Players' Contract Status 2011

[The Royal Sampler]

This is the thread where we document how long current Collingwood players are contracted for, using media articles as source material. If you're after the 2010 version of the thread, here it is. For 2009, look no further.

This will take some time to put together, so expect quite a few edits before it looks like anything worthwhile. As always, links to articles detailing new contracts are very much appreciated.

Key

Green = believed for period specified
Black = unknown
Underlined = confirmed for period specified (see link)
Italics = rookie

1. Leon Davis (2011)
2. Chris Tarrant (2012)
3. John McCarthy
4. Alan Didak (2013)
5. Nick Maxwell (c) (2013)
6. Tyson Goldsack (2012)
7. Andrew Krakouer (2012)
8. Harry O'Brien (2011)
9.
10. Scott Pendlebury (2011)
11. Jarryd Blair (2011)
12. Luke Ball (2012)
13. Dale Thomas (2011)
14. Luke Rounds (2011)
15. Leigh Brown
16. Nathan Brown (2011)
17. Dayne Beams (2012)
18. Darren Jolly (2013)
19. Cameron Wood
20. Ben Reid (2012)
21. Sharrod Wellingham (2012)
22. Steele Sidebottom (2012)
23. Lachlan Keeffe (2011)
24. Josh Thomas (2011)
25. Tom Young (2011)
26. Ben Johnson
27. Simon Buckley (2011)
28. Ben Sinclair (2011)
29. Jonathon Ceglar (2012)
30. Brent MacAffer
31. Chris Dawes
32. Travis Cloke (2012)
33. Brad Dick
34. Alan Toovey
35. Alex Fasolo (2012)
36. Dane Swan (2011)
37. Kirk Ugle (2012)
38. Scott Reed (2011)
39. Heath Shaw (2012)
40. Paul Seedsman (2012)
41. Daniel Farmer (2012)
42.
43. Trent Stubbs (2012)
44. Thomas Gordon (2011)
45. Tom Hunter (2011)
46. Declan Reilly (2011)
47. Jack Perham (2011)
48. Jye Bolton (2011)
49. Paul Cribbin (2012)
50. Seamus McNamara (2011)
51. Tyson Carracher*
?. Caolan Mooney*

*Pre-listed for 2012.

 

[Rustin Cohle]

Re: Players' Contract Statuses 2011

Priorities for the club:

1. Pendlebury
2. Thomas
3. Brown
4. Swan
5. O'Brien

Pendles is a must. He will be our next Brownlow medallist.

 

[Asgardian]

Re: Players' Contract Statuses 2011

Priorities for the club:

1. Pendlebury
2. Thomas
3. Brown
4. Swan
5. O'Brien

Pendles is a must. He will be our next Brownlow medallist.

Nathan or Leigh?

You blokes will have to fork out some major money for Pendlebury, Thomas & Swan, all of them are vital.

Do you believe the pay increases needed could cause a salary cap squeeze?

 

[TradeDraft]

Re: Players' Contract Statuses 2011

So what players can't be targeted by GWS?

 

[The Royal Sampler]

Re: Players' Contract Statuses 2011

Currently only Didak and Maxwell, who are contracted until 2013.

 

[Ed D]

Re: Players' Contract Statuses 2011

So what players can't be targeted by GWS?

GWS can sign I think 10 uncontracted players this year (1 player from 16 clubs - GC not allowed) and if they don't get their 10 players this year they're allowed to contract the rest the following year. So GWS basically have 2 years to poach players from clubs.

 

[the_champ_2004]

Re: Players' Contract Statuses 2011

No matter how much I look at it statuses looks so wrong. I have researched however and found that it is infact correct. Either that or stati.

I guess it's the same as the plural for Platypus. Platypuses not Platypi like most think.

 

[mattys123]

Re: Players' Contract Statuses 2011

GWS can sign I think 10 uncontracted players this year (1 player from 16 clubs - GC not allowed) and if they don't get their 10 players this year they're allowed to contract the rest the following year. So GWS basically have 2 years to poach players from clubs.

But they can only take one player from each club, even over the 2 year period, so even if we lose a player, that's it, no more will go unless we delist or trade them.

 

[Boris the Contradiction]

Re: Players' Contract Statuses 2011

Priorities for the club:

1. Pendlebury
2. Thomas
3. Brown
4. Swan
5. O'Brien

Pendles is a must. He will be our next Brownlow medallist.

Agree 100%

I'm actually quite disappointed that the club has let it drag on this long. Those blokes have been essential players on the list for a long time now and there's no reason that contracts cannot be extended prior to their expiration year. We should have signed at least 2 or 3 of these guys to long term deals up to a year or so ago to keep them locked in. We are lucky our culture is so good and players want to be at Collingwood but it is negligent to use this as a fall-back option IMO.

