Opinion Our coaches, leadership, game style, and everything else

[swansfan51]

I did not blame the defence at all in 2014 as it was obvious to anyone with eyes that the midfield was being smashed so much that the defence did not have a hope in hell of stopping Hawthorn. You could have the best defence in the world but if the midfield is not doing its job that defence is always going to look terrible.

Agreed, our midfield needs a great deal of work.

 

[Heeney2Franklin]

I can't believe all the best 22 teams that leave out laidler. Last year, would say him and grundy were our best lock down defenders. Rampe was awesome, but more attacking and Smith was his usual self on the smalls.

Laidler is a whipping boy on the board because we got him as a DFA from Carlton. He was quality.

Cant believe he didnt play finals last year joke of a decision.

 

[The King!]

Defence was brave considering age, size skill and heck salary cap spent to assemble it, they performed well.

Agree again on the mids and also the forwards but I blame the gameplan and what they are asked to do more than the cattle.

Even the dumb selections of half fit players put us under the pump at times.

 

[The King!]

I can't believe all the best 22 teams that leave out laidler. Last year, would say him and grundy were our best lock down defenders. Rampe was awesome, but more attacking and Smith was his usual self on the smalls.

Laidler is a whipping boy on the board because we got him as a DFA from Carlton. He was quality.

People got NFI thats why

Id drop Ted before Laidler even, Laidler is one of the best kicks in the team for a start

 

[GotTheGoodes]

People got NFI thats why

Id drop Ted before Laidler even, Laidler is one of the best kicks in the team for a start

Ppl just keep running that vision of bruest & popolo pushing him up the ground then burning him off back into an open goal.....

 

[Heeney2Franklin]

Ppl just keep running that vision of bruest & popolo pushing him up the ground then burning him off back into an open goal.....

And forget it was a midfield turnover that resulted in that goal.

 

[The King!]

Ppl just keep running that vision of bruest & popolo pushing him up the ground then burning him off back into an open goal.....

If we running vision of poor performances against Hawthorn as a basis of selection then most of our side is out of the best 22

 

[Lakeside Swan]

Spot on

Or we need to find a better way to counter it and redefine the game which seems unlikely

But undermanned brave defenders relying on numbers pushing back is done

Anyway with our gameplan should of chucked money at Harry Taylor and co not Buddy and Tippett

In the clubs defence I think getting Tippett and Franklin as unintended. We needed someone like Tippett as we didn't have a key forward, then subsequent to that Franklin said he wanted to come to us and you can't say no to that.

 

[The King!]

In the clubs defence I think getting Tippett and Franklin as unintended. We needed someone like Tippett as we didn't have a key forward, then subsequent to that Franklin said he wanted to come to us and you can't say no to that.

If that is how it went down then yes, you can

You do not have to recruit players because they ask to come or are great.

If he was so keen why 10 mil over 9 years

 

[GotTheGoodes]

If that is how it went down then yes, you can

You do not have to recruit players because they ask to come or are great.

If he was so keen why 10 mil over 9 years

I reckon $10m over 9 years is under market value. After taking into account how the AFL & footy world reacted to his recruitment, the ban etc, if we also severely underpaid him how do you think the reaction from Gil Eddie & those in power would have been?? Bud wouldn't come here for peanuts, he also didn't hold usover a barrel. GWS & Hawthorn both made a more lucrative offer than we did after all...

 

[The King!]

I reckon $10m over 9 years is under market value. After taking into account how the AFL & footy world reacted to his recruitment, the ban etc, if we also severely underpaid him how do you think the reaction from Gil Eddie & those in power would have been?? Bud wouldn't come here for peanuts, he also didn't hold usover a barrel. GWS & Hawthorn both made a more lucrative offer than we did after all...

Under market value? For a player who "wanted to come to us?"

 

[melbournehammer]

This issue will be debated for probably the next twenty years.

We paid fair value for the player that is arguably the best forward talent in the comp. he is certainly the best forward flanker in the comp. Did we have to do it. No. Was it wise. This is something that will only be determined with hindsight.

