afl.com.au posted:

WEST Coast premiership coach John Worsfold has confirmed he wants to return to AFL senior coaching at Essendon.

The news comes a day after Adelaide announced Worsfold would soon leave the club.

He is the outright favourite to be the Bombers' next senior coach.

Worsfold, who coached West Coast to the 2006 premiership, had been temporary football director at the Crows since the death of their coach Phil Walsh.

After saying he was not interested in a return to senior coaching, Worsfold revealed late last month that he had changed his mind.

And on Wednesday, Worsfold said that he wanted to coach the Bombers.

"It took getting back into footy to realise I'm kidding myself - I think I know what I really love doing," he told Channel Seven.

"It feels like it's what I should be doing.

"For that to be a coaching role at Essendon, obviously I have to show them that I have the energy, the hunger and the ability to fulfil what they're looking for."

It is understood Essendon's coaching sub-committee will meet with Worsfold by the end of the week.

"I've been given a brief on what I'm expected to present, as the other (candidates) will," he said.

"They don't really know me yet.

"They might know of me, but they really need to hear from me what I'm all about.

Worsfold's initial about-face on senior coaching prompted Essendon to send a high-level club delegation to Adelaide for a meeting with him.

But the Bombers have strongly denied persistent speculation they offered Worsfold a five-year deal.

Worsfold stepped aside from his role as AFL Coaches Association chairman during his time at the Crows.

"John's decision to explore the Bombers role comes after his three-month stint at Adelaide, during which time he whetted his appetite for life as an AFL coach," coaches association chief executive Mark Brayshaw said in a statement.

"We wish him well as he meets with Essendon and, if he decides to formally apply for the role, we would wholeheartedly endorse his application."



Worsfold is West Coast's longest-serving senior coach after being in charge from 2002-13

pkid posted:

Essendon is going to wind up with another coach without going through a process to find the best candidate. Idiots.

quote:

Geelong has not yet ruled out trying to secure him through either the national draft or pre-season draft.

But that road is littered with obstacles given it is understood they will not front-end a deal, unwilling to play tricks to scare off Adelaide.

Brisbane, with the second pick in the pre-season draft, yesterday made it clear it would snaffle Dangerfield if available in either of the drafts.

pkid posted:

Essendon is going to wind up with another coach without going through a process to find the best candidate. Idiots.

NTRabbit posted:

Adelaide match the offer, Geelong have to trade for him if they want them, because they aren't able to conjur a contract that puts him out of the reach of other Melbourne clubs who would absolutely pick him in the draft, and back themselves to keep him.

I'm sure Adelaide and Geelong have been negotiating over exactly how this is going to work for weeks already anyway, negotiations that Gil McLachlan was clearly privy to before his interview on AFL 360. Adelaide don't want to get screwed by just getting compensation, Geelong don't want to give up anything, and the AFL don't want to piss off the AFLPA by having the first contentious RFA switch fall over spectacularly, so they've probably been in mediated negotiations.

snaeksikn posted:

gay picnic defence posted:

I wonder if Adelaide get offered a little something from the AFL to not make too much trouble.

NTRabbit posted:

Not sure what they would actually have available to offer us though, if they tried to turn the compensation pick into pick 1, or generate an additional first round compensation pick out of thin air, Carlton and Brisbane would cut sick, and be banging down the door demanding their priority pick.

gay picnic defence posted:

I was thinking money or some subtle changes to next years fixture to ensure a bit more revenue finds it's way to the Crows. As you say it'd be hard to do anything in the draft without every other club having a sook.

NTRabbit posted:

A friendly fixture is not useful compensation for losing the clubs best player for a pittance, especially when our finances are already sound. It has to be on field compensation, because the only way we can make up for him walking out on us is through aggressive trading with first round draft picks as the currency, and new top 10 talent.

gay picnic defence posted:

Better than nothing though. I guess this is the era where players stop getting drafted outside their own state.

NTRabbit posted:

It pretty much is, our recruiters have already been running under a rule where if two players we value completely equally are available at our selection, being from Vic Metro is the losing half of the tie breaker thanks to their propensity for loving off back to Melbourne at the first chance they get. Now we have to extend that to Vic Country as well.

gay picnic defence posted:

Maybe we need to bring back zones, or something similar. Or give crap states to live in like QLD and SA (and eventually Tasmania) the right to bid on any player from that state the same as F/S and academy picks.

