View Full Version : Welsh's Future - Apparantly has Re-signed.
swanfan
19 Oct 2006, 10:14
SCOTT Welsh's future at Adelaide remains in limbo with the Crows' three-time leading goalkicker still to re-sign with the club.
Welsh has been offered a 'take-it-or-leave-it' one-year contract by Adelaide - understood to be about $80,000 less than he was paid this year - and if he doesn't accept he will be delisted. The Crows yesterday axed Jack Oatey Medallist Hayden Skipworth, second-year key position player Chad Gibson and first-year tall Alan Obst, who join club champion Ben Hart and ruckman Matthew Clarke (retired) in being cut from the squad.
And they warned 27-year-old Welsh would be added to the list if he doesn't re-sign by "the time limit we've given him."
"Welsh is still in negotiations and if he says he doesn't like what he's been offered I suppose at the end of the day we can't do much about that," Crows football operations manager John Reid said.
"We are waiting for Scotty to come back to us now and give us an indication where he sits. We've given him a time limit and we'll hear from him when we hear from him."
Reid said he hoped Welsh, who played just six games this year because of injury, would stay at the club.
If Welsh doesn't re-sign he can nominate for the pre-season draft on December 12.
Reid said Welsh was the only "unknown quantity" on Adelaide's playing list, saying "there won't be any other delistings".
Welsh, who led Adelaide's goalkicking in 2000, 2004 and 2005, has played 108 games for the Crows and kicked 221 goals after 30 goals in 36 games for the Kangaroos from 1996-99. He played in the Roos' 1999 premiership side.
The Crows have offered him a reduced deal because of concerns over his body which has continually let him down.
Skipworth, voted best afield in this year's SANFL grand final where he helped Woodville-West Torrens break a 13-year premiership drought, is the unlucky Adelaide omission.
He was shopped during the five-day trade period and had a medical with the Kangaroos and another Victorian club but a trade agreement could not be reached.
"It wasn't an easy call on Skippy because he's been a good contributor," Reid said.
"We are replenishing our list over a period of time, so it (the decision to cut him) is a combination of the two."
Under-achieving key forward Luke Jericho was retained with Reid saying "we think he's still got something and he'll get an opportunity to show that."
Gibson, who struggled with injury, and Obst both failed to play an AFL game in their time at the club.
ESSENDON has made its first end-of-season cuts, delisting backman Aaron Henneman, forward Joel Reynolds and ruckman Tristan Cartledge.
Rookies Ben Jolley, who made his AFL debut this year, and Tim O'Keefe also have been delisted after two years on the rookie list.
The Bombers, with six picks in the top 47 in the national draft, are expected to announce at least one more delisting.
Veteran on-baller Damien Peverill and much-maligned utility Mark Bolton have signed new one-year contracts to stay at Windy Hill
I don't really want to see this happen but if it does what can we do. :(
Mad Dog
19 Oct 2006, 10:19
Word is he is pissed orff - but after putting the feelers out to other clubs with not much response - he will re-sign.
swanfan
19 Oct 2006, 10:20
Word is he is pissed orff - but after putting the feelers out to other clubs with not much response - he will re-sign.
Lets just hope its a storm in a tea cup Mad Dog. :)
Stiffy_18
19 Oct 2006, 10:57
Word is he is pissed orff - but after putting the feelers out to other clubs with not much response - he will re-sign.
I've heard the same but honestly is there a reason for him to be pissed off?!
He could hardly get on the park and got this year's wages for doing bugger all.
I think he will re-sign but if he doesn't we move on.
IMHO, this tough stance by the club is another indication that the club is planning to push more youth through than in the last couple of years. Every move since the end of the season has screamed "rebuilding" to me.
Mad Dog
19 Oct 2006, 11:15
I've heard the same but honestly is there a reason for him to be pissed off?!
He could hardly get on the park and got this year's wages for doing bugger all.
I think he needs to cop it on the chin - come out and kick 60 goals and earn a better contract next year.....it's man or mouse time for Welshy....;)
IMHO, this tough stance by the club is another indication that the club is planning to push more youth through than in the last couple of years. Every move since the end of the season has screamed "rebuilding" to me.
Agree - one of my biggest criticisms of the club in previous years is that it's taken way too long to determine whether a player is up to it or not. I've got no problem if a percentage of players turn out to be duds - every club has them - as long as we identify them early and not waste years working it out.
AS you say the Gibson/Obst decision is evidence of a greater urgency.
Fred Phillis
19 Oct 2006, 11:20
who are we planning to spend the $80,000 on that the club wants to save from Welsh???
Stiffy_18
19 Oct 2006, 11:28
who are we planning to spend the $80,000 on that the club wants to save from Welsh???
Maybe paying out Obst's contract :confused:
I don't think its neccessarily a matter of saving but the club wants it money's worth. Welshy didn't earn his pay this year and I would take a guess and say he has been severely overpaid for his contribution in 2006. Surely he would have expected something like this :confused:
Big Cox
19 Oct 2006, 11:32
If you dont want him Eagles will have him. Im a fan. Come to Eagles Welshy :cool:
Maybe paying out Obst's contract :confused:
I don't think its neccessarily a matter of saving but the club wants it money's worth. Welshy didn't earn his pay this year and I would take a guess and say he has been severely overpaid for his contribution in 2006. Surely he would have expected something like this :confused:
Exactly. When players come off a good season they push for more pay........the opposite must also apply.
He got 48 kicks this year and kicked 12 goals. I don't know what he was on contract wise this season, but for the purposes of my argument I'll use $250k.
That would be over $5,000 a kick and $20,000 a goal.
Vic Crow
19 Oct 2006, 12:18
Big fan of Welshy, but he really has to take a cut next year on account of not doing anything this year to deserve his pay packet this year.
It was bad luck and not directly his fault (it was injury, not bad form) that he played so few games (and came back rusty, to boot) but he has to cop that and understand what the club are doing here.
I think he needs to cop it on the chin - come out and kick 60 goals and earn a better contract next year.....it's man or mouse time for Welshy....;)
Agreed.
Agree - one of my biggest criticisms of the club in previous years is that it's taken way too long to determine whether a player is up to it or not. I've got no problem if a percentage of players turn out to be duds - every club has them - as long as we identify them early and not waste years working it out.
AS you say the Gibson/Obst decision is evidence of a greater urgency.
In recent years, the club has been notably indecisive about certain players - e.g. Skipworth (drafted - delisted - rookie - promoted - delisted), Shirley (drafted - delisted - redrafted), Smith (drafted - delisted - rookie - promoted - delisted) Porplyzia (rookie - delisted - drafted).
Is there another AFL club that has been so many of the same players bounce in and out of their lists in that time?
And would history suggest that we may not have seen the last of Gibson or Obst?
who are we planning to spend the $80,000 on that the club wants to save from Welsh???
The club would have more money from Clarke/Hart than any amount saved from Welsh
CrowMagnum
19 Oct 2006, 13:56
If you dont want him Eagles will have him. Im a fan. Come to Eagles Welshy :cool:
On that point, why wasn't this sorted out prior to trade week so that he could have at least been traded if he didn't want to stay, rather than potentially lose him to the PSD?
On that point, why wasn't this sorted out prior to trade week so that he could have at least been traded if he didn't want to stay, rather than potentially lose him to the PSD?
He wouldn't have been great trade bait anyway - for precisely the same reasons that Adelaide are looking at delisting him. His age, combined with his history of injuries.
AndrewJo
19 Oct 2006, 18:47
On that point, why wasn't this sorted out prior to trade week so that he could have at least been traded if he didn't want to stay, rather than potentially lose him to the PSD?
He was out of contract (technically because he had not re-signed) and all other clubs would have known that. If there was Any interest from any other clubs there would have been some contact with Adelaide. I think the writing is on the wall. Scotty needs to re-sign or his AFL days are over. Unless you can be available for most games you are likely to be "under the pump" the following season.
RoosterLad
19 Oct 2006, 18:52
If he has a big year next year he will get an improved contract.
If i only went to work 5 days a year, should i get a full years pay?
Crow-mo
19 Oct 2006, 19:37
Given how important Scott Welsh is to our prospects in 2007, especially given Trents inury, the fact that we are prepared to jettison him all but confirms Stiffy's view about us being in surreptitious rebulding mode.
