Recommitted Stephen Coniglio [re-signs with GWS for 7 more years]

[Hawkk]

He has said multiple times that he wants players to be 1 club players.

Get over yourself.

And Buddy?

I’m surprised the AFL didn’t come out with a similar statement in 2013

 

[Coops93]

And Buddy?

I’m surprised the AFL didn’t come out with a similar statement in 2013

Yeah, plenty of players have said they want to be 1 club players on to leave shortly after.

Heck, Beams changed his mind in the space of a month or so! (not to be a 1 club player, but still publicly committed)

 

[Colonial]

And Buddy?

I’m surprised the AFL didn’t come out with a similar statement in 2013

He probably wasn't asked then.

He has been pretty obvious about his thoughts on wanting players to stay at the clubs drafted.

 

[WilloTree]

Hard not to feel a bit pi**ed off as a Hawthorn supporter hearing rumours the AFL are actively trying to stop Coniglio getting to Hawthorn in comparison to the way they meddled behind the scenes when they thought Buddy was going as a free agent to GWS

It's no surprise. Their involvement in the Motlop/Ablett trade was diabolical. Lost all cred.

 

[Sixpence]

Only ones saying it about Hawthorn.

Carlton fans are the only ones saying it about Carlton.

Well, yeh. Would you really expect it to be any different? How often do you hear Essendon fans make comments like "Sydney really get reamed by umpires!", or Collingwood fans comment "Caro really has it in for North!"? Naturally, the comments are going to be in relation to the poster's team.

There's no conspiracy but the point still stands. Neither Carlton nor Hawthorn fans are happy with the AFL CEO sticking his nose in the business of a player both teams are actively courting.

 

[Vindicater]

Well, yeh. Would you really expect it to be any different? How often do you hear Essendon fans make comments like "Sydney really get reamed by umpires!", or Collingwood fans comment "Caro really has it in for North!"? Naturally, the comments are going to be in relation to the poster's team.

There's no conspiracy but the point still stands. Neither Carlton nor Hawthorn fans are happy with the AFL CEO sticking his nose in the business of a player both teams are actively courting.

So you agree there is no conspiracy against Hawthorn. (Which was what the original poster pointed to rumours about)

 

[TallyHawk]

It's no surprise. Their involvement in the Motlop/Ablett trade was diabolical. Lost all cred.

Yep that was next level interference.

Let’s hope Coniglio keeps his multicultural allowances regardless of where he plays next year.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Mercy Seat]

Where are these rumours coming from?

Hawthorn people are the only ones I hear saying this.

Meanwhile Carlton fans are also claiming the same thing but replace Hawthorn with Carlton.

Gil says he wants Cogs to stay a one team player and gets blasted. Clarko says the same thing (and adds if he does leave he wants them to come to Hawthorn) and is praised.

Personally I think Cogs ends up at Hawthorn but to think the AFL are actively working against Hawthorn is tinfoil hat territory.

Very reliable ITK on the Hawthorn board, Shhhhh (has his own thread) said the hawks are very confident internally but really pissed at the AFL. Take of it what you will, but this guy is usually bang on.

 

[HawkMongrel]

Where are these rumours coming from?

Hawthorn people are the only ones I hear saying this.

Meanwhile Carlton fans are also claiming the same thing but replace Hawthorn with Carlton.

Gil says he wants Cogs to stay a one team player and gets blasted. Clarko says the same thing (and adds if he does leave he wants them to come to Hawthorn) and is praised.

Personally I think Cogs ends up at Hawthorn but to think the AFL are actively working against Hawthorn is tinfoil hat territory.

That the CEO of a supposedly fair sporting competition can come out and attempt to publicly interfere in the trade moves between clubs says a lot about the AFL and where it’s at.

Farcical stuff.

Could you imagine the president of La Liga or the EPL trying to influence where a player signs or doesn’t sign? They’d end up in a ditch.

 

[Candiru]

A fascinating period of not much happening

Could be the subtitle for the entire board.

 

[HODGEYROAD]

Yep that was next level interference.

Let’s hope Coniglio keeps his multicultural allowances regardless of where he plays next year.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

LOL

 

[HolyRioli]

That the CEO of a supposedly fair sporting competition can come out and attempt to publicly interfere in the trade moves between clubs says a lot about the AFL and where it’s at.

Farcical stuff.

Could you imagine the president of La Liga or the EPL trying to influence where a player signs or doesn’t sign? They’d end up in a ditch.

The amount of corruption in football will never cease to amaze me, so yes

 

[Bay Giant]

Yep that was next level interference.