Schlesische posted:

Quick 'n Dirty Fix: bring in academies for all teams.

glasnost toyboy posted:

Who knows really, young kid, electric pace, hamstrings developing - it's not like he's the first player to be plagued by it as his body grows. Asking for $300k plus when you've barely gotten through a VFL game is bit worrying, I'm surprised there's such interest in him really.

Periphery posted:

I don't think he was necessarily asking for 300k without any prompting. I'd hazard a guess and say the Saints offered him 300k and he then tried to see if the Pies would match it. If the market is telling him he's worth 300k then I don't see why it's worrying to ask for that.

snaeksikn posted:

Schlesische posted:

Quick 'n Dirty Fix: bring in academies for all teams.
Alternatively, allow teams to make F/S and Academy style picks for players on their state team.

Corzaa posted:

Could the Dogs afford Dangerfield?

NTRabbit posted:

Geelong could price him out of the reach of everyone except St Kilda, Melbourne and Brisbane in the ND/PSD, but that would mean breaking their much vaunted wage structure and paying him 2/3 more than Selwood is getting, while still leaving three clubs who would draft him on those terms, whether he's taken their calls and done a medical or not.

Testekill posted:

Yeah, that's the big thing. Geelong have a ton of space in their salary cap now and it would probably be nigh impossible for most teams to match it. And then any teams that can match aren't going to be attractive destinations

NTRabbit posted:

We can match anything Geelong can put to him for RFA purposes as we've still got 13 players plus Dangerfield unsigned not including our retiring pair, and it really doesn't matter whether the others are attractive destinations or not once it goes as far as the draft. If he's there they'll take him, ala Nick Stevens to Carlton, and then he has to live with it.

Testekill posted:

Restricted free agents mean that you are allowed to match an offer, not that he has to go into the draft if he doesn't accept your offer. It also doesn't matter if you match an offer when he wants to go to another destination and can just turn down a larger offer that Adelaide has put in front of them.

NTRabbit posted:

If we match the RFA offer, which we can do, and he rejects us, then it goes to a trade. He doesn't get to reject our offer and automatically go to Geelong. The draft stuff is only there should a trade fail to happen.

hiddenmovement posted:

Does anyone else think that forcing a side to pay 90% of their salary cap no matter what is highly detrimental to the development of bad teams? It seems absurd that a side like Geelong, that finished 10th in spite of a swathe of injuries, has more cap room than Carlton that have a joke of a list. Surely bad sides should have the luxury of having lots of cap space with which to attract free agents? Why should they be robbed of that trade tool just so they can artificially pay hacks like David Ellard way above market asking price?

Testekill posted:

So you would rather Adelaide get no compensation out of spite instead of letting him get to his destination? Because Geelong don't need to play ball with you guys

NTRabbit posted:

I want Geelong to pay us reasonable market value for one of the best players in the game. If they can't cop to that, then no compensation and Dangerfield going to Melbourne is better for us and the competition than Geelong getting him for nothing at all. Quite tired of Geelong and Hawthorn just leaning over and grabbing whomever the gently caress they want from everyone else at zero cost.

Testekill posted:

And what makes you think they're not going to pay market value for Dangerfield? Dangerfield has put 800k on his head and if Geelong pay him 800k then they're paying what they feel he's worth. It's 4 million over five years, that's a very strong contract and probably about market value although you can justify even more.

spamman posted:

I'm sure a lot of teams earlier in the PSD than Geelong could find the cap space for Dangerfield. I'm also sure getting something for him from Melbourne (as an example) and having him go to Melbourne is preferable long term than getting something from Geelong and having him go to Geelong.

Testekill posted:

It's pretty ridiculous. Guys like Dawes & Lumumba have pretty inflated salaries thanks to Melbourne having to make the minimum of the cap. Bulldogs only just barely snuck under 95% and that was with paying Griffen's contract this season.

Testekill posted:

If we moved on Minson then maybe. Would probably be cutting it a bit close

Although we have allegedly offered a pretty strong contract to Carlisle which probably wouldn't be that far off what Dangerfield is wanting (I think Dangerfield wants 800k)