Getting Cripps would not only be amazing, but make up for all the farking losses when they were ■■■■■.
And THAT recent elim final.
And the 99 prelim.
FAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARK CAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRLLLTOOOOOOOOOOON.
3 Likes
make heaps of $s now or get into the collingwood boys club and be set up for life post footy?
hard choice.
Loyalty or the North factor?
Wonder what his answer would have been if it was say Richmond or us throwing that amount at him
Another big fish North missed lol
Have to face the fact that no one wants to play at that tin rattling minnow of a club no matter how much money they throw.
Lol at North not being able to land Kelly, Martin or DeGoey with their ‘War chest’.
Pissant club
1 Like
They got Hartung and Morgan though
There is that
Ahahaha!
2 Likes
This is all done with FA in mind. North wanted to lock him up beyond that. Collingwood were happy to keep him until then. They’ll either retain him on big $$ after or reap the trade/compensation benefits.
Guarantee his manager said ’ do two more years for a little less keep your form and value up then get a phat 3-4 year contract later’.
It’s no coincidence gun players are signing contracts that are in step with their FA timelines.
It’s increasingly looking like the premium required to recruit a young gun before FA is around 1.5x current market value. More if you are North or a club like them.
yep, no doubt about it. Very smart move if his form stays good.
Cue the ‘we need to change the FA rules to help my club out’ article
Has some legs with it though mate.
How many free agents say “I want to play for a bottom club?”
We are already seeing AFLPA want to reduce UFA Restrictions to 26yrs old or 6 years at a club.
1 Like
Can’t disagree. Maybe I gave the wrong sense of tone in my reply. It’s also important to remember that FA was never intended to be an equalisation measure.
The current situation though was entirely predictable. Yet again though the AFL sign off on an unbalanced, overly complicated set of rules that favour one particular group. In this case the players, who should shoulder much if the responsibility because they threatened a walk out if they didn’t get it. If they wanted free market conditions after service it should have been just that.
You reach x years you can elect to put yourself on the market. Anyone can put in a bid. Bids are unknown to other bidders. No negotiating after submission. Highest bid is presented to player. Accept or don’t. None of this nomination of club. Pick compensation is direct between clubs and can include future picks. No more made up draft picks.
I’m sure there’s many issues with the above but ■■■■ me the current scheme is a borderline cluster ■■■■
2 Likes
The first issue I see with it is that you might want to leave Sydney FC because you want to go home and end up at GWS.
Awesome.
Also, I’m not sure that Free Agency is even meant to be an equalisation practice.
I thought the whole point of it was that a player did his time at a club and then got to choose where he wanted to go, without having to worry about whether two clubs could come to terms on value.
I’m not having a lot of sympathy for SOS, or us if it comes to that.
4 Likes
That’s the point though. Is Free Agency about a player getting where he wants to go or being free to maximise his earning capacity through value on the open market. If it’s to be fair to all player v player and club v club then I just don’t see how you can have both. The players are trying to have their cake and eat it too. Historically they got to go where they wanted to before FA. They just had to nominate their preferred club. In some miracle of negotiating they’ve retained this abiltiy while still reaping the monetary bonus.
It’s professional sport boys. You get paid well even if you’re not that good. Average earning are well above the median
You’re right it wasn’t meant to be and I said as much in my earlier post.
On the other point if FA was established because a professional sportsman could go home after a few years it’s time these boys/men realised that they are professional sportsman. How many other professional sports codes accommodate the athletes so extensively in terms of alleviating their homesickness.
The current system has left the player’s original club holding the bag. Often with half the contents taken out. The player gets exactly what they want. The destination club gets a player for below market value in terms of draft compensation.
The main issue I’ve always had with FA is the compo picks end up diluting the draft. I’d rather that didn’t happen, probably if you pick up a FA you should sacrifice a pick.
2 Likes
Keep free agency as is.
Remove the idea a player, if contracted, has to agree to trade. Let the clubs send them anywhere they like.
3 Likes
Would North not be better served getting 2-3 players at $2-3m a piece?!
1 Like
I dont mind it. If we lost a quality player to free agency id want a good opportunity at replacing them.
With a minimum contract value wired in.
Sending a $120k player from Adelaide to Sydney is gonna kill the person’s standard of living.
If you make 400k + then you let go your ability to determine your club.
But contract terms and length must remain.
I actually think it’s a simple fix.
But we live in a world of “feelings”. I’m sorry aflpa you want to get paid then great. You deserve it. But then clubs need flex.
Disagree. As Hardwick has said. Clubs put so much time and money developing players only to lose them when they enter their prime. How do you expect clubs like Brisbane, Gold Coast, St Kilda etc to thrive when this happen?
I doubt Brisbane has gotten over the wantaway 5 who were all top picks only to get a bunch of second rounders. Yes this was before free agency. But it still has a lingering effect.
Free agency was suppose to help poorer clubs lure Free Agents and the PA get their wish in having players move at their will. What a fat lot of turds that has done when you had the likes of Geelong and Hawks get them and North and Melb get lesser named players.
I have no qualm with players wanting to move. But what we have now is contracts mean SFA. Players can force their club over a barrell with a year to go on their contract and say " trade me to Club XYZ or I walk next year."
If we want true equality we would allow clubs to trade for their best interest in this scenario.
Polec would have ended up at Adelaide and Brisbane would get the 1st rounder back rather than a late 2nd rounder
Essendon a mid 1st rounder from GWS rather than a late teen from Port for Ryder.
If you declare you want out then you have no right to dictate terms until you are free agent and meet the necessary 7 years of service at 1 club.
2 Likes