AndrewJo
19 Oct 2006, 21:10
Given how important Scott Welsh is to our prospects in 2007, especially given Trents inury, the fact that we are prepared to jettison him all but confirms Stiffy's view about us being in surreptitious rebulding mode.
Cutting the level of his contract does not mean that we are prepared to jettison him. The Club is just being realistic in offering a contract the fits his output.
As a comparison at the beginning of the 2006 season how would the respective contracts for Scott Welsh, Scott Stevens and Kris Massie compare? I would guess that Scotty was getting at least double the other 2. If you were paying them on a performance based contract I would suggest that for 2006 Scott S and Kris would get at least 400% on top of ScottW.
Hence the club has probably tried to even out payments so that those who play will receive a better deal. It is probably a fact in AFL that you seem to be paid by how you played (or did not play) the previous year when getting your contract for future years. Obvious exceptions are young players who show promise for the future (e.g. Douglas).
Chin up Scott Welsh...put in a good season in 2007 and your rate will rise again.
Stiffy_18
19 Oct 2006, 21:18
Cutting the level of his contract does not mean that we are prepared to jettison him.
True, but if the club was of serious belief that we will be good enough to make the GF, they would have made a significant offer since they do see him as important player.
If AFC's history is anything to go by, we would have given Welshy a better contract if we thought we are a legitimate chance for a flag. Since I believe that the AFC think we are unlikely to be there, they have given him a contract that is considrably less than his last one.
macca23
19 Oct 2006, 22:08
True, but if the club was of serious belief that we will be good enough to make the GF, they would have made a significant offer since they do see him as important player.
If AFC's history is anything to go by, we would have given Welshy a better contract if we thought we are a legitimate chance for a flag. Since I believe that the AFC think we are unlikely to be there, they have given him a contract that is considrably less than his last one.
Stiffy, I disagree with this theory about thinking we are not good enough, using Welsh as an indicator.
Welsh was as useless as tits on a ball when it really counted in the finals last year, and if we are going to pin our hopes on Scotty Welsh then we are well and truly behind the 8 ball. He is unreliable, inconsistent and injury prone. An out of form Kenny McGregor would have done a far better job against West Coast - if only he had played!!
Or a fit in form Roo would have made mincemeat out of Scotty's p isspoor effort in that match.
IMO the club has offered him what they have, because that's a fair reflection of what they think his current day worth is. Nothing more than that.
The fact that they are prepared to let him walk if that's what he prefers to do is once again a true indicator of the reduced value he holds in the clubs eyes.
Mad Dog
19 Oct 2006, 22:08
Given how important Scott Welsh is to our prospects in 2007, especially given Trents inury, the fact that we are prepared to jettison him all but confirms Stiffy's view about us being in surreptitious rebulding mode.
Could it be that NC has plans for Jericho?....:(
Mad Dog
19 Oct 2006, 22:13
IMO the club has offered him what they have, because that's a fair reflection of what they think his current day worth is. Nothing more than that.
The fact that they are prepared to let him walk if that's what he prefers to do is once again a true indicator of the reduced value he holds in the clubs eyes.
Did anyone see The Trigginator on Ch9 news tonight?
Sensationlist Kym: Will Scott re-sign ?
Trigginator: *shrug*, meh.......WGAF
did anyone else get that vibe ?...........or was that just me ?
SpringChoke
19 Oct 2006, 22:16
Did anyone see The Trigginator on Ch9 news tonight?
Sensationlist Kym: Will Scott re-sign ?
Trigginator: *shrug*, meh.......WGAF
did anyone else get that vibe ?...........or was that just me ?
WGAF?????:confused:
Mad Dog
19 Oct 2006, 22:18
WGAF?????:confused:
who
gives
A
----
SpringChoke
19 Oct 2006, 22:25
who
gives
A
----
Who Gives A Frog ???:confused:
Don't have a problem with what the AFC is doing given Welsh has played the no. of games over past 7 years:-
2000 - 22 (of 22)
2001 - 18 (of 23)
2002 - 13 (of 25)
2003 - 10 (of 24)
2004 - 16 (of 22)
2005 - 23 (of 25)
2006 - 5 (of 24)
thats 107 games of possible 165 - he has only played 2/3rds of a season over a 7 year period. If I'm not mistaken, his injuries have all been soft tissue (no broken legs, arms etc) therefore that is not good enough.
