Jesse Hogan Contract Negotiations (Titus O'Reilly)

[mike91]

Looks likely there will be a lot of posts in this thread come sometime next week. The 4 year deal thing is clearly not happening IMO, but apparently Mahoney told a past players night Jesse will be with us beyond 2017. I'm still skeptical as I believe nothing until it is official on our website, but I'm fairly sure we are pushing hard to sign him up in the next week or so.

I still think he'll be at Melbourne in 2017 and we'll still be discussing this as he wont have signed anything yet.

 

[mike91]

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

 

[Carnthedockers]

Looks likely there will be a lot of posts in this thread come sometime next week. The 4 year deal thing is clearly not happening IMO, but apparently Mahoney told a past players night Jesse will be with us beyond 2017. I'm still skeptical as I believe nothing until it is official on our website, but I'm fairly sure we are pushing hard to sign him up in the next week or so.

Sorry who is mahoney?

 

[imperial_oz]

Sorry who is mahoney?

This bloke! This is Mahoney...

 

[JohnW]

Looks likely there will be a lot of posts in this thread come sometime next week. The 4 year deal thing is clearly not happening IMO, but apparently Mahoney told a past players night Jesse will be with us beyond 2017. I'm still skeptical as I believe nothing until it is official on our website, but I'm fairly sure we are pushing hard to sign him up in the next week or so.

So they should, if it happens it is the 3rd best think to happen to freo

1. Pav
2. Fyfe
3. Hogan

 

[Dump Truck]

I don't mean to sound cynical but all these people talking about their sources and stuff I think are just wrong. I also have a source that's very embedded in Freo and get a lot of first hand info from him. However he chooses very carefully what he tells me. Plus last year he told me that Cam Mac was a done deal. So I went on this board and posted that, it got about 30 odd likes and a few quotes of people being pretty happy. The thing is though, he wasn't lying, he just honestly thought it was, as did the club. So my first hand info was actually incorrect, despite at the time being 100% confident it was correct. So some of these sources (mine included) may have first hand info that sounds really good. However it's never actually final until the last minute.

However... Now that I've just dispelled that whole inside source rubbish my mate did say that Freo have put the feelers out, but that's his vibe and what he's heard around the club however he hasn't been told anything from anyone.

 

[Freo]

Here's one from left field, I'm told (another Kim-ism) that the Dons have tabled a pretty big offer for Hogan.
I reckon they've got buckley's chance and seem to be having a swing at everyone.

 

[Silky32]

I don't mean to sound cynical but all these people talking about their sources and stuff I think are just wrong. I also have a source that's very embedded in Freo and get a lot of first hand info from him. However he chooses very carefully what he tells me. Plus last year he told me that Cam Mac was a done deal. So I went on this board and posted that, it got about 30 odd likes and a few quotes of people being pretty happy. The thing is though, he wasn't lying, he just honestly thought it was, as did the club. So my first hand info was actually incorrect, despite at the time being 100% confident it was correct. So some of these sources (mine included) may have first hand info that sounds really good. However it's never actually final until the last minute.

However... Now that I've just dispelled that whole inside source rubbish my mate did say that Freo have put the feelers out, but that's his vibe and what he's heard around the club however he hasn't been told anything from anyone.

It seems this happens quite a lot. Obviously there is plenty of rubbish in the rumour mill this time of year, but also a lot of truth that just doesn't clear the final hurdle.

When you hear that a certain trade is a 'done deal' before trade week even starts, surely it just means the player/manager and the destination club have agreed to terms. There is still the minor detail of the origin club agreeing to a trade, which is where it can fall over and make the original rumour seem false.

The frustrating part is at this time of year you don't really know which of these partially 'done deals' are real or not.

I think the most important thing is that by Saturday afternoon this total shit-stain of a year will be over and we can start building our list back into contention.

 

[Freo Dr]

I think regardless of what some Melb supporters may say on their board, most seem to know that waiting to see what happens next year could be disastrous for them. It's all very well to want to dig the heels in (and I get it) but that stance could well bite them in the arse down the track.

Would it be the end of the world for us if we waited an extra year to try get him? I doubt it.

Exactly, just like Hill there is more benefit in leaving Hogan (if he wants to leave) until next year. Use our pick 3 this year on McGrath/SPS etc. and make sure our midfield is A grade before we chase a forward who be the cream on the cake but not the substance (midfield) of most wins.

 

[FreoMonocle]

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)).

But how does that work with the minimum team spend, when the team was filled with 19 year olds as with GWS? One of those rules probably had to give...

