Retire / Trade / Delist | PUNT ROAD END | Richmond Tigers Forum
  • If you are having trouble logging in to the forum please contact [email protected] // When reseting your password or awaiting confirmation please check that your email is correct and also your junk/spam emails.
  • IMPORTANT! Our inbox is full of email errors from members who have not updated their emails, please follow the instructions on how to update here
  • IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.

Retire / Trade / Delist

taztiger4

Shovelheads- Keeping hipsters off Harley's
Jul 13, 2005
6,808
4,282
Richmond Victoria
Yes I think you still use a pick. I believe we have delisted (and will re-rookie) both Biggie and Noah so we could maximise the number of picks we take to the ND, which might enable us to trade on the night. We will promote at least 2 from the rookie list on the night, probably Stack and either Pickett or Mansell I suspect.
Not quite,

7 Rookies were elevated last week

We have a further opportunity to upgrade a couple sarting at 10PM after the draft !

Thursday 25 November at 10.00pm – Rookie Upgrade Period opens; AFL Delisted Player Free Agency Period (3) commences

Thursday 25 November at 11.00pm – Rookie Upgrade Period closes; AFL Delisted Player Free Agency Period (3) closes
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

achillesjones

"just kick it to Royce"
Apr 19, 2004
2,580
1,434
I cant understand the anti vax viewpoint but I do admire his conviction to do what he believes is right, regardless of financial loss.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users

artball

labels are for canned food
Jul 30, 2013
4,766
2,563
Interesting decision. :oops:
indeed ...

i know a couple of anti - vaxxers and they bang on about Choice and Coercion yet are happy to work with required permits, drive a car with rego and a license, pay bills, carry passports, carry a mobile, vote, use banks, etc etc etc ...

*smile* off ...
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 10 users

French Tiger

Tiger Champion
Oct 6, 2004
4,616
987
indeed ...

i know a couple of anti - vaxxers and they bang on about Choice and Coercion yet are happy to work with required permits, drive a car with rego and a license, pay bills, carry passports, carry a mobile, vote, use banks, etc etc etc ...

*smile* off ...
Exactly.
 

TigerFurious

Smooth
Dec 17, 2002
2,599
1,235
So, let me get this straight. GCS delist Greenwood, who had 2 years to run on his contract and presumably got paid out, with a promise to redraft him as a rookie. This was all to allow them “more flexibility” with list management.

North, ever the big game hunter, swoop in and sign Greenwood to their primary list for 2 years.

Net result is GCS loose a player they wanted to keep while paying him out for the next two years. North finally land their “big fish”. Greenwood somehow gets 4 years worth of player salary for only the next two years of service.

Is that correct?
 

Quickdraw

End of the drought
Jun 8, 2013
2,231
2,844
Might be no love lost between GCS & Norf. First clash next year might be interesting viewing :cool:
 

Wildride

Tiger Superstar
Sep 6, 2006
1,721
256
Brisbane
So, let me get this straight. GCS delist Greenwood, who had 2 years to run on his contract and presumably got paid out, with a promise to redraft him as a rookie. This was all to allow them “more flexibility” with list management.

North, ever the big game hunter, swoop in and sign Greenwood to their primary list for 2 years.

Net result is GCS loose a player they wanted to keep while paying him out for the next two years. North finally land their “big fish”. Greenwood somehow gets 4 years worth of player salary for only the next two years of service.

Is that correct?
I don't think that Greenwood got paid out, so he's only getting paid for the next two years by North, not by both GCS and North.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users

The Big Richo

Moderator
Staff member
Aug 19, 2010
2,201
3,815
The home of Dusty
So, let me get this straight. GCS delist Greenwood, who had 2 years to run on his contract and presumably got paid out, with a promise to redraft him as a rookie. This was all to allow them “more flexibility” with list management.

North, ever the big game hunter, swoop in and sign Greenwood to their primary list for 2 years.

Net result is GCS loose a player they wanted to keep while paying him out for the next two years. North finally land their “big fish”. Greenwood somehow gets 4 years worth of player salary for only the next two years of service.

Is that correct?

I don't think the Gold Coast would be paying him out, they will have agreed on a contract variation for him to be transferred to the rookie list on the same wage to give the club a little salary cap cushion.

I imagine what has happened is North have seen the opportunity and offered him enough money to turn his head.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

TigerFurious

Smooth
Dec 17, 2002
2,599
1,235
I don't think the Gold Coast would be paying him out, they will have agreed on a contract variation for him to be transferred to the rookie list on the same wage to give the club a little salary cap cushion.

I imagine what has happened is North have seen the opportunity and offered him enough money to turn his head.
AFL site said he had two years to run on his current contract at GCS. I’m no expect but I’m fairly sure if you delist a player you have to pay them out whatever remains on the contract. You only negotiate if they are retiring before their contract ends.

Even at base wage, GCS just paid Greenwood $300k+ to go play for North.
 
  • Dislike
Reactions: 1 user

The Mole

Tiger Superstar
Apr 1, 2003
2,317
961
I always thought it was an unwritten rule that if the club was going to relist them then the other clubs wouldn't touch them. I was wrong. The AFL are not going to like their love-child GCS being made look silly like this.
 

The Big Richo

Moderator
Staff member
Aug 19, 2010
2,201
3,815
The home of Dusty
AFL site said he had two years to run on his current contract at GCS. I’m no expect but I’m fairly sure if you delist a player you have to pay them out whatever remains on the contract. You only negotiate if they are retiring before their contract ends.

Even at base wage, GCS just paid Greenwood $300k+ to go play for North.

That's correct if you are straight delisting them but in the event you are committing to redrafting them I'm sure you could make an agreement.

Otherwise in delisting and redrafting him Greenwood will have been paid out on his original contract and then drafted again on a 75k rookie wage. It would make absolutely no sense for a club to do that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

TigerFurious

Smooth
Dec 17, 2002
2,599
1,235
Otherwise in delisting and redrafting him Greenwood will have been paid out on his original contract and then drafted again on a 75k rookie wage. It would make absolutely no sense for a club to do that.
Agree, except if GCS were struggling to make minimum TPP. Greenwood’s entire payout would go under this year cap. Would explain why Greenwood agreed to the move in the first place. He gets two years salary up front plus an extra year at least on rookie $.

Or, and this is probably more likely given their history, GCS just *smile* up.
 

The Big Richo

Moderator
Staff member
Aug 19, 2010
2,201
3,815
The home of Dusty
Agree, except if GCS were struggling to make minimum TPP. Greenwood’s entire payout would go under this year cap. Would explain why Greenwood agreed to the move in the first place. He gets two years salary up front plus an extra year at least on rookie $.

Or, and this is probably more likely given their history, GCS just *smile* up.

I don't think any club is struggling to make the minimum with the cuts that have been made. I think they probably just didn't anticipate anyone else would want him, and certainly not for better money than he is on now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

TOT70

I'm just a suburban boy
Jul 27, 2004
9,443
2,495
Melbourne
The “unwritten agreement” is for development players. The thinking is that a club has already put two years development into a junior and they want to move him onto the rookie list to continue that development. They leave these guys alone because it might be them next year. Hence the agreement- what goes around comes around.

On which planet would Greenwood be considered a development player?

Gold Coast are already rorting the draft this year. They have traded most of their picks into next year, keeping only pick 3 because the AFL is allowing them to just list any players from Queensland and NT without bothering with the draft.

How much more do they want for free?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users