Oppo Camp Non-Essendon Thread X

[BrunoV]

Got to say that having listened to the entire press conference Peter Gordon was actually pretty damn impressive.

 

[doug85]

Sedat saying the dogs are offering Boyd a 6-7 year contract worth $1.1mil/season.

Any ****en wonder he's leaving.

 

[Despair]

This X-Factor shows ****ed. They just kicked off the hot one.

 

[yaco55]

Joke ! - Clubs have gone crazy if they are offering Boyd that much money - Clubs have gone stark raving mad.

 

[BrunoV]

Joke ! - Clubs have gone crazy if they are offering Boyd that much money - Clubs have gone stark raving mad.

Have to agree.

Totally unproven quantity and as a massive one position forward.

One year older than Peter Wright who will almost certainly be available especially if the Dogs trade Griffen for a pick. Being more developed physically probably doesn't help Boyd who is going to have more work to do on his tank.

It is pure madness.

 

[Whispering_Jack]

Joke ! - Clubs have gone crazy if they are offering Boyd that much money - Clubs have gone stark raving mad.

Especially now that he can take that money for 2/3 years and if he's any good he can break the contract and just move to his next club.

 

[Old Campaigner]

Especially now that he can take that money for 2/3 years and if he's any good he can break the contract and just move to his next club.

I'd laugh if he took the first few years of a massively front ended contract, and then walked to some other club for a massively front ended contract.

 

[Mercurial89]

I'd laugh if he took the first few years of a massively front ended contract, and then walked to some other club for a massively front ended contract.

Wouldnt be suprised if that starts to become the norm.

 

[Lord Nicholson]

Joke ! - Clubs have gone crazy if they are offering Boyd that much money - Clubs have gone stark raving mad.

Like the Scully deal, it is less about the player and more about the perception.

 

[BrunoV]

One observation that I've been meaning to make is that the increase in player movement is not about loyalty.

I very much doubt that since the inception of the draft and then particularly once it started being the focus of list management throughout the last 14 years that players staying with clubs has been just about loyalty.

The PA has been telling us for a very long time that it is too difficult to move and, when you think about it, we've been playing around with the length of the trade period to try and get more movement for a while now. The football public has been conscious of the way in which trade week has been held up by a few major trades for just as long.

I don't really have a problem with player movement. It put the onus on the clubs to create and maintain environments in which players are happy to stay. Afterall, the players have a ridiculously short period during which they can make the most of their skills (unlike the rest of us who will have 30 to 40 years to do the same). The expectations that are being placed on players ignore the human side of this issue by holding them to a standard that none of us would hold ourselves to in our own working lives (i.e. working in an unhappy environment turning down offers to work in better conditions out of loyalty).

The contract (particularly the long term) is a two way street. It seems totally plausible that at the start of a contract a player would be happy to honour same and that 3 years down the track following coaching changes and list changes that a player would become a whole lot less happy to hang around.

Look at the changes that Griffen and Beams have experienced in the last two to three years. Look at what Bellchambers was potentially faced with if Ryder stayed.

The contract has only ever been about the club trying to prevent a player from moving and a guarantee for the player of a level of pay that he wants to receive. There is nothing honourable about contracts, in fact, the reason you use contracts is because you don't want to trust the parties. They're used to protect the player from the club who'll try to cut pay and/or ship him off the moment he is no longer required (see Schoenmakers), and to protect the club from the other clubs and the player (which is why we paid Hurley stupid money 3 or so years ago).

 

[CBombers17]

One observation that I've been meaning to make is that the increase in player movement is not about loyalty.

I very much doubt that since the inception of the draft and then particularly once it started being the focus of list management throughout the last 14 years that players staying with clubs has been just about loyalty.

The PA has been telling us for a very long time that it is too difficult to move and, when you think about it, we've been playing around with the length of the trade period to try and get more movement for a while now. The football public has been conscious of the way in which trade week has been held up by a few major trades for just as long.

I don't really have a problem with player movement. It put the onus on the clubs to create and maintain environments in which players are happy to stay. Afterall, the players have a ridiculously short period during which they can make the most of their skills (unlike the rest of us who will have 30 to 40 years to do the same). The expectations that are being placed on players ignore the human side of this issue by holding them to a standard that none of us would hold ourselves to in our own working lives (i.e. working in an unhappy environment turning down offers to work in better conditions out of loyalty).

The contract (particularly the long term) is a two way street. It seems totally plausible that at the start of a contract a player would be happy to honour same and that 3 years down the track following coaching changes and list changes that a player would become a whole lot less happy to hang around.

Look at the changes that Griffen and Beams have experienced in the last two to three years. Look at what Bellchambers was potentially faced with if Ryder stayed.

The contract has only ever been about the club trying to prevent a player from moving and a guarantee for the player of a level of pay that he wants to receive. There is nothing honourable about contracts, in fact, the reason you use contracts is because you don't want to trust the parties. They're used to protect the player from the club who'll try to cut pay and/or ship him off the moment he is no longer required (see Schoenmakers), and to protect the club from the other clubs and the player (which is why we paid Hurley stupid money 3 or so years ago).