 

[Carnthedockers]

I don't mean to sound cynical but all these people talking about their sources and stuff I think are just wrong. I also have a source that's very embedded in Freo and get a lot of first hand info from him. However he chooses very carefully what he tells me. Plus last year he told me that Cam Mac was a done deal. So I went on this board and posted that, it got about 30 odd likes and a few quotes of people being pretty happy. The thing is though, he wasn't lying, he just honestly thought it was, as did the club. So my first hand info was actually incorrect, despite at the time being 100% confident it was correct. So some of these sources (mine included) may have first hand info that sounds really good. However it's never actually final until the last minute.

However... Now that I've just dispelled that whole inside source rubbish my mate did say that Freo have put the feelers out, but that's his vibe and what he's heard around the club however he hasn't been told anything from anyone.

I know what your saying, but I don't think anyone has made any closed ended statements like that. So far, all I've read is that we are keen, but there is no secret in that. I'm pretty sure rtb himself has no idea of hogans intentions, last time I asked the question that was definitely the case. All we can say to him is we would welcome you to our club. When I spoke to Ross about hooker 6 months ago, he said "we can only offer them the best contract we can, the rest is up to them".

 

[manpurple]

Has anyone actually figured out if you can trade this year and next years pick when considering the 2 in 4 rule?

It's been discussed I am not sure in which thread. The short version is as follows.

• Due to the trade last year for Bennell. We have to use a first round pick this year or next.
  
• We can trade both this years and next years first round picks provided we trade in another 1st round pick and use that in a draft.
  
• We have to be careful because of the rule which states you cannot trade a future 1st round pick when you have traded any other pick from the same year or visa-versa

So the short answer is yes you can trade but if we are not careful we can really mess up what we can do for a few years. For this reason it would almost be better for us to go to the draft this year and trade for a Hogan or Lobb next year when the trade restrictions are less binding on us.

 

[apuchar]

It's been discussed I am not sure in which thread. The short version is as follows.

• Due to the trade last year for Bennell. We have to use a first round pick this year or next.
  
• We can trade both this years and next years first round picks provided we trade in another 1st round pick and use that in a draft.
  
• We have to be careful because of the rule which states you cannot trade a future 1st round pick when you have traded any other pick from the same year or visa-versa

So the short answer is yes you can trade but if we are not careful we can really mess up what we can do for a few years. For this reason it would almost be better for us to go to the draft this year and trade for a Hogan or Lobb next year when the trade restrictions are less binding on us.

Agree, but I doubt Freo would let the grass grow under their feet if Hogan wanted out this year and Melbourne agreed. We may only have to upgrade a high second into the late first round at some point to fix the problem

 

[Wally Walpamur]

All these rules, regulations, academies, points systems, free agent compensation picks really do my head in. Why not simplify the whole system and have one set of rules for every club.

You have x draft picks in the up coming draft. You have x amount of spots on your list you need to fill. You have $x of salary cap. You can trade any player/draft pick. No more compensation for free agents. GO!

 

[Clems Knee]

All these rules, regulations, academies, points systems, free agent compensation picks really do my head in. Why not simplify the whole system and have one set of rules for every club.

You have x draft picks in the up coming draft. You have x amount of spots on your list you need to fill. You have
$x of salary cap. You can trade any player/draft pick. No more compensation for free agents. GO!

Because that would mean the AFL would not be successful.
Simplistic rules always benefit one party over all overs. The modifications (all those rules...) are necessary to counter the natural competitive advantage that some clubs have, and to grow the game.
Mostly the AFL gets it right. Sometimes it takes them too long to get it right: eg the bidding system on academies and father sons.

 

[Quokka]

That still leaves a few grey areas (and again all stuff discussed elsewhere)

Could we trade out both first rounders and be at risk of breeching the rules? (For example with the intent of securing a first round pick next year).

Seems a safe assumption that we could but still haven't seen anything that confirms this.

When does the AFL step in? Will it let a club breech the rule and then just take the penalty or somehow intervene next year if Freo traded out both picks and was looking like not getting back into the first round.

And lastly what exactly are the penalties?

Probably safe to assume it's some sort of no future trading for x number of years but again don't think the AFL has actually confirmed anything.

Maybe the clubs know the details but can't understand why with such a big addition to trading why the AFL felt that spelling out the processes properly was such a bad idea.

 

[Wally Walpamur]

That still leaves a few grey areas (and again all stuff discussed elsewhere)

Could we trade out both first rounders and be at risk of breeching the rules? (For example with the intent of securing a first round pick next year).

Seems a safe assumption that we could but still haven't seen anything that confirms this.

When does the AFL step in? Will it let a club breech the rule and then just take the penalty or somehow intervene next year if Freo traded out both picks and was looking like not getting back into the first round.

And lastly what exactly are the penalties?

Probably safe to assume it's some sort of no future trading for x number of years but again don't think the AFL has actually confirmed anything.

Maybe the clubs know the details but can't understand why with such a big addition to trading why the AFL felt that spelling out the processes properly was such a bad idea.

