Jesse Hogan Contract Negotiations (Titus O'Reilly)

[Wally Walpamur]

His value to GWS has decreased, and unless you pay that decreased price, you will not get him, and he will be either on the side lines, at the eagles, or maybe he will play for GWS rather than sit out two years in a row. How is this a win for freo?

Fast forward to the end of next year, assuming he has sat out another season, you guys will offer even less, GWS send him to the draft I assume and you guys hope he falls to you, unless you have the 1st pick. I guess he could put a price on his head that no other team wants to pay, but then you would wonder would freo want to pay it.

Again, you guys are the ones that want him. Missing out on him is a negative.

I didn't mean offer our third rounder only and refuse to go higher than that. I meant start out at a third rounder, if they don't accept or WC offer their second rounder, then offer a second rounder (likely compensation pick from Mayne). FWIW I would be willing to trade our second rounder for Cam but wouldn't offer our first rounder. If WC offer their first rounder, good on them but then I think they'd rather use that on a midfielder. If he sits out another year, says he only wants to get to WA do you really think another club will pick him up after sitting out two years with a known mental illenss that relates to not living in Perth? Freo's only risk in that situation is if WC finish below them and pick him up in the PSD.

 

[Bluto]

As for Hogan or Lobb they can't offer #12 and their 2017 1st rounder because they are in the same position as Freo having traded #17 for Redden last year.

This needs to stop being propagated. The "rules" are vague around this - and it doesn't preclude you from trading future picks until you have actually broken the rule. Even trading the two picks this year won't mean we have broken the rule - just that we will if we don't have two firsts in 2018. Then in 2018 if we don't take two 1sts I think it would just be a ban on trading future 1st until we do. Assuming it is a rolling 4-year period that just means in 2018 we can't trade the 2019 pick. In 2019 if we keep the 2019 pick we would be able to trade the 2020 pick because we would have satisfied the 4-year requirement. So this assumed inability to trade the 2017 pick now just doesn't make sense logically. With the obvious caveat that the AFL defies logic often and doubly so when it comes to Freo - so maybe the AFL will **** us afterall.

 

[Moo]

His value to GWS has decreased, and unless you pay that decreased price, you will not get him, and he will be either on the side lines, at the eagles, or maybe he will play for GWS rather than sit out two years in a row. How is this a win for freo?

Fast forward to the end of next year, assuming he has sat out another season, you guys will offer even less, GWS send him to the draft I assume and you guys hope he falls to you, unless you have the 1st pick. I guess he could put a price on his head that no other team wants to pay, but then you would wonder would freo want to pay it.

Again, you guys are the ones that want him. Missing out on him is a negative.

You're talking about McCarthy like he is some proven game winner, whom we take and all are key forward woes are resolved....basically last year is irrelevant - the picks offered, Cam's status, Freo's view of where Freo is at.

This year - the offer will be either less or massively less, Cam has not played competitively in a year - he may play a year and decide this footy game is not for him and most importantly - we've gone from the cusp of pushing for a flag to well back in the pack.

Basically we've got a lot more patience now to wait for GWS to do a deal on 2017 McCarthy. If you're that concerned - up the offer on Ballas so we can pay more.

Plus to handle your other points succinctly - couldn't care less if GWS think we are w***ers to deal with, plus Cam to WCE - have you envisaged some way to turn him into a ruckman or speedy midfielder.

 

[youmewe]

The value of something is what someone is willing to pay for that asset/object. Last year his value to Fremantle (who, at the time didn't realise they were going to have a shit year and offered picks 16 & this year's first, unknown at the time) was much higher than they value him now. In that year Freo understand his value to GWS has diminished - he hasn't played footy, has one less year on his contract which is taking up $400 - $500k of their cap and could sit out another year and walk for nothing. As noted above, the contract offer to Cam would reflect what he's worth to Freo.

Now consider the Jetta/Sinclair trade. Last year Jetta was worth a ruckman because they identified they needed outside speed to progress their list. One year on, with two ruckman injured, and Jetta having an average year (being polite there) I reckon the value to Sinclair now would be greater than a Jetta. Not sure if i've made senses here but if the trade didn't happen last year, you are asking for a lot more than Jetta for Sinclair.

I'm not sure why you keep stating that McCarthy is earning $400-500k per annum from GWS. NO WAY.

The AFL Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) imposes strict limits on contract payments to 1st and 2nd year players.

McCarthy signed a two year contract extension (the 3rd and 4th years of his AFL career) in April 2014. He had just turned 19 and didn't debut until round 23 that season.

