Mummy Crosses the Bridge

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • wolftone57
    Veterans List
    • Aug 2008
    • 5857

    #46
    Originally posted by Ludwig
    Shane Mumford has accepted an offer from the GWS Giants. Rumours are that the deal was a 3 year contract at 600 k per year.

    I wonder what we will get for him. Maybe we can do a swap for Jaksch or Bruce. GWS are in he driver's seat having the PSD on their side.
    He would be on more than $600k/yr as he was on more than that at Sydney. Funny he wanted a 4 yr contract from us and we could only offer a 3 but he chose to go anyway. I think he always wanted to go. It is about seniority with him.

    Comment

    • liz
      Veteran
      Site Admin
      • Jan 2003
      • 16773

      #47
      Originally posted by wolftone57
      He would be on more than $600k/yr as he was on more than that at Sydney. Funny he wanted a 4 yr contract from us and we could only offer a 3 but he chose to go anyway. I think he always wanted to go. It is about seniority with him.
      Not sure about your sources of information, When we recruited him from Geelong, the deal was reported as $1m over 4 years (ie $250k a year) and even that caused an uproar that we were overpaying because he was on the Cats' rookie list at the time, earning next to nothing.

      And where do you get your information about the deal that the Swans offered. Most reports indicate the Swans never really made him an offer. And now we have some idea of why.

      Comment

      • wolftone57
        Veterans List
        • Aug 2008
        • 5857

        #48
        Originally posted by sharp9
        We get absolutely nothing for Mummy because GWS have first pick in Pre Season draft....then again Buddy costs nothing either.
        Sorry but you are wrong. We have to give something to the Hawks as he is a Restricted free Agent. The Hawks can make an offer and if not successful then the league decide the compensation Hawks will get. The same applies to GWS in the Mummy deal. We can offer him an altermative deal but if he turns us down we have the right to compensation. But both Hawks and Swans should not hold their collective breaths as the compensation so far has been pretty feeble.

        - - - Updated - - -

        [QUOTE=liz;626589]Not sure about your sources of information, When we recruited him from Geelong, the deal was reported as $1m over 4 years (ie $250k a year) and even that caused an uproar that we were overpaying because he was on the Cats' rookie list at the time, earning next to nothing.

        And where do you get your information about the deal that the Swans offered. Most reports indicate the Swans never really made him an offer. And now we have some idea of why.[/QUOTE}

        The deal that was offered him was $600,000/yr over 3 years but he turned it down as he wanted a 4 year contract according to Melbourne Journos. This has been on the news for a while on SEN in Melbourne

        Comment

        • Ludwig
          Veterans List
          • Apr 2007
          • 9359

          #49
          Originally posted by wolftone57
          Sorry but you are wrong. We have to give something to the Hawks as he is a Restricted free Agent. The Hawks can make an offer and if not successful then the league decide the compensation Hawks will get. The same applies to GWS in the Mummy deal. We can offer him an altermative deal but if he turns us down we have the right to compensation. But both Hawks and Swans should not hold their collective breaths as the compensation so far has been pretty feeble.

          - - - Updated - - -
          I think you are completely incorrect on these matters. In the unlikely event that Hawthorn match the offer, we have already said that we will not up the ante and he will stay at Hawthorn. As a restricted free agent, the compensation to the Hawks is made by the AFL, not the Swans.

          As for Mummy, we could always offer him a contract, but if he wants to go to GWS they can get him through the PSD pick 1, and we would get nothing for him. We can hope for something by doing a trade, but GWS has all the cards, except the one that says that they may want to remain on good trading terms with the Swans. As Mummy is not a free agent, there is no AFL compensation for the Swans.

          Comment

          • Meg
            Go Swannies!
            Site Admin
            • Aug 2011
            • 4828

            #50
            Ludwig, do you know if "match the offer' means pre COLA (which logically it should) or post the add-on of COLA? That is, could Hawthorn keep Buddy paying less in total than the Swans' offer with the difference being the COLA which is not paid in Melbourne?

