Pick Purchase System - Valid or Rubbish ??

[LordLucifer]

Bombers coach Brad Scott keen on pick-purchase system

Essendon coach Brad Scott has thrown his support behind a pick purchasing system, saying it's a model that...

www.canberratimes.com.au

As it stands clubs can trade by three means - players, draft picks and points.

But a new method is quickly gaining support at club land - using salary cap space to buy picks from other teams.

Is this just a new-age wanky fad or does the system have some genuine validity ??

 

[theasian]

Definitely a good concept.

Rebuilding teams won't have to use salary cap space to pay mediocre players.

And they can get extra picks to either draft new young players or even go after a established player.

Whether the AFLPA will agree to it is another question.

 

[Kwality]

Bombers coach Brad Scott keen on pick-purchase system

Essendon coach Brad Scott has thrown his support behind a pick purchasing system, saying it's a model that...

www.canberratimes.com.au

Is this just a new-age wanky fad or does the system have some genuine validity ??

another gimmick to keep the faithful engaged ......

 

[HairyO]

Geelong did this with GCS last year. Pick 7 and a player for pick 50.

 

[Kappa]

This will be terrible for footy fans as rebuilding teams will sell off their cap space and the top teams will dominatw even more and the poor teams will be worse

 

[theasian]

Geelong did this with GCS last year. Pick 7 and a player for pick 50.

This is different.
A team with tight cap space can increse their cap space by trading away a pick.

 

[LordLucifer]

Geelong did this with GCS last year. Pick 7 and a player for pick 50.

And what they did should not have been allowed to happen.

Bowes was on some silly amount per annum for the next two-years, the Cats still had to pay him the total amount of money but were allowed to restructure the contract and pay him over four years, not two.

If they want to go down this path, then clubs who "buy" the player/draft pick etc, have to abide by the terms of the existing contract, otherwise its a complete farce.

 

[flipper83]

The problem is that the teams who seem to be under cap pressure are GWS and Gold Coast who have had to pay big contracts to unproven players to get them to stay.
Big clubs will find a way to renegotiate contracts with the help of sponsors/coterie groups to take on salary and gain picks.
Feels like it might end up creating more imbalance.

 

[Milanista28]

If Brad Scott says it's good then I agree.

 

[Danw0w]

I dont like it. I don't think clubs should be able to have other club's players on their books at all.

 

[Sphynx]

It's a massive mechanism in the NBA and NFL.

One of the most used ones.

Not only picks for cash, but also players + cash for picks.


It will bridge the gap between the top sides and bottom sides quicker, by way of draft capital.

Team's caught in no mans land can engineer ways to get out.

Shit players are no longer on bad contracts at bottom clubs, because they need to meet the salary cap floor. Bottom clubs will now pay fair value, to say 50% of the cap and sell the rest, rather than overpaying or signing up long contracts to enable them to front load.

Salary Cap Management becomes one of the important aspects in the game, as salary cap space literally = draft capital.


We need it ASAP. I hope it's incorporated for this trade week tbh.

No reason North shouldn't be able to sell Carlton cap space to alleviate their bursting cap space for 2-3 seasons for their next two first round picks.

Carlton in that scenario could hypothetically go after the likes of Ben McKay

32

Ben Mckay

Age

28

Ht

202cm

Wt

104kg

Pos.

Def

Career

Season

Last 5

D

7.5

2star

K

3.7

1star

HB

3.8

3star

M

2.7

3star

T

1.7

4star

MG

77.2

1star

D

7.5

2star

K

4.5

2star

HB

3.0

2star

M

2.5

3star

T

1.5

2star

MG

88.5

2star

D

7.0

2star

K

3.4

2star

HB

3.6

3star

M

2.4

3star

T

2.0

4star

MG

67.8

1star

and Jade Gresham

11

Jade Gresham

Age

28

Ht

177cm

Wt

81kg

Pos.

Fwd

Career

Season

Last 5

D

17.4

4star

K

10.2

4star

HB

7.2

4star

M

3.2

3star

T

2.7

4star

G

1.1

4star

D

17.5

4star

K

10.8

4star

HB

6.8

4star

M

2.1

2star

T

2.0

3star

G

0.5

4star

D

11.8

3star

K

6.0

3star

HB

5.8

4star

M

2.6

3star

T

3.4

5star

G

0.4

3star

as FA's on the back of the deal.