Under the terms of the CBA he would have earned $156000 in 2015. (Base payment for a second year, first round draft pick who played 1-5 games in his first year = $77500 plus match payments of $3925 per game ($78500, as he played 20 games in 2015)).

GWS would have been monumentally stupid to have offered a (just turned 19, yet to debut) player anything like $400k pa.

To put it in perspective, according to the 2015 AFL Annual report (page 111), the average salary for an AFL player in 2015 was $270k. Only 176 of a possible 714 players (slightly less than 25%) were paid $400k+.

McCarthy's 3rd and 4th year contract payments would have fallen beyond the control of the CBA, however, given their player list, a player in McCarthy's position would only have been offered a base contract plus match payments deal.

In other words McCarthy may only be receiving $100-$125k pa from GWS as he's not playing any games for them.

GWS may have been digging their heels in over McCarthy as he is not costing them much more than chump change.

Edit: McCarthy would have received $157285 in 2015 (the extra $1285 is the COLA payable to a player in his position).

 

[JohnW]

I didn't mean offer our third rounder only and refuse to go higher than that. I meant start out at a third rounder, if they don't accept or WC offer their second rounder, then offer a second rounder (likely compensation pick from Mayne). FWIW I would be willing to trade our second rounder for Cam but wouldn't offer our first rounder. If WC offer their first rounder, good on them but then I think they'd rather use that on a midfielder. If he sits out another year, says he only wants to get to WA do you really think another club will pick him up after sitting out two years with a known mental illenss that relates to not living in Perth? Freo's only risk in that situation is if WC finish below them and pick him up in the PSD.

Cool cool, sorry if I misunderstood. I thought you were proposing playing hardball and missing out on cam all together. I think we are on the same page.

Strong chance our picks will be side by side next year, not sure who will be picking first though.

 

[Wally Walpamur]

I'm not sure why you keep stating that McCarthy is earning $400-500k per annum from GWS. NO WAY.

The AFL Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) imposes strict limits on contract payments to 1st and 2nd year players.

McCarthy signed a two year contract extension (the 3rd and 4th years of his AFL career) in April 2014. He had just turned 19 and didn't debut until round 23 that season.

Under the terms of the CBA he would have earned $156000 in 2015. (Base payment for a second year, first round draft pick who played 1-5 games in his first year = $77500 plus match payments of $3925 per game ($78500, as he played 20 games in 2015)).

GWS would have been monumentally stupid to have offered a (just turned 19, yet to debut) player anything like $400k pa.

To put it in perspective, according to the 2015 AFL Annual report (page 111), the average salary for an AFL player in 2015 was $270k. Only 176 of a possible 714 players (slightly less than 25%) were paid $400k+.

McCarthy's 3rd and 4th year contract payments would have fallen beyond the control of the CBA, however, given their player list, a player in McCarthy's position would only have been offered a base contract plus match payments deal.

In other words McCarthy may only be receiving $100-$125k pa from GWS as he's not playing any games for them.

GWS may have been digging their heels in over McCarthy as he is not costing them much more than chump change.

Apologies, didn't know that. I would have thought signing any extension/triggering a clause that makes the contract longer would increase his salary. I would also assume they would have pay an extra (~9%?) from their COLA allowance.

 

[JohnW]

This needs to stop being propagated. The "rules" are vague around this - and it doesn't preclude you from trading future picks until you have actually broken the rule. Even trading the two picks this year won't mean we have broken the rule - just that we will if we don't have two firsts in 2018. Then in 2018 if we don't take two 1sts I think it would just be a ban on trading future 1st until we do. Assuming it is a rolling 4-year period that just means in 2018 we can't trade the 2019 pick. In 2019 if we keep the 2019 pick we would be able to trade the 2020 pick because we would have satisfied the 4-year requirement. So this assumed inability to trade the 2017 pick now just doesn't make sense logically. With the obvious caveat that the AFL defies logic often and doubly so when it comes to Freo - so maybe the AFL will **** us afterall.

Cheers for explaining, your take makes more sense. I had assumed the AFL would disallow any trade that would put you in the position of not meeting the 2 in 4 rule. And since you can't trade 2018 picks this year, any trade the eagles make of this years would be doing so.

 

[JohnW]

You're talking about McCarthy like he is some proven game winner, whom we take and all are key forward woes are resolved....basically last year is irrelevant - the picks offered, Cam's status, Freo's view of where Freo is at.