The call from the AFC may in some be harsh but this is a business and there is no room for sentimentality.
Crow-mo
19 Oct 2006, 22:33
Cutting the level of his contract does not mean that we are prepared to jettison him. The Club is just being realistic in offering a contract the fits his output.
As a comparison at the beginning of the 2006 season how would the respective contracts for Scott Welsh, Scott Stevens and Kris Massie compare? I would guess that Scotty was getting at least double the other 2. If you were paying them on a performance based contract I would suggest that for 2006 Scott S and Kris would get at least 400% on top of ScottW.
Hence the club has probably tried to even out payments so that those who play will receive a better deal. It is probably a fact in AFL that you seem to be paid by how you played (or did not play) the previous year when getting your contract for future years. Obvious exceptions are young players who show promise for the future (e.g. Douglas).
Chin up Scott Welsh...put in a good season in 2007 and your rate will rise again.
um, I think you missed the point.
when you give someone a take it or leave it offer - it means you are prepared to jettison them. thus the 'leave it' part ;)
SpringChoke
19 Oct 2006, 22:34
I hope Welsh plays on but I won't be devastated if he decides to go elsewhere. His finals form, or lack of, may have raised a few eyebrows at the AFC.
Mad Dog
19 Oct 2006, 22:36
call me odd - but the prospect of a "motivated Welshy" - or "a gap to be filled" excites me more than "more of the same".
Crow-mo
19 Oct 2006, 22:37
thats 107 games of possible 165 - he has only played 2/3rds of a season over a 7 year period. If I'm not mistaken, his injuries have all been soft tissue (no broken legs, arms etc) therefore that is not good enough.
that makes no sense
jenny61_99
19 Oct 2006, 22:57
Stiffy, I disagree with this theory about thinking we are not good enough, using Welsh as an indicator.
Welsh was as useless as tits on a ball when it really counted in the finals last year, and if we are going to pin our hopes on Scotty Welsh then we are well and truly behind the 8 ball. He is unreliable, inconsistent and injury prone. An out of form Kenny McGregor would have done a far better job against West Coast - if only he had played!!
Or a fit in form Roo would have made mincemeat out of Scotty's p isspoor effort in that match.
IMO the club has offered him what they have, because that's a fair reflection of what they think his current day worth is. Nothing more than that.
The fact that they are prepared to let him walk if that's what he prefers to do is once again a true indicator of the reduced value he holds in the clubs eyes.
And this, afterall, is a business. You don't continue to pay your employees at top dollar if they aren't performing (no matter what the circumstances). If every business continued to pay underperforming employees (ie. without consequences) then no bugger would perform because they know they'd still get paid! Scotty may be disappointed, but one would hope he is also realistic. Perform this year, and you'll get better rewarded next.
Crow-mo
19 Oct 2006, 23:15
I have to say, I find it interesting what most consider "not performing". he had a very good 2005.
in 2006 he was injured for the most part - and no one will doubt he wasn't good when he did make it onto the park.
however, he was injured, or more to the point - sick. how many of you would be happy to be judged by the same standard?
My suspicion is that there must be more than that, perhaps an attitude thing or something? the club obviously has it's reasons, but lets not confuse those with simply being injured. this idea that being injured is "not performing" is just nuts.
Mad Dog
19 Oct 2006, 23:20
I have to say, I find it interesting what most consider "not performing". he had a very good 2005.
in 2006 he was injured for the most part - and no one will doubt he wasn't good when he did make it onto the park.
however, he was injured, or more to the point - sick. how many of you would be happy to be judged by the same standard?
My suspicion is that there must be more than that, perhaps an attitude thing or something? the club obviously has it's reasons, but lets not confuse those with simply being injured. this idea that being injured is "not performing" is just nuts.
agree with what your saying....but it must be said that when he did get on the park - his performances were substandard.
I keep asking why you don't put him on a performance based contract? you get paid, if you play. Simple.
Is that not something adelaide have considered?
Mad Dog
19 Oct 2006, 23:38
I keep asking why you don't put him on a performance based contract? you get paid, if you play. Simple.
Is that not something adelaide have considered?
it's pretty much what has been done. Most contracts have a base vs performance weighting. All that's really happened here is that the weighting has changed in favour of performance.
it's pretty much what has been done. Most contracts have a base vs performance weighting. All that's really happened here is that the weighting has changed in favour of performance.
the quote I heard was that they offered 80k less? Do you think they've offered the same but said you'll have to play x number of games to get that amount?
