View Full Version : Knights the lowest paid coach in the AFL?
Knight Ryders
17 Jun 2009, 10:08
On the way to work this morning, Rowie from 5AA claimed that Matthew Knights was the lowest paid coach in the AFL, sitting on around 350k per year.
I know Knights was a little inexperienced and didn't have the profile of other coaches, but lowest paid? Is that an inditement on our club or clever on behalf of management to not over pay a first year coach and thus keep him hungry?
If he continues in the same vein he has in the last twelve months, I'm sure he'll be up for a significant pay rise.
its not an indictment on the club at all. essendon is spending just as much money (probably more) on the whole coaching department - not just one bloke. they brought in prescott, paul hamilton and alan richardson who are all highly regarded as well as some extra fitness/conditioning/rehabilitation staff. they are certainly not skimping when it comes to the coaching side financially.
Knight Ryders
17 Jun 2009, 10:40
its not an indictment on the club at all. essendon is spending just as much money (probably more) on the whole coaching department - not just one bloke. they brought in prescott, paul hamilton and alan richardson who are all highly regarded as well as some extra fitness/conditioning/rehabilitation staff. they are certainly not skimping when it comes to the coaching side financially.
They have definitely given him a great chance in succeeding with the support staff we have at Bomberland.
But think about this, there would be a handful of players getting paid more than the coach (Lloyd, Lucas, Fletcher, Hille, McVeigh). Do you think that is the right way to go?
judd would be getting about a million dollars more than ratten...
i see your point but hird and lloyd would have been paid more than sheedy for some time and that wasn't a major issue.
every club has players earning more than the coaches.
Simon_Nesbit
17 Jun 2009, 11:59
Clarkson was the lowest paid coach in 05/06/07, and then mid table in his 08/09 extension.
What do you think he'll be on next?
Most rookie, 'no-name' coaches start in the mid 3's (some like harvey sign for 600k straight up! :eek:).
By the time Knights has his first renewal, he'll be pushing 5+. I wouldn't be overly concerned. Essendon gave him a start, they're return is a 'lowly-paid' coach - at least initially.
They have definitely given him a great chance in succeeding with the support staff we have at Bomberland.
But think about this, there would be a handful of players getting paid more than the coach (Lloyd, Lucas, Fletcher, Hille, McVeigh). Do you think that is the right way to go?
You pay the coach what he is worth. It does not matter how much the players get.
It makes perfect sence to me that a rookie coach is going to be paid at the bottom end of the pay scale. What exactly does giving him $200,000 more do ? what does it change ?
I agree, untried coaches would be expecting to be at the lower end of the pay scale. He still has another year on his contract after this one, so his pay will change according to how we perform.
it really is a worry, ever since i saw that we paid the third lowest amount on our football departments, only infront of melbourne and western bulldogs I have been worried about our club.
we pay our coach a low amount, it isnt lowest as bailey is on 280-300 but the worrying thing is that we speand about 2 million less a year in our football department compared to those who spend the most, but our club posts a profit of 1 million or so. So does that mean if we were competitive with our spending we would post a loss?
troubling times for the dons :mad:
Knight Ryders
17 Jun 2009, 13:07
You pay the coach what he is worth. It does not matter how much the players get.
It makes perfect sence to me that a rookie coach is going to be paid at the bottom end of the pay scale. What exactly does giving him $200,000 more do ? what does it change ?
I think what it says about our club is that we are not just going to throw money around for the sake of it. I think the salary of a coach is made up of a couple of factors. One is forseen coaching ability and experience, the other being marketability - that is, will they add worth to the club. Knights must have shown that he has some good coaching ideals, which got him the job, but the club obviously identified that Knights is not going to raise the profile of the club initially. So the extra coin doesn't make any difference - if anything, it is probably a value that Knights feels comfortable with. With greater money comes greater expectation.
There is talk of 800k being spent to get Bucks, but in part, this is not all to do with coaching ability imo. To get Bucks to the club would more than likely raise revenue in memberships and sponsorships that would cover the 300-400k extra to ensure you get him.
If Hirdy was to coach the club next year, do you think we would offer him a 350k? Membership and sponsorship would go berserk if the prodigal son was to return. (I don't believe this will happen, just putting up a theoretical).
