The AFL?
2 Likes
Not denying that. But kicking the can down the road would have been their only option if they had to keep Bowes. No way they would have knowingly breached the salary cap.
I think we need to look at the tall players in the forward line as a whole and having another tall/2nd ruck will take some heat of 2MP and allow Jones the third defender - Jones has huge potential but is 2 or 3 years off IMHO. Our half forward line needed a contested marking option post JD and Weed could be more likely than anyone else to fill it at this time. Reid is a few years away, McBride I doubt will make it, Stewart I had great wraps for as a high half forward before his OP and he has bulked up but has never recovered form consistently, I enjoyed watching Baldwin the the 2nds but he is not tall enough to play a key role and not quick enough to play another role so for me he is a depth player who may or may not make it. I see nil to loose with the weed for a late pick .
1 Like
Looks like Henry is staying at Collingwood or Geelong are going to have to trade 7.
You know what? Iâm not going to say this often, but good on ya, Collingwood. â â â â Geelong.
(Actually, thatâs twice Iâve been on the Piesâ side this year⌠I need a shower 
)
12 Likes
You donât get paid to take on the salary, you get paid to relieve the other club, which they did.
2 Likes
the easy way around it is, you donât restrict players, you restrict clubs.
top clubs know they can continue to buy the top line players because thereâs lil to no disadvantage to the club.
as an exeggerated example to prove a point, and this would only apply i guess to prior to FA stuff, but use henry and brauhn as examples.
If prior to the FA requirements a player leaves, the new club has to match the original picks rd value.
so if they are picked in the first round, you lose your first rd pick you either trade it for that player or you lose it.
If you bring in 2, the following years 1st rd pick cops the same treatment.
If you bring in 3 the following years and so on.
again itâs exaggerated example (altho iâd enforce it if i was running the show).
but again the afl needs to start restricting the clubs cos the players have way too much power.
Youâre right. I think the problem was they announced/leaked it having massively underestimated the interest.
1 Like
Tell me you rate Setterfield and Weideman higher than Frampton ace?
maybe Geelong can ask the AFL for special offer spread assistance to get this deal done
Too many top draft picks to make them think strategically.
did it?
In theory, top clubs in particular Premiers should not have more salary cap room than bottom clubs.
But some well run clubs are able to convince great players to stay for much less. (Our 2000 team stars though were not interested in that. Hence we lost so many players too soon to retain Llyod, Lucas, Hird etc on huge amounts).
I think responsibility should be on clubs to manage the salary cap. No way should you allow a salary dump for draft picks. As Free Agency shows, players only move to the top clubs, making them even stronger.
1 Like
it could have been us if the AFL had a shred of integrity and refused the cats request to spread the payments out instead of absorbing the cap dump into their camp. i mean thatâs what i thought trading was.
6 Likes
well i mean they could. they had 5 clubs looking at him.
I reckon they felt bad for how they treated him, that they didnât want to crush him even more by seeing the interest dry up when pick 7 disappeared.
IMHO the first 10 selections should be set in stone, always the teams who donât play finals and all talent must be available to them in a mini draft before a national draft where there is horse trading.
That means father sons and academy as well.
All of those 10 player are on min binding two year deals and then itâs up to the AFL to make sure every club has a good support base around it.
If a player wants to move after 2 seasons, well open slather - father sons and academyâs could have some preferred deal done with their dads/academyâs club at this point.
The National draft would then follow exactly as it is now.
Would mean North would effectively have pick 1 and 11(and access to Ashcroft) through to us(4 and 15) finishing at the saints with 10 and 21.
Only then would the teams who played finals get a look at talent(unless they traded into picks 11-21)
Have a look who will go off there list in the coming years and its no issue absorbing it over 4
Over 2 would have been no but remember its the A wFuL who make the rules up as the go
1 Like