2021 Rolling List Management Discussion

[Mofra]

Re: 2021 Rolling List Management Discussion

Who said we were into Stein from GWS?
I hope if we were, we're watching this game. He looks miles off the pace

[bulldogtragic]

Re: 2021 Rolling List Management Discussion

Who said we were into Stein from GWS?
I hope if we were, we're watching this game. He looks miles off the pace

I can’t recall the forum member. But they said it was taken from a Bulldogs related Facebook page. Nothing serious. But yep, I haven’t seen too much this year to think we should be looking at him.

[GVGjr]

Re: 2021 Rolling List Management Discussion

WE can pay more of Treloar's salary
and /or
do pick swaps
and
get Grundy on simiilar contract part pay deal. We pay 60% they pay 40%



that could free Collingwood's salary cap by 500K a year


add in Lipinski, they get a ready made outside mid who wants to play more in the midfield

Sam power, please explore!

How does that work? the deal has been done and agreed to and he is now a Bulldogs player. We can't now say to them you only owe us 100K a season because the AFL isn't going to accept that sort of tampering.

[bulldogtragic]

Re: 2021 Rolling List Management Discussion

How does that work? the deal has been done and agreed to and he is now a Bulldogs player. We can't now say to them you only owe us 100K a season because the AFL isn't going to accept that sort of tampering.

Contract renegotiation, is not tampering. It happens all the time in many ways. The trade is the trade as per picks and player. The trade went through officially before the dollars were sorted. The dollars are about Treloar’s original contract and what amount goes in each TPP.

The original contract from Collingwood is another 4 years at $900,000. Our offer was $600,000 a year, so Collingwood are contractually obligated to pay the balance. So Treloar’s contract is fulfilled.

So, say we are motivated to pay $100,000 a year more. We pay $700,000. Collingwood $200,000. We are happy. Collingwood is happy. Treloar still gets his $900,000. Treloar is happy. This is just a renegotiation of commercial terms between the three parties involved in the contract.

He was traded for salary cap reasons. Josh Jenkins too. Contracts get front loaded like Tom Boyd, or back ended. Players will take an effective pay cut to extend their years. The contract was for a maximum of $300,000 from Collingwood and that doesn’t change. The honouring of Treloar’s $900,000 contract simply needs to be counted in both clubs TPP. Any change doesn’t change that every cent is accounted for in either TPP. So I don’t see how ‘tampering’ can be inferred. I can’t find any rule that prohibits parties renegotiating a commercial contract provided that every cent is included in clubs TPP. We are trading one thing, in return for another thing. That’s ‘trading’. A simply renegotiation where all parties are satisfied, where all amounts are accurately recorded in the TPP’s and which appear to breach no rule should not upset the AFEL or anyone else. Granted I sat through way too much contract law than I care to remember, but I don’t see any issue.

What part do you feel is not valid renegotiation and thus ‘tampering’?

[GVGjr]

Re: 2021 Rolling List Management Discussion

Contract renegotiation, is not tampering. It happens all the time in many ways. The trade is the trade as per picks and player. The trade went through officially before the dollars were sorted. The dollars are about Treloar’s original contract and what amount goes in each TPP.

The original contract from Collingwood is another 4 years at $900,000. Our offer was $600,000 a year, so Collingwood are contractually obligated to pay the balance. So Treloar’s contract is fulfilled.

So, say we are motivated to pay $100,000 a year more. We pay $700,000. Collingwood $200,000. We are happy. Collingwood is happy. Treloar still gets his $900,000. Treloar is happy. This is just a renegotiation of commercial terms between the three parties involved in the contract.

He was traded for salary cap reasons. Josh Jenkins too. Contracts get front loaded like Tom Boyd, or back ended. Players will take an effective pay cut to extend their years. The contract was for a maximum of $300,000 from Collingwood and that doesn’t change. The honouring of Treloar’s $900,000 contract simply needs to be counted in both clubs TPP. Any change doesn’t change that every cent is accounted for in either TPP. So I don’t see how ‘tampering’ can be inferred. I can’t find any rule that prohibits parties renegotiating a commercial contract provided that every cent is included in clubs TPP. We are trading one thing, in return for another thing. That’s ‘trading’. A simply renegotiation where all parties are satisfied, where all amounts are accurately recorded in the TPP’s and which appear to breach no rule should not upset the AFEL or anyone else. Granted I sat through way too much contract law than I care to remember, but I don’t see any issue.

What part do you feel is not valid renegotiation and thus ‘tampering’?

Each deal has to stand on it's own and the Treloar deal has been struck, agreed to and ratified. It's done.
The exchange of picks, the terms of an existing playing contact are being honoured for a player and the finances to make that happen has been agreed to and completed. All this has been signed off by the AFL.
I don't believe you can now go back and adjust the Treloar deal just because you are wanting to be creative on another deal especially for an uncontracted player like Lipinski.
We can't even offer Lipinski to them for a bargain price because he does not have a contract with us beyond this year.
What I think is being suggested is a form of tampering with the salary cap and teams can't put a price on draft picks and effecitvely sell them.

If we were trading a player like Tim English who has a year to go on his contract we could potentially offer to pay a large percentage of his remaining contract for a compensating pick but I don't think we could roll the outstanding money from the Treloar deal as part of a new deal.

