Luke McGuane

[Tigerfan]

I think our delistings are pretty clear cut

Connors
Moore
McDonald
Derrickx
webberley
Graham
Browne

We could trade a couple of those and could trade some guys who played last night.
Dump anymore and we start to get guys pretty late in the draft.

 

[Sintiger]

A spot in our best 22 - I completely agree with you
A spot in our best 25 - Agree also
A spot in that 26-38 range where if things conspire as they did this year and we might need bring someone in from the magoos - I really don't see why we wouldn't keep him on.

If he is a required player the issue for Luke is going to be the size of his next contract. He is an 8 year player and is a restricted free agent which can only mean one thing which is that he is in the top 10 paid players at the club. That contract would have come at a time when we had to pay players over the odds to meet the minimum salary cap level.

The rumours about a $300,000+ contract are probably around the mark but he is going to get nowhere near that this time around if he is kept on. He would have to judge whether he could get more elsewhere. I wouldn't be at all surprised if he ends up in Queensland.

 

[Tenacious]

If he is a required player the issue for Luke is going to be the size of his next contract. He is an 8 year player and is a restricted free agent which can only mean one thing which is that he is in the top 10 paid players at the club. That contract would have come at a time when we had to pay players over the odds to meet the minimum salary cap level.

The rumours about a $300,000+ contract are probably around the mark but he is going to get nowhere near that this time around if he is kept on. He would have to judge whether he could get more elsewhere. I wouldn't be at all surprised if he ends up in Queensland.

This has been said before - but not sure I've ever really understood ity.

Are you saying that if McGuane stays on it is absolutely compulsory that he be paid in the top 10 range?
Is this some some sort of rule?
Is it illegal for example to pay him "only" the equivalent of the 15th highest paid player?

Just say RFC was prepared to offer him $200,000 - and McGuane was very happy to accept $200,000 - but this was less than the 10th highest salary.
Why shouldn't that be allowed?

 

[CarnTheTiges]

It depends on which McGuane is the real Luke McGuane. If it's the one from last night I wouldn't mind seeing him remain on the list for insurance purposes, if it's last week's McGuane then I want him gone immediately.

 

[Barnzy]

It depends on which McGuane is the real Luke McGuane. If it's the one from last night I wouldn't mind seeing him remain on the list for insurance purposes, if it's last week's McGuane then I want him gone immediately.

They're both the real McGuane.

With limited players you won't get consistent reliable performances. McGuane might be able to snag 1 or 2 goals against an insipid opponent but he's still going to do extremely dumb things and cost the team. That's just who he is.

 

[Sintiger]

This has been said before - but not sure I've ever really understood ity.

Are you saying that if McGuane stays on it is absolutely compulsory that he be paid in the top 10 range?
Is this some some sort of rule?
Is it illegal for example to pay him "only" the equivalent of the 15th highest paid player?

Just say RFC was prepared to offer him $200,000 - and McGuane was very happy to accept $200,000 - but this was less than the 10th highest salary.
Why shouldn't that be allowed?

It is allowed Tenacious. The free agency rules state that when a player has 8 years with the one club he is a free agent. If he is in the top 10 paid players at the club he is a restricted free agent (the club can match any offer), if he is not then he is an unrestricted free agent and can go anywhere. When the free agency player list came out Luke was listed as restricted which means since he has 8 years service he must be in the top 10 paid players at the club.

We can offer him anything we like now there are no restrictions when he is out of contract. It just means that he can leave if he gets a better offer.

 

[Tenacious]

It is allowed Tenacious. The free agency rules state that when a player has 8 years with the one club he is a free agent. If he is in the top 10 paid players at the club he is a restricted free agent (the club can match any offer), if he is not then he is an unrestricted free agent and can go anywhere. When the free agency player list came out Luke was listed as restricted which means since he has 8 years service he must be in the top 10 paid players at the club.

We can offer him anything we like now there are no restrictions when he is out of contract. It just means that he can leave if he gets a better offer.