This year - the offer will be either less or massively less, Cam has not played competitively in a year - he may play a year and decide this footy game is not for him and most importantly - we've gone from the cusp of pushing for a flag to well back in the pack.

Basically we've got a lot more patience now to wait for GWS to do a deal on 2017 McCarthy. If you're that concerned - up the offer on Ballas so we can pay more.

Plus to handle your other points succinctly - couldn't care less if GWS think we are ******s to deal with, plus Cam to WCE - have you envisaged some way to turn him into a ruckman or speedy midfielder.

Are you being serious? This is totally illogical. If you want him (fact) then pay for him. How is it a win for you to not end up with what you want.

How do you honestly think McCarthy will react to "hey Cam, we are trying get you are a bargain price, just sit tight, if we can't get the trade done this year, we will try again next year".

Perhaps the eagles may not take Freo's lead want to wait until 1 or 2 season after their KPF retires to find his replacement.

 

[youmewe]

Apologies, didn't know that. I would have thought signing any extension/triggering a clause that makes the contract longer would increase his salary. I would also assume they would have pay an extra (~9%?) from their COLA allowance.

The COLA payment for a second year, first round draft pick who played 1-5 games in his first year is only $1285pa. (Base $78785 instead of $77500). The 9% is a club total allowance and is not distributed evenly across the player group.

 

[Cobbler]

Are you being serious? This is totally illogical. If you want him (fact) then pay for him. How is it a win for you to not end up with what you want.

How do you honestly think McCarthy will react to "hey Cam, we are trying get you are a bargain price, just sit tight, if we can't get the trade done this year, we will try again next year".

Perhaps the eagles may not take Freo's lead want to wait until 1 or 2 season after their KPF retires to find his replacement.

Can this bloke get stuffed already?
I posted one comment on the Eagles board and copped a ban.
It was under the 'good, bad and ugly' thread for their loss to the Dogs.
I said 'Darling was pretty bad... And ugly, but good for Freo supporters' and bang copped a day.
The thread wasn't Eagles exclusive.
Yet these Eagle trolls bombard our threads and dish out abuse and we just accept it.

IMO get stuffed JohnW

 

[Moo]

Are you being serious? This is totally illogical. If you want him (fact) then pay for him. How is it a win for you to not end up with what you want.

Market forces my friend - we want him at a price we are prepared to pay. We also would like to use pick 3, would like to get Hill and perhaps 1 other over the line too.

Perhaps I should of been consulting to your club when you got Jetta.......when the Swans said give us Sinclair as Jetta wants to come home - you could of said 'No - we only have 2 rucks on the list and might need him, here have pick 31' rather than 'Thank you Sir ....may I have another'

How do you honestly think McCarthy will react to "hey Cam, we are trying get you are a bargain price, just sit tight, if we can't get the trade done this year, we will try again next year".

Cam is a contracted player to GWS, I surmise we would say that we have put our offer forward to GWS and that is all we can do.

If GWS choose not to accept it, I doubt we would be saying anything else to Cam other than - you make the best decision for yourself and good luck.....so in summary it would actually have bugger all to do with us.....we are not obliged to offer any more than we see as a fair price.
If we could get Hogan and that meant not getting Cam - what do you think we would do?

Perhaps the eagles may not take Freo's lead want to wait until 1 or 2 season after their KPF retires to find his replacement.

When does the search for the Judd, Kerr, Embley & Cousins replacements start?

 

[Moo]

Can this bloke get stuffed already?
I posted one comment on the Eagles board and copped a ban.
It was under the 'good, bad and ugly' thread for their loss to the Dogs.
I said 'Darling was pretty bad... And ugly, but good for Freo supporters' and bang copped a day.
The thread wasn't Eagles exclusive.
Yet these Eagle trolls bombard our threads and dish out abuse and we just accept it.

IMO get stuffed JohnW

I like him.

 

[wayToGo_]

This needs to stop being propagated. The "rules" are vague around this - and it doesn't preclude you from trading future picks until you have actually broken the rule. Even trading the two picks this year won't mean we have broken the rule - just that we will if we don't have two firsts in 2018. Then in 2018 if we don't take two 1sts I think it would just be a ban on trading future 1st until we do. Assuming it is a rolling 4-year period that just means in 2018 we can't trade the 2019 pick. In 2019 if we keep the 2019 pick we would be able to trade the 2020 pick because we would have satisfied the 4-year requirement. So this assumed inability to trade the 2017 pick now just doesn't make sense logically. With the obvious caveat that the AFL defies logic often and doubly so when it comes to Freo - so maybe the AFL will **** us afterall.