[bulldogtragic]

Re: 2021 Rolling List Management Discussion

Each deal has to stand on it's own and the Treloar deal has been struck, agreed to and ratified. It's done.
The exchange of picks, the terms of an existing playing contact are being honoured for a player and the finances to make that happen has been agreed to and completed. All this has been signed off by the AFL.
I don't believe you can now go back and adjust the Treloar deal just because you are wanting to be creative on another deal especially for an uncontracted player like Lipinski.
We can't even offer Lipinski to them for a bargain price because he does not have a contract with us beyond this year.
What I think is being suggested is a form of tampering with the salary cap and teams can't put a price on draft picks and effecitvely sell them.

If we were trading a player like Tim English who has a year to go on his contract we could potentially offer to pay a large percentage of his remaining contract for a compensating pick but I don't think we could roll the outstanding money from the Treloar deal as part of a new deal.

That’s the disconnect. Lippa has nothing to do with what I’ve been saying. Not selling picks. That’s skewing our discussion.

Collingwood have to trade future picks to cover Daicos. Let alone picks for other players. The alternative strategy is to trade out a gun player, say Moore, Grundy etc.

The latter gets them the Draft Points necessary and achieve their other needs. They again reiterated this week their salary cap is a problem.

Say they hypothetically put up a gun. We can give them a player, first rounder and can help them with cap relief in the broader deal. There is no ‘money for picks’. That would be tampering. I’m not suggesting anything even close to that. But…

I just re-read the relevant section of the The AFL Rules just now. There is nothing to prohibit a contract renegotiation with the two clubs and Treloar, provided that every cent is in the TPPs. There’s even scope to send it to the AFEL prior to for approval. As a matter of the AFL Rules and of basic contract law, I’m not seeing a single problem for what I’m actually saying. But referencing Lippa and picks I can see your point about tampering. But that’s not what I’m advocating. There’s scope to look at this in a scenario of a larger bigger trade, where they put up a gun we want. Which who knows what strategy they go with, it could be wasted breath. But as I say I’m even more convinced reading the AFL Rules again just now that it’s fair game in the context I’ve hopefully more clearly articulated and where all dollars are reported in TPPs (so no TPP breaches).

[Grantysghost]

Re: 2021 Rolling List Management Discussion

Never a target but Matt Crouch has re-signed with Crows for two years taking him out of the FA picture.

[bulldogtragic]

Re: 2021 Rolling List Management Discussion

https://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/m...e094f239026895


Lifelong Western Bulldogs supporter Patrick Lipinski has played his last game for the club and will formally request a trade to either Collingwood or Carlton later this month.

Lipinski, 23, fell out of favour mid-season and has managed just two AFL games since May. He was not named in the 26-man squad for Saturday night’s semi-final against Brisbane Lions.

The goalkicking midfielder falls out of contract this year and has no interest in signing the deal tabled by the Bulldogs early in the season.

It was speculated that Lipinski could land at Sydney next year where he would add to a dangerous forward mix of players such as Isaac Heeney and Oliver Florent.

I guess Pat is cutting the oranges then. Your manager is meant to leak this stuff after you stop playing finals, Pat. I guess your manager thought we were cooked a couple of days ago. Thanks for your service, but feel free to rest up now for your new club. Don’t want an LTI to go get in the way of your plans. Any chance of replacing any injured players for this week’s Prelim isn’t realistic now. Hopefully you’re in the stands again in a few weeks for another premiership. I hope you have a long career and get us a good trade. Thanks and all the best Pat.

[boydogs]

Re: 2021 Rolling List Management Discussion

If Lipinski could at least stick his tackles we could play him, but he was the weak link that sides could stroll past through the middle of the ground when he played for us this year

[Bornadog]

Re: 2021 Rolling List Management Discussion

BULLDOGS REITERATE STANCE ON LIPINSKI AND DUNKLEY

Western Bulldogs CEO Ameet Bains has reiterated the club’s desire to keep midfielder Patrick Lipinski.

The Herald Sun understands the 23-year-old will formally request a trade to either Collingwood or Carlton later this month.

Lipinski is without a contract for 2022 and has a three-year deal on the table from the Bulldogs.

“The club is in constant contact with his management, but also Pat,” Bains told Sportsday.

“The club is firmly on record as saying how much we want Pat to stay and it’s on record that he’s got a three-year contract offer in front of him.

“It’s a decision that he’ll clearly need to make with his management.

“He’s a really loved and valued member of our group as well, so obviously we’re hoping he decides to stay.”

Lipinski has fallen out of favour at the Dogs, making just 11 senior appearances this campaign to take his career games tally to 56 across five seasons.

Bains also expects midfielder Josh Dunkley to remain at Whitten Oval next season.

Dunkley, who requested a trade to Essendon last year, has reportedly opened talks with the Bulldogs over a new contract.


The 24-year-old’s current deal expires at the end of 2022.

[bulldogtragic]

Re: 2021 Rolling List Management Discussion

Gotta love the public posturing so far out from the trade window.

[The Underdog]

Re: 2021 Rolling List Management Discussion

Gotta love the public posturing so far out from the trade window.

Imagine what it’s gonna be like with a 2 week break between the prelims and the GF?

[Mofra]

Re: 2021 Rolling List Management Discussion

Gotta love the public posturing so far out from the trade window.

"We will not trade Tom Boyd under any circumstance"
"The coach has the full support of the board"

[Axe Man]

Re: 2021 Rolling List Management Discussion

"We will not trade Tom Boyd under any circumstance"
"The coach has the full support of the board"

"I don't like Matthew Suckling" EW

[EasternWest]

Re: 2021 Rolling List Management Discussion

"We will not trade Tom Boyd under any circumstance"
"The coach has the full support of the board"

"I don't like Matthew Suckling" EW

One of these things you can take to the bank.