Gold Coast will limit 'raid' to eight players

[The Coon Dog]

JAKE NIALL
December 1, 2009

THE Gold Coast intends to recruit about eight uncontracted players from the 16 AFL clubs, sparing half the competition from the pain of losing a player to the 17th team.

And, to bolster that modest number of uncontracted players, the Gold Coast's recruiting supremo, Scott Clayton, also confirmed yesterday that the new team would take seasoned players as rookies in the rookie draft on December 15 - meaning that senior players would be warehoused next season as Gold Coast VFL players, before playing AFL in 2011.

In a major coup for the new club, the Gold Coast will not be forced to give up any of its nine first-round draft picks - selections 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13 and 15 - when it signs an uncontracted player from any of the 16 clubs.


Article in full... (http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/gold-coast-will-limit-raid-to-eight-players-20091130-k150.html)

[Lantern]

Rubbish, Clayton -- you have to limit their senior players not because of playing list concerns but because even with an extra $800K in the kitty, you won't be able to afford many other senior players under the cap if you're going to be paying the likes of Gablett and Buddy $1.5M a year.

It has nothing to do with a 'sustainable list', more a grab of marque names.

And the most disgusting thing is that the affected clubs won't even be compensated fairly with all the first round picks off the table -- how can Gablett be worth anything less than two first-round picks at a minimum?

"Compensation will be determined by the AFL"? -- at the moment, GC17 IS the AFL, and it's a farcical situation when the buyer is also the one who gets to set the price. This is ridiculous.

[Swoop]

Rubbish, Clayton -- you have to limit their senior players not because of playing list concerns but because even with an extra $800K in the kitty, you won't be able to afford many other senior players under the cap if you're going to be paying the likes of Gablett and Buddy $1.5M a year.

It has nothing to do with a 'sustainable list', more a grab of marque names.

And the most disgusting thing is that the affected clubs won't even be compensated fairly with all the first round picks off the table -- how can Gablett be worth anything less than two first-round picks at a minimum?

"Compensation will be determined by the AFL"? -- at the moment, GC17 IS the AFL, and it's a farcical situation when the buyer is also the one who gets to set the price. This is ridiculous.
My understanding was that the affected club will still be compensated but not for that specific draft, instead they can nominate when they can use those picks in upcoming years. Is that correct or have I misunderstood?

[divvydan]

My understanding was that the affected club will still be compensated but not for that specific draft, instead they can nominate when they can use those picks in upcoming years. Is that correct or have I misunderstood?

That's correct and remember, all this is only for uncontracted players who want to go to the GC. They will have up to 5 years to use any compensation picks (2010-2014, 2015 for WS picks).
Contracted players will have to be traded for like any other club, hence the importance of clubs extending the contracts of their star players to ensure they get the best possible outcome if that player really wants to go to the GC.

[GVGjr]

Do they also have the first 5 picks of the rookie draft this year so that they can fill out a side for the VFL competition?

They are getting a good deal

[Remi Moses]

Perish the thought but say Cooney hopped up and left and we got bugger all!! Absolute farce:mad::mad:

[Remi Moses]

Rubbish, Clayton -- you have to limit their senior players not because of playing list concerns but because even with an extra $800K in the kitty, you won't be able to afford many other senior players under the cap if you're going to be paying the likes of Gablett and Buddy $1.5M a year.

It has nothing to do with a 'sustainable list', more a grab of marque names.

And the most disgusting thing is that the affected clubs won't even be compensated fairly with all the first round picks off the table -- how can Gablett be worth anything less than two first-round picks at a minimum?

"Compensation will be determined by the AFL"? -- at the moment, GC17 IS the AFL, and it's a farcical situation when the buyer is also the one who gets to set the price. This is ridiculous.

I actually read that article 3 times because I just cannot get my head around it!Just imagine the outrage that's going to take place when the AFL decides in the first season somebody is going to lose a star and get F*** all.

[Griffen#16]

Do they also have the first 5 picks of the rookie draft this year so that they can fill out a side for the VFL competition?

Yes they do.



I guess the hard work should be starting right now to begin the process of ensuring the guys we REALLY want and need are contracted at the end of the year.

[hotdog]

That's correct and remember, all this is only for uncontracted players who want to go to the GC. They will have up to 5 years to use any compensation picks (2010-2014, 2015 for WS picks).
Contracted players will have to be traded for like any other club, hence the importance of clubs extending the contracts of their star players to ensure they get the best possible outcome if that player really wants to go to the GC.

