List Mgmt. Trade Hypotheticals (opposition posters post here)

[Isaac Cumming No 1]

Let me assure you, the last thing I'd like to see is another club get busted for salary cap breaches.

Pffft
You start with a oretty wiukd assumption and then extrapolate to salary cap breaches. I dont beleive you've got any idea of our cap position.

 

[LordLucifer]

Why would the club be re-signing marginal guys like Finlayson, Cumming and Kennedy for two years when we're needing to shed so much salary cap?

You just don't get it ...........…

If this mooted $2mill figure is in fact correct, then getting rid of marginal players is not going to address the shortfall, the Giants will have to get rid of some big fish (players on $600K or $800K etc) to wipe out such a large amount in one foul swoop.

Those three players annual salaries would probably total under $1mill.

 

[dlanod]

It really shits me when someone disagrees with your comment all they can come out with is "you are trolling". Can we stop that crap and discuss the issue on it's merits ??

As for the $2mill, I'm not the one spruiking the figure, the media are. If there is a serious issue as has been alluded to, you know it will be publically confirmed soon enough.

If the Giants start to shed players in trade week that may another clue.

And for the record, if this is true, I bet you won't have the guts to apologise either.

FWIW I don't pull that s**t just because someone disagrees. I've made several posts pointing out why I reckon both your Gubby Allen link and the $2m number is rubbish, all without calling it trolling.

As I posted before, I'm calling you out on trolling because of this BS - "the last thing I'd like to see is another club get busted for salary cap breaches."

Don't link whatever salary cap issues anyone else has with Carlton's paying of people under the table. There aren't even media reports for you to fall back on there. Carlton got done for cheating the cap and lying about it, and you're implying that you think GWS might doing something similar by linking it to Carlton's penalties. That's rubbish.

 

[LordLucifer]

There aren't even media reports for you to fall back on there.

Just found this, listen from 6:10 :

http://www.afl.com.au/video/2018-09-11/eagles-closing-very-hard-on-gun-cat

 

[dlanod]

You just don't get it ...........…

If this mooted $2mill figure is in fact correct, then getting rid of marginal players is not going to address the shortfall, the Giants will have to get rid of some big fish (players on $600K or $800K etc) to wipe out such a large amount in one foul swoop.

Those three players annual salaries would probably total under $1mill.

I'll try using smaller sentences. If the $2m figure is right and it was your club, who would you rather you club keep:

• Kennedy, Cumming and Finlayson
• Coniglio

They're probably on similar pay packets when you add them up - the average AFL wage for non-rookies is over $300k, and I doubt Coniglio is on $900k otherwise it would've been hammed up in the media for all its worth. You even acknowledge this.

I'd rather keep one star than three role players, and I bet each AFL club would back in the same decision. It's a lot easier to replace the output of the role players with bottom priced draftees than find another Coniglio (or Shiel or whoever else).

 

[dlanod]

Just found this, listen from 6:10 :

http://www.afl.com.au/video/2018-09-11/eagles-closing-very-hard-on-gun-cat

Does it refer to the Giants paying players under the table?

 

[LordLucifer]

As I posted before, I'm calling you out on trolling because of this BS - "the last thing I'd like to see is another club get busted for salary cap breaches."

You think it would be a good look for another club to breach the salary cap then do you ??

Given that GWS & GC are still 'AFL children' for the moment, it would be a total PR disaster if one of them fell foul of the rules and had to be seriously "slapped" like Carlton was.

 

[Determinant]

It really shits me when someone disagrees with your comment all they can come out with is "you are trolling". Can we stop that crap and discuss the issue on it's merits ??

As for the $2mill, I'm not the one spruiking the figure, the media are. If there is a serious issue as has been alluded to, you know it will be publically confirmed soon enough.

If the Giants start to shed players in trade week that may another clue.

And for the record, if this is true, I bet you won't have the guts to apologise either.

