Traded Jack Bowes [Traded to Geelong with #7 for F3]

[Superstar swan]

Does the AFL have that power? Any actual examples of it being used in the past? (not interested in vague recollections - actual examples please)

Afl vetoed a deal between Sydney and Adelaide over tippett

 

[Superstar swan]

Sydney and crows had a deal in place for pick 22 and jesse white

Jesse White

Age

36

Ht

196cm

Wt

102kg

Pos.

Fwd

Career

Season

Last 5

D

10.3

3star

K

6.4

3star

HB

3.9

3star

M

4.0

4star

T

1.8

4star

G

1.2

4star

No current season stats available

D

6.8

2star

K

3.6

2star

HB

3.2

3star

M

2.6

3star

T

2.0

4star

G

0.4

3star

for tippet.
This pricked the ears of the afl as they believed it was too one sided and they stopped the deal. It was at this time they worked out there was something shady going on


Slightly different circumstances but shows the afl can stop a deal if they think it favours one side too heavily.

Interestingly By today's standards of deals, people wouldn't even bat an eyelid at that trade

 

[FreddyTwoShoes]

Sydney and crows had a deal in place for pick 22 and jesse white

Jesse White

Age

36

Ht

196cm

Wt

102kg

Pos.

Fwd

Career

Season

Last 5

D

10.3

3star

K

6.4

3star

HB

3.9

3star

M

4.0

4star

T

1.8

4star

G

1.2

4star

No current season stats available

D

6.8

2star

K

3.6

2star

HB

3.2

3star

M

2.6

3star

T

2.0

4star

G

0.4

3star

for tippet.
This pricked the ears of the afl as they believed it was too one sided and they stopped the deal. It was at this time they worked out there was something shady going on


Slightly different circumstances but shows the afl can stop a deal if they think it favours one side too heavily.

Interestingly By today's standards of deals, people wouldn't even bat an eyelid at that trade

Thank you. You’re the first person to have provided an example. Tippett got there in the end. What was the revised deal?

 

[Superstar swan]

Thank you. You’re the first person to have provided an example. Tippett got there in the end. What was the revised deal?

He had to go through the psd. At one point he was facing de registration

 

[Jhye Clark 13]

Sydney and crows had a deal in place for pick 22 and jesse white for tippet.
This pricked the ears of the afl as they believed it was too one sided and they stopped the deal. It was at this time they worked out there was something shady going on


Slightly different circumstances but shows the afl can stop a deal if they think it favours one side too heavily.

Interestingly By today's standards of deals, people wouldn't even bat an eyelid at that trade

You've been in every Geelong trade thread whinging and whining.

You weren't good enough GF day so stop your sulking and find another hobby..

 

[Shadow89]

It is insulting to pretend that Geelong have actually been after Jack Bowes for ages. If they were, GC wouldn't be throwing Pick 7 at them to take him.

Even Geelong supporters should admit that this deal is woeful, and the AFL should have not let it go through. No one is blaming Geelong for taking the golden ticket they were handed. We all would have. But at least have the decency to admit that it is a ridiculously unfair deal. There is not a club in the land that wouldn't have taken Pick 7 and Jack Bowes for $550,000 a year x4 in the salary cap. It's outrageously uneven.

Please don't be disingenuous for cheap troll thrills.

Actually, the man himself just said it - so you can put all these conspiracy theories to bed now:

Jack Bowes - Thursday October 13

Geelong's newest recruit, from the Gold Coast Suns, Jack Bowes, joined Shane McInness and Matt Granland on Sportsday.

player.whooshkaa.com

 

[Superstar swan]

You've been in every Geelong trade thread whinging and whining.

You weren't good enough GF day so stop your sulking and find another hobby..

This isn't a Geelong issue. I don't care that Geelong got him. Good on cats for making the deal. I wish we had done it.

However the deal should never have been ticked off

 

[The 747]

This isn't a Geelong issue. I don't care that Geelong got him. Good on cats for making the deal. I wish we had done it.

However the deal should never have been ticked off

As the other poster said you have been posting in every Geelong related thread for a while now, with the same general vibe.

 

[Shadow89]

What people in this thread fail to realize, is that we wanted Bowes before Pick 7, but we wouldn't have paid his entire salary- nor would any other club.

The discussion would have been something along the lines of: 'we're really interested in Jack and think he could add a lot to our footy club, but we're not ready to take on all that salary for a guy who's been injured a bit and been relegated to the VFL.'

Gold Coast then turn around and go: 'we understand that, but we really need to clear cap to keep space for our young guns/chase a star to really start competing in the next few years. I'll tell you what, if we add our Pick 7, will you look at taking the whole lot off our hands?'

It's the same as Brodie last year, but an extra 200K or so on top. Brodie got Freo Pick 19 and the player for basically nothing, and Bowes came with Pick 7 so basically nothing but draft points next year as well.

The system is a bit f*cked, but GC have really made a lot of mistakes in the past and are looking to fix them. They have the luxury of doing that because they've had so much AFK assistance,, that cap is more valuable to picks than them right now. I'd imagine this will be the last time they do this given they held Fiorini, so hopefully they can actually get their sh*t together moving forward for their own good, and the good of the comp.

 

[STPer18]

Actually, the man himself just said it - so you can put all these conspiracy theories to bed now:

Jack Bowes - Thursday October 13

Geelong's newest recruit, from the Gold Coast Suns, Jack Bowes, joined Shane McInness and Matt Granland on Sportsday.

player.whooshkaa.com

This is all part of the facade - wake up sheeple!

