Trade Targets ~ Free Agency & MSD player discussion

[Jen2310]

^
We can still take 2 Cat B's cant we? Apart from Condon, there may be another Parker or similar roughie out there.

We can only have 2 cat B's yes. One is Parker. The other will end up Condon.

[Jen2310]

Also, Given HH will be 7 months post ACL come march and could be right to play footy in may or june, I don't think we'll even consider putting him on the LT1 list. We're not gonna pull him out for the year and him sit out 18 months until 2026.

[Charlie Oneeye]

Do we select the Mid or KP, who is 50th in line on the list we know, and expect he will develop into an AFL star ?, to one day match it with the guns of the other 17 teams ?

Sure, there have been exceptions in our lives, but I think Hine will select at least 1 we have no idea about, who has elite athletic traits and for some reason or another was on nobody's radar.

[think better]

The Advertiser is reporting that we have interviewed Charlie West https://central.rookieme.com/afl/player/charlie-west/

[Charlie Oneeye]

The Advertiser is reporting that we have interviewed Charlie West https://central.rookieme.com/afl/player/charlie-west/

This guy is built thick.

We could get our own version of Darcy Fogarty

[Gerry Cooper]

Sure, there have been exceptions in our lives, but I think Hine will select at least 1 we have no idea about, who has elite athletic traits and for some reason or another was on nobody's radar.

Yeah, a Hine Special - "athletic abilities" but with sub-standard disposal skills.

[Charlie Oneeye]

[/quote]

Yeah, a Hine Special - "athletic abilities" but with sub-standard disposal skills.
[/quote]

exactly

[stui magpie]

The Advertiser is reporting that we have interviewed Charlie West https://central.rookieme.com/afl/player/charlie-west/

This guy is built thick.

We could get our own version of Darcy Fogarty

Key attributes are aggressive, speed and contested marking, suits our game style to a T.

[Take_a_Screamer]

Charlie West appeared on Channel 7 in Adelaide a week ago.

https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=1361104858627752

[K]

Now if Membrey is locked away, are we still in the hunt for an experienced defender. We were looking at Tomlinson. I wonder if we’re looking at Tom Clurey who was delisted by Port? He’s a medium KB, 30years old so ripe for our old group

Delisted with a year left on his contract. Port'll have to pay him out.

...
So we gave Markov a one-year contract extention what only seems like months ago, only to delist him? WTAF?
So what happens if somebody else claims him in RD?
Are we left paying out his contract for another team? Yeah that would be a first for this club....

Ash Johnson also a year to run until end of 2025; again what happens if somebody else claims him in RD?
Are we left paying out his contract for another team? Yeah that would be a first for this club....

Seriously.

If someone picks up either of them, the new club would then take on their contract. We would have nothing to pay.

Jen, are you certain of this? Dunno any examples (delisted while contracted, then picked up by another club), so...

When the Hoks boned Clarko, Jeff wanted to be off the hook if another club got him. Don't think Jeff got very far with that one. (The Hoks did get allowance to spread his $900k over two years in the soft cap.) But of course Clarko didn't coach in 2022, so...

And if Ash's pay for 2025 is more than the rookie's minimum, seems even more questionable that the new club would have to take that on...

...
So we gave Markov a one-year contract extention what only seems like months ago, only to delist him? WTAF? ...

Dyso, at the time some fellas here on Nick's wanted the club to give Markov 3 years. Insane! So at least be happy list management isn't run by folks from Nick's.

[Jen2310]

Jen, are you certain of this? Dunno any examples (delisted while contracted, then picked up by another club), so...

I imagine its a bit like when you trade for someone in contract. You take on their contract unless there is a deal in place to pay some of the contract.
We have effectively delisted them, so if they got picked up by another club - as unlikely as that may be, I imagine what we would have paid they'll pay. Except they'll get the players cheaper as a certain amount of the payment for a rookie is outside the rookie list.

Obviously I have no evidence to back this up, just my assumption.

[piffdog]

I would have though to delist (with a year to run) you have to negotiate a settlement - which probably looks like what they would have got less, say 25-50% (?) which is basically saying - "lets both agree to tear up your contract, and in exchange for you doing that right now, we will give you 50-75% of what you would have got on that last year, right here today and you can walk away and not come back and shed a single drop of sweat for next season". The player then becomes officially delisted, contract is torn up, and they are back on the market either for another club to rookie list, or our club to re-rookie list them. I dont know what the minimum terms are for a rookie, but if you do end up with them back on your list, they come back on rookie terms/wages. I suppose you could also have a clause in the initial settlement which says "if you end up back at the club for any reason, we will deduct the amount we initially paid to settle your contract..." Alternatively, the player could ask for a clause saying "if you dont rookie list me, you have to pay me an additional $xx - which you didnt give me the chance to earn in 2025 as a rookie listed player".

The settlement to tear up the contract would have to be sufficient to motivate the player to agree and take the money now, and then take their chances as a delisted free agent to potentially earn a contract at another club (with a fresh contract). Nobody was going to trade for these guys with a year to go, but now they can get the for nothing if interested.

I dont know for certain of course - just trying to apply some commercial logic to it. What I am very sure of, is that you can tear up/rewrite a contract at any time, however you want so long as both parties consent. We can understand why a club might want to do that, but obviously a player wouldnt agree to it unless they were being offered something in return. In this instance its "we'll give you most of what you would have got, but you dont have to do anything to get it".