This isn't your board buddy, if it shits you move, before you are moved on

 

[LordLucifer]

Does it refer to the Giants paying players under the table?

Where the feck have I suggested under the table payments ??

Based on what is said in that clip, the Giants could be between $1mill & $2mill over the cap next year and Wallace even suggested it may be due to back-ended contracts.

 

[LordLucifer]

This isn't your board buddy, if it shits you move, before you are moved on

Happy to have a discussion about the Giants given I am a Foundation Member of the club but I won't put up with people trying to put words in my mouth.

 

[dlanod]

You think it would be a good look for another club to breach the salary cap then do you ??

Given that GWS & GC are still 'AFL children' for the moment, it would be a total PR disaster if one of them fell foul of the rules and had to be seriously "slapped" like Carlton was.

Sigh. Carlton got "slapped" because they hide payments that should've been counted under the cap. Adelaide got slapped for the same with Tippett, and Essendon before either of them. GWS isn't paying players under the table. That's why I consider it trolling to try and link the two. I'm not sure how many times I have to point that out.

On top of that there isn't a breach of the salary cap - GWS will be under the salary cap when the time comes and even in your $2m scenario, they will just offload players to get under it which is the line you're pushing anyway.

 

[dlanod]

Where the feck have I suggested under the table payments ??

Your constant linking of GWS's salary cap management to what Carlton got penalised for.

Were you following the AFL then? Do you understand why Carlton got penalised? They didn't get the massive penalty for going over the cap - a few teams have done so over the years accidentally and got minor penalties as a result. Carlton got the massive penalty for hiding payments.

Edit:

After Carlton got done for their under the table payments, the following clubs have gone over the cap and only received fines as they weren't trying to hide it:

• Essendon
• St Kilda
• Adelaide
• Richmond

OTOH Adelaide (later) also got a serious penalty because they were also hiding benefits provided to Tippett.

 

[LordLucifer]

Sigh. Carlton got "slapped" because they hide payments that should've been counted under the cap. Adelaide got slapped for the same with Tippett, and Essendon before either of them. GWS isn't paying players under the table. That's why I consider it trolling to try and link the two. I'm not sure how many times I have to point that out.

On top of that there isn't a breach of the salary cap - GWS will be under the salary cap when the time comes and even in your $2m scenario, they will just offload players to get under it which is the line you're pushing anyway.

I'm not suggesting they are paying under the table and never have, however, it appears that there may be a serious salary cap squeeze on the horizon.

Question is, how does the Giants address the issue ??

 

[Determinant]

I'm not suggesting they are paying under the table and never have, however, it appears that there may be a serious salary cap squeeze on the horizon.

Question is, how does the Giants address the issue ??

What is the trade hypothetical you are here to discuss?

 

[Colonial]

You think it would be a good look for another club to breach the salary cap then do you ??

Given that GWS & GC are still 'AFL children' for the moment, it would be a total PR disaster if one of them fell foul of the rules and had to be seriously "slapped" like Carlton was.

You are a bitter little * arent you.

Now bugger off before we decide you've had enough scraps.

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

 

[Jell]

Would GWS trade Shiel and their first pick (currently 13 but could be higher depending on how far they progress) for pick 1 from Carlton? According to the points system it values Shiel around pick 5, which is about right.

Carlton wouldn't do that deal. I think if Shiel wants to come to us, our future first and maybe the better of our two second round picks this year should get the job done, with maybe a later pick next year coming back.

 

[Colonial]

Carlton wouldn't do that deal. I think if Shiel wants to come to us, our future first and maybe the better of our two second round picks this year should get the job done, with maybe a later pick next year coming back.

No thanks

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

 

[LordLucifer]

There are a few people here getting angry and upset quite unnecessarily and for that reason, I should explain myself a little more.

