List changes and trade bait

[Nico]

I am not advocating trading Bird, or a player of his ilk. I am arguing that it only makes sense if it is needed to bring in a youngish but relatively proven player in a position where we have less depth. It is not an argument for trading Bird, but an argument against trading him for the sake of satisfying some people's irrational desires to get more low value tickets in the draft lottery.

I don't get the dislike for Bird on RWO. He is in our best 22 every day. He is a run with player as is Cunningham. Cunningham is quicker but Bird is tougher. I know who I could rely on when the going gets tough. Harry is a soft run with player who doesn't get much of the footy yet Bird racks up the stats. As season 2015 goes on I say Cunningham will be on the fringe because he doesn't offer a lot. As a half forward he was nothing but an opportunist who didn't want the hard footy, hence they reverted to using him as a stopper.

- - - Updated - - -

Sliding doors 2012 Kurt Tippett goes to Gold Coast. Did Sydney select Tippett before or after Buddy told Sydney that he wanted to play with the Swans. If Tippett not bought Sydney still has Mummy/Pyke rucking and resting at FF. Pykey taking marks and kicking goals, Mummy still smashing everyone.Sydney maybe pick up another player and Sydney looks better to me already but history says something different!!! Sydney is the most predictable team and Hawthorn, know it. All other teams knew what to do but most other teams can't do it. I have watched plenty of this year again with replays on FoxFooty, and kicking it to 2 on 1 or 3 on 1 with no smalls crumbing, like Bruest/Papualo, and Tippett's contract is backended means Sydney will be doing not much without trading a big name this or next year. We will be in the four but playing the same way at the same lever or can Geelong, Port and Freo go past Sydney? Mills and Dunkley next year but 2 or 3 years before we see their best? All players just a year older without the best kick in the team! Hawthorn keep changing things, tactics, roles and can Sydney match it? Sorry, probably too much thinking.

That's what is called "going the early crow".

- - - Updated - - -

I agree Bird is much more valuable than people credit. He is reliable mostly and that can't be said for all. The up & coming stars like Reid are patchy. There are other senior players who are also patchy & two of them are the captains. Sack Macca from the Captains role and give the second captain role to Lukie. At least he is hard at it & unrelenting and he won't point fingers and bitch at the players for every indiscretion. He will just lead by example, the same as Hodge.

Or make Goodesy the one out captain for 2015.

[Nico]

I think there is a bit of truth to the rumour of some players not being really happy not only about the Buddy deal but also the Tippett deal. I think they are senior players and this rumour Reg is not happy with his pay packet reinforces it for me. The problem with bringing in high profile talent to a workmanlike team is egos get put out of joint. just when they had won a premiership and were starting to think of themselves as stars they then have a couple of blow ins who get paid four times what they do. Must grate a bit. I also think that Sammy is not sure of his role in this forward set up.

Yeh sure Wolfy. We finished on top of the ladder, or were you asleep all season. Disharmony, dissatisfaction.....balderdash. By the way we wouldn't have finished top 4 in 2014 with the team we had in 2013.

[Matt80]

This Post-season is looking like a watershed moment for the AFL. Contractual obligations, free agency and the draft are all being seriously compromised. It's becoming a free for all.

Hats off the the Swans' management team on 2 accounts:

1. We got to rort the system with the Tippett deal before such things became common practice. 2 years ahead of the times.
2. We are building a localised team culture and loyalty through the academy system and not worrying too much about the draft, because a player and his contract derived via the draft is worthless. It is not to say that this too is likely to become degraded with time, but at least we are staying ahead of the curve.

Tippett was left unsigned by the Crows. He went into the PSD and put forward his terms. Every one of the 17 other clubs could have taken him if they had matched his terms. None of them chose to take him. That's business, not a rort.

[Meg]

We may have been able to mitigate the salary cap issue to the tune of $236,000 over 2 years, but I think the Suns are still on a bunch of financial goodies from the AFL and like the Giants are pretty hard to compete with financially.

According to Wikipedia (and the AFL make it really hard to find official information) the Suns salary cap drops to the same amount as other clubs from next year (2015). But the Giants have an additional allowance (phasing down from 2015 to 2018) until 2019 when they will have the same as all other clubs.

[Ludwig]

Tippett was left unsigned by the Crows. He went into the PSD and put forward his terms. Every one of the 17 other clubs could have taken him if they had matched his terms. None of them chose to take him. That's business, not a rort.

I put the word rort in italics to make the point that I was referring to the similarities to some of the other situations in play at the moment. We took advantage of the situation and played it very well, ensuring that Tippett ended up with us even though so many other clubs had earlier PSD picks.

[Auntie.Gerald]

tippett was a very cunning deal too

$800k pa is the rumour for 4 years........but we went with $1.2m pa for 2 years only ie 2013 and 2014 so no one would match in the PSD draft.......then supposedly we will be extending the next two years as $400k pa for 2015 and 2016 ie he is already a player and got paid overs in 2013 and 2014 deliberately

[mcs]

Clap, clap!

And now thinking more about it, I assume the abolition of the vets allowance from 2017 was the final straw in making it impossible for the Swans to keep Mal with a competitive three year contract (as offered by the Suns).

Why are they getting rid of the Veterans Allowance? Surely it provides clubs with some ability to pay veteran players more, therefore keeping some semblance of an ability for players to be '1 club footballers' alive - a tradition Im sure many would like to see continue.

[The Big Cat]

Have you actually seen this bloke's games this season?

Reid has been a massive disappointment this season and next season is without doubt a make or break season.

He swans about (no pun intended) wherever he feels like going, looks entirely disinterested most of the time, has a nasty habit of dropping chest marks and completely trousers himself when on anyone of any size.....

He has got to be the most over-rated $500,000 a year player in the comp. If he doesn't produce next year, and I hope he does because he clearly has some talent, then we'll be shipping him out for sure....

Yep seen every game, albeit not all live.

Voted strongly in the B&F

Always gets a special mention from the coaches for the role THEY know he plays well.

Other clubs asking about him - part of the big 4.

PS. Not sure what the infantile term "completely trousers himself" means, but if it relates to lack of courage then I have seen nothing other than eyes totally on the ball and body on the line from Reid.

[mcs]

tippett was a very cunning deal too

$800k pa is the rumour for 4 years........but we went with $1.2m pa for 2 years only ie 2013 and 2014 so no one would match in the PSD draft.......then supposedly we will be extending the next two years as $400k pa for 2015 and 2016 ie he is already a player and got paid overs in 2013 and 2014 deliberately

Its called clever list management! Nothing illegal about it, nothing stopping other clubs from matching it at that time.

[Meg]

Why are they getting rid of the Veterans Allowance? Surely it provides clubs with some ability to pay veteran players more, therefore keeping some semblance of an ability for players to be '1 club footballers' alive - a tradition Im sure many would like to see continue.

Pros and Cons as set out on AFL website article:

VETERANS LIST

Was: Clubs were granted a salary cap allowance for players with 10 completed years or more with the club (no longer an age requirement of 30 years) to keep veterans. The amount of the allowance has been calculated as a fixed percentage of TPP per player based on the average amount of football payments excluded from the TPP for players on the veterans list for seasons 2007-09, divided by the average number of players with 10 or more years' service at one club during that period. The fixed percentage has been set at 1.229 per cent and the allowance per player in 2014 is $118,380.

Will be: Current veterans allowance to be retained at $118k per eligible player in 2015 and 2016, with the AFLPA agreeing to abolish it from season 2017.

When: To be introduced in 2017

Why it was changed?
One of the principles agreed to in March was that clubs aspired to move towards a pure draft and salary cap. It was felt that clubs such as Geelong and the Sydney Swans had a significant advantage with more than five veterans on their lists and therefore an extra $500,000 in their salary cap. Several clubs have been unable or unwilling to pay eligible veterans outside the salary cap, accentuating the advantage to clubs with several veterans.

What will it mean?
Opponents have been concerned about the potential negative effect on culture if older players leave the game quickly and there is also an argument that clubs deserve a reward for creating an environment that retains players for 10 years. Other clubs saw the veterans' allowance as one defence against free agency.
However it will reduce inequities between lists. Whether what is lost is worth what is gained remains to be seen.

The AFL's equalisation changes explained - AFL.com.au

[ernie koala]

Yet another shortsighted terrible decision to appease the under performing Melbourne clubs.

I've never met a fan of any club that doesn't love having players that have played out their whole career at one club.

IMO, what they should be focusing on, to create a more 'equal competition', is the draw. How to make 23 rounds work for 18 teams.

I like the idea of every team playing each other once. Then splitting into 3 groups of 6, top , middle and bottom, to fight out for final ladder positions.

Not only is it fairer, but it means there will be meaningful matches across the comp. Rather than the meaningless, dull ,predictable games , in the last 6 weeks

where, for example, 1st plays 15th.