Fair points. Contracts go both ways (Mercuri for example) clubs have to honor them in cases of career ending injuries, drop in form etc.

Whichever way it's looked at, it's imperative the AFL ensures all parties are aware of the binding nature of the contracts and enforces them.

Contracts are a part of life. All parts of life. The way in which we treat them (both personal and other) is important to the credibility of the individual/club or competition.

League is a good example of the consequences of player contempt to contracts and imo it leads to fan disillusionment.

 

[BrunoV]

Fair points. Contracts go both ways (Mercuri for example) clubs have to honor them in cases of career ending injuries, drop in form etc.

Whichever way it's looked at, it's imperative the AFL ensures all parties are aware of the binding nature of the contracts and enforces them.

Contracts are a part of life. All parts of life. The way in which we treat them (both personal and other) is important to the credibility of the individual/club or competition.

League is a good example of the consequences of player contempt to contracts and imo it leads to fan disillusionment.

No it's not.

The clubs in particular just need to be more honest about what the contracts represent rather than crying foul and blaming everyone but themselves everytime something goes wrong.

As I see it the moment fair compensation is put on the table the contract ends and it is totally unreasonable to hold the player to the contract because you've either failed to create and maintain the environment the player wants to be a part of or there are human factors (such as want to go home, pissed off at club that dismally failed the whole list with a supplements saga or there is an ill relative) which are enough of a reason to end the contract.

Collingwood, for example, is being totally unreasonable if it has knocked back 5, 25 and Crisp.

They're the ones who have driven unnecessary cultural change and moved on half of Beams' mates. It gives Beams two justifications for wanting to leave.

As for the reasonableness of the compensation, if you look at the Judd trade each part of the deal is reduced to a level that roughly reflects the difference between Judd and Beams as players (though on this measure I think they're close to getting too much for Beams).

 

[Stopher]

Christensen and Beams to Brisbane's already potent midfield. Wow. If they can keep their rucks fit, that group makes them at least competitive against anyone.

 

[CBombers17]

No it's not.

The clubs in particular just need to be more honest about what the contracts represent rather than crying foul and blaming everyone but themselves everytime something goes wrong.

As I see it the moment fair compensation is put on the table the contract ends and it is totally unreasonable to hold the player to the contract because you've either failed to create and maintain the environment the player wants to be a part of or there are human factors (such as want to go home, pissed off at club that dismally failed the whole list with a supplements saga or there is an ill relative) which are enough of a reason to end the contract.

Collingwood, for example, is being totally unreasonable if it has knocked back 5, 25 and Crisp.

They're the ones who have driven unnecessary cultural change and moved on half of Beams' mates. It gives Beams two justifications for wanting to leave.

As for the reasonableness of the compensation, if you look at the Judd trade each part of the deal is reduced to a level that roughly reflects the difference between Judd and Beams as players (though on this measure I think they're close to getting too much for Beams).

I'd still argue it as imperative.

Players may want to negotiate/add clauses to them etc.

They have to be binding for the integrity of the competition.

Beams is chosing to play AFL. His contract stipulates Collingwood is entitled to seek xyz trade then so be it. He's entitled to resign and get a job like everyone else and in doing so enter a contract like everyone else who works - be it for an hour, a day or 30 years.

 

[rines]

Seems the Lions have come out of the exodus last year in good shape. Starting to get a nice list together.

Still see a weakness in their KPP though.

 

[eth-dog]

Christensen and Beams to Brisbane's already potent midfield. Wow. If they can keep their rucks fit, that group makes them at least competitive against anyone.

If they develop Paparone, Close and Freeman up forward correctly they could be scary. Their future defence is strong, their midfield is going to be elite and their forward line...

 

[Kong]

Especially now that he can take that money for 2/3 years and if he's any good he can break the contract and just move to his next club.

Makes you wonder about Buddy at Sydney.

Could we see him just dishonour the contract after 3 or 4 years up there?

 

[Andronicus]

Does Melbourne trying to trade trengove signal a bit of trouble?

Failing a medical when you are being traded for fairly cheap might suggest they know his foot injury is a bigger problem than people thought.

 

[Lord Nicholson]

kern pls + Crazy Vossy^Kochie's dead-on impression of VelvetSledge divided by Patrick Ryder = 2015 Premiership.

 

[Big Fresh]

Port have managed to become pretty unlikable over this off season.

 

[BOMBERS 4 LIFE!!!!]

Port have managed to become pretty unlikable over this off season.

I would lol if they fall in a heap next season.

 

[VelvetSledge]

kern pls + Crazy Vossy^Kochie's dead-on impression of VelvetSledge divided by Patrick Ryder = 2015 Premiership.

Ignore Kochie's tarps!

 

[BrunoV]

Hope that Trengove gets back from this. Unlucky enough to be drafted to Melbourne and made captain of one of the worst teams to take to an AFL field.

On another note, if Melbourne has sought the trade because of the injury Roos can pretty much shut his mouth about free agency and loyalty.

 

[Lord Nicholson]

Ignore Kochie's tarps!

Ryder deal gets done.
Voss's first act is to tell him to take the deal because that's what he would've done.

 

[vast]

So is Polec going back to Brisbane haha