Mad Bomber Sean
17 Jun 2009, 13:17
I agree with micool -
"Only teams in the top half of football department spending have appeared in a grand final in the past five years "
http://www.realfooty.com.au/articles/2008/03/12/1205126012729.html
Collingwood finished 8th last year and played finals & will probably do so again this year - the Pies footy department spent $16.3 Mill last year according to the Age. ( they also pumped the Cats by 86 points in R9 last year ! )
We spent $12.7mill, or around 30% less - finished 11th and probably wont play finals this year. http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/articles/2009/01/12/1231608656180.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap2
This is interesting for me especially as I consider our list at least as talented as the Pies one.
Paying Knights less than other coaches is not as important as ensuring that our footy deparment is as well or better resourced than other top clubs. The corelation between footy department resources & sucess is very strong & needs to be address ASAP for this club to really reach its peak faster. More money to the EFC footy department NOW !!!!
Bombers1234
17 Jun 2009, 13:58
it really is a worry, ever since i saw that we paid the third lowest amount on our football departments, only infront of melbourne and western bulldogs I have been worried about our club.
we pay our coach a low amount, it isnt lowest as bailey is on 280-300 but the worrying thing is that we speand about 2 million less a year in our football department compared to those who spend the most, but our club posts a profit of 1 million or so. So does that mean if we were competitive with our spending we would post a loss?
troubling times for the dons :mad:
There is heaps of things that a club can spend on than just the football department which is also important such as advertising, facilities, the training ground, membership department etc. so i wouldn't be at all worried about our spending until you see the figures of our total spending.
We have an awesome stadium deal, over 40k members, record attendances every year and a history of success, all with a young list with so much upside with only improvement possible.
exciting times for the dons:)
windyhill
17 Jun 2009, 22:17
i see your point but hird and lloyd would have been paid more than sheedy for some time and that wasn't a major issue.
I can`t agree with that. Sheedy was on around 800-850K. We saved heaps with Knighter coming in , alot of people were worried sheedy going would hurt membership which has not been the case.
at essendon we pay for QUALITY not QUANTITY *thumbs up*
FandangoDingo
18 Jun 2009, 02:12
The Saints were also in that bottom group of 4 clubs for spending. West Coast & Sydney were in the top 4 spenders.
How you spend it is more important that how much, IMO. Giving Knights an extra $500k isn't gonna make the club better. Spending that $500k on quality staff/facilities will.
He came through the ranks on meritocracy alone. His Cv read less than 350+
Do you expect him to then stand back waiting for 500+.
3 Years could just about get him that but it might not be so meritiously given this time if his work in the coachs box doesn't reflect his obvious people skills.
600+ should be for a packaged coach who ticks all the boxes. Knights is lucky he does not have a two year stretch but so too is the club. It would be a mess right now with Buckley on the market.
as his tenure at the club continues, so will his contracts and salary.
ps: nice tits knight ryders ... who is that though?
Crazy Joe Fevola
19 Jun 2009, 09:58
On the way to work this morning, Rowie from 5AA claimed that Matthew Knights was the lowest paid coach in the AFL, sitting on around 350k per year.
I know Knights was a little inexperienced and didn't have the profile of other coaches, but lowest paid? Is that an inditement on our club or clever on behalf of management to not over pay a first year coach and thus keep him hungry?
If he continues in the same vein he has in the last twelve months, I'm sure he'll be up for a significant pay rise.
Hardly see how it could be considered an inditment on your club ?? Do you think he would coach any better of you were paying him 700k a year !!!
I would say Knights would warrant being one of the lower paid coaches in the comp given his relative inexperience.. No doubt performance will dictate his longevity and future renumeration in the position. He seems to have made a solid start with a developing list that clearly understands the Knights message and what he is hoping to achieve. Wether the Knights message.game plan is sustainable and capable of delivering susutained(ultimate) success only time will tell.... Essendon along with Carlton and the Bulldogs are certainly very entertaining to watch in comparuiosn to some fo the more dour game plans clubs are implementing
warney7
19 Jun 2009, 13:56
Knighter only on $350,000 per year?
