How seriously do clubs play games in list management?

[Scotland]

Cases in point:

- Dustin Martin
- Josh Kelly

Depending who you talk to, Dusty was either never going to leave Richmond or was seriously considering joining North or whoever.

Depending who you talk to, Kelly is either going nowhere or is a signed, sealed Saint or Roo or whoever.

If you go with the premise that Richmond were going to re-sign Martin for $800k and market pressure pushed that up to $1.3m, that's an extra $500k eaten up in their salary cap. It might shake loose a fringe player or up and comer, or it might knock them out of the race for Trengove or some other FA. If you go with the premise that GWS were going to re-sign Kelly for $5-600k and market pressure will push that up to $8-900k, that's an extra $2-300k eaten up in their salary cap on top of the increase he would've already been in line for. It might shake loose Devon Smith or Jacob Hopper or whoever.

If Essendon put pick 1 and $800k on the table for Jaeger O'Meara for example, that puts pressure on Hawthorn to give up more. Etc.

Do clubs have a legitimate focus on this stuff? Obviously any club would genuinely like players like Martin and Kelly on their list, but having these guys and others tied up on big money deals works to your advantage in chasing the next target. Or is it just conspiracy theory nonsense for BigFooty posters with nothing better to do?

 

[The 747]

A well run club should be making sure every other club is paying more than they want to to keep their players at contract time.

 

[Leather Poisoning]

A well run club should be making sure every other club is paying more than they want to to keep their players at contract time.

There must be a balance though - I mean it must take some level of resourcing to negotiate and stick yourself in the middle of discussions.

I think the well run clubs target players and get the job done. A club that spends time pushing up the price of every player on the market would soon seem like a time waster to player managers and go on the "I'll call back when I can be bothered" list.

 

[MisterMarcus]

I assume clubs factor in some leeway in their salary caps, especially when it comes to stars out of contract. I'm sure Richmond weren't banking on signing Dusty for 800k and then were completely blindsided at having to pay over a million. They probably budgeted for around 1.0-1.1 million, were hoping to get him for a bit less, but prepared to fork out a bit more if they had to.

It's like any negotiation. You don't lead off bidding on a house with your maximum price, you start low and hope you can get it cheaper than expected. And you might be prepared to go 'just a little over' your maximum price if you feel the deal is very close to getting done.

 

[The 747]

There must be a balance though - I mean it must take some level of resourcing to negotiate and stick yourself in the middle of discussions.

I think the well run clubs target players and get the job done. A club that spends time pushing up the price of every player on the market would soon seem like a time waster to player managers and go on the "I'll call back when I can be bothered" list.

Not every club targeting every player, what I mean is if someone of value is OOC, a well run club would put feelers out if that player fit their needs - most likely doesn't amount to anything other than keeping things competitive. The real time and effort is spent on the key targets as you say.