Free Agency Stephen Coniglio

[Joao]

I think Cogs going to the Hawks but as a trade after GWS threaten to match will provide the best popcorn moments for this thread.

 

[TheFourPillars]

I think Cogs going to the Hawks but as a trade after GWS threaten to match will provide the best popcorn moments for this thread.

Naah the best popcorn moment is if he goes rfa to Hawthorn.

 

[HairyO]

Do you really think our list management staff would leave our cap so tight that we can't match an offer on a player? Really?

I'll trust our professionals to get it right over some guy on bigfooty called buddy2fernando

Shiel and Scully last year.

Yes. Yes I think your list managers struggle with cap space making it hard to match offers.

But if Patton goes cheap this year then it becomes easier to keep Coniglio. Remember Whitfield is next year. Plus Im sure the Roos are still circling Kelly.

 

[Buzzasto DaSilva]

Shiel and Scully last year.

Yes. Yes I think your list managers struggle with cap space making it hard to match offers.

But if Patton goes cheap this year then it becomes easier to keep Coniglio. Remember Whitfield is next year. Plus Im sure the Roos are still circling Kelly.

Scully looks like a brilliant move and while it would have been great to retain Shiel as a foundation player, it was clear we couldn't msdg his worth and I think the club was very happy to get he and Georgia to the destination of their choice given his impact on our club over his seven seasons. I do agree with you in part, but every club has opposition supporters chasing their talent, we aren't alone in that regard.

 

[Buzzasto DaSilva]

Been of this opinion a long time, never understood how people can rate Cogs so much higher than Whitfield and Kelly when to my eyes they are just far more damaging players, they also pop up in the backline whenever pressure seems to be on to get the ball out when its locked in there and manage to find targets that bust open the game. Cogs always just seems to bob up when a goal is in play. Still would love him at the blues as he'd be a massive improvement but Kelly far better imo. Cogs is a great finisher around goals and decent user, but Toby Greene is playing his role arguably just as well while he's been out of the team. When Whitfield and Kelly miss its like a completely different brand of footy, think that sums up how much impact they have on a team really.

I'm glad opposition supporters have recognised this too. He was close to our most effective player in 2016 and 2017, as he learnt defensively and always kept the opposition's best player quiet while picking up around 26 inside touches himself. However, that side of his game is gone and it's so frustrating to see how lazy he's become. He had brilliant fundamentals but he's just not the player he was.

 

[HairyO]

Scully looks like a brilliant move and while it would have been great to retain Shiel as a foundation player, it was clear we couldn't msdg his worth and I think the club was very happy to get he and Georgia to the destination of their choice given his impact on our club over his seven seasons. I do agree with you in part, but every club has opposition supporters chasing their talent, we aren't alone in that regard.

Exactly. And there is every chance GWS are looking to grab players.

I assume Mumford wont be around forever. And Greene still needs help from another defensive. small forward.

I doubt too many clubs are ever looking at trades in and of themselves only. Though BF always seems to.

 

[Randy Campbell]

Maybe Stephen has already clocked off?

 

[Joao]

Naah the best popcorn moment is if he goes rfa to Hawthorn.

Of course you'd say that.

Hawthorn coughing up 2 first rounders for him has the perfect mix of non-Hawks posters bemoaning their destination club status in equal parts with the Hawks complaining about trading for him. Would be glorious.

 

[TheFourPillars]

Of course you'd say that.

Hawthorn coughing up 2 first rounders for him has the perfect mix of non-Hawks posters bemoaning their destination club status in equal parts with the Hawks complaining about trading for him. Would be glorious.

Yes glorious indeed but you see the outrage from everyone else if he does go RFA would far outreach anything from one supporter base. I.E more popcorn. we want more popcorn

 

[Buzzasto DaSilva]

Maybe Stephen has already clocked off?

Maybe he's just forgotten what it takes to become an elite two-way footballer because for the past year and a bit, he hasn't played like one.

 

[Sixpence]

Of course you'd say that.

Hawthorn coughing up 2 first rounders for him has the perfect mix of non-Hawks posters bemoaning their destination club status in equal parts with the Hawks complaining about trading for him. Would be glorious.

2 first rounders for an RFA? You seriously think that's what it'll take if GWS match?

 

[cryptor]

Just for future reference as it's been mentioned many times in this thread.

Dave Matthews never said they won't match.



Semantics? Probably but there's wiggle room there.

I actually agree. It grabbed me as a carefully worded statement when I first read it and I remain suspicious of the idea they wouldn't match any offer that they could technically match. But I do expect Hawthorn will present an offer they fully expect GWS can't match the structure of. They'd be fools not to and to risk something this big on a non-binding statement.

 

[Sixpence]

I actually agree. It grabbed me as a carefully worded statement when I first read it and I remain suspicious of the idea they wouldn't match any offer that they could technically match. But I do expect Hawthorn will present an offer they fully expect GWS can't match the structure of. They'd be fools not to and to risk something this big on a non-binding statement.

The statement stills read that they're more likely not to match than match, though it's not definitive either way and I agree that there's wiggle room.

It's just amusing that people in this thread have tried to argue they will definitely match because ... Danger.

 

[Halloween Jack]

A club can match the offer and has first right of refusal. BUT a club cannot exceed the salary cap to match an offer. If GWS have (purely as a hypothetical to illustrate my point) $1 million available under the cap in 2020 but the 2020 contact offer is $1.1 million then GWS cannot match.

This is not correct. For RFA a minimum 2 year contract must be tabled. So to extend on your example, if the Hawks offer $1.1mil in 2020 and again $1.1mil in 2021, GWS can match and pay $1mil in 2020 and then $1.2mil in 2021, and the contract is considered matched. Of course GWS can not exceed the salary cap in either year.

