Bazza is off to ...

[caj23]

Imagine you were the Doggies, and were stretching the salary cap as it was (as they apparently are). If you want Hall, you have one of two options: get Hall very cheap and trade Lake under value to relieve salary cap pressure, or get Hall for slightly more and have the Swans pay part of his salary, which would allow you to keep Lake. If I was the Dogs, I'd take the second option.

If it meant the difference between a 3rd round pick and a second round pick, and it helped them stay above the salary cap lower limit, I'm sure the Swans would consider it (if it is something that is allowed, I'm not sure if it is).

Of course the Dogs would do it, but the Swans wouldn't. I doubt the AFL would allow it in any event

[DST]

I fail to see the merit in paying any of blind barry's future wages.
I'm pretty sure the club will fail to see the merit also.

If it can be done (and it is highly unlikely as it will involve us contracting Barry again for next year to enable the Dogs to off load some of the salary), I can't see a reason why we would not do it for the right deal.

And when I say right deal it would need to be in the ilk of A Everitt as a direct swap, whcih is in effect us getting a top 10 pick for Hall plus some of his wages next year.

We would be crazy not to do that deal, considering where we are at at present in our barganing power and the chance to get a young KP defender or forward that ranks as a top 10 pick.

DST

[laughingnome]

If it can be done, I agree with DST. It's basically paying for a first round draft pick player.

[DST]

Of course the Dogs would do it, but the Swans wouldn't. I doubt the AFL would allow it in any event

The AFL might not allow it in the future, but it is a loop hole in place now and we can exploit it then yes why not.

As far as I can see, there is nothing stopping the Swand sitting down with Hall and the Doggies and offering to contract Hall for another year to then off load him to the Dogs for a specific player swap and us throwing in some cash to pay for Hall's contract at the Dogs.

It's out there, but could benefit both of us, as we are looking for a draft pick or young player and have spare cap room and the Dogs a key forward but no cap room for a full Hall contract.

It has been done in the past with deals like Stafford and Richmond to enable a deal but protect salary cap space and the only thing different here is that Hall would need to sign a new contract before being traded.

DST

[hammo]

And when Hall hits a bloke next season the Swans will be liable as his employer.

Sorry but this suggestion is ridiculous. We should only pay for players who actually play for us. The club won't even consider this scenario for a minute.

Anyway, where is the evidence that it is even possible? This is a debate based on a hypothetical and highly improbable scenario.

Also, people here are concerned about the Swans' reputation if we take players in the pre season draft instead of trading. How exactly would this form of cheating play with the other clubs?

[caj23]

i think some of you are overlooking the small fact that the swans probably dont have a spare $250,000 to pay a player who is not even on their books

[Primmy]

i think some of you are overlooking the small fact that the swans probably dont have a spare $250,000 to pay a player who is not even on their books

Details, mere details Will.

[BSA5]

i think some of you are overlooking the small fact that the swans probably dont have a spare $250,000 to pay a player who is not even on their books

Really? How about the retirements this year of Barry Hall, Michael O'Loughlin, Leo Barry, Jared Crouch, Tadhg Kennelly and Nic Fosdike, plus the fact that this money comes from the AFL, not the club (which is why we have to spend 92.5% of it, to prevent us hoarding it).

[Nico]

i think some of you are overlooking the small fact that the swans probably dont have a spare $250,000 to pay a player who is not even on their books

I would hope we go the full quota of rookies in 2010 rather than waste money on Hall. Been plenty of gems come out of the rookies.

[voodooguru]

After their dismal showing up forward on Saturday night, you'd think Collinghood would be thinking about Bazza as well.

[DST]

I would hope we go the full quota of rookies in 2010 rather than waste money on Hall. Been plenty of gems come out of the rookies.

Is Jnr Everitt wasting money as opposed to a late third rounder or fourth?

If we are going to pay some of Hall's wage in a deal, it will be for the gain of someone like Jnr Everitt so I can't see how that is a waste of money!

As noted previously, we are in effect buying a player that could possibly go for a top 10 on the open marker from our extra cap space in a deal like this.

DST

[BSA5]

And when Hall hits a bloke next season the Swans will be liable as his employer.

Sorry but this suggestion is ridiculous. We should only pay for players who actually play for us. The club won't even consider this scenario for a minute.

Anyway, where is the evidence that it is even possible? This is a debate based on a hypothetical and highly improbable scenario.

Also, people here are concerned about the Swans' reputation if we take players in the pre season draft instead of trading. How exactly would this form of cheating play with the other clubs?

The evidence that it is possible is that it has happened before. Rawlings had part of his contract paid by the Doggies when he went to North, from memory.

Also, the Swans could simply sign Hall, terminate the contract immediately, pay Hall out for the termination, and in exchange Hall takes this money and signs a contract of lower value at the Dogs, allowing them to fit him under the cap.

[laughingnome]

Also, the Swans could simply sign Hall, terminate the contract immediately, pay Hall out for the termination, and in exchange Hall takes this money and signs a contract of lower value at the Dogs, allowing them to fit him under the cap.

Now that option sounds a bit dodgy. There's no secret that Sydney don't want Hall to stay, so the auditors will ask why we gave him a contract just to terminate it.

[Hartijon]

The underlining assumption of this thread is that Hall is still a Champion player who could walk into a top team like the Doggies and magically win them a Flag.I talk to supporters of other teams and they see him quite differently.They see a player past his prime,a potential liability who in 2006 went missing on the biggest stage and most important match of the year.He certainly didn't win the Swans a flag in 2006 and has been a disruptive influence since.None of them want him and have the same attitude many Swans supporters have towards Lovett except Lovett has more upside than Hall.I therefore feel a lot of this discussion is redundant and Hall might be very lucky to find a home.

[ernie koala]

The underlining assumption of this thread is that Hall is still a Champion player who could walk into a top team like the Doggies and magically win them a Flag.I talk to supporters of other teams and they see him quite differently.They see a player past his prime,a potential liability who in 2006 went missing on the biggest stage and most important match of the year.He certainly didn't win the Swans a flag in 2006 and has been a disruptive influence since.None of them want him and have the same attitude many Swans supporters have towards Lovett except Lovett has more upside than Hall.I therefore feel a lot of this discussion is redundant and Hall might be very lucky to find a home.

How supporters view certain players can often be completely different to how coaching/ recruiting staff view them. I've heard many coaches and excoaches in the media, talk of what a devastating player Hall is and the difficulty of matching up against him. Roos himself refered to him earlier this season as the Swans best player.
I reckon he will be keenly sought after by at least a few clubs.