There can be a bunch of win/win's for teams pushing into the premiership windows and it can help bottom clubs supercharge their rebuilds.

 

[hawkman]

No reason North shouldn't be able to sell Carlton cap space to alleviate their bursting cap space for 2-3 seasons for their next two first round picks.

Carlton in that scenario could hypothetically go after the likes of Ben McKay and Jade Gresham as FA's on the back of the deal.

There can be a bunch of win/win's for teams pushing into the premiership windows and it can help bottom clubs supercharge their rebuilds.

Carlton would find a way to completely mess it up so that they paying millions extra still don't makes finals and have no picks. Sounds like a great idea

 

[Footy Smarts]

And what they did should not have been allowed to happen.

Bowes was on some silly amount per annum for the next two-years, the Cats still had to pay him the total amount of money but were allowed to restructure the contract and pay him over four years, not two.

If they want to go down this path, then clubs who "buy" the player/draft pick etc, have to abide by the terms of the existing contract, otherwise its a complete farce.

Denying a player the right to alter their contract is clearly illegal.

Geelong and Gold Coast agreed a deal for Geelong to take Bowes including the obligation for his contract.

Geelong then offered him a 4 year deal on more overall money than was left on his 2 year deal. He agreed. You can't legally force him to remain on a contract that he sees as a worse deal.

 

[Kreuuuzeurns]

And what they did should not have been allowed to happen.

Bowes was on some silly amount per annum for the next two-years, the Cats still had to pay him the total amount of money but were allowed to restructure the contract and pay him over four years, not two.

If they want to go down this path, then clubs who "buy" the player/draft pick etc, have to abide by the terms of the existing contract, otherwise its a complete farce.

Why should Geelong suffer for being a well run organisation. They helped GC by alleviating their salary cap pressure. It shouldn’t matter how or when a player is paid as long as they agree to the deal and get the money they’re entitled to. Bowes didn’t have to agree to anything.

FA is different as they conjure up compensation picks out of thin air.

 

[LordLucifer]

Denying a player the right to alter their contract is clearly illegal.

Geelong and Gold Coast agreed a deal for Geelong to take Bowes including the obligation for his contract.

Geelong then offered him a 4 year deal on more overall money than was left on his 2 year deal. He agreed. You can't legally force him to remain on a contract that he sees as a worse deal.

Oh palllease !!!!

Are you trying to tell me Geelong gave him more money ?? He was rumoured to be on $700K per annum for the next two years & the Cats were able to give him a four-year deal at $350K.

Geelong made away like bandits with that deal due to a very damaging loophole in the rules.

 

[LordLucifer]

Why should Geelong suffer for being a well run organisation. They helped GC by alleviating their salary cap pressure. It shouldn’t matter how or when a player is paid as long as they agree to the deal and get the money they’re entitled to. Bowes didn’t have to agree to anything.

FA is different as they conjure up compensation picks out of thin air.

Disagree !!!

If we want to follow the U.S. sports models yet again as has been the case for some time now, the way they do it is that clubs have to honour the current contract in place. They can add more years at same, more & less money after that initial contract but not before.

 

[LordLucifer]

Trade and contract rule tweaks to be considered by AFL after controversial deal

Trade and contract rule tweaks to be considered by AFL after controversial deal

www.foxsports.com.au

"Geelong was the first club to exploit the newly-introduced salary dumping, taking pick No.7 and Jack Bowes

12

Jack Bowes

Age

28

Ht

189cm

Wt

85kg

Pos.

D/M

Career

Season

Last 5

D

16.3

4star

K

9.7

4star

HB

6.6

4star

M

3.9

4star

T

2.5

4star

MG

318.1

4star

D

18.0

4star

K

11.8

5star

HB

6.3

4star

M

5.4

5star

T

1.1

2star

MG

318.1

4star

D

11.6

3star

K

6.4

3star

HB

5.2

4star

M

2.8

3star

T

2.4

4star

, as well as his $1.6 million contract, off Gold Coast’s hands for just a future third-round pick.

