List Mgmt. Josh Kelly to North | PConnors - Kelly would come home for family reasons -NBowen says NM $10m/9yrs

[Heaps of fun]

Guided?

He was best on.

Here I was thinking guided was too strong a word because a flag is a lot more than just winning on the day. In the end though it's the most important thing. He was amazing in the grand final and they don't win it without him.

 

[Jindrrk]

Is there seriously a Hawks supporter in here arguing the ethics of such deals?

F*** right off.

Your club was called in twice about Ty Spuddery. You have no ground to stand on here about the legitimacy of any trading.

HawthornE supporters all think theyre Plato and take the moral high ground for all else bar their own club.

 

[ferball]

Did anyone hear the reference to Cunners having the 2nd best "dont argue" in the league?

Wasn't it in some footy media thing? Obviously wrong.

 

[ozzyoslo]

Sorry to intrude, I think its a bold move on your club's part and the kid is certainly not short on talent or potential.

I question though if contracts like this one are good for football. Obviously it started with Lance Franklin, using the 9 year deal length to ensure Hawthorn would have to pay a ridiculous amount to match the overall value of the contract. Then the 6 year Tom Boyd deal, which thus far has proved to be an unmitigated disaster bar his performance in just two games... admittedly vital important ones. To say he has struggled to cope with that pressure & expectations has been an understatement.

There is so much that can go wrong in this kind of deal. What if the player suffers a debilitating leg injury in the first year that reduces his abilities for the remainder of his career? ACLs for instance aren't all that rare and few players return from them able to perform at the same level. Which is precisely why star players are never offered 9 year deals in the first place - the risk to the club is simply too great. Can you imagine how Collingwood would feel had they offered Dale Thomas a 9 year deal instead of a 5 years?

This deal does two things I really don't like - rewards a young player enormously based on potential rather than output (a dangerous precedent) and sets a trend of clubs offering players silly contract lengths as a way to get around paying them slightly less per year than rivals. Sooner or later a club WILL be burned very, very badly by this sort of deal if they continue to be a thing, like Hawthorn was burned by Nick Holland except much much worse.

It sounds harsh but I believe the AFL should step in and limit player contracts to 5 years maximum. Otherwise its just giving players too much leverage over clubs, and I think with free agency they have too much already.

We can always pull the old trick out where we coaxed said players to start looking out for their futures (after footy)

 

[ozzyoslo]

8 was Phil.....Krakeouer.

But was Hodgeman or Abernathy...they came the same year.

Spencer, Hodgemen and Kelly came the year if I recall correctly.....Abernathy came the year after I think.

 

[Harvey Manfrenjensenden]

He'll be begging to come to North by the end of the year - the AFL's destination club. 5 years @ $4m maximum

 

[ozzyoslo]

Wasn't it in some footy media thing? Obviously wrong.

Nah, last weeks commentary during the game.

 

[RobZombie]

Then the 6 year Tom Boyd deal, which thus far has proved to be an unmitigated disaster bar his performance in just two games... admittedly vital important ones. To say he has struggled to cope with that pressure & expectations has been an understatement.

Flags fly forever, big fella.

 

[Kangaroos4eva]

He'll be begging to come to North by the end of the year - the AFL's destination club. 5 years @ $4m maximum

Hi Brett,

Bye Brett.

 

[ferball]

Nah, last weeks commentary during the game.

I've heard it somewhere else then.

he's better at it than Martin tho. can't wait till we play the tiges and he palms Dusty off like nothing.

 

[ozzyoslo]

Me at work just after reading the forum.

https://goo.gl/images/UoU85g

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

Great offer.

Got to get him now. Imagine how bad it looks if we offer nearly 10m and he stays at the marketing off shoot.

 

[blackshadow]

View attachment 353492

Jy knows…

It's looking ginormous!

Sent from my F8331 using Tapatalk

 

[giantroo]

Jake Niall says he couldn't confirm the 9m with 'club sources' and he thinks it may be around 7m over 9.

 

[Kimbo]

I've heard it somewhere else then.

he's better at it than Martin tho. can't wait till we play the tiges and he palms Dusty off like nothing.

An argument for when they're both playing for us I reckon. Dusty does it more successfully, more often I reckon (Cunners gets caught trying to do it that detracts from his claims) and Dusty does it at pace.

 

[Bojan KantKick]

Sorry to intrude, I think its a bold move on your club's part and the kid is certainly not short on talent or potential.

I question though if contracts like this one are good for football. Obviously it started with Lance Franklin, using the 9 year deal length to ensure Hawthorn would have to pay a ridiculous amount to match the overall value of the contract. Then the 6 year Tom Boyd deal, which thus far has proved to be an unmitigated disaster bar his performance in just two games... admittedly vital important ones. To say he has struggled to cope with that pressure & expectations has been an understatement.