I think we'll keep them but the club hasn't been exactly diligent. Brown for instance will be 5th priority of the 5 listed but clubs will offer him massive money if they know what's good for them. There aren't too many quality young defenders with that kind of size running around the AFL, nor has there been for years. That is the challenge. I think last year's retirements will definitely help, as will Tarrant going onto the veteran's list. Swan will be a veteran player after next year as well.

Is Didak eligible for the veteran's list now? (drafted in 2000, that means he's already played 10 seasons at the club). He'd be on some serious money and being able to set aside half of his income will make a massive difference. It is for this reason that I don't think we should put Tazza on the veterans's list and we should wait a year, putting Dids on now (if we can of course) and Swanny next. This could be what we need to keep this list together as both of these guys would be on a hell of a lot more money than what Tarrant is on.

 

[soreplums]

Re: Players' Contract Statuses 2011

How much do you think Leon and Johnno will free up at the end of the year?

 

[jimmy35]

Re: Players' Contract Statuses 2011

Nathan or Leigh?

You blokes will have to fork out some major money for Pendlebury, Thomas & Swan, all of them are vital.

Do you believe the pay increases needed could cause a salary cap squeeze?

Salary cap squeeze is inevitable. That's the system.
Hopefully another flag or two can be had before it hits hard.

I'm actually quite disappointed that the club has let it drag on this long.

Players managers would be negligent not to do the best for their clients.

 

[Pie eyed]

Re: Players' Contract Statuses 2011

No matter how much I look at it statuses looks so wrong. I have researched however and found that it is infact correct. Either that or stati.

I guess it's the same as the plural for Platypus. Platypuses not Platypi like most think.

Plural of Status in English remains "Status".
In American English it is "Statuses" because they are an illiterate rabble.
In it's native tongue, Latin, it is "Statii"


Thank you....thank you very much, I'm here all week...try the pork.

 

[Boris the Contradiction]

Re: Players' Contract Statuses 2011

Players managers would be negligent not to do the best for their clients.

I agree

That doesn't mean that players can't be signed prior. Swan's market value isn't THAT much higher this season over last, Pendlebury's either, Didak's either. O'Brien's and Brown's are another story. I find it hard to believe that if the club pushed hard with these 5 players last year they wouldn't have signed up any of them. There is a pattern in the AFL where clubs (most of the time, there are of course some exceptions) do not begin to discuss contracts until the final year of their players' contracts. This to me is stupid.

Even Swan said, "I will sit down with the club at some stage." That sit down should have happened already.

 

[jimmy35]

Re: Players' Contract Statuses 2011

I agree

That doesn't mean that players can't be signed prior. Swan's market value isn't THAT much higher this season over last, Pendlebury's either, Didak's either. O'Brien's and Brown's are another story. I find it hard to believe that if the club pushed hard with these 5 players last year they wouldn't have signed up any of them. There is a pattern in the AFL where clubs (most of the time, there are of course some exceptions) do not begin to discuss contracts until the final year of their players' contracts. This to me is stupid.

Even Swan said, "I will sit down with the club at some stage." That sit down should have happened already.

I'm sure the club would have loved to tied them up by now but no one in their right mind (players or managers) are going to commit too early without seeing what 'market value' is available.

The club has to balance payment to everyone on the list and can't give Pendlebury, Swan and Thomas $1M a season just to tie them up early.
Likewise the players wont accept an extended contract on similar money to what they are on now.

Somethings take time, pretty sure they'll do the right thing allround.

 

[Ed D]

Re: Players' Contract Statuses 2011

I'm pretty sure Maxwell said that Swan/Pendles/Thomas should have new contracts signed early this year after the Christmas break. I'd be more worried if they hadn't signed and the season had gotten underway.

 

[Boris the Contradiction]

Re: Players' Contract Statuses 2011

I'm sure the club would have loved to tied them up by now but no one in their right mind (players or managers) are going to commit too early without seeing what 'market value' is available.

The club has to balance payment to everyone on the list and can't give Pendlebury, Swan and Thomas $1M a season just to tie them up early.
Likewise the players wont accept an extended contract on similar money to what they are on now.

Somethings take time, pretty sure they'll do the right thing allround.

I disagree with this entirely.

In the most part you are right but not to this extent. How often do 4 or 5 of a club's best 9 or 10 come out of contract at the same time? It doesn't happen often and when it does IMO it is poor list management.

Beams for instance was in hot demand with the Gold Coast and a few other clubs yet we signed him up the year before his contract was due to expire. I'm not suggesting that we'd need to pay them all a million a season to "tie them down" either but we might get ourselves in a position where our hands are tied now and have to "panic offer" a player more than we would have had to earlier on.

