Page 44 of 44 FirstFirst ... 344041424344
Results 517 to 525 of 525

Thread: 2019 trading, drafting and list management: players and personnel

  1. #517
    Senior Player
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    1,827
    Quote Originally Posted by bloodspirit View Post
    Does anyone know why we don't seem to have an additional mid season draft selection on account of Maibaum's season ending injury? Or do we, and has it just been overlooked?
    We selected Hayden McClean to replace him in the preseason

  2. #518
    Senior Player dejavoodoo44's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Gold Coast
    Posts
    2,620
    Quote Originally Posted by caj23 View Post
    We selected Hayden McClean to replace him in the preseason
    Who's now filling the traditional role of; not playing, not on the injury list (although he probably is injured). It seems that we have one each season: Pink, Ronke.

  3. #519
    Nice one. Thanks, deja.

  4. #520
    Senior Player
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Crowland :-(
    Posts
    3,667
    Quote Originally Posted by S.S. Bleeder View Post
    Good point Barry. In essence it is a very similar situation.

    The AFL argued that our offer to Buddy put him out of the range of Hawthorn and other clubs. However, isn't that what the Bulldogs did by offering a second year player over a million $ a year?

    It really is hard to argue that a different rule should apply to us.
    Buddy was a RFA, Boyd was traded for GWS getting pick 3 and Griffen (from memory).

    I think you'll find that post Buddy, contracts of players you pick up as RFA can't be altered in any way.

  5. #521
    Go Swannies! Site Admin Meg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    In the Brewongle
    Posts
    3,473

    2019 trading, drafting and list management: players and personnel

    Quote Originally Posted by Markwebbos View Post
    There were a whole load of very dubious deals done when the Hawks recruited Ty Vickery on a 3 year deal that ended up only being 2. Who then retired after one year.
    When Vickery retired at the end of the first year of his two year contract Hawthorn did have to count the whole of his $500,000 in the next year. And that was because he was a RFA.

    ‘HAWTHORN will be forced to accommodate the final year of Tyrone Vickery’s contract, reportedly worth $500,000, despite the much-maligned forward’s retirement.

    New Hawthorn chief executive Justin Reeves confirmed AFL free agency rules would force the Hawks to incorporate the deal in the club’s 2018 salary cap, even though Vickery will not be with the team.’

    Category: | Herald Sun

  6. #522
    Quote Originally Posted by Meg View Post
    When Vickery retired at the end of the first year of his two year contract Hawthorn did have to count the whole of his $500,000 in the next year. And that was because he was a RFA.

    ‘HAWTHORN will be forced to accommodate the final year of Tyrone Vickery’s contract, reportedly worth $500,000, despite the much-maligned forward’s retirement.

    New Hawthorn chief executive Justin Reeves confirmed AFL free agency rules would force the Hawks to incorporate the deal in the club’s 2018 salary cap, even though Vickery will not be with the team.’

    Category: | Herald Sun
    I was more thinking how they lured him away from the Tigers with a 3 year deal (and I think this was a factor in the Tigers compensation pick) then the paperwork was only for 2.

    This article sums it up

    AFL quizzes Hawthorn for a second time over Vickery deal - AFL.com.au

  7. #523
    Veteran Site Admin
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    14,065
    Quote Originally Posted by Markwebbos View Post
    I was more thinking how they lured him away from the Tigers with a 3 year deal (and I think this was a factor in the Tigers compensation pick) then the paperwork was only for 2.

    This article sums it up

    AFL quizzes Hawthorn for a second time over Vickery deal - AFL.com.au
    My recollection (and this is reflected in the article you provided a link to) is that the angst amongst other clubs wasn't due to the initial three year term but the reduction from three to two years. The AFL doesn't publish a transparent formula for working out compensation picks, but it's generally perceived to be based (amongst other criteria) on the per annum payment, rather than the total contract value. The presumption was that the Hawks restructured their overall offer to Vickery to be a two year deal, rather than three year, but on essentially the same money over the contract, thus making the per annum amount higher and improving the compensation pick the Tigers received. I imagine there was then a verbal agreement with Vickery that if he was retained beyond the initial two years, it would be on a significantly lower amount.

    This just highlights one of the issues in the way compensation pick are handed out. They should just abolish them all. Free agents are free agents. And where the player is a restricted free agent, their current club's decision on whether to match the deal or not won't be distorted by the lure of a compensation pick.

  8. #524
    My view of it was that it was crooked. As the article says the Hawks put an article on their own website saying he had a 3 year deal and then changed it to 2 after the fact.

    Imagine if we’d varied the terms of Buddy’s deal AFTER the Hawks had elected not to match it? That’s what happened with a restricted free agent.

    The whole Vickery arrangement stinks

  9. #525
    Veteran Site Admin
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    14,065
    Quote Originally Posted by Markwebbos View Post
    My view of it was that it was crooked. As the article says the Hawks put an article on their own website saying he had a 3 year deal and then changed it to 2 after the fact.

    Imagine if we’d varied the terms of Buddy’s deal AFTER the Hawks had elected not to match it? That’s what happened with a restricted free agent.

    The whole Vickery arrangement stinks
    Depends what you mean by "after the fact". They didn't change it after it had been made official and Richmond had had a chance to match. They changed it beforehand - reducing it from the originally touted three years down to two - for the purpose of securing Richmond a better compensation pick (ie by paying essentially the same total dollars but over two years, not three, thereby increasing the per annum amount on which the AFL's formulae machinations are based).

Page 44 of 44 FirstFirst ... 344041424344

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO