-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
General Trade Discussion 2022
- Thread starter tigersnake
- Start date
Later picks are worth way more than is reality.
They'll use them all, then likely some sort of deficit if needed. Posh will know more where they stand.
Fair enough. I've not seen enough of him to tell either way. His form with the AIS Academy was very strong but wouldn't be the first to show something there and then not deliver at AFL level.
I actually like a lot of things about him but I don’t like his field kicking and I don’t like his repeat soft tissue injuries.
That all hinges on:
1. Bowes not being a VFL regular at $450K per year - I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt as he has some skills but will struggle to get into Geelong midfield in the next couple of years
2. Pick 7 being used well - the draft seems hit and miss outside the top 5 so maybe, maybe not but can't see the player playing in the next year or two
3. Henry delivering on his promise. First round pick. Shown some glimpses but far from a certain star and unlikely to play early in the year ahead of Rohan, Close and Stengle.
To me, they have played a risky hand and one that is not likely to come to fruition for a year or two, if at all.
Compare that to our guaranteed/genuine best 22 inside mids with a tendency to kick goals. Plus a crack at some youngsters in the draft. I will take our lot, thanks
Oh well, Geelong are f*cked then, haven't the winners of trade week for the last decade or so been Essendon and Carlton?
Geelong used to be a well run club, but winning trade week . . .
DS
If nothing else, that they acquired pick 7 for a future third rounder means they clearly were.
Even if they stuff pick 7 up, they clearly had a phenomenal trade week.
That said, we should be happy that the attention, as usual, is elsewhere despite the fact that of all the teams, we did the most to address specific needs.
For mine, the two best bits of business in terms of player trade were:
Richmond getting Taranto. I have a sneaking suspicion that Taranto is going to be a massive compliment to our emerging midfield. If Dusty gets to go forward more with Taranto playing in the middle, it is a massive win for us.
Brisbane getting Gunston. This was as sharp as it gets for mine. You get a significant upgrade in a KPF for virtually nothing. He is also a great foil for Daniher and Hipwood in that he is mobile and a good lead up player. Most of all, he kicks goals from set shots, an area the Lions have lacked quality in. Their forward line next season could get very scary with guys like Cameron and Rayner floating around as well.
In terms of pick trades, I like West Coast splitting pick 2 in to pick 8 and 12. They are rebuilding, so pretty smart work. Getting that sort of value out of an early pick is not that easy to achieve, but it is what they needed to do. This draft has a number of Western Australians who are likely to fall to those picks, and they end up with 4 picks inside the first 26.
Blair was asked specifically about RCD and stack and said they were both “on hold”. Doesn’t mean they are the only ones as he was just addressing who he was asked about
Gee that's surprising... I'm constantly hearing in the media that the cats are not only the greatest team of all...
they are in fact the greatest club of all,
with the greatest coach of all,
and have just had the greatest captain of all.... retire.
It appears all is not what it appears eh!
Changes def needed, TBR.
Geelong bought pick 7. I know they are saying that they were interested in the bloke all year but we all know that's bulldust. He'l play a couple of games then languish in the 2's. Couldn't get a game at Gold Coast.
They bought pick 7.
The bigger question is, why do teams get into these salary cap issues? For these salary dumps to be needed, the teams must already be over the salary cap. Players don’t just wake up one morning in September and find themselves with a ridiculous contract to play football over the next two years.
Club executives signed off on the contract. Yes, they can be back ended and now we have reached the crunch point. But that is not back luck,not something unavoidable. Bowes was given this contract at least a year ago and the back ended component was known then. The club continued to sign other players on above market rate contracts despite these issues being known. Why was the Chol deal allowed last year, for example? Surely that deal took GC well over the salary cap for this year, given the contracts in place for Bowes and Fiorini, to name just two.
Brodie and Fiorini we’re also salary dumps during the same period. Was dumping Brodie enough to allow Chol to fit in over the next four years? Obviously not. Why was it allowed?
How does Collingwood sign up Treloar and Grundy on long term, very lucrative contracts and then find out after a year or so that they can’t afford them? Surely the alarm bells were going off when they registered these contracts with the AFL. Aren’t we led to believe that the AFL requires this? And how can they now afford to bring in McStay and Mitchell and hold on to De Goey? Whose contract will they have to dump out next year?
Why aren’t these situations being monitored? As long as the AFL employs one individual with a simple grasp of Accounting, these situations become apparent immediately. Yet they are ticked off anyway. Or not monitored at all. Or the clubs falsify the information they give to the AFL.
If GC, Collingwood and GWS have been rorting the salary cap, then they have broken the rules of the competition. forcing a salary dump or two is not commensurate sanction.