But according to The Age, the league will look at preventing prospective clubs from “smoothing out” the remaining money that players they trade in are on.

For example, in the Cats’ case, they were able to spread Bowes’ money over four years, even though the 24-year-old only had two more years left in his contract with the Suns.

Rival clubs have reportedly suggested to the AFL that in future, a club like Geelong in this instance should have to be made to honour the existing terms of the Bowes deal and include all of his salary in the next two years of player payments."

 

[BF Tiger]

Denying a player the right to alter their contract is clearly illegal.

Geelong and Gold Coast agreed a deal for Geelong to take Bowes including the obligation for his contract.

Geelong then offered him a 4 year deal on more overall money than was left on his 2 year deal. He agreed. You can't legally force him to remain on a contract that he sees as a worse deal.

Allow Bowes and Geelong to alter the contract, but still force Geelong to count $700,000 in the cap for two years.

Similar to a player nominating terms in the PSD. If he nominated two years at $1,000,000 per year to scare away other clubs and then get to the club of his choice that club has to count that money in their cap, even if they renegotiate immediately to $2,000,000 over four years.

 

[citizen-erased]

i like the idea.

cap space is an asset....why not trade it.
it's a trade system too, so each party will work out what's equitable.

can help fast track a rebuild, unsnooker some clubs who have paid more to meet cap floors, etc.
there is a slight bias towards clubs that pay to retain, but in time that will iron out to less over the top contracts i think (at least in terms of length and how long that "burden" is carried)

 

[JasRulz63]

Allow Bowes and Geelong to alter the contract, but still force Geelong to count $700,000 in the cap for two years.

Similar to a player nominating terms in the PSD. If he nominated two years at $1,000,000 per year to scare away other clubs and then get to the club of his choice that club has to count that money in their cap, even if they renegotiate immediately to $2,000,000 over four years.

It's the same rule as FA contracts right?

 

[Footy Smarts]

Oh palllease !!!!

Are you trying to tell me Geelong gave him more money ?? He was rumoured to be on $700K per annum for the next two years & the Cats were able to give him a four-year deal at $350K.

Geelong made away like bandits with that deal due to a very damaging loophole in the rules.

That's completely at odds with the numbers rumoured at the time. Every journalist that reported this said he was owed $1.5-1.6m over 2 years and his new deal at Geelong is around $2.2m over 4.

 

[Footy Smarts]

Allow Bowes and Geelong to alter the contract, but still force Geelong to count $700,000 in the cap for two years.

Similar to a player nominating terms in the PSD. If he nominated two years at $1,000,000 per year to scare away other clubs and then get to the club of his choice that club has to count that money in their cap, even if they renegotiate immediately to $2,000,000 over four years.

Clubs can go over or under the cap by up to 5% on any given year as long as it averages out.

So counting Bowes' 4-year deal as 750, 750, 350, 350 or 550 in each year would make no difference to the salary cap.

 

[lordbob]

Denying a player the right to alter their contract is clearly illegal.

Geelong and Gold Coast agreed a deal for Geelong to take Bowes including the obligation for his contract.

Geelong then offered him a 4 year deal on more overall money than was left on his 2 year deal. He agreed. You can't legally force him to remain on a contract that he sees as a worse deal.

Players should be traded on existing contract terms. They are free to negotiate new contracts with the new club once they are there just as the rest of the players are.

A trade should not be dependent on whether a player is willing to renegotiate their contract, especially if it results in the sale of a draft pick. It puts undue duress on a player to take less money to finalise a trade.

 

[BF Tiger]

Clubs can go over or under the cap by up to 5% on any given year as long as it averages out.

So counting Bowes' 4-year deal as 750, 750, 350, 350 or 550 in each year would make no difference to the salary cap.

What? Of course it does.

If you’re paying Bowes $700,000 this year when you’d really like to be paying him $400,000 then you’ve got $300,000 less to pay someone(s) else.

 

[craffles]

That's completely at odds with the numbers rumoured at the time. Every journalist that reported this said he was owed $1.5-1.6m over 2 years and his new deal at Geelong is around $2.2m over 4.

That is seriously large money for a VFL player lol