The AFL hasn't come out and said either way. The only thing we know for sure is that they've said clubs must use 2 first rounders in the draft every 4 years. Whether they'll step in and stop a trade that results in the likelihood of breaking the rule (ie a club must always have two spent or active first round picks in a 4 year period) or sit on their hands and wait to penalise once broken we have no idea yet. Fundamentally it doesn't change the premise of my post at all... West Coast are in the same position as us having traded last year's first rounder, they'll need to spend at least one in the draft either this year or next, or suffer some kind of trading penalty.

 

[Tundrawolf]

Thread needs more Hogan less McCarthy

 

[imperial_oz]

West coast will be replacing a window and removing a brick from their offices if that happens

Happy to sell you a few bricks. What draft picks can you offer for them?

 

[JohnW]

Market forces my friend - we want him at a price we are prepared to pay. We also would like to use pick 3, would like to get Hill and perhaps 1 other over the line too.

Perhaps I should of been consulting to your club when you got Jetta.......when the Swans said give us Sinclair as Jetta wants to come home - you could of said 'No - we only have 2 rucks on the list and might need him, here have pick 31' rather than 'Thank you Sir ....may I have another'



Cam is a contracted player to GWS, I surmise we would say that we have put our offer forward to GWS and that is all we can do.

If GWS choose not to accept it, I doubt we would be saying anything else to Cam other than - you make the best decision for yourself and good luck.....so in summary it would actually have bugger all to do with us.....we are not obliged to offer any more than we see as a fair price.
If we could get Hogan and that meant not getting Cam - what do you think we would do?



When does the search for the Judd, Kerr, Embley & Cousins replacements start?

My point was that what you guys consider fair should be offered straight up. Get what you want, and move on. If GWS turn it down it's on them to make it work with Cam. So perhaps our views aren't too far away from each others.

We had three rucks when we trading Sincalir, we were left with two after the trade, and then brought in a 3rd.

And I think the entire comp if still doing the search for the next Judd, Kerr, Embley & Cracky err I mean Cousins.

 

[Righteo]

Thread needs more Hogan less McCarthy

True

 

[Carnthedockers]

Can this bloke get stuffed already?
I posted one comment on the Eagles board and copped a ban.
It was under the 'good, bad and ugly' thread for their loss to the Dogs.
I said 'Darling was pretty bad... And ugly, but good for Freo supporters' and bang copped a day.
The thread wasn't Eagles exclusive.
Yet these Eagle trolls bombard our threads and dish out abuse and we just accept it.

IMO get stuffed JohnW

Our mods are unbelievably tolerant compared to other boards.

 

[JohnW]

Our mods are unbelievably tolerant compared to other boards.

Kudos to them! Makes for a well rounded conversation, with many different views. Eagles mods could take some pointers.

 

[youmewe]

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2016-08-12/the-futurepick-puzzle

AFL.com.au confirmed with the AFL that as long as a club has two first-round picks in a four-year period, they comply with the rules...

Those rules introduced last season state that clubs must make at least two first-round selections in each four-year period or face restrictions from trading any further first-round draft picks and that clubs can trade one year in the future only.

Under the rules the four-year period is rolling, meaning clubs will find it difficult to go more than two consecutive years without first-round draft picks.

 

[JohnW]

When does the search for the Judd, Kerr, Embley & Cousins replacements start?

Just seen that Judd had twin boys. Plus his 1st son. We are part the way to a Judd, Judd, & Judd midfield, need to convince them to come to Perth

 

[Taylor]

The COLA payment for a second year, first round draft pick who played 1-5 games in his first year is only $1285pa. (Base $78785 instead of $77500). The 9% is a club total allowance and is not distributed evenly across the player group.

My understanding is that the COLA is applied to each contact after the fact, not as a buffer for extra salary cap.

The net result to the player is the same, extra money, but the mechanics of it is quite important.

 

[Righteo]

Our mods are unbelievably tolerant compared to other boards.

Or are our posters unbelievably sensitive compared to other boards?

 

[Righteo]

Toughen up princess. I'm sure if I was out right trolling like you were judging by what you said you posted I would have been moved along.

I actually haven't said anything negative/trolling about freo at all.

By the same token, don't get too comfortable JohnW

Don't need this sort of comment either.

 

[Moo]

Our mods are unbelievably tolerant compared to other boards.

As a former Eagles Mod - I disagree...we were always pretty tolerant & I think they still are.