That absurd. How the hell does he get by with that sort of income?
Anyway, I'm sure he's probably worth more compartively, but he needed to get the gig and then show his worth. His next contract will obviously be a lot more fruitful for him.
it really is a worry, ever since i saw that we paid the third lowest amount on our football departments, only infront of melbourne and western bulldogs I have been worried about our club.
we pay our coach a low amount, it isnt lowest as bailey is on 280-300 but the worrying thing is that we speand about 2 million less a year in our football department compared to those who spend the most, but our club posts a profit of 1 million or so. So does that mean if we were competitive with our spending we would post a loss?
troubling times for the dons :mad:
Our spending has worried me for a long time. As has been mentioned we have great sponsorship, high membership, attendance & merchadise sales. The club has a higher revenue stream than most others yet we have for a long time spent less on our football dept than many of our competitors. This has been why I have been very critical of Jackson & the board. If we have high revenue & very low spending where is the money going? We make a decent profit every year but if we are spending less on the areas that matter the most (football dept) then its false economy. I'm not particulalry talking about what Knights get paid (even though thats the point of this thread). I thinks its fair enough that he's one of the least experienced & therefore least paid coaches but when you look at what we have spent over the last 7-8 years on areas like recruiting, development, medical etc I think its fair to say we have trailed behind the pack & our onfield results have reflected this tight-arsed approach. We appear to have gone some way to addressing this issue with increasesd spending this year but I'd be interested to see what our spend is at the end of 2009 compared to other clubs & see if the trend continues.
Mad Bomber Sean
19 Jun 2009, 18:29
Our spending has worried me for a long time. As has been mentioned we have great sponsorship, high membership, attendance & merchadise sales. The club has a higher revenue stream than most others yet we have for a long time spent less on our football dept than many of our competitors. This has been why I have been very critical of Jackson & the board. If we have high revenue & very low spending where is the money going? We make a decent profit every year but if we are spending less on the areas that matter the most (football dept) then its false economy. I'm not particulalry talking about what Knights get paid (even though thats the point of this thread). I thinks its fair enough that he's one of the least experienced & therefore least paid coaches but when you look at what we have spent over the last 7-8 years on areas like recruiting, development, medical etc I think its fair to say we have trailed behind the pack & our onfield results have reflected this tight-arsed approach. We appear to have gone some way to addressing this issue with increasesd spending this year but I'd be interested to see what our spend is at the end of 2009 compared to other clubs & see if the trend continues.
The force is strong with you OB1
What happens off the field significantly effects what happens on the field.
This connection between footy department spending & success is almost fact. Simply the more you spent, the more likely you are to play finals.
This was confirmed by the AFL themselves last year. Only teams in the top half of football department spending have appeared in a grand final in the past five years.
So why the hell are we still running so mid pack in spending??? We have a young developing team. With such a young side this footy department spending issue is vital to our future success now. Thrift now will result in failure or underdevelopment later...
I reckon that Neil Craig would be happy to see specialist back pocket coaches (coaching how to stop live wire forward pockets) at Adelaide.
Given our financial strength in the AFL - why dont we spend more on the footy department ? This underfunding of players development could mean that our current bunch of talented bomber players never reach the level they could ( which might cost us a GF ) no matter how much talent.
Leave no stone unturned in our pursuit of Bomber glory... before the AFL shut this loop hole down & cap footy department spending..
To understand my position take a look:
note for some reason the hyperlinks dont always work - so google the articles with info provided...
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/articles/2009/01/12/1231608656180.html?feed=fairfaxdigitalxml Or found in "Money to matter this season" by Jesse Hogan | January 13, 2009 Fairfax Digital / The Brisbane times
http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/78976/default.aspx
or found in "Footy depts' worth more than facilities" By Katrina Gill 7:15 AM Thu 18 June, 2009 AFL website
http://www.realfooty.com.au/articles/2008/03/12/1205126012729.html
Or "Money makes a difference: AFL" by Michael Gleeson, March 13, 2008 Real Footy - The Age website
Why do so few on Big Footy Essendon not take this issue seriously?
More importantly, why dont the EFC board... Or are they simply inept ?