Mitch Clark

[Turbocat]

I respect your opinion, but I think Vardy is going to be a brilliant player for us if he can stay fit. Better than Clark. I'm not saying that Mitch won't play for us, I'm just saying he'll need to prove he can hold his spot because there's going to be competition.

Its not about what happens in game for mine... talented enough but something just seems very high maintenance about him. To some degree I want to see an assertive player , but at times Id like to see someone who just wants to blend in and to try to make the best team.
No matter his talent , he should really prove he is fit footy hardened ..perhaps a Menzel like 6 weeks...played with a smile with no grumbles would show all its about the club first.

 

[Catsmaninamerica]

The new cap rules allowing you to run up to 5 % under the cap in any one year so you can then go to 105 % the next year and vice versa, came into play last year.

So we moved Varcoe to clear 450k from the 2015 cap, so we could frontload existing contracts while still being well under the 2015 cap, thereby allowing us more room to run into 105 % in 2016 to assist with heavily frontloading a short term offer to Dangerfield so Adelaide cant match it.

this is an excellent post.

 

[you pick one]

Its not about what happens in game for mine... talented enough but something just seems very high maintenance about him. To some degree I want to see an assertive player , but at times Id like to see someone who just wants to blend in and to try to make the best team.
No matter his talent , he should really prove he is fit footy hardened ..perhaps a Menzel like 6 weeks...played with a smile with no grumbles would show all its about the club first.

Which one are you refiring to Turbo?Clark or Vardy.

 

[Cattergirl]

The new cap rules allowing you to run up to 5 % under the cap in any one year so you can then go to 105 % the next year and vice versa, came into play last year.

So we moved Varcoe to clear 450k from the 2015 cap, so we could frontload existing contracts while still being well under the 2015 cap, thereby allowing us more room to run into 105 % in 2016 to assist with heavily frontloading a short term offer to Dangerfield so Adelaide cant match it.

I thought Brian Cook said on K-Rock that we were paying 100% of the salary cap this year though

 

[Teriyakicat]

Does he have a depressed calf?

Does this calf look like his?

 

[Jon Douglas]

I don't think Mitch will be a walk-up start in our top 22 next season, as he would've been this year had he stayed fit. This means the onus will be on him to play for his spot, which is good for the club and will hopefully be good for Mitch.

This a good point to make except he really is our only first ruckman (with the possible exception of Simpson) on our list.

I am told he was a very good first ruckman at the Lions - so I hope he can do this for the Cats. I am over having poor ruckman - and that is no reflection on who we have tried as they simply are not first ruckman and should not be asked to play that role.

 

[Turbocat]

Which one are you refiring to Turbo?Clark or Vardy.

Clark thread? Yeah thinking about Mitch

 

[you pick one]

Clark thread? Yeah thinking about Mitch

Unfortunately Turbo I think he might just fizzle out,I saw a bit of him up here with the Lions and his 09 season was a stand out year but he has never come close to that form again in the ruck,he can still be dominant as a power forward but as we all know there're things going on in the background that just keep taking the wind out of his sails every time he takes a step forward he takes 2 backwards, it must be as frustrating for him and it is for us.
Fingers crossed he can find the Mojo and have an impact in 2016.

 

[FredLeDeux]

I thought Brian Cook said on K-Rock that we were paying 100% of the salary cap this year though

Sshhh!
or,
Yes, he did, before the Sydney game.

 

[FredLeDeux]

Unfortunately Turbo I think he might just fizzle out,I saw a bit of him up here with the Lions and his 09 season was a stand out year but he has never come close to that form again in the ruck,he can still be dominant as a power forward but as we all know there're things going on in the background that just keep taking the wind out of his sails every time he takes a step forward he takes 2 backwards, it must be as frustrating for him and it is for us.
Fingers crossed he can find the Mojo and have an impact in 2016.

And he was our best big forward when he played this year.

 

[Seeds]

this is an excellent post.

Except for the fact that Cook has come out and said we paid the full cap this year which makes it redundant for us.

 

[Leeds17]

Except for the fact that Cook has come out and said we paid the full cap this year which makes it redundant for us.

Spin imo


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[catempire]

Yes, this is Cook's stock answer in any given year.

 

[Seeds]

Yes, this is Cook's stock answer in any given year.

Um maybe thats cos its been true. I know mind blown. Who would of thought that a team that has been top four for the past 8 years is paying their full salary cap.

 

[Leeds17]

Um maybe thats cos its been true. I know mind blown. Who would of thought that a team that has been top four for the past 8 years is paying their full salary cap.

Not afraid to be patronizing are you haha


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[catempire]

Um maybe thats cos its been true. I know mind blown. Who would of thought that a team that has been top four for the past 8 years is paying their full salary cap.

When the revolution comes, posters who start posts with "Um"...

 

[you pick one]

Spin imo


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Um well that gazumps Cook.

 

[geelong_boy]

I thought Brian Cook said on K-Rock that we were paying 100% of the salary cap this year though

We can still be paying 100% of the cap and at the same time have what PO said being true, ie. front loading of contracts to make way for those coming.

 

[FredLeDeux]

We can still be paying 100% of the cap and at the same time have what PO said being true, ie. front loading of contracts to make way for those coming.

PO's figures were predicated on us only having paid 95% of cap this year, letting us go to 105% in 2016.

 

[geelong_boy]

PO's figures were predicated on us only having paid 95% of cap this year, letting us go to 105% in 2016.

It may have been 95% of actual 2015 contracts but with future contracts brought forward we could still be at 100% this year.

 

[FredLeDeux]

It may have been 95% of actual 2015 contracts but with future contracts brought forward we could still be at 100% this year.

I don't understand that.

 

[Whit3y]

Truth is they look worse because they are under more pressure because they are surrounded by much worse players.

not our beloved geelong players
surely not

 

[geelong_boy]

Say actual 2015 contracts - the club may be running at 95 per cent of the cap. The example PO gave was trading Varcoe therefore creating ~450K cap room (ie. Varcoe's last year of his contract in 2015). But they can front load (or bring forward) future contracts (2016+) and therefore get to ~100 per cent of the cap in this current year, as Cook claimed.

Hence, what PO and Cook said could at the same time be true.

 

[Whit3y]

I respect your opinion, but I think Vardy is going to be a brilliant player for us if he can stay fit. Better than Clark. I'm not saying that Mitch won't play for us, I'm just saying he'll need to prove he can hold his spot because there's going to be competition.

wayne carey brilliant?

 

[FredLeDeux]

Say actual 2015 contracts - the club may be running at 95 per cent of the cap. The example PO gave was trading Varcoe therefore creating ~450K cap room (ie. Varcoe's last year of his contract in 2015). But they can front load (or bring forward) future contracts (2016+) and therefore get to ~100 per cent of the cap in this current year, as Cook claimed.

Hence, what PO and Cook said could at the same time be true.

But the contracts are what they are. If, when they're made, it brings us to 100% this season, that's what it is, and we cannot then go to 105% in 2016. There's no provision for saying "we're under 100% this year, so we're going to bring forward some 2016 contract payments to make it up to 100% this season"; and even if you could do that, it still doesn't let you go to 105% in 2016.
We cannot be at both 100% this year (Cook) and 95% this year (PO). They are mutually exclusive.