That makes sense.
In which case I can see why McGuane is well worth keeping on as a backup to be called on again next year if and when required.
If he was offered a better deal elsewhere - so be it and good on him.
But if he's with us again - that's fine by me.

 

[PBoRSM]

That makes sense.
In which case I can see why McGuane is well worth keeping on as a backup to be called on again next year if and when required.
If he was offered a better deal elsewhere - so be it and good on him.
But if he's with us again - that's fine by me.

I agree, if we end up having to trade him based on him going for a better offer anyway and get a yound promising player in return fine.

If we end up keeping him then fine too.

He's certainly not in the category of delist for nothing.

He has worth to someone in the system

 

[Sintiger]

I agree, if we end up having to trade him based on him going for a better offer anyway and get a yound promising player in return fine.

If we end up keeping him then fine too.

He's certainly not in the category of delist for nothing.

He has worth to someone in the system

If he goes as a free agent, which is probably the way he would leave if he did so, then we don't trade him. We get compensation based on some unknown AFL formula. That is likely to be not much for Luke, maybe a 4th rounder?

 

[ToraToraTora]

As a forward he's got a bit going for him. Pacey, great leap, can take a screamer, pretty good long shot for goal. But a brainfade in the forward line is the same as a brainfade in the backline....it costs a goal. Y'know it wouldn't surprise me if we took a tall forward again in our first 3 picks.

 

[Ian4]

A dud is a dud is a dud

 

[seven]

is that you Craig Cameron ?

I am just pointing out what Dimma actually said which was clearly reported in the press. He definitely did not say that everyone playing last night was a required player for next season. That was an embellishment from MacAvaney.

Which is the reason why i put (sic) after my sentence.
Dimma said something along the lines of...

 

[Sintiger]

Which is the reason why i put (sic) after my sentence.
Dimma said something along the lines of...

I was actually replying to your " trust me ..... " Post 7. Should have put smiley face next to craig cameron , its just that you posted with such authority about what we will do post season.
Fact is we don't know.

 

[seven]

I was actually replying to your " trust me ..... " Post 7. Should have put smiley face next to craig cameron , its just that you posted with such authority about what we will do post season.
Fact is we don't know.

true. But in few months we'll know :fing32

 

[Tenacious]

A dud is a dud is a dud

You're getting repetitive

 

[cmarkidis]

A dud is a dud is a dud

With Honours!!

Can't believe people are talking of him being in the top 10 paid at the club!! Can't believe ANY team would for a moment even think of him as a free agent target!!

Useless!! Delist!! FFS!!

 

[Tenacious]

With Honours!!

Can't believe people are talking of him being in the top 10 paid at the club!! Can't believe ANY team would for a moment even think of him as a free agent target!!

Useless!! Delist!! FFS!!

Where was the talk about him being paid in the top 10?
I've only seen talk about keeping him purely on the basis that he would NOT need to be paid in the top 10.

 

[cmarkidis]

Where was the talk about him being paid in the top 10?
I've only seen talk about keeping him purely on the basis that he would NOT need to be paid in the top 10.

He's not worth top 10 at Coburg!

Players should be kept because they offer something to the club, not because they're cheap. If the Richmond Football Club is serious about reaching the upper levels of this competition players like McGuane cannot be on the list. Moore saw the light. Miller saw the light. Here's hoping the club see's the light with respect to this bloke.

 

[Rantnrave]

...he is worth keeping ..we need depth in our list..and although he isn't and shouldn't be in our fist 22 we need someone like him around who can step in when there are injuries..ie vickery...and although he makes incredible mistakes and is somewhat of a dud ,at the moment he is kicking 2 to 3 goals a game..and at least he chases,harrases and tackles....and I'm sure he isn't paid a heap of money....

 

[Big Cat Lover]

They're both the real McGuane.

With limited players you won't get consistent reliable performances. McGuane might be able to snag 1 or 2 goals against an insipid opponent but he's still going to do extremely dumb things and cost the team. That's just who he is.

Yep. Add Jackson & white. Limited footballers, good club men. We must improve on them.