 

[Boxhead_31]

Well, the good news is the AFL has listened to you all and from now on the rules will be changed.
I hope you are all happy

 

[Stokey]

I thought no one was Interested in him and the suns had to attach 7 to get someone to bite

No, it was the salary burden they attached Pick 7 to, not the player.

 

[Ashman23]

Well, the good news is the AFL has listened to you all and from now on the rules will be changed.
I hope you are all happy

Gee, who woulda thought after the Gold Coast Cats err sorry Suns, once again bend themselves over for Geelong that the AFL considers to change the rule, especially after stating that to get the Bowes deal done a F2 would need to be used and then signing off on a F3 pick being used.

Knock me down with a feather.

 

[the dog's kennel]

Well, the good news is the AFL has listened to you all and from now on the rules will be changed.
I hope you are all happy

I am! That is a commonsense rule change.

 

[catstragic]

Seems like you could game the salary cap like this- bring in a heap of quality players on lucrative heavily back ended contracts, allowing them to fit everyone in the cap for 2-4 years while you had a crack at a premiership, then salary dump and rebuild when you started to push the limits.

 

[Superstar swan]

Gee, who woulda thought after the Gold Coast Cats err sorry Suns, once again bend themselves over for Geelong that the AFL considers to change the rule, especially after stating that to get the Bowes deal done a F2 would need to be used and then signing off on a F3 pick being used.

Knock me down with a feather.

Can't make this stuff up

 

[Boxhead_31]

Gee, who woulda thought after the Gold Coast Cats err sorry Suns, once again bend themselves over for Geelong that the AFL considers to change the rule, especially after stating that to get the Bowes deal done a F2 would need to be used and then signing off on a F3 pick being used.

Knock me down with a feather.

Can't make this stuff up

Y’all wanted the rule changed and the rule gets changed but your still not happy.
Hard crowd to please

 

[Dogflogger]

I know you Geelong fans feel attacked but it's more an attack on Gold Coast, if they are to ever win a premiership in the near future then maybe its not a great idea to give such favourable deals over and over to the one team in the league that looks incapable of bottoming out

 

[SplintWhisky]

I've just heard Andy Maher and Andrew Gaze on SEN completely confusing themselves about this deal.
It's no wonder so many on BF don't understand how contracts work if they're being subjected to that kind of horsesh1t everyday.

At this point, I think it is intentional from the scum sucking bottom feeders that are AFL media. They could report the situation accurately and say that cats are paying him and extra 600 odd grand for the 2 extra years instead of continuing to say that they "smoothed" the contract. They are being deliberately vague and heavily implying that Bowes is playing 2 years for free to drum up engagement.

 

[Vivy]

I am! That is a commonsense rule change.

This would be an incredibly dumb rule change. If anyone thought to take the blinkers off for a second they'd realise it.

Not sure what the bigger issue would be; player agency or the ability of clubs to move other player contracts around rendering the rule useless to begin with.

How could the AFL with any semblance of empathy for the players in these situations, restrict them from exercising their own agency in a situation where their own club does not want them anymore?

This isn't too mention the very simple workaround of shuffling around existing player contracts to accommodate the new one, without ever giving thought to the fact that this could be the exact set of circumstances that could precipitate the same thing happening all over again.

Idiocy and a kneejerk reaction trying to treat the symptom and not the cause.

 

[iameviljez]

This would be an incredibly dumb rule change. If anyone thought to take the blinkers off for a second they'd realise it.

Not sure what the bigger issue would be; player agency or the ability of clubs to move other player contracts around rendering the rule useless to begin with.

How could the AFL with any semblance of empathy for the players in these situations, restrict them from exercising their own agency in a situation where their own club does not want them anymore?

No, I think it's a good rule change. The notion that if you take on the salary dumped player, you also take on the burden of the salary, seems to me to be intrinsically fair.

What happened in this Bowes trade, is that Geelong took on the salary dump, but they didn't have to absorb the impact of it with Bowes agreeing to renegotiate his contract.

While I agree that it's fair and reasonable that Bowes can agree to what is, effectively, a pay cut, I also think that it's bad for the competition. Clubs in premiership contention are currently playing by a different set of rules in trade week.

 

[Pure_Ownage]

No, I think it's a good rule change. The notion that if you take on the salary dumped player, you also take on the burden of the salary, seems to me to be intrinsically fair.

What happened in this Bowes trade, is that Geelong took on the salary dump, but they didn't have to absorb the impact of it with Bowes agreeing to renegotiate his contract.

While I agree that it's fair and reasonable that Bowes can agree to what is, effectively, a pay cut, I also think that it's bad for the competition. Clubs in premiership contention are currently playing by a different set of rules in trade week.

Yeah but its irrelevant because you just shuffle other players contracts (back end them) to accomodate the bowes type contract so in real terms the afl isnt changing anything at all.
Like most afl decisions its just about 'optics'.

 

[iameviljez]

Yeah but its irrelevant because you just shuffle other players contracts (back end them) to accomodate the bowes type contract so in real terms the afl isnt changing anything at all.
Like most afl decisions its just about 'optics'.

That can't be done on the fly AFAIK. It would require a re-signing of existing contracts.

 

[Vivy]

No, I think it's a good rule change. The notion that if you take on the salary dumped player, you also take on the burden of the salary, seems to me to be intrinsically fair.

What happened in this Bowes trade, is that Geelong took on the salary dump, but they didn't have to absorb the impact of it with Bowes agreeing to renegotiate his contract.

While I agree that it's fair and reasonable that Bowes can agree to what is, effectively, a pay cut, I also think that it's bad for the competition. Clubs in premiership contention are currently playing by a different set of rules in trade week.

That's a rule change for locking contracts once they're signed. Not salary dumping.

 

[citizen-erased]

Ah afl.
Never change