Mike - Can you pass this onto the club?
Moderator: bbmods
- cooldewd
- Posts: 1205
- Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2003 12:04 pm
- Location: Wrenville
Mike - Can you pass this onto the club?
I believe there is still a way to recruit Nick Stevens to our club.
For the Pre Season Draft a player must nominate his "price" - i.e. his terms.
As we have seen in the past, certain players have "priced themselves out of the market" only to find that nobody has drafted them, thus putting their careers into limbo.
Now in this era of "back loaded" contracts, what prevents Nick Stevens doing the opposite (i.e. front load) and nominating an extortionate amount for a one year contract?
What I am getting at is that who else has as much cap room as us? Answer....nobody.
So, if Stevens nominates say a one year deal at $900,000, nobody could afford him except for us....
Once signed up to us, we are able to then "extend" his contract by adding on an extra 2 years at say $300,000 p.a. thus giving him the 1.5M over 3 years that he wants (or whtever the figure is).
So, by front loading Stevens contract in an initial one year deal, nobody could pick him up except for us.
Now if this is not violating any of the rules of the draft (and I cannot see how it does), we should try and pull it off.
Your thoughts please.
The Dude
For the Pre Season Draft a player must nominate his "price" - i.e. his terms.
As we have seen in the past, certain players have "priced themselves out of the market" only to find that nobody has drafted them, thus putting their careers into limbo.
Now in this era of "back loaded" contracts, what prevents Nick Stevens doing the opposite (i.e. front load) and nominating an extortionate amount for a one year contract?
What I am getting at is that who else has as much cap room as us? Answer....nobody.
So, if Stevens nominates say a one year deal at $900,000, nobody could afford him except for us....
Once signed up to us, we are able to then "extend" his contract by adding on an extra 2 years at say $300,000 p.a. thus giving him the 1.5M over 3 years that he wants (or whtever the figure is).
So, by front loading Stevens contract in an initial one year deal, nobody could pick him up except for us.
Now if this is not violating any of the rules of the draft (and I cannot see how it does), we should try and pull it off.
Your thoughts please.
The Dude
-
- Posts: 282
- Joined: Tue Oct 14, 2003 4:53 pm
Re: MIKE - CAN YOU PASS THIS ONTO THE CLUB?
The Blues would have way more free cap space than uscooldewd wrote:What I am getting at is that who else has as much cap room as us? Answer....nobody.
Ratten, McKernan, Beaumont & McKay gone
Kouta on the veterans list
- cooldewd
- Posts: 1205
- Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2003 12:04 pm
- Location: Wrenville
Even if they did....do you seriously think they will pay $900,000 to player for one solitary season if he is then a free agent at the end of that year?
Even Carlton aren't that dumb.
If they offered Nick Stevens 900K's for a year and then he left, there would be a revolution at Poonces Park.
I reckon it is worth a try.
The Dude
Even Carlton aren't that dumb.
If they offered Nick Stevens 900K's for a year and then he left, there would be a revolution at Poonces Park.
I reckon it is worth a try.
The Dude
-
- Posts: 9
- Joined: Wed May 28, 2003 8:29 pm
-
- Posts: 9
- Joined: Wed May 28, 2003 8:29 pm
-
- Posts: 62
- Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2003 10:08 pm
- cooldewd
- Posts: 1205
- Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2003 12:04 pm
- Location: Wrenville
Correct me if I am wrong, I was labouring under the misapprehension that we had close to a million dollars freed up under the cap with the delistings, retirements and Buckley going onto the veterans list.
Maybe I am wrong, but if we have cap room, we have to investigate all possibilities.
My understanding is that we are only at 95% of our cap room.
No Tossa, Rawlings will be picked up by the Bulldogs....if we do nothing on Stevens Carlton are the next in line.
Eugene Arocca is an honourable man and I will not hear a bad word about him even in jest.
Just my thoughts (for what they are worth).
The Dude
Maybe I am wrong, but if we have cap room, we have to investigate all possibilities.
My understanding is that we are only at 95% of our cap room.
No Tossa, Rawlings will be picked up by the Bulldogs....if we do nothing on Stevens Carlton are the next in line.
Eugene Arocca is an honourable man and I will not hear a bad word about him even in jest.
Just my thoughts (for what they are worth).