My concern is this.

Gold Coast put an offer too good to refuse out to Adam Cooney. Adam says I will move to the GC. AFL say Brownlow medalist, number 1 draft pick, in his prime, compensation is number 1 pick to between 2011 and 2014.

Gold Coast put an offer too good to refuse out to Buddy Franklin. Buddy says I will move to the GC. AFL says Coleman medalist, high draft pick, in his prime compensation is number 1 pick between 2011 and 2014.

In 2013 a standout number 1 pick is in the draft. Heads and shoulders above all others. Hawks want him but so do the Dogs? Who gets to maximise their compensation for losing their most valuable player?

It seems the AFL is making up the rules as it goes along but somebody (hopefully not us) is going to get very badly burnt!:mad:

[divvydan]

My concern is this.

Gold Coast put an offer too good to refuse out to Adam Cooney. Adam says I will move to the GC. AFL say Brownlow medalist, number 1 draft pick, in his prime, compensation is number 1 pick to between 2011 and 2014.

Gold Coast put an offer too good to refuse out to Buddy Franklin. Buddy says I will move to the GC. AFL says Coleman medalist, high draft pick, in his prime compensation is number 1 pick between 2011 and 2014.

In 2013 a standout number 1 pick is in the draft. Heads and shoulders above all others. Hawks want him but so do the Dogs? Who gets to maximise their compensation for losing their most valuable player?

It seems the AFL is making up the rules as it goes along but somebody (hopefully not us) is going to get very badly burnt!:mad:

Couple of points. The compensation won't be a no 1 pick, it will at best be a first round pick and that first round pick will be allocated directly after the club's first round pick it receives for it's position on the ladder.

Any team wishing to use a compensation pick in for example the 2013 national draft need to inform the league of their desire to do so prior to Round 1 of that particular year.

There's no doubt the compensation isn't even close to equitable for clubs who lose a key player, however, the AFL will argue that anytime a player is out of contract and wishes to leave, you'll never get what that player is worth. This is why extending a player's contract is so important so as to never allow them to come out of contract.

The concessions for the GC haven't changed since they were introduced and all clubs signed off on it (possibly were forced to if they receive fixturing/ground compensation currently) so they certainly know what they're coming up against and hopefully know the best way of negotiating the situation of the next couple of years.

[gogriff]

The concessions for the GC haven't changed since they were introduced and all clubs signed off on it (possibly were forced to if they receive fixturing/ground compensation currently) so they certainly know what they're coming up against and hopefully know the best way of negotiating the situation of the next couple of years.

Reactions have already started, and I wonder whether the public statement that the 'raid' will be 8 players only is designed to give a false sense of security to stop clubs suring up all the good ones

The strategy of 8 stars, 5 rookies and a bucketload of kids doesn't make sense to me. Their elevated salary cap is only temporary and they are going to lose their kids if they fill it early, as they develop and attract higher wages from elsewhere. Part of the AFL's plan perhaps to make GC competitive early, but not a top 4 side for 10 years running

[hujsh]

Reactions have already started, and I wonder whether the public statement that the 'raid' will be 8 players only is designed to give a false sense of security to stop clubs suring up all the good ones

The strategy of 8 stars, 5 rookies and a bucketload of kids doesn't make sense to me. Their elevated salary cap is only temporary and they are going to lose their kids if they fill it early, as they develop and attract higher wages from elsewhere. Part of the AFL's plan perhaps to make GC competitive early, but not a top 4 side for 10 years running

I'm sure trading some picks for players will become part of the equation

[gogriff]

I'm sure trading some picks for players will become part of the equation

They can just take up to 16 players, whoever is willing to leave, without having to trade anything (the AFL will compensate the applicable club with picks outside of GC's allocation). If they are only taking 8 of these they won't need to trade their own picks to get more, unless they want contracted players

[hujsh]

They can just take up to 16 players, whoever is willing to leave, without having to trade anything (the AFL will compensate the applicable club with picks outside of GC's allocation). If they are only taking 8 of these they won't need to trade their own picks to get more

And there won't be contracted players targeted or players who don't wish to rip off their club who are out of contract?

I doubt the AFL gave them all these picks to just stockpile young talent

[gogriff]

And there won't be contracted players targeted or players who don't wish to rip off their club who are out of contract?

I doubt the AFL gave them all these picks to just stockpile young talent

Possibly - didn't think of contracted players initially - I edited my post after you quoted me ;)