I would put a guy on performance based contract too, if he was only able to play 5 games.
Stiffy_18
20 Oct 2006, 00:13
Don't have a problem with what the AFC is doing given Welsh has played the no. of games over past 7 years:-
2000 - 22 (of 22)
2001 - 18 (of 23)
2002 - 13 (of 25)
2003 - 10 (of 24)
2004 - 16 (of 22)
2005 - 23 (of 25)
2006 - 5 (of 24)
thats 107 games of possible 165 - he has only played 2/3rds of a season over a 7 year period. If I'm not mistaken, his injuries have all been soft tissue (no broken legs, arms etc) therefore that is not good enough.
The call from the AFC may in some be harsh but this is a business and there is no room for sentimentality.
He did have a pretty bad case of OP, some shin splins, leg fractures, back injuries and soft tissue injuries over that 7 year period.
Mad Dog
20 Oct 2006, 00:16
the quote I heard was that they offered 80k less? Do you think they've offered the same but said you'll have to play x number of games to get that amount?
I would put a guy on performance based contract too, if he was only able to play 5 games.
yes they've reported 80K less in base payments.
generally there is the opportunity to pick up greater match payments
Stiffy_18
20 Oct 2006, 00:17
agree with what your saying....but it must be said that when he did get on the park - his performances were substandard.
True but when ever someone comes back from an injury they will take time to get into gear. Especially if its a longish term injury which Welsh had.
I think judging Welsh, Perrie and those guys on their late season form is somewhat unfair because when players come back from inuries they struggle for a period of time before they get their touch, timing and fitness back. IMHO that was the main problem with Welsh and Perrie late in the season.
yes they've reported 80K less in base payments.
generally there is the opportunity to pick up greater match payments
I think it's fair enough then, I would only expect a small amount if I was unable to play for my team, seems unfair to expect a full salary if you can only get on the park a few games a year. I would have thought most guys would feel that way
AJ_No.4
20 Oct 2006, 10:36
True but when ever someone comes back from an injury they will take time to get into gear. Especially if its a longish term injury which Welsh had.
I think judging Welsh, Perrie and those guys on their late season form is somewhat unfair because when players come back from inuries they struggle for a period of time before they get their touch, timing and fitness back. IMHO that was the main problem with Welsh and Perrie late in the season.
I was thinking along the same lines. Lets hope Welshy sees sense and signs and he and the Pez have a big preseason.
Vic Crow
20 Oct 2006, 12:24
True but when ever someone comes back from an injury they will take time to get into gear. Especially if its a longish term injury which Welsh had.
I think judging Welsh, Perrie and those guys on their late season form is somewhat unfair because when players come back from inuries they struggle for a period of time before they get their touch, timing and fitness back. IMHO that was the main problem with Welsh and Perrie late in the season.
No doubt about that. However, being such a regular occurence with Welsh I fully support the pay cut. I didn't expect him to come back and set the world on fire but all of these missed games has to come back and bite him at some point, as harsh as that may sound.
GoSarge
20 Oct 2006, 12:57
True but when ever someone comes back from an injury they will take time to get into gear. Especially if its a longish term injury which Welsh had.
I think judging Welsh, Perrie and those guys on their late season form is somewhat unfair because when players come back from inuries they struggle for a period of time before they get their touch, timing and fitness back. IMHO that was the main problem with Welsh and Perrie late in the season.
Thats the nature of the beast though isnt it ? Supporters were upset at our capitulation to West Coast and they needed a scapegoat. Perrie and Welsh, were easy targets, Craig AND the umpires also copped it for our prelim final exit, warranted or not.
FWIW - I agree with you.
call me odd - but the prospect of a "motivated Welshy" - or "a gap to be filled" excites me more than "more of the same".
I'm in total agreement.
I don't think it's just the bad run he's had physically too.
Remember mid-last year, Goody made a comment in a post-match interview about Welsh not having the greatest game till 3Q time but then fighting back and playing well in the final term, which wasn't normal for Welsh?
