SA Footy

stan wrote:The only question left now is, how many pages will the spread in the local fish wrapper tomorrow be?

It will start with a big apology from that clown Rucci. At least it should. Hopefully this will be the final straw that sees The Tiser stick him in a rocket and fire him at the sun.

I seriously doubt Sloane would be getting 5 years now if Danger and Lever hadn't left in last 2 years.

What’s the 5 year deal worth?
I haven’t seen it mentioned yet.

Good question but I wouldn’t have thought it would be less than 750-800

Absolutely it would be less.

You want $850k? You get two years.

You want 5 years? You get $700k.

Simple.

Booney wrote:At the risk of repeating myself ( I will ), 4 and 5 year deals are going to become the rule, not the exception. I've been saying it since free agency was introduced, clubs will get bent over by player managers and basically be forced into much longer deals.

Wasn't there talk no so long ago, about introducing some sort of "salary dump" conditions, whereby say Buddy retired with two years left he could be paid severance with the amount falling outside the cap?

Booney wrote:Absolutely it would be less.

You want $850k? You get two years.

You want 5 years? You get $700k.

Simple.

You reckon?
Weren’t some Melbourne teams(St Kilda) offering $950k.

Although $3.5million won’t send him broke either.

amber_fluid wrote:

Booney wrote:Absolutely it would be less.

You want $850k? You get two years.

You want 5 years? You get $700k.

Simple.

You reckon?
Weren’t some Melbourne teams(St Kilda) offering $950k.

Although $3.5million won’t send him broke either.

Absolutely it would be.

While clubs are forecasting 3-5 years ahead with their salary caps and contracts they are always going to build in buffers to allow them room to move on free agents, young talent on the list etc.

There's no way someone like Hartlett, Sloane, Martin etc who have signed long term deals would be on anywhere near as much by staying as they would have been if they moved.

Like I said above, managers lock in security for their clients with long term deals.

JK wrote:

Booney wrote:At the risk of repeating myself ( I will ), 4 and 5 year deals are going to become the rule, not the exception. I've been saying it since free agency was introduced, clubs will get bent over by player managers and basically be forced into much longer deals.

Wasn't there talk no so long ago, about introducing some sort of "salary dump" conditions, whereby say Buddy retired with two years left he could be paid severance with the amount falling outside the cap?

I don't believe so, I'll have a look.

Booney wrote:Absolutely it would be less.

You want $850k? You get two years.

You want 5 years? You get $700k.

Simple.

It will be 800k once he gets his match payments too

Bum Crack wrote:

Booney wrote:Absolutely it would be less.

You want $850k? You get two years.

You want 5 years? You get $700k.

Simple.

It will be 800k once he gets his match payments too

Bum Crack wrote:

Booney wrote:Absolutely it would be less.

You want $850k? You get two years.

You want 5 years? You get $700k.

Simple.

It will be 800k once he gets his match payments too

Plus $10 a goal from his dad.

Lightning McQueen wrote:

Bum Crack wrote:

Booney wrote:Absolutely it would be less.

You want $850k? You get two years.

You want 5 years? You get $700k.

Simple.

It will be 800k once he gets his match payments too

Plus $10 a goal from his dad.

I saw Sloane and his missus at Kurralta Park shops recently.
Poor bloke hasn’t got much going for him has he.

She was alright too!!

amber_fluid wrote:
She was alright too!!

He must have a concealed weapon.

Booney wrote:

JK wrote:

Booney wrote:At the risk of repeating myself ( I will ), 4 and 5 year deals are going to become the rule, not the exception. I've been saying it since free agency was introduced, clubs will get bent over by player managers and basically be forced into much longer deals.

Wasn't there talk no so long ago, about introducing some sort of "salary dump" conditions, whereby say Buddy retired with two years left he could be paid severance with the amount falling outside the cap?

I don't believe so, I'll have a look.

Might have been more about front loading the contract. 1st year is worth a lot more than the 5th year so if they break down it doesn't affect the cap at the end as much. Does the veterans cap still exist? As a one club player that would have to kick in soon as well.

Dutchy wrote:I seriously doubt Sloane would be getting 5 years now if Danger and Lever hadn't left in last 2 years.

Relevance?

Booney wrote:

JK wrote:

Booney wrote:At the risk of repeating myself ( I will ), 4 and 5 year deals are going to become the rule, not the exception. I've been saying it since free agency was introduced, clubs will get bent over by player managers and basically be forced into much longer deals.

Wasn't there talk no so long ago, about introducing some sort of "salary dump" conditions, whereby say Buddy retired with two years left he could be paid severance with the amount falling outside the cap?

I don't believe so, I'll have a look.

OK, found this https://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/ ... 893858a48d which is different to what I'd heard discussed. Wouldn't be surprised if something was introduced in the not too distant future.

westcoastpanther wrote:

Dutchy wrote:I seriously doubt Sloane would be getting 5 years now if Danger and Lever hadn't left in last 2 years.

Relevance?

1/ reduced cap space if they had stayed
2/ pressure on AFC to retain an interstate star, this is a statement from them more than anything

I’m not sure how he resisted the incredible temptation of going to play for North Melbourne [emoji23]