[mcs]

Pros and Cons as set out on AFL website article:

VETERANS LIST

Was: Clubs were granted a salary cap allowance for players with 10 completed years or more with the club (no longer an age requirement of 30 years) to keep veterans. The amount of the allowance has been calculated as a fixed percentage of TPP per player based on the average amount of football payments excluded from the TPP for players on the veterans list for seasons 2007-09, divided by the average number of players with 10 or more years' service at one club during that period. The fixed percentage has been set at 1.229 per cent and the allowance per player in 2014 is $118,380.

Will be: Current veterans allowance to be retained at $118k per eligible player in 2015 and 2016, with the AFLPA agreeing to abolish it from season 2017.

When: To be introduced in 2017

Why it was changed?
One of the principles agreed to in March was that clubs aspired to move towards a pure draft and salary cap. It was felt that clubs such as Geelong and the Sydney Swans had a significant advantage with more than five veterans on their lists and therefore an extra $500,000 in their salary cap. Several clubs have been unable or unwilling to pay eligible veterans outside the salary cap, accentuating the advantage to clubs with several veterans.

What will it mean?
Opponents have been concerned about the potential negative effect on culture if older players leave the game quickly and there is also an argument that clubs deserve a reward for creating an environment that retains players for 10 years. Other clubs saw the veterans' allowance as one defence against free agency.
However it will reduce inequities between lists. Whether what is lost is worth what is gained remains to be seen.

The AFL's equalisation changes explained - AFL.com.au

Haha what a load of crap - like there will ever be pure draft or salary cap anytime soon!

It should have been kept, just with a limit of say 3 players max allowed on it.

[mcs]

Yet another shortsighted terrible decision to appease the under performing Melbourne clubs.

I've never met a fan of any club that doesn't love having players that have played out their whole career at one club.

IMO, what they should be focusing on, to create a more 'equal competition', is the draw. How to make 23 rounds work for 18 teams.

I like the idea of every team playing each other once. Then splitting into 3 groups of 6, top , middle and bottom, to fight out for final ladder positions.

+1 to fixing the draw. I don't like the idea of splitting it into 3 groups much - I like the ability of teams to make a late charge like richmond did this year.

my way of making it relatively 'fair' would be over a three year period having 2 years with 23 rds and 1 with 24 rds, and ensuring over that period you play every team 4 times (I.e. the extra 5/6 games each year create the 4th game over the period against every opponent.

Would work better if you got rid of 2 teams and had 22 rds one year and 23 the next, thus allowing for 3 games against everyone every 2 years. That will never happen though. ..

[Matt80]

Yet another shortsighted terrible decision to appease the under performing Melbourne clubs.

I've never met a fan of any club that doesn't love having players that have played out their whole career at one club.

IMO, what they should be focusing on, to create a more 'equal competition', is the draw. How to make 23 rounds work for 18 teams.

I like the idea of every team playing each other once. Then splitting into 3 groups of 6, top , middle and bottom, to fight out for final ladder positions.

Not only is it fairer, but it means there will be meaningful matches across the comp. Rather than the meaningless, dull ,predictable games , in the last 6 weeks

where, for example, 1st plays 15th.

Would be an interesting idea. The bottom six contest should be for draft order. For example the winner of the bottom six gets pick one, while the last placed of the bottom six gets pick six. That would give a lot of incentive for bottom six clubs to win. I don't think there would be a lot of difference in quality levels between the bottom six teams.

I would also like the to see the currency for trade week increased to one future year. For example Brisbane could offer pick six for Beams and also assign Collingwood their 1st round draft selection (whatever that may be) in 2015. Melbourne could say to Adelaide that we will give you pick 2,3 and our first round in 2015 for Dangerfield.

This would get more deals across the line and allow clubs more options with their future planning. For instance Collingwood would enter the 2015 season knowing that it will already have two first rounds at the end of the season. Brisbane would know that it will be in a poorer draft position at the end of 2015.

[RogueSwan]

Would be an interesting idea. The bottom six contest should be for draft order. For example the winner of the bottom six gets pick one, while the last placed of the bottom six gets pick six. That would give a lot of incentive for bottom six clubs to win. I don't think there would be a lot of difference in quality levels between the bottom six teams....

But include some sort of draft lottery. For example, maybe whoever wins the most in the last six rounds gets 6 tickets in the lottery and the team that finishes last gets one ticket, thus ensuring the team that does finish last actually gets a chance of the first draft pick they may actually need.