[not the exact quote]
I just think his stocks have dropped at the club, injury to Hentschel notwithstanding, since he signed his previous 2 year deal, and the current offer reflects that.
jenny61_99
20 Oct 2006, 15:35
I have to say, I find it interesting what most consider "not performing". he had a very good 2005.
in 2006 he was injured for the most part - and no one will doubt he wasn't good when he did make it onto the park.
however, he was injured, or more to the point - sick. how many of you would be happy to be judged by the same standard?
My suspicion is that there must be more than that, perhaps an attitude thing or something? the club obviously has it's reasons, but lets not confuse those with simply being injured. this idea that being injured is "not performing" is just nuts.
How he performed in 2005 is irrelevant. You can't pay someone based on performances of over 12 months ago. Doesn't make good business sense. We all know Welshy is injury prone (I liken him to Matty Liptak in some regards) and one good season in how many is not (and should not be) a guarantee of future payment. You are only as good as your current form, and based on this year, his current form has been poor. It makes perfect business sense to have the lad on a performance based contract. That is an incentive for him to perform well when he is on the park and to protect himself (through correct training and physio off the park) so that he can play more games.
Crow-mo
20 Oct 2006, 20:38
How he performed in 2005 is irrelevant. You can't pay someone based on performances of over 12 months ago.
erm, no. not nearly. by this logic, we should demote any woman who comes back from maternity leave to a more junior role. you cannot ignore the context of injury because it does not suit your viewpoint.
Doesn't make good business sense. We all know Welshy is injury prone (I liken him to Matty Liptak in some regards) and one good season in how many is not (and should not be) a guarantee of future payment.
sorry jenny, if your argument is that 2005 was his only good season, and not a reflection on his ability then this isn't going to go anywhere.
You are only as good as your current form, and based on this year, his current form has been poor.
yes, I agree. will you be pushing for Ben Hudson to be getting a reduced contract for 2007? he couldn't even make our team when he recovered ;)
It makes perfect business sense to have the lad on a performance based contract. That is an incentive for him to perform well when he is on the park and to protect himself (through correct training and physio off the park) so that he can play more games.
you keep talking about business sense, but I'm not convinced you made your case.
do you work - if so, do you expect to get paid while you're sick, and do you expect to be penalised when you get back? what are you thoughts on the tenure status of academics, who return from sabbaticals?
it strikes me that you keep talking about "business sense" without applying any real life business examples. sick is not lack of performance per se.
Crow-mo
20 Oct 2006, 20:40
I don't think it's just the bad run he's had physically too.
I think you're probably right, it would seem odd if it were just his injury problems.
jenny61_99
20 Oct 2006, 23:59
erm, no. not nearly. by this logic, we should demote any woman who comes back from maternity leave to a more junior role. you cannot ignore the context of injury because it does not suit your viewpoint.
sorry jenny, if your argument is that 2005 was his only good season, and not a reflection on his ability then this isn't going to go anywhere.
yes, I agree. will you be pushing for Ben Hudson to be getting a reduced contract for 2007? he couldn't even make our team when he recovered ;)
you keep talking about business sense, but I'm not convinced you made your case.
do you work - if so, do you expect to get paid while you're sick, and do you expect to be penalised when you get back? what are you thoughts on the tenure status of academics, who return from sabbaticals?
it strikes me that you keep talking about "business sense" without applying any real life business examples. sick is not lack of performance per se.
It is not just "sick" - it is a chronic under achievement due to injury which means when he returns FROM injury (which appears to be all the time) he under-performs (takes several weeks to "find his feet", then get's re-injured). The lad doesn't get sick... he injures himself. Now this could be because of bad luck, bad management or bad preparation or a combination of all of the above, but whatever it is, it is bad business to throw money down the drain on a non-performer. Provide the non-performer with incentives though and you could get him back to his previous best.
It is unfair to use Ben Hudson as an example (or women returning from maternity leave for that matter) as we had him for one season where he out-performed expectations and lost him for one season. He gets another chance based on that. Welsh, on the other hand, has had more bad seasons than good, and is also aging (which would further predispose him to injury). To just guarantee someone a certain pay level because that's what they always had, despite the fact that they haven't performed, is just ludicrous AND is poor business. Welsh was not asked to take a pay cut this season, based on his 2005 returns. Based on THIS season however, you could hardly expect him to receive the same remuneration for next year.
macca23
21 Oct 2006, 14:19
Welsh was not asked to take a pay cut this season, based on his 2005 returns. Based on THIS season however, you could hardly expect him to receive the same remuneration for next year.