I agree the talks will not always (or even often) bear fruit but the club should still be pushing hard for the discussions to occur before it gets to this point. When players are saying things like "we'll sit down and chat about it at some stage" then that doesn't sound like there's been a great deal of discussion to be honest. Fruitless discussion is a lot different to no discussion and it doesn't sound like there's been a great deal of discussion at all to this point.

 

[collwood]

Re: Players' Contract Statuses 2011

Plural of Status in English remains "Status".
In American English it is "Statuses" because they are an illiterate rabble.
In it's native tongue, Latin, it is "Statii"


Thank you....thank you very much, I'm here all week...try the pork.

And plural of platypus, I believe, is platypodes.

 

[mdc]

Re: Players' Contract Statuses 2011

I disagree with this entirely.

In the most part you are right but not to this extent. How often do 4 or 5 of a club's best 9 or 10 come out of contract at the same time? It doesn't happen often and when it does IMO it is poor list management.

Given that very few AFL contracts go beyond 3 years, it's a statistical certainty that it happens rather often.

And more generally, I agree with jimmy35 - if I was an agent for Pendlebury, for example, I would absolutely refuse to negotiate with the club until GWS's offer had come in.

 

[DIDAIC0S]

Re: Players' Contract Statuses 2011

Plural of Status in English remains "Status".
In American English it is "Statuses" because they are an illiterate rabble.
In it's native tongue, Latin, it is "Statii"


Thank you....thank you very much, I'm here all week...try the pork.

Nice. Update the thread title TRS!

 

[Smokeyr67]

Re: Players' Contract Statuses 2011

And plural of platypus, I believe, is platypodes.

So it's not platypussies?

 

[jimmy35]

Re: Players' Contract Statuses 2011

I disagree with this entirely.

In the most part you are right but not to this extent.

One or the other

How often do 4 or 5 of a club's best 9 or 10 come out of contract at the same time? It doesn't happen often and when it does IMO it is poor list management.

Beams for instance was in hot demand with the Gold Coast and a few other clubs yet we signed him up the year before his contract was due to expire. I'm not suggesting that we'd need to pay them all a million a season to "tie them down" either but we might get ourselves in a position where our hands are tied now and have to "panic offer" a player more than we would have had to earlier on.

I agree the talks will not always (or even often) bear fruit but the club should still be pushing hard for the discussions to occur before it gets to this point. When players are saying things like "we'll sit down and chat about it at some stage" then that doesn't sound like there's been a great deal of discussion to be honest. Fruitless discussion is a lot different to no discussion and it doesn't sound like there's been a great deal of discussion at all to this point.

Considering most contracts seem to be 2 or 3 years, pretty often I'd suggest.

I'm sure the club is very keen to sign them up early but there's nobody foolish enough not to see what's on offer in these circumstances.

 

[The Royal Sampler]

Re: Players' Contract Statuses 2011

Nice. Update the thread title TRS!

I'm not a mod anymore, mate.

Besides which, it's "platypunks".

 

[DIDAIC0S]

Re: Players' Contract Statuses 2011

I'm not a mod anymore, mate.

Besides which, it's "platypunks".

Ok mods update the thread title!

 

[GJayBee]

I think we would be more likely to loose Pendel's or Daisy than Swan because of age. The main issue for me, is the arrogance of the AFL that is willing to gift such money and talent to places that don't play football. Alex is a Capitalist pig. He should be pumping up Brisbane Bears and Sydney rather than trying to establish new clubs. Surely, Bears and Bloods could use marketing money to try and get decent crowds and support.

By the way, how good is it watching Brisbane Bears implode! Vossy has obviously had to learn a few hard lessons. Sherman, Richitellie and Brennan gone! Rich wants to go, Fev is gone, Brown loves injuries, I LOVE IT!

 

[si tacuisses]

Re: Players' Contract Statuses 2011

Plural of Status in English remains "Status".
In American English it is "Statuses" because they are an illiterate rabble.
In it's native tongue, Latin, it is "Statii"


Thank you....thank you very much, I'm here all week...try the pork.

Hate to be a pedant (Ok, I love it), but the reason the English plural is "status" is that the original Latin plural is also "status".

[warning: explanatory dorkiness begins] Latin has five "declensions", or ways that noun and adjectives change to make plurals, etc. (This is one reason why Latin is a bastard to learn). Only the second declension makes the plural with "-i" (e.g. alumnus/alumni). "Status", although it looks like a second declension noun, is actually fourth declension, so the plural is written the same - in Latin, though, you'd pronounce the original "status" but the plural "statoos", and dictionaries will put a little thing over the "u" in the plural to show that it's long. This is why the Americans started writing "statuses" and "censuses". But let's not pick on them - we've all said "agendas" or "curriculums" or "a phenomena", or something like that at some point in our lives [Dorkiness ends]