option it seems is to take one step backward to take two backward.
Enter: Gold Coast.
Would we be in any sort of trouble with the AFL and it's drafting/trading rules if, hypothetically speaking, we were to come out and say that Fev was going to do a Cousins/Carey, take a year off, enter rehab for his drinking problems, and get his body/mind right for season 2011, only to later in the year "agree in principle" to a deal that sees us send Fev there for a substantially above market rate of first rounders (2 perhaps 3?)
GC pays half his salary for this season (in return for us allowing him a year to get his shit together and protect their investment), allowing us, regardless of AFL permissions on his salary going into the cap, to chase a big name, free of salary cap pressures. Meanwhile, Fev becomes their marquee player (and really, is there many left for them?), spends most of the year promoting the club, perhaps even taking on a "forwards coach" position with them at VFL level. Fev gets to sit on his arse playing online poker for 750k a year, we get our first rounders, the GC gets their marquee player. Everyone's happy? Or are the AFL concerned it becomes another Veale deal?
Perhaps, even a step forward into the modern world of professional sports, where sports such as the NBA see franchises trade their future draft picks for years to come, quite frequently.
Thoughts?