It's the AFL - good ol' make it up as we go, we'll deal with it when it happens

 

[Nickos66]

So if we trade out another 2 1st rounders in the next 2 years, can clubs then potentially bend us over a barrel to make us trade in any 1st rounder to appease the AFL?

 

[GreatPurpleShark]

The only risk is not being able to trade future picks. We dont lose anything, we just get saved from ourselves

 

[manpurple]

That still leaves a few grey areas (and again all stuff discussed elsewhere)

Could we trade out both first rounders and be at risk of breeching the rules? (For example with the intent of securing a first round pick next year).

Seems a safe assumption that we could but still haven't seen anything that confirms this.

When does the AFL step in? Will it let a club breech the rule and then just take the penalty or somehow intervene next year if Freo traded out both picks and was looking like not getting back into the first round.

And lastly what exactly are the penalties?

Probably safe to assume it's some sort of no future trading for x number of years but again don't think the AFL has actually confirmed anything.

Maybe the clubs know the details but can't understand why with such a big addition to trading why the AFL felt that spelling out the processes properly was such a bad idea.

Once again the penalties were discussed elsewhere. From memory all trades have to be signed off by the AFL. Consequently they can block trades that will allow for breaches. In effect this means that you cant trade into a position for a breach. For example

• if we traded this year and next year's first for Hogan but we have no other round 1 pick at the time the AFL would block the trade.
  
• If we had an extra round 1 pick and completed the above trade for Hogan
  
  • the AFL would prevent any trade of next years 2nd, 3rd , 4th etc picks
  • the AFL would prevent any trade of that extra round 1 pick

Whilst I am sure that, as others state, there would be penalties of some description if you could breach the rules I just don't think you could actually get to that position.

 

[Paracleet]

Once again the penalties were discussed elsewhere. From memory all trades have to be signed off by the AFL. Consequently they can block trades that will allow for breaches. In effect this means that you cant trade into a position for a breach. For example

• if we traded this year and next year's first for Hogan but we have no other round 1 pick at the time the AFL would block the trade.
  
• If we had an extra round 1 pick and completed the above trade for Hogan
  • the AFL would prevent any trade of next years 2nd, 3rd , 4th etc picks
  • the AFL would prevent any trade of that extra round 1 pick

Whilst I am sure that, as others state, there would be penalties of some description if you could breach the rules I just don't think you could actually get to that position.

I don't believe, based on the published wording, that that is the case. For the AFL to reasonably block the move based directly (I.E. rather than because of the vibe) the wording of the rule would have to be something like 'Clubs must go no more than two season between taking first round picks'. But it's not that; it's 'The clubs must make at least 2 first round selections in a 4 year period or face restrictions on further trading of picks'. In fact the AFL explainer on the issue specifically says "clubs will find it difficult to go more than two consecutive years without first-round draft picks". Not impossible.

To mean it seems reasonable that for sanctions to be applied the 4 year period actually has to elapse.

 

[JohnW]

Once again the penalties were discussed elsewhere. From memory all trades have to be signed off by the AFL. Consequently they can block trades that will allow for breaches. In effect this means that you cant trade into a position for a breach. For example

• if we traded this year and next year's first for Hogan but we have no other round 1 pick at the time the AFL would block the trade.
  
• If we had an extra round 1 pick and completed the above trade for Hogan
  • the AFL would prevent any trade of next years 2nd, 3rd , 4th etc picks
  • the AFL would prevent any trade of that extra round 1 pick

Whilst I am sure that, as others state, there would be penalties of some description if you could breach the rules I just don't think you could actually get to that position.

This sounds like my take on the rules, are you sure you aren't taking what I said in this thread previously as fact?

 

[Quokka]

Apart from the article Paracleet links to has anything actually been released by the AFL that goes into more detail than this http://www.afl.com.au/news/2015-08-06/future-trading-given-goahead-but-with-restrictions

AFAIK that's still the only official outline that's been made public and its why I'm still asking about grey areas, I'd take that to mean that the AFL wouldn't block a trade as discussed above they'd just expect Fremantle to trade in a first round pick or face restrictions.


Again sorry to those bored by this, I know its been discussed a hundred times in a hundred places but I figure it's definitely relevant to possible Hogan trades and helps fill in the time till anything can actually happen.

 

[estibador]

It's a silly rule anyway. Why shouldn't clubs be allowed to trade their first pick every year if they want?

You used to be allowed to, why should introducing future trading make any difference?

 

[JohnW]

In the NBA there was some issue with the Cavs owner coming in and trading all their future picks and killing the club (and gifting the Lakers the #1 (James Worthy) pick after they won the championship) this is ages back.

One of the articles I read on it suggested the rule was brought in to stop a similar situation. Imagine if crazy Voss could have trade all Brisbane's future picks.