Question about GWS Recruiting

Armoooo · Post: # 1103888Post **Armoooo** » Tue 12 Jul 2011 10:55pm

I have a hypothetical That I was hoping somebody would be able to clear up.

This probaly could have gone in the Mitch Clark thread but I thought it is a situation that could apply to other players that are coming out of contract.

Say Mitch Clark decides he doesn't want to play for Brisbane next season which I would say is about 90% likely to happen IMO he will basically have his choice of clubs.

He is from WA so you could assume that Freo and West Coast are in the driving scene but I don't believe he will go to West Coast because he would have to compete with Cox, Naitanui, Lycett, Lynch, Kennedy and Darnling. He would fit in very well at Freo which makes me think that is where he will land.

However if the rumours are to be believed, we have met with Clark which means he must atleast be considering the possibility of coming to us.

The problem everyone has assumed to be is what we would have to pay for him... the question I have is would we have to give anything to Brisbane at all or could we take them out of the equation.

Say Clark doesn't want to play for GWS can we make a deal with Clark and GWS where they sign Clark and then we give them a package for him.

So would we be able to do something like this....

Gilbert and Stanley to GWS for Mitch Clark?

Or is there a rule where if an expansion team signs an uncontracted player he can't be traded on?

Another target could be Taylor Walker (I think he's out of contract?).

If GWS decide that there is nobody at Brisbane or Adelaide that appeals to them they could play as a middle man to atleast get something of value out of a potential player signing that they didn't intend on using.[/u]

plugger66 · Tue 12 Jul 2011 10:58pm

Why wouldnt they just take Gibert and Stanley anyway if they are out of contract not that they would want stanley?

Armoooo · Post: # 1103899Post **Armoooo** » Tue 12 Jul 2011 11:05pm

Good question, are they both out of contract? I haven't been following contracts very closely ever since we signed like 13 players in one go.

It was more just a hypothetical anyway, I could have just as easily of said Nick Riewoldt and Brendon Goddard.

The same hypothetical would apply if there was more than one player they were interested in.

Say we were willing to give up Gram, Kosi and Gilbert, they could sign Gilbert but maybe Kosi and Gram would be of interest to GWS (before you laugh remember that GC took Fraser and Harris). They could take one of them for free and we could give them two players that they want for a player that was never theres to begin with.

BigMart · Post: # 1103905Post **BigMart** » Tue 12 Jul 2011 11:10pm

Because gilbert and stanley might not want to play with them.....they could only force them there via the draft, which means sam and rhys would have to nominate.....

They have to sign uncontracted players, not steal them

If they do sign them, we would get a compensatory pick....if we countered

Or they did what gc did with collingwood re: fraser......and they used that to get krakour, who gc had listed...

Old Mate · Post: # 1103906Post **Old Mate** » Tue 12 Jul 2011 11:10pm

My head hurts

Stillwaiting · Tue 12 Jul 2011 11:13pm

I think Gilbert is contracted. Why Would GWS give up anything for Stanley at this point when they will have free reign over un contracted players and just about the whole draft. Stanley will not be considered by thrm

Armoooo · Post: # 1103910Post **Armoooo** » Tue 12 Jul 2011 11:14pm

BigMart wrote:Because gilbert and stanley might not want to play with them.....they could only force them there via the draft, which means sam and rhys would have to nominate.....

They have to sign uncontracted players, not steal them

If they do sign them, we would get a compensatory pick....if we countered

Or they did what gc did with collingwood re: fraser......and they used that to get krakour, who gc had listed...

I think people are missing the point.

Say players x, y and z all either decide they don't want to play with St Kilda or are told there wont be any oppertunities at St Kilda next year.

GWS Sign player x. So we lose him for a compo pick.

We offer y and z to Brisbane for Mitch Clark but they decline.

GWS can't convince any Brisbane players to come play for them.

Could GWS sign Mitch Clark to simply trade him onto us, which Mitch is well aware of as are we.

So we trade players y and z to GWS for Mitch Clark.

Sorry about how badly I've written and explained all of this, I am on my phone and it's pretty hard to put across.

BigMart · Post: # 1103912Post **BigMart** » Tue 12 Jul 2011 11:15pm

Draft tampering......ala the veale deal....

Eastern · Post: # 1104015Post **Eastern** » Wed 13 Jul 2011 10:41am

Armoooo !!

The scenario you put forward in the OP sounds very similar to how Andrew Krakour got to Collingwood (via Gold Coast). So the short answer to your question is YES, but with conditions attached !!

matrix · Post: # 1104109Post **matrix** » Wed 13 Jul 2011 2:28pm

just let him go into the draft
everyone will leave him alone for 48 picks (slightly over the top on the number there) then we can use our first pick to get him.

sounds familiar for some reason

Sobraz · Post: # 1104135Post **Sobraz** » Wed 13 Jul 2011 3:36pm

Why can't we just draft tamper the same way Collingwood did with Ball and Carlton with Judd...

Mitch can nominate us as the team he wants to play with. The only team he wants to play with... Won't play with anyone else... He can even announce it at a special press conference...

Put a price on his head, or we give him 350-400 a year, plus a few third party payments, which the AFL has given the all clear to (which to me is blatant salary cap cheating, but who doesn't do it/who cares)...

Lost interest and faith in the whole system a few years ago when Judd interviewed the teams to see where he'd take his services... It's starting to stink more than ever...

stkildathunda · Wed 13 Jul 2011 3:52pm

Eastern wrote:Armoooo !!

The scenario you put forward in the OP sounds very similar to how Andrew Krakour got to Collingwood (via Gold Coast). So the short answer to your question is YES, but with conditions attached !!

No that was different. Krakwhore wasnt a AFL listed player and Gold Coast were able to sign a certain amount of VFL, WAFL etc etc types of players. Happened with a few others aswell. They were then able to on trade those players.

If they wanted they could trade any of their players currently listed on their list (Israel Folua anyone

)

Eastern · Post: # 1104151Post **Eastern** » Wed 13 Jul 2011 4:02pm

stkildathunda wrote:
Eastern wrote:Armoooo !!

The scenario you put forward in the OP sounds very similar to how Andrew Krakour got to Collingwood (via Gold Coast). So the short answer to your question is YES, but with conditions attached !!
No that was different. Krakwhore wasnt a AFL listed player and Gold Coast were able to sign a certain amount of VFL, WAFL etc etc types of players. Happened with a few others aswell. They were then able to on trade those players.

If they wanted they could trade any of their players currently listed on their list (Israel Folua anyone )

Oh. OK !!

stkildathunda · Wed 13 Jul 2011 4:10pm

Eastern wrote:
stkildathunda wrote:
Eastern wrote:Armoooo !!

The scenario you put forward in the OP sounds very similar to how Andrew Krakour got to Collingwood (via Gold Coast). So the short answer to your question is YES, but with conditions attached !!
No that was different. Krakwhore wasnt a AFL listed player and Gold Coast were able to sign a certain amount of VFL, WAFL etc etc types of players. Happened with a few others aswell. They were then able to on trade those players.

If they wanted they could trade any of their players currently listed on their list (Israel Folua anyone )
Oh. OK !!

Its actually one of the loopholes the AFL clubs didnt know about until just before trade week.