It's as simple as that.
Well argued Jenny. :thumbsu:
The Crows Truth
21 Oct 2006, 17:47
. Welsh was not asked to take a pay cut this season, based on his 2005 returnsBased on THIS season however, you could hardly expect him to receive the same remuneration for next year.
Game. Set. Match. :thumbsu:
Crow-mo
21 Oct 2006, 21:09
It is not just "sick" - it is a chronic under achievement due to injury which means when he returns FROM injury (which appears to be all the time) he under-performs (takes several weeks to "find his feet", then get's re-injured).
is it chronic underachievement? where and when exactly did that overly emotive term become anything more than your imagination? and I can't see anywhere you've even begun to actually make the case that sick is different to injury.
I am just flabbergasted that you think a player should come back from injury at top form. lets not sugar coat it, that's just plain stupid.
although, I appreciate your argument can't counter this, Ben Hudson came back from injury and could only regain enough form to Play for North Adelaide, and that's ok? whereas Welsh came back from injury and played 6 games for us (not good ones though), and thay should be punished?
dare I suggest out of sight, out of mind?
The lad doesn't get sick... he injures himself.
see earlier comment. he injures himself - what the **** are you on?
or do you think we establish a committee to adjudicate whether the player's injury was self inflicted or caused by an opponent and adjust their wage accordingly?
Now this could be because of bad luck, bad management or bad preparation or a combination of all of the above, but whatever it is, it is bad business to throw money down the drain on a non-performer.
once again, you've not manage to establish that the person is a non-performer as you've defined it. you can use 'chronic under performance' or ' non performer' or whatever language you want, but you cannot use it as accepted description of circumstance when it is these very definitions that are in dispute. please stop talking about good and bad business.
Provide the non-performer with incentives though and you could get him back to his previous best.
what not to injure himself? this is the part where I really am not convinced you know what you're talking about. you cannot incentivise someone to not get injured, you just can't. however, if you position has moved to that his non-performance is not injury related, then an incentive becomes a different tool. However unless you've changed your tact, your position has clearly been that injury is non-performance. which is dodgy to say the least.
It is unfair to use Ben Hudson as an example (or women returning from maternity leave for that matter) as we had him for one season where he out-performed expectations and lost him for one season. He gets another chance based on that.
I think you mean it's unfair to use examples that you have no answer for? :p
or are you saying if he injures himself (the bastard) this year, he's gone. what if the women has a second child, are they gone then? is that bad business, have they become chronic underachievers?
Welsh, on the other hand, has had more bad seasons than good, and is also aging (which would further predispose him to injury).
has he, has this been accepted? look it up, you might be surprised.
To just guarantee someone a certain pay level because that's what they always had, despite the fact that they haven't performed, is just ludicrous AND is poor business.
are you familiar with the raft of current studies that show employee performance has almost no relationship with the amount of money they're being paid? For example one of the largest corporations in Europe, Barclays Bank, is conducting a serious internal review of whether to scrap its bonus policy - and institute a fixed salary, as it suspects that it does not make any difference.
I also remind you again, that you have even tried to make the case of his non-performance you just keep asking your personal definitions are accepted.
equally you're getting confused between non-performance due to sickness/injury (if you think there's a difference, talk to a builder), and non-performance for other reasons.
when you insist on going down this injury is non-performance path, there are too many examples and inconsistencies in this logic against you.
Welsh was not asked to take a pay cut this season, based on his 2005 returns. Based on THIS season however, you could hardly expect him to receive the same remuneration for next year.
this is getting circular now. From what I can gather, most seem to think there are more issues at play here, than just he was injured - which has been your over-simplified explanation. If there are other problems, I have no issue with his contract being amended to reflect that. I do take issue with the selectively simple and slightly hypocritical idea that however injury/sickness is non-performance.
Poor rehab, questionable work ethics, breeching team rules etc etc. etc. are all valid examples of non-performance. the getting himself injured argument is horse hockey.
jenny61_99
21 Oct 2006, 21:25
I am just flabbergasted that you think a player should come back from injury at top form. lets not sugar coat it, that's just plain stupid.
see earlier comment. he injures himself - what the **** are you on?