I'm originally from Melbourne, have lived in Sydney since 1995. I had a Swans membership for a while but became a Foundation Member (I still have the caps & scarves) of the Giants because I want the AFL (and by default, the Giants) to succeed up here, I have very little time for either of the rugby codes. Yes, I went to games at Blacktown in the early days, I also watch a lot of the Swans & Giants games on the box here too.

I think some people have misunderstood my motives for wanting to discuss what may be a big issue for the Giants over the next month or two. Some think that I am deliberately stirring the pot (or "trolling" as has been suggested) but that couldn't be further from the truth.

Recently, the Canterbury Bulldogs were splashed across the news up here for all the wrong reasons, their Mad Monday antics were woeful and ended up costing them $250K. I have always been critical of the way the NRL players behave plus the way the clubs themselves operate, not a week goes by without some sort of scandal appearing. This to me provides the AFL with further ongoing opportunities to grow the game up here, rugby fans are slowly & surely getting sick & tired of the bogan antics.

I genuinely see no reason why the AFL cannot dominate the footy landscape here in years to come, it's that open and shut for mine. In fact I would of preferred the two Sydney based clubs not have been drawn to play each other in a knockout final to increase the likelihood of both of them going further in the finals, Sydney people like to get onboard the bandwagon, they like to be a part of the winners.

This is why this speculation that the Giants could be over the salary cap next year is a concern to me. We just don't need that sort of negative publicity about our game, let the rugby boneheads take the heat.

Whilst I'm at it, let me state for once and for all, I have never ever implied that the Giants are paying "under the table" and never have thought that. If you have drawn that inference then I'm sorry as that is not my belief. However, if a club does go over the cap, then they have "breached" it, there is no other term that can be used to describe the situation.

My reference to Gubby Allan was based purely on the fact that he is not at the club, my thinking was that he could of done some contracts back then in the knowledge that he wasn't going to have to deal with them if they ever became an issue later down the track.

Now, either Damian Barrett has an axe to grind against the Giants or he has some very good inside oil about the matter, he is talking it up way too much and via all of his media gigs for one of those suggestions not to be true.

Here he is back in August dropping one of his first bombshells :

https://www.triplem.com.au/shows/th...barrett-gws-has-a-horrendous-salary-cap-issue

Subject to how much truth is in the story (some will suggest none given it is Barrett) and the level of cap the Giants have to shed (again, is Barrett close to the amount or is he just sensationalising something that may be extremely minor) will have a direct flow-on effect as to which players get traded and how many of them.

Assuming that there is in fact a salary cap issue but Barrett has poured a huge amount of mayo on it, then trading out a couple of bit-part players etc should fix the problem.

On the flipside, if Barrett is actually correct on the matter (heaven forbid) and it is a significant amount of money that has to be saved, then it's not out of the question for players like Scully & Shiel as Barrett has named, to be put up for trade. Thing is, if those guys are potentially gettable, there isn't a club in the competition who won't come asking, players of that ilk just don't come on the market that regularly.

Barrett's assertion that the Giants signed up players to long-term high-priced deals (back-ended) for the 'here & now' does make some sense to me, most were expecting Grand Final appearances & flags, the playing list is that good. The other thing that may have come into play is that some of the newer brigade have stepped up the onfield output and are now putting the hand out for a pay-rise as a result.

I seem to recall an article this year saying that Toby Greene had signed a new deal but had taken a cut to help the club fit everyone in.

Interesting times ahead, can't wait to find out the truth as to what the situation really is (ie. not over at all, just a little over or way over).

Barrett will either look like a "super-scoop" or a "super-chump" over this one.

 

[dlanod]

I think the relevant points are:

1. It's only a salary cap breach if we're over the cap in the current year. The Giants will not be over the cap in a given year because we'd adhere to the rules - it might mean we lose players, but we will be under the cap. As a result talk of breaching the cap is both premature and misleading.
2. Players like Scully, Greene, Shaw, Davis and Ward have all been documented as taking pay cuts in their most recent contracts with improves our salary cap situation.
3. We wouldn't be re-signing fringe players if we had a salary cap squeeze as we'd instead replace them with draftees. Doubly so for multiple years.
4. Given we've been re-signing most of our star players on two year contracts and most are coming off contract at the end next year (Coniglio, Shiel, Haynes, Tomlinson, Kelly, Lobb) the only realistic squeeze that we would have is for next year.

