Trade target discussion (merged thread)

[Mr Magoo]

Back on topic -

Can anyone tell me that if we ignore the sanctions and trade is the result that we just lose our COLA for that year. Just thinking that if we lose a jetta plus some retire earlier than expected and we all of a sudden had salary cap space even without COLA , could we ignore the ban and trade anyway and then let them take it off us - thats was the original threat if I remember correctly

[troyjones2525]

Back on topic -

Can anyone tell me that if we ignore the sanctions and trade is the result that we just lose our COLA for that year. Just thinking that if we lose a jetta plus some retire earlier than expected and we all of a sudden had salary cap space even without COLA , could we ignore the ban and trade anyway and then let them take it off us - thats was the original threat if I remember correctly

I believe the AFL have to sign off on all trades, signings etc, the reason why the Buddy signing was so drawn out while they looked into it. So basically No we can't ignore it because they won't allow it happen anyway.

[troyjones2525]

Also just read an article on AFL.COM about us possibly being interested in Leunberger because of our ruck issues and him being a free agent. It explains our restrictions and basically confirms we are screwed this off season! It says we can only recruit a player and pay him max $350,000. Now as some have suggested we can't sign him to a multi year deal with the first year being $350,000 then more the following seasons as the deal has to be capped at $350,000 for each year. And also as some have suggested, we are prohibited to sign a player to a 1 year deal for $350,000 and then re-sign him to a multi year deal the following season.

So basically folks, we are royally screwed this off season!!!

[aardvark]

Also just read an article on AFL.COM about us possibly being interested in Leunberger because of our ruck issues and him being a free agent. It explains our restrictions and basically confirms we are screwed this off season! It says we can only recruit a player and pay him max $350,000. Now as some have suggested we can't sign him to a multi year deal with the first year being $350,000 then more the following seasons as the deal has to be capped at $350,000 for each year. And also as some have suggested, we are prohibited to sign a player to a 1 year deal for $350,000 and then re-sign him to a multi year deal the following season.

So basically folks, we are royally screwed this off season!!!

So could we sign him to a 10 year deal at 350k per year knowing full well he'd only play 5.........

[troyjones2525]

So could we sign him to a 10 year deal at 350k per year knowing full well he'd only play 5.........

Haha that's a nice strategy! Perhaps we could pass it on to our recruiter's!

[0918330512]

So could we sign him to a 10 year deal at 350k per year knowing full well he'd only play 5.........

Problem is, we can only have so many players on a list. If we did that, I wouldn't be surprised if the AFL would say, "you have to pay out the contract" (that works as the player gets paid) or more likely, "if the player retires early, the player payment will continue to included in the cap" (like Buddy), although the player won't receive the money if they retire early (hence the player won't have much incentive to retire early & even less incentive to sign if he has to play for 10 years at $350k/year or worse still, the AFL says "you have to continue to include the player's contracted payments in your cap and include his position on the list even if he's not playing" thus reducing our effective list size.

[Bexl]

Pykey has signed to the end of 2016. I doubt we could get a trade for him so I daresay he WILL still be there next year.

In any case, Sam just has to stay patient. There's spots for those good enough and/or durable enough.

If his knee doesn't hold up he and all he gets is 2nds games he would most likely retire.

[goswannies]

If his knee doesn't hold up he and all he gets is 2nds games he would most likely retire.

The impression I have of Mike is that he would see his contract out, either mentoring the next generation or in the hope that he will earn a senior game. He seems to be (rightly IMO) very proud of his work ethic & his achievements.

[Bexl]

The impression I have of Mike is that he would see his contract out, either mentoring the next generation or in the hope that he will earn a senior game. He seems to be (rightly IMO) very proud of his work ethic & his achievements.

That may be the case but if he is doing harm to his knee it might be in his best interest to stop playing.

[goswannies]

That may be the case but if he is doing harm to his knee it might be in his best interest to stop playing.

Footballers don't often take into account "best interests" when the end of their careers are looming. "You're a long time retired"

[Pmcc2911]

Pyke will not be playing seniors next year

[tasmania60]

Good servant thanks!

[Steve]

I'm not sure we'd have enough room in the salary cap to chase an expensive free agent, even if the trade restrictions didn't exist. And even if we found a way to juggle it, it would probably just be setting us up for future pain in losing existing players that we just couldn't offer enough to retain.

It is crazy though there wasn't some sort of 'net result' provision in our penalty - in theory we could trade out Franklin and Tippett and still only sign mediocre players on $350K or less.

The AFL are also selective in what they strictly enforce re: contracts and what they are flexible about - Gold Coast offer Malceski a guaranteed coaching role post-career to sweeten a huge contract and that's apparently OK.

[707]

........The AFL are also selective in what they strictly enforce re: contracts and what they are flexible about - Gold Coast offer Malceski a guaranteed coaching role post-career to sweeten a huge contract and that's apparently OK.

That kind of incentive must be inVISYble at VFL House :-)

[RogueSwan]

That kind of incentive must be inVISYble at VFL House :-)

Nice