Firstly, why have you turned this into a personal attack? I can see that you have an opinion vastly different to mine, however I don't see the need to personally attack you for it. You are entitled to your opinion, and I to mine. To continue to pick at the same points and re-iterate your opinion is just going in circles. Tiresome for all involved and achieves nothing.
Oh and by the way, I'd LOVE to work for you or someone with your philosophies, because it appears that I'd get paid at the same rate no matter HOW I performed.
SweetLeftFoot
21 Oct 2006, 22:14
I was gutted when North lost Welsh.
Kristof
21 Oct 2006, 23:53
erm, no. not nearly. by this logic, we should demote any woman who comes back from maternity leave to a more junior role. you cannot ignore the context of injury because it does not suit your viewpoint.
If Scott Welsh was coming back from maternity leave, I'd be willing to pay him eighty grand MORE.
sorry jenny, if your argument is that 2005 was his only good season, and not a reflection on his ability then this isn't going to go anywhere.
I think it is irresponsible for the club to ignore five years of history that says Scott Welsh just can't consistently get on the park. No-one is suggesting delisting him - but, equally, it's naive to think it is a dead cert that he is going to get injured LESS as he gets older.
As long as the contract is more based on match payments and incentives and less on weekly guarentees - well, I think that makes sense.
Firstly, why have you turned this into a personal attack? I can see that you have an opinion vastly different to mine, however I don't see the need to personally attack you for it. You are entitled to your opinion, and I to mine. To continue to pick at the same points and re-iterate your opinion is just going in circles. Tiresome for all involved and achieves nothing.
Oh and by the way, I'd LOVE to work for you or someone with your philosophies, because it appears that I'd get paid at the same rate no matter HOW I performed.
For what it's worth Jenny, I reckon that you're on the money. I'd say that the club seems to be more inclined to your view as well ;)
Perhaps Reidy and Triggy need to get in touch with Barclay's Bank and we'll see a flat pay structure for all players next year :eek:
relapse
22 Oct 2006, 11:38
Does anyone know if Welshy has resigned yet ????
Vic Crow
22 Oct 2006, 13:04
Resign or re-sign? There's a significant difference. ;)
ICanDressMyself
22 Oct 2006, 13:17
Save my sport? :confused:
Mad Dog
22 Oct 2006, 13:46
JR in the paper this moring said "we're still negotiating - but we're very hopeful"
beatlesmith
23 Oct 2006, 21:35
come to us welshy, the eagles would love u! we'll pay u the money u want coz we got lots of roooooom in the salary cap
you will have the best midfield in the comp serving it to u with a spoon
swanfan
24 Oct 2006, 00:52
you will have the best midfield in the comp serving it to u with a spoon............
No that would be Carlton. :D
Kane McGoodwin
24 Oct 2006, 17:41
Welsh has apparantly signed a new contract with the Crows. :thumbsu:
crows98
24 Oct 2006, 17:42
5AA has implied that Scott Welsh has signed a new contract with the AFC.
Good news for the AFC forward line as when he is fit and firing, he can be a 60 goal forward. :thumbsu:
Mad Dog
24 Oct 2006, 17:46
Welsh has apparantly signed a new contract with the Crows. :thumbsu:
good to see he he has signed....:thumbsu: .....hopefully now he can have a big preseason
Fred Phillis
24 Oct 2006, 18:05
FWIW welsh media release:
October 24 2006
Welsh signs new contract
The Adelaide Football Club wishes to advise that Scott Welsh has signed a new one-year
contract.
Crows football operations general manager John Reid said: “We are pleased we have
been able to extend Scott’s contract into 2007. Fit and performing, he is a very important
player for our Club.”
Welsh, 27, was the club’s leading goalkicker in 2005 with 58 goals but because of early
season leg injuries this year he played just six games for 12 goals.
topjars
24 Oct 2006, 19:39
Im wrapped.:)
There were a lot of calls to dispense of blokes like Welsh and Perrie after we capitulated to the Eagles; I for one thought there was no point in throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
Goodluck Scott:thumbsu: You are still a great kick, great mark outta position and your referred pressure due to your chasing is just value adding to a forward line that isnt "A" class.