The Dude
-
- Posts: 9
- Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2003 3:36 pm
Stevens
i would love to see Stevens in a collingwood jumper more than any reason to piss port off, but i dont think it will happen. although stevens number one choice is collingwood, he is also prepared to go to carlton. the ony way he will wear a black and white jumper is to put a huge figure on his head.
-
- Posts: 21161
- Joined: Tue Mar 23, 1999 8:01 pm
- Location: Mornington Peninsula
- Has liked: 5 times
- Been liked: 1 time
Re: Stevens
Incorrect. Port and Carlton struck a deal for Stevens to go to Carlton for their number two draft pick, however, Stevens reneged on what he had said earlier, i.e. that he was willing to go to Carlton. So that deal fell through. Then when Collingwood and Port couldn't come up with a deal, Port said stuff him, he is going into the draft then. Stevens does not want to play for Carlton.gingerthedog wrote: although stevens number one choice is collingwood, he is also prepared to go to carlton. the ony way he will wear a black and white jumper is to put a huge figure on his head.
-
- Posts: 1546
- Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2003 7:27 pm
- Location: Toowoomba, Qld
Collingwood have to have 37 players on their list after the pre-season draft. We may well have the room under the salary cap at the moment to pay Stevens a lot of money but when it comes to completing the list we would need to find players willing to play for nothing. I don't think that will happen.
As for asking for $900,000 and then changing to $500,000, I think the AFL has rules against that as well. Lets face it guys, Stevens won't be playing for us next year. It doesn't matter, we will still be up there.
As for asking for $900,000 and then changing to $500,000, I think the AFL has rules against that as well. Lets face it guys, Stevens won't be playing for us next year. It doesn't matter, we will still be up there.
- TheGaffer
- Posts: 227
- Joined: Mon Sep 29, 2003 10:02 pm
- Location: Melbourne
The only way I see it is for Stevens to say to all clubs he will only sign a one year contract under the grounds that they will trade him to the club of his choice in the following year.
By placing a huge figure to scare off other clubs will not work because the amount he specifies will be included in the salary cap regardless on whether he gets paid it or not. I dont see how we could have that much free cap room for it to work anyway.
By placing a huge figure to scare off other clubs will not work because the amount he specifies will be included in the salary cap regardless on whether he gets paid it or not. I dont see how we could have that much free cap room for it to work anyway.
-
- Posts: 3137
- Joined: Fri Sep 20, 1996 7:01 pm
- Location: Lilydale, Tas.
- Has liked: 89 times
- Been liked: 26 times
There's a catch 22 in here Dude
The only way that could work and be legal is if there is no legally binding understanding that Stevens will extend his contract. If there is a demonstrable understanding then it could be successfully argued that the figures are rubbery (which they would be) and the contract misleading (which it would be).
So that leaves us with a 1 year $900,000 contract and a promise. Once the contract is signed we then rely on Stevens to hold up his side of the bargain, which, for argument's sake, he doesn't. Comes the end of the year and Stevens is no longer contracted and has a choice of staying with us for $300,000 or going elsewhere for much more. Are you going to trust his promise to re-sign under those conditions? If he renegged, we couldn't even accuse him of breaking his word because that would be a public admission that we had rigged the contract.
The catch 22? To justify the Club contracting to pay a player $900,000 in one year the Board would have to be able to show that we had actually secured him for 3 years for $1.5 million - yet if they have that evidence the initial contract becomes a meaningless shuffle of figures.
Any board that tied the Club to a $900,000 1 year deal with no security past that would be sacked.
The only way that could work and be legal is if there is no legally binding understanding that Stevens will extend his contract. If there is a demonstrable understanding then it could be successfully argued that the figures are rubbery (which they would be) and the contract misleading (which it would be).
So that leaves us with a 1 year $900,000 contract and a promise. Once the contract is signed we then rely on Stevens to hold up his side of the bargain, which, for argument's sake, he doesn't. Comes the end of the year and Stevens is no longer contracted and has a choice of staying with us for $300,000 or going elsewhere for much more. Are you going to trust his promise to re-sign under those conditions? If he renegged, we couldn't even accuse him of breaking his word because that would be a public admission that we had rigged the contract.
The catch 22? To justify the Club contracting to pay a player $900,000 in one year the Board would have to be able to show that we had actually secured him for 3 years for $1.5 million - yet if they have that evidence the initial contract becomes a meaningless shuffle of figures.
Any board that tied the Club to a $900,000 1 year deal with no security past that would be sacked.