            Comment

            • Ludwig
              Veterans List
              • Apr 2007
              • 9359

              #51
              Originally posted by Meg
              Ludwig, do you know if "match the offer' means pre COLA (which logically it should) or post the add-on of COLA? That is, could Hawthorn keep Buddy paying less in total than the Swans' offer with the difference being the COLA which is not paid in Melbourne?
              The COLA never comes into consideration. I think it has to be matched for both money and length of contract, but I am not sure in the year to year detail as well.

              Comment

              • sharp9
                Senior Player
                • Jan 2003
                • 2508

                #52
                Originally posted by wolftone57
                Sorry but you are wrong. We have to give something to the Hawks as he is a Restricted free Agent. The Hawks can make an offer and if not successful then the league decide the compensation Hawks will get. The same applies to GWS in the Mummy deal. We can offer him an altermative deal but if he turns us down we have the right to compensation. But both Hawks and Swans should not hold their collective breaths as the compensation so far has been pretty feeble.
                Sorry but you are wrong, free agent means FREE agent. He costs us nothing. Any compensation pick comes from the AFL not from us. Clear???
                "I'll acknowledge there are more talented teams in the competition but I won't acknowledge that there is a better team in the competition" Paul Roos March 2005

                Comment

                • Triple B
                  Formerly 'BBB'
                  • Feb 2003
                  • 6999

                  #53
                  Nice work Wolfy, you're batting at .025 this thread....
                  Driver of the Dan Hannebery bandwagon....all aboard. 4th April 09

                  Comment

                  • Jewels
                    On the Rookie List
                    • Oct 2006
                    • 3258

                    #54
                    Originally posted by Triple B
                    Nice work Wolfy, you're batting at .025 this thread....
                    Haha, where's the LIKE option?

                    Comment

                    • mcs
                      Travelling Swannie!!
                      • Jul 2007
                      • 8166

                      #55
                      Good on Mummy for getting a good deal at GWS. I certainly don't have any issues there with him. He gave us a great 4 years service, including playing as part of a Premiership team. Can't fault his committment to the cause, and I hope he does well (except for when playing against us) for GWS.
                      "You get the feeling that like Monty Python's Black Knight, the Swans would regard amputation as merely a flesh wound."

                      Comment

                      • BillyRayCypress
                        On the Rookie List
                        • May 2012
                        • 1379

                        #56
                        Originally posted by wolftone57
                        Sorry but you are wrong. We have to give something to the Hawks as he is a Restricted free Agent. The Hawks can make an offer and if not successful then the league decide the compensation Hawks will get. The same applies to GWS in the Mummy deal. We can offer him an altermative deal but if he turns us down we have the right to compensation. But both Hawks and Swans should not hold their collective breaths as the compensation so far has been pretty feeble.
                        Wolfy you've had a major wobbly on this one.
                        Nothing like a good light bulb moment.

                        Comment

                        • Industrial Fan
                          Goodesgoodesgoodesgoodes!
                          • Aug 2006
                          • 3318

                          #57
                          This will make us look pretty silly if for whatever reason the Franklin deal doesnt go through.
                          He ate more cheese, than time allowed

                          Comment

                          • Doctor J.
                            Senior Player
                            • Feb 2003
                            • 1310

                            #58
                            Originally posted by Triple B
                            Nice work Wolfy, you're batting at .025 this thread....

                            He's not batting that well!!

                            Comment

                            • BillyRayCypress
                              On the Rookie List
                              • May 2012
                              • 1379

                              #59
                              TWR saying Mumford will be on at 10:40 am.

                              They then bagged the Swans for not giving him a contract and being disrespectful of what he did for the Swans

                              If the Swans advertised that they were only giving Mummy 2 years then this would have been a red flag to everyone else that he had a possible serious problem.
                              Last edited by BillyRayCypress; 3 October 2013, 09:55 AM.
                              Nothing like a good light bulb moment.

                              Comment

                              • Meg
                                Go Swannies!
                                Site Admin
                                • Aug 2011
                                • 4828

                                #60
                                Originally posted by Ludwig
                                The COLA never comes into consideration. I think it has to be matched for both money and length of contract, but I am not sure in the year to year detail as well.
                                Thanks. I'm still not clear about this. To clarify (and using simple figure for example): if Swans offer was $1mill + COLA of $100,000 - to match offer does Hawthorn have to offer $1mill or $1.1mill?

                                Comment

                                Working...