Club executives signed off on the contract. Yes, they can be back ended and now we have reached the crunch point. But that is not back luck,not something unavoidable. Bowes was given this contract at least a year ago and the back ended component was known then. The club continued to sign other players on above market rate contracts despite these issues being known. Why was the Chol deal allowed last year, for example? Surely that deal took GC well over the salary cap for this year, given the contracts in place for Bowes and Fiorini, to name just two.
Brodie and Fiorini we’re also salary dumps during the same period. Was dumping Brodie enough to allow Chol to fit in over the next four years? Obviously not. Why was it allowed?
How does Collingwood sign up Treloar and Grundy on long term, very lucrative contracts and then find out after a year or so that they can’t afford them? Surely the alarm bells were going off when they registered these contracts with the AFL. Aren’t we led to believe that the AFL requires this? And how can they now afford to bring in McStay and Mitchell and hold on to De Goey? Whose contract will they have to dump out next year?
Why aren’t these situations being monitored? As long as the AFL employs one individual with a simple grasp of Accounting, these situations become apparent immediately. Yet they are ticked off anyway. Or not monitored at all. Or the clubs falsify the information they give to the AFL.
If GC, Collingwood and GWS have been rorting the salary cap, then they have broken the rules of the competition. forcing a salary dump or two is not commensurate sanction.
Last edited:
I was saying this just yesterday Tottie. Once upon a time teams were fined for paying players above the cap. Now you just 'salary dump' to solve your woes?
What if Collingwood or Gold Coast had somehow managed to pinch a flag with their caps bursting at the seams?
Must really *smile* the other teams off that are balancing their sheets correctly to see these 'salary dump' deals happening now & scratching their heads as to why it's been allowed to occur without sanction.
Gil on his way out of the building should be asked this question. It stinks to high heaven.
Last edited:
And for a different perspective Julian de Scoop said:
This equalization debate around trade time is nauseating. No one wanted to go to Port, Melbourne or Brisbane less than 10 years ago. Back then Hawthorn was a destination club and North acquired Dal Santo, Higgins and Waite, It ebbs and flows
And then Treloar didn't want to come to the Tigers
4 possible reasons for mine.
1. And most likely is forecasting errors around other player payment increases / retirements / priorities and also expected negotiations to reduce senior players salaries - so you lock in someone on more money than you should who doesn’t get better and / or Can’t afford to keep someone you need to pay more to and want more of. Eg treloar Grundy bowes
2. Spreadsheet error. I’d be almost convinced this has happened. Cut and paste or copy and paste?
3. More a root cause but for low ranked clubs it’s the minimum TPP where they are forced to overpay players that wouldn’t make the 22 in 16 of the other clubs and because they have to spend the money it allows little wriggle room. Potentially this was also part of Bowes - ie they had to pay him more to reach the minimum. Imagine how much bowes is getting paid relative to Richmond’s 16-22 players.
4. To your point the rules probably only police the current year. And NOT future years. So you can basically kick the can down the road and let someone else manage it when the *smile* is about to hit the fan. Definitely scope to tighten the rules up in this space. With that said I think we have this area superbly well managed and is a competitive advantage for us. Hopefully they don’t bring anything in here from a Richmond POV but listening to real footy podcast it sounds like the AFL is annoyed at what has happened with Bowes and may do something.
On the one hand its normal AFL slackness. Your point on inept accounting on the part of the clubs and particularly the AFL who is supposed to provide oversight is spot on.
On the other I don't think a salary cap dump is an accounting mistake or a breach of the rules as such, I think its just more a strategic mistake, a matter of a club has stuffed up, is paying to much to underperforming or the wrong types of payers, and they need to take drastic action to stay or be competitive. So they come up with *smile* narrative of a salary dump, suddenly its somehow at arms length and beyond the clubs control.
Or to put it another way, they've made their bed, but they don't want to/ can't lie in it.
Speaking of salary cap, I'm bemused by the big kudos Geelong are getting, A+es everywhere. No talk of the potential downside of a $2 million boat anchor on their cap. All the players they recruited are stars. Holding on to Ratagalea is great, the fact he isn't happy doesn't register. Its all beer and skittles down at KP.
Last edited:
It'll depend on where Ashcroft falls. They have 2,247 points available to use this year.
Bid at 1 they need 2,400 points (3,000 x 80%)
Bid at 2 they need 2,014 points (2517 x 80%)
I don't see Ashcroft getting past a bid at North but potentially could miss the Giants if they want Cadman to carry that No. 1 pick mantle.
They will have a deficit regardless which should come off their 1st next year (they don't have one), so will come off their next pick. They probably won't end up with a lot next year either, probably a couple of 3rds but they may still do some trading to improve their draft hand a little bit.