There is so much that can go wrong in this kind of deal. What if the player suffers a debilitating leg injury in the first year that reduces his abilities for the remainder of his career? ACLs for instance aren't all that rare and few players return from them able to perform at the same level. Which is precisely why star players are never offered 9 year deals in the first place - the risk to the club is simply too great. Can you imagine how Collingwood would feel had they offered Dale Thomas a 9 year deal instead of a 5 years?

This deal does two things I really don't like - rewards a young player enormously based on potential rather than output (a dangerous precedent) and sets a trend of clubs offering players silly contract lengths as a way to get around paying them slightly less per year than rivals. Sooner or later a club WILL be burned very, very badly by this sort of deal if they continue to be a thing, like Hawthorn was burned by Nick Holland except much much worse.

It sounds harsh but I believe the AFL should step in and limit player contracts to 5 years maximum. Otherwise its just giving players too much leverage over clubs, and I think with free agency they have too much already.

how's trading out your brownlow medalist for a bloke with no acls on a 5 year deal working out for you?

That's not bad for football, it's just bloody hilarious

 

[giantroo]

Nick Dal Santo was just asked about JK: "If you're Josh Kelly and someone is going to give you $9 million for 9 years, you're gone, you cannot knock back that money, he'll play out the year, he'll give them everything he's got and then it'll be cya later. Those numbers are astronomical for a midfielder particularly."

 

[Mcarcherey]

Sorry to intrude, I think its a bold move on your club's part and the kid is certainly not short on talent or potential.

I question though if contracts like this one are good for football. Obviously it started with Lance Franklin, using the 9 year deal length to ensure Hawthorn would have to pay a ridiculous amount to match the overall value of the contract. Then the 6 year Tom Boyd deal, which thus far has proved to be an unmitigated disaster bar his performance in just two games... admittedly vital important ones. To say he has struggled to cope with that pressure & expectations has been an understatement.

There is so much that can go wrong in this kind of deal. What if the player suffers a debilitating leg injury in the first year that reduces his abilities for the remainder of his career? ACLs for instance aren't all that rare and few players return from them able to perform at the same level. Which is precisely why star players are never offered 9 year deals in the first place - the risk to the club is simply too great. Can you imagine how Collingwood would feel had they offered Dale Thomas a 9 year deal instead of a 5 years?

This deal does two things I really don't like - rewards a young player enormously based on potential rather than output (a dangerous precedent) and sets a trend of clubs offering players silly contract lengths as a way to get around paying them slightly less per year than rivals. Sooner or later a club WILL be burned very, very badly by this sort of deal if they continue to be a thing, like Hawthorn was burned by Nick Holland except much much worse.

It sounds harsh but I believe the AFL should step in and limit player contracts to 5 years maximum. Otherwise its just giving players too much leverage over clubs, and I think with free agency they have too much already.

The AFL increases the salary cap year to year. take into account that the players are asking for more (and almost went on strike because of this) there should be an higher increase aswell as the usual increase. If you take into account the net present value of a million a year, as well as the fact there will be significant increases in the salary cap, i'd say by about the 6th year on kelly's contract that million a year will be the equivalent of what 700k a year is now. High, but worth the risk IMHO

 

[The Filth Wizard]

You forgot to add you have been diagnosed with leukemia

He doesn't know yet you insensitive ass.

 

[SonofSamsquanch]

i still find it difficult to believe 9 mil x 9years. thats A LOT

Look at how brave footscray were to stump up for Boyd. Premiership can take bold moves.

Like they say, you will remember the joy long after you forgot the price.

Kelly, dusty and fyfe. Hybrid stays.

 

[giantroo]

 

[ozzyoslo]

I've heard it somewhere else then.

he's better at it than Martin tho. can't wait till we play the tiges and he palms Dusty off like nothing.

To be honest I think Martin has been better, but hey if he is playing us with next year, then who cares

 

[75-77-96-99]

we have offered dustin martin 1.2 mil per year over 5 years (6 mill) and josh kelly 1 mill per year over 9 years (9 mill)

thats why they havent signed for their own clubs

 

[shintemaster]

we have offered dustin martin 1.2 mil per year over 5 years (6 mill) and josh kelly 1 mill per year over 9 years (9 mill)

thats why they havent signed for their own clubs

That's a 'reset' ladies and gentlemen.

 

[wells2deep]

we have offered dustin martin 1.2 mil per year over 5 years (6 mill) and josh kelly 1 mill per year over 9 years (9 mill)

thats why they havent signed for their own clubs

Is our war chest really that large??

That's a 'reset' ladies and gentlemen.

Sent from my D5503 using Tapatalk