Gigantic
Brownlow Medallist
Check up on your Norf mates
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I think this was the guts of the decision to match on Cameron too (which I thought was shrewd). You knew they had all those later first rounders and you were a damned good shot of getting all of them with the draft position Geelong had. They had banked on him for an immediate shot at a premiership so it was never going to be a risk for them. For North on the other hand (if Kelly makes that choice) I think we'll say pick 1/2 is non-negotiable and you'll agree, a top ten pick from the AFL will be accepted even if not the best haul but we'll continue a good trade relationship. Unless, of course, you just say "Josh you're ours" and you're happier to keep him even if begrudgingly. Otherwise there's just not the pressure on North in a deal as there was with Geelong last year.
I think they'd be after our 2022 first tbh.
Possible, but they might see more value on three top ten picks this year (through packaging or bringing in three players from the same draft) than gambling on our 2022 season.
I think it's likely that the current agreement would prevent you matching.We won’t match with North as it’s a fair
To good bet it’ll be more than our offer.
But if he goes to a contender for less then yes we would match.
I think it's likely that the current agreement would prevent you matching.
If Kelly has a stay clause, he would probably have a go clause too.
Too early to assume their pick and hypothetical compo pick would be top 10 imo, especially if you're accounting for them being pushed back by Daicos and/or Darcy bids. And having two earlyish picks this year if anything I reckon would make them more keen to spread across multiple years (it's not like getting multiple players in the same year helped them keep Caldwell or Hately). But they're a hard team to predict, given that picks aren't quite valued the same by them as they would be other clubs.
For sure, can only base on the current situation. We might not end up with pick 1.
True. Fixtures don't make it seem like there's a lot of wins left on the board for either us or the Hawks, so us getting 2 and them 0 is certainly possible. Can't see doing any better than that and I don't know that we'd be keen to trade pick 2 either.
Terrible list management if a club has agreed to a “go clause” as well.I think it's likely that the current agreement would prevent you matching.
If Kelly has a stay clause, he would probably have a go clause too.
Not really, any decent partnership agreement or employment contract has both.Terrible list management if a club has agreed to a “go clause” as well.
Not really, any decent partnership agreement or employment contract has both.
I'd be more concerned about offering an option for a huge extension, though obviously we don't know the conditions. It was presumably linked to performance requirements, which may or may not have been met.
What are you suggesting would be in an exit clause for this deal?Not really, any decent partnership agreement or employment contract has both.
I'd be more concerned about offering an option for a huge extension, though obviously we don't know the conditions. It was presumably linked to performance requirements, which may or may not have been met.
We also have Fahey in our academy who we'll have to match between 10-13, so having open picks there is risky enough for us as is, I'd think we'd be looking for 2022 first rounder and 2021 second rounder from any team wanting him if we elected to matchToo early to assume their pick and hypothetical compo pick would be top 10 imo, especially if you're accounting for them being pushed back by Daicos and/or Darcy bids. And having two earlyish picks this year if anything I reckon would make them more keen to spread across multiple years (it's not like getting multiple players in the same year helped them keep Caldwell or Hately). But they're a hard team to predict, given that picks aren't quite valued the same by them as they would be other clubs.
The simplest one would be that if Kelly wanted out in two years time GWS wouldn't potentially stymie this by matching a free agency offer.What are you suggesting would be in an exit clause for this deal?
I meant huge in years. If the rumours are true, it was effectively a eight or ten year contract they were offering.I’d be more concerned about an exit agreement.
Huge? Not really. Many years for sure.
Most believe they gave him an option to extend, it is hardly a stretch to think they would also give him an option to leave? They kind of go hand in hand.Gee if you believe Kelly has all these clauses in his contract to get him out of there if he wants he must have basically been out the door last time. Can't imagine GWS would have given him that much control though
The simplest one would be that if Kelly wanted out in two years time GWS wouldn't potentially stymie this by matching a free agency offer.
I meant huge in years. If the rumours are true, it was effectively a eight or ten year contract they were offering.
I'd guess he almost certainly staying and the only reason this hasn't been announced is he hasn't met whatever trigger clause was in the agreement yet.Yep 100%.
But he has the talent.
Will be an interesting few months.
Feel strange about it as I would be happy if he stayed but not gutted if he left.
I'd guess he almost certainly staying and the only reason this hasn't been announced is he hasn't met whatever trigger clause was in the agreement yet.
I think it's likely that the current agreement would prevent you matching.
If Kelly has a stay clause, he would probably have a go clause too.
TBH I'm more worried about GC than the Hawks.
We also have Fahey in our academy who we'll have to match between 10-13, so having open picks there is risky enough for us as is, I'd think we'd be looking for 2022 first rounder and 2021 second rounder from any team wanting him if we elected to match
Kelly + picks 9 and 10 for pick 3?