Let’s hope Coniglio keeps his multicultural allowances regardless of where he plays next year.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

I think the names DiPierdomenico and Jeauselnko at Cog’s rumoured suitors would put pay to any allowances that are needed.

Good crack at a troll though.

 

[Elmer_Judd]

It's no surprise. Their involvement in the Motlop/Ablett trade was diabolical. Lost all cred.

And let's not forget that 'not so subtly disguised priority pick dressed up as FA Compo' when James Frawley left a rock bottom Melbourne to sign with the Hawks.

The AFL have been manipulating the whole FA thing for years to suit their storybook narrative (and why they came down hard on The Swans when they gazzumped The Giants for Buddy Franklin).

Pick 19 for Motlop and we got SFA for Betts (Daisy cancelled it out so fair enough) and Waite.

Ironically Carlton and Hawthorn are two clubs that have been most screwed over by the FA Compo system (Hawks got the same numbered pick for Buddy Franklin as Geelong got for Motlop, which shows the type of idiots to make the decisions at AFL House)

 

[HTPunter]

Looking at the Hawthorn list more closely, I think that the idea that they are completely washed up and on the way down is not entirely true.

Yes they have many old players and have traded away the majority of their draft picks, but the guys they have gotten in are not exactly old. In fact, they are still smack bang in their prime.

Can see Hawks still being a contender if everyone is fit, as due to the lack of young talent coming in I think what it'll hurt the most is their depth.

I am not an ITK but believe it is still anyone's game.

Absolutely. If they get Coniglio they have Coniglio, Mitchell, O'Meara, Worpel, Shiels, Smith, Henderson as their midfield. That's fantastic. McEvoy is a solid ruckman.

Add in a good mix of tall and smalls, old and young up forward - Lewis, O'Brien, Gunston, Breust, Wingard.

Down back I still think they are vulnerable but you've got Frawley, Stratton, Sicily, Hardwick still, less trust in Brand, Howe, Birchall (If he goes on), Burgoyne (if he goes on), Scrimshaw (still a fair way off being finals ready in my opinion), Impey out.

But that's an extremely solid core, really only Lewis/Worpel playing before the core/prime of their career, and Frawley/Smith/McEvoy/Breust/Gunston after it (but still all very solid at worst).

 

[HTPunter]

Just on the bolded bit - I don't think that's quite the suggestion. More that the AFL are trying to prop up (thus, "favour" or "advantage") one of the newer clubs, which leads to an unbalanced playing field.

My personal take on what Gil said is what most footy fans think - we love the idea of a one club player ... unless the player is moving to our team. I think he was answering the question as a footy fan, which as the league boss probably wasn't prudent. If he'd answered along the lines of:
"as CEO of the AFL, Stephen is free to play wherever he likes, and either stay at GWS or move clubs under the systems in place. I'd be happy either way, as it means the system is working. My personal opinion as a footy fan, I love the idea of one-club players as much as the next guy, but respect sometimes people need to move workplaces."
I don't think there would be as much uproar. And if he did answer that way, and the media have since taken his quotes out of context and we've been suckered into it, shame on us.

I hate Gil as much as the next fan but does he really need to spoonfeed us in this way? Pretty obvious to me he just meant yeah it's cool when players are 1 club players.

He's hardly going to come out anyway and admit to tampering and corruption etc. But yeah any adult who watched the interview could see what he meant clearly.

 

[HTPunter]

"It's not a great look"

Is media speak for "there's 0 ******* controversy here but I'm a mundane reporter who has no special or specific insight beyond that I once played AFL/did a journalism degree, so here's some manufactured controversy"

 

[HolyRioli]

I hate Gil as much as the next fan but does he really need to spoonfeed us in this way? Pretty obvious to me he just meant yeah it's cool when players are 1 club players.

He's hardly going to come out anyway and admit to tampering and corruption etc. But yeah any adult who watched the interview could see what he meant clearly.

"It's not a great look"

Is media speak for "there's 0 ******* controversy here but I'm a mundane reporter who has no special or specific insight beyond that I once played AFL/did a journalism degree, so here's some manufactured controversy"

I think you've basically answered your own question - give people an opportunity to read too much into it and create drama, and they will. If you don't want people to look into it too far, then he has to be completely crystal clear about his messaging.

 

[Leather Poisoning]

Given that in this case we have media peeps across the country giving equally certain, but completely differing accounts of what will happen it would be good to get a running tally in the OP.

Better to bring the bigfooty community together to hold media peeps accountable rather than subtly troll and bag out each others' clubs for the next forty-something days.