 

[cryptor]

The statement stills read that they're more likely not to match than match, though it's not definitive either way and I agree that there's wiggle room.

It's just amusing that people in this thread have tried to argue they will definitely match because ... Danger.

The Dangerfield situation is different to me because I believe Adelaide would have had the ability to match the Geelong offer (even one that was really big).

I personally don't believe GWS are in the same situation (that's just my opinion and I'm not interested in debating with anyone about the GWS cap situation).

My stance is simple. If GWS can actually match the offer Hawthorn presents then I believe they will match it (they don't want it to come to this because it means a player intends to leave). If Coniglio still wants to leave at that point then I believe GWS will honour that Dave Matthews statement that they won't hold a player back and will work with Hawthorn to reach a deal. It probably won't be what he would fetch on an open market but it would definitely be a lot more than the nothing we'd give up via a successful free agency bid. It's possible Coniglio could get to us via a draft but I don't see him wanting to follow that path and it's not the way Hawthorn likes to operate either. Hence, Hawthorn must present a deal that GWS can't match or we'll be paying up big time.

 

[Obeanie1]

No they can't. They have to have the space available at the time that they make the offer for the AFL to sign off on it. They can't match and then make space. So how much they have in their cap is important.
What they have offered him and what Hawthorn or Carlton or others will offer doesn't have to be the same. If another club offers more than GWS have available in their cap and they can't free up the difference then they can't match.

Other than Patton who would be on big bucks? Cameron for one. They went down a path aiming for success during the current window. They were looking at 2015-2019 as their big run when all their kids matured. They held onto as many as they could during that period and paid some good coin to do so. Everyone forgets you have to pay 95% whether you want to or not so some of this kids have been on big money from day one.


I think that you can't forsee all possibilities and you can't prepare for all possibilities. Also sometimes the offer isn't one you want to match. Look at Buddy, who thought Swans were going to offer up 9 years, probably nobody outside the club.

Hawks could have been ready to match a 5 year offer and force a trade but why would they be ready for a 9 year offer.

It's why you see some of the big numbers re years being thrown out, if Carlton offer 7 years are GWS in a position to match the dollars and length?

You have to remember that the club making the offer can get their list in the position for that offer before it's made, they know what they are going to offer. The club trying to retain the player has to guess to some extent.

Not being able to match doesn't equal incompetence, especially if you are a contender with a strong list and a lot of players you need to keep vs a club with less established stars on their list.

All of that is before the manipulation you can do for short windows by banking your cap space to then go over the cap for a year or two. If you can effectively front end a deal that puts you at 110% of the cap for a year or two because you've short paid leading up to that offer, that makes it hard for a club that hasn't been doing the same to match.

Delidio, Shaw and Mumford added to Patton would be up around $1.8m.

GWS will trade if Cogs requests to go. They said that.

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

GWS will trade if Cogs requests to go. They said that.

They did?

Or is this your “they meant it even if they didn’t say it” argument again?

 

[Randy Campbell]

Maybe he's just forgotten what it takes to become an elite two-way footballer because for the past year and a bit, he hasn't played like one.

Doesn't sound like something you can forget.
More like something you need to, want to do.

 

[Sixpence]

This is not correct. For RFA a minimum 2 year contract must be tabled. So to extend on your example, if the Hawks offer $1.1mil in 2020 and again $1.1mil in 2021, GWS can match and pay $1mil in 2020 and then $1.2mil in 2021, and the contract is considered matched. Of course GWS can not exceed the salary cap in either year.

I'm not sure what part of moistie's post you feel is incorrect? If anything, what you wrote seems to match what he said perfectly. Other than the one-year/two-year thing, the salient point of the argument looks the same.

 

[Scotland]

Some people believe that FA hinges on exact contract terms.

Others (me) believe that overall contract length and value are what matters.

If a club can 'outbid' 5 x $1m with $2m-$1m-$1m-$500k-$500k that makes a mockery of the whole process.

The AFL has created their own mess allowing front/back ended bullshit and not having qualified contracts, public salaries etc.

 

[Halloween Jack]

I'm not sure what part of moistie's post you feel is incorrect? If anything, what you wrote seems to match what he said perfectly. Other than the one-year/two-year thing, the salient point of the argument looks the same.

I interpreted the post as meaning the Hawks only need to frontload the contract in year 1 to ensure GWS can not match, which is not correct.
However if that is not what moistie meant then I apologise.

 

[HeHateMe]

They can't change now after what they did with buddy.

 

[Sixpence]

I interpreted the post as meaning the Hawks only need to frontload the contract in year 1 to ensure GWS can not match, which is not correct.
However if that is not what moistie meant then I apologise.

Ah ok, I missed that differentiation in your post. How you interpreted his post was my understanding how it worked, but I could be wrong.

 

[Buzzasto DaSilva]

Doesn't sound like something you can forget.
More like something you need to, want to do.

Clearly you don't have a very good understanding of the Giants, and Coniglio as a player.

 

[Sixpence]

Some people believe that FA hinges on exact contract terms.

Others (me) believe that overall contract length and value are what matters.

If a club can 'outbid' 5 x $1m with $2m-$1m-$1m-$500k-$500k that makes a mockery of the whole process.

The AFL has created their own mess allowing front/back ended bulls**t and not having qualified contracts, public salaries etc.

I guess this is the real problem. The AFL words there rules in a way that are open to interpretation. Gives them the room to decide whatever suits them but makes it impossible for fans to understand.