It's possible that we may lose one or two very good players at the end of this year. Obviously Shiel would be a prime candidate. However it's more likely that this will actually free up cap that we can then use to re-sign the likes of Coniglio and Kelly, rather than simply to avoid a cap breach, similar to how Smith's departure likely contributed to us being able to keep Kelly.

 

[coniglio_number1]

Carlton wouldn't do that deal. I think if Shiel wants to come to us, our future first and maybe the better of our two second round picks this year should get the job done, with maybe a later pick next year coming back.

Treloar went for 2 firsts with a second going back

Shiel is the better player. So I wouldn’t trade a CONTRACTED Shiel for a single first and second with more going back to you

 

[Danny88]

It really shits me when someone disagrees with your comment all they can come out with is "you are trolling". Can we stop that crap and discuss the issue on it's merits ??

As for the $2mill, I'm not the one spruiking the figure, the media are. If there is a serious issue as has been alluded to, you know it will be publically confirmed soon enough.

If the Giants start to shed players in trade week that may another clue.

And for the record, if this is true, I bet you won't have the guts to apologise either.

You are are disgrace. You cheated. To imply we might is offensive and u deserve to be treated accordingly

Your guts to apologize comment is the stuff of 13 a year old online for the first time.

 

[Orange Agent]

Where the feck have I suggested under the table payments ??

Based on what is said in that clip, the Giants could be between $1mill & $2mill over the cap next year and Wallace even suggested it may be due to back-ended contracts.

If we have so many back ended deals, explain to me Toby Greene's contract?

 

[dlanod]

If we have so many back ended deals, explain to me Toby Greene's contract?

Apparently we've backended a whole lot of two year contracts as well?

 

[Giant Strides]

Barrett's got zero credibility on this board. Has hated us from our inception, and likes to write malicious stories and stories that paint us in bad light. In amongst the tonne of s**t that he's published, he's got one or two stories right. I can't see how GWS can be $2m over next year's cap. We've re-signed all except 5 players - 3 of whom will need to depart to create room for our 3 draftees. Griffen and 4 second/third level players, so they'd only be just over $1m - hence we'd already be $1m over the cap. I'd be surprised if we were allowed to register contracts in that case; and it's just not credible that we'd keep re-signing guys like Finlayson if it were true ('cos we'd have to release players and we'd certainly move some second level guys). I can see that in 2020 we're likely to have a SC crunch; combination of some salary backending and expectation of salary rises for gun players to re-sign them.

Anyway, we'll see soon enough if players put their hands up to leave.

 

[fridgeman]

It is all about spreading the age profile of the club, spreading salaries and also ensuring opportunities for the younger players but not going too young with the list
There is still 8 players from 93 and 7 from the year either side but it is how many are key players in the side, I would have 10 as best 22 so I think the club has an aim to spread out the list changes to reduce the dependence on this draft class and this has been going on since the first year

Current age breakdown, Bolded are potential list changes for this year

85 Shaw
86 Griffen
87 Deledio
88 Mohr
89 Simpson, Reid
90 Davis, Ward, MDB, Keffe
91 Scully
92 Haynes, Kennedy, Lloyd
93 Cogs, Greene, Shiel, Patton, Cameron, Tommo, Buntine, Lobb, D Buckley
94 Whitfield, Williams, Corr, Stein
95 Langdon, Kelly
96 HH, TOJ
97 Hopper, Flynn, Tiziani, J Buckley
98 Setterfield, Cumming, Taranto, Perryman, Sproule
99 Bonar, Taylor, Daniels, Shipley