 

[HawkMongrel]

"It's not a great look"

Is media speak for "there's 0 ******* controversy here but I'm a mundane reporter who has no special or specific insight beyond that I once played AFL/did a journalism degree, so here's some manufactured controversy"

How much are you being paid to be here?

 

[Elmer_Judd]

"It's not a great look"

Is media speak for "there's 0 ******* controversy here but I'm a mundane reporter who has no special or specific insight beyond that I once played AFL/did a journalism degree, so here's some manufactured controversy"

Would you have felt the same way if Gil made the same comments about Josh Kelly and he was out of contract and been courted heavily by North Melbourne ?

It's not part of Gil's job description to have a running commentary any kind of player (or coaching) movements around the league.

I don't think it's the hangable offensive that some are making it our to be, but at best, it was a naive lack of judgement by Gil, one that hopefully he learns from in the future..

 

[Lore]

Given that in this case we have media peeps across the country giving equally certain, but completely differing accounts of what will happen it would be good to get a running tally in the OP.

Better to bring the bigfooty community together to hold media peeps accountable rather than subtly troll and bag out each others' clubs for the next forty-something days.

Good idea. If someone can collate/tally it we can copy and paste it into the OP.

 

[WilloTree]

And let's not forget that 'not so subtly disguised priority pick dressed up as FA Compo' when James Frawley left a rock bottom Melbourne to sign with the Hawks.

The AFL have been manipulating the whole FA thing for years to suit their storybook narrative (and why they came down hard on The Swans when they gazzumped The Giants for Buddy Franklin).

Pick 19 for Motlop and we got SFA for Betts (Daisy cancelled it out so fair enough) and Waite.

Ironically Carlton and Hawthorn are two clubs that have been most screwed over by the FA Compo system (Hawks got the same numbered pick for Buddy Franklin as Geelong got for Motlop, which shows the type of idiots to make the decisions at AFL House)

The fact that there's a hidden formula on when a club can ask/obtain a Priority Pick, and is totally up to how they feel at the time if it's granted (and where), is astonishing.

In this day and age of transparency and accountability, it really flies in the face of what's fair and equitable.

Just let us all know what the criteria is - or get rid of it. They treat the clubs like fools, but they're not fooling anyone.

 

[Lore]

I'm not sure how intimately familiar the author of this article is with GWS's suggestions, beliefs and intentions with regards to matching offers for Coniglio, but there is a bit of confirmation about how free agency matching works:

The Giants have suggested they are willing to match a Coniglio free-agency deal, depending on the amount offered, if their midfielder decides to leave, though they remain optimistic that he will spurn offers from the Blues and Hawthorn and stay.

Under the rules, confirmed by the AFL, teams can match free-agent offers by agreeing to pay the average of the contract, and do not have to pay the specific dollars put forward by the free agent.

The system is designed to avoid clubs manipulating the amounts in each year to deny the other club a realistic opportunity to match free-agent offers.

GWS believes Coniglio would be worth two first-round draft picks if he was traded.

Fight for Coniglio: Giants don't need to match front-loading

GWS would only need to match the aggregate amount and number of years – but not specific annual dollars – if they chose to match any free-agent offer to Stephen Coniglio.

www.theage.com.au

So they have to match the length of the contract and the average dollars, not the exact fee structure.

 

[Scotland]

And Buddy?

I’m surprised the AFL didn’t come out with a similar statement in 2013

Everyone knows the AFL wanted Buddy to join the Giants. The Swans move was 'OK' because it would keep Sydney relevant. Memberships are up 25k since 2013, average attendances have been 32k+ every year of the last 5 after being 28k in 2012 and 29k in 2013. A lot of that is the star power of Buddy. But they still scrapped the COLA and implemented a 'trade ban'. I doubt the AFL would have cared if Franklin stayed at Hawthorn. Can't force anyone to take the money. $800k or $1m or whatever a year is hardly a rough gig to stay.

The series of utensil ups is something to behold. The 'solution' to awarding ridiculous compensation to Hawthorn because the system while many shades of grey in other areas is black and white in that regard was to encourage James Frawley's move away from Melbourne with more dubious compensation. The solution to a * up of the system is to entice good player from a poor side to a B2B premier, all the while trying to keep a straight face that free agents won't leave bottom teams to join top ones.

There being no mechanism for compo higher than a first round pick tied to ladder position for a contract of Franklin's size is just wrong. If you argue the toss that $800k x 5 years is the cut off for band 1 compo then $10m over 9 years is more than double that. They should have just kept the compo system that existed when GC/GWS signed players.