 

[Cadsky]

People got NFI thats why

Id drop Ted before Laidler even, Laidler is one of the best kicks in the team for a start

I wanted to say this but thought id get crucified for it.

 

[The King!]

I wanted to say this but thought id get crucified for it.

Lol

Ill stand up for the little guys

 

[GotTheGoodes]

Under market value? For a player who "wanted to come to us?"

Um.... yep.

He was offered more to play elsewhere - That would by definition mean the market was willing to pay him more, thus we didn't pay market value.

He gave up $$$ to get to his desired club... Am I missing your point?

 

[doona]

Um.... yep.

He was offered more to play elsewhere - That would by definition mean the market was willing to pay him more, thus we didn't pay market value.

He gave up $$$ to get to his desired club... Am I missing your point?

The value of a contract to a player is not just the dollars per year but in addition the length of the contract. So if a club (GWS) was going to pay him more per year, I doubt that the contract length would have been 9 years.With our contract he gets job security and a huge salary. Therefore we may have had the better package.

In addition How do you know he gave up $$$?

for example:
9 (years) * 1 ($ in millions per year) = 9
5 (years) * 1.5 ($ in millions per year) = 7.5

The numbers I used are not real, but it shows that the length of a contract plus security can net the player considerably more money. Especially after that 5 years, he doesn't know what he will get paid. Or could get pushed out the door like Stevie J.

 

[Skeparovic]

Defence kept us in games when the midfield failed over and over, its no wonder they make so many mistakes they are always under constant pressure.

The defence was criticized in the 2014 GF where we had close to -150 disposals -22 inside 50's.

Think having two ruckman with two good knees will go a long way towards changing midfield setup in 2016 and see more offensive gameplan rather than defensive setup.

 

[GotTheGoodes]

The value of a contract to a player is not just the dollars per year but in addition the length of the contract. So if a club (GWS) was going to pay him more per year, I doubt that the contract length would have been 9 years.With our contract he gets job security and a huge salary. Therefore we may have had the better package.

In addition How do you know he gave up $$$?

for example:
9 (years) * 1 ($ in millions per year) = 9
5 (years) * 1.5 ($ in millions per year) = 7.5

The numbers I used are not real, but it shows that the length of a contract plus security can net the player considerably more money.

If you go a Google search you'll find various quotes from CEO's etc describing the offers to Buddy at the time.

$2m/yr = GWS: They offered $12m over 6years. This includes $3m in AFL assisted "ambassador" amounts (that we don't get but GWS do??). Plus rumoured chance for further $ from marketing and sponsorship deals on top of this that the AFL had ticked off for GWS prior to our offer coming to light.

$1.125/yr = Hawthorn: They offered 4 years @ $4.5m & if length was an issue were happy to throw in an extra year if need be but no more.

$1.111/yr = Sydney: We offered $10m over 9 years. We didn't get any AFL "ambassador" money offered up by the AFL (while GWS did??). We got COLA aggressively removed. We got dragged through the media as some kind of AFL funded evil club buying premierships.

Taking into account his age at the end of each contract and likelihood of further $ matching our offer....

GWS: He'd end up with an extra $2m and get to play 3 years less to do so... Sounds like a great deal to me!! He'd be 33 and dependant on fitness & form, may be able to eek out 1-2yr extension(s). Even if not, he's been paid more for doing less. I don't see how that's not a better deal $ wise.

Hawks: He'd end up with $5.5m less under the 4 year deal but would likely be offered up another deal after his 4 years as he'd only be 30. Assuming he pushed it to 5 years @ approx. $5.5m. He'd be $4.5m down but would be ready to sign a 1-3year contract. Even if it was on 1 yr extensions, it would all be under the new TV rights deal and thus mean a bigger salary cap. Player wages would have been pushed up by that point so his $1.125m now would be $800k in 5 years... I reckon he'd at the very least break even with the Sydney deal here, if not exceed it depending on the secondary contract & salary cap expansion.

So really, Hawthorn pretty much matched our offer but refused to extend it beyond 5yrs. GWS smashed our deal but he simply didn't want to play for them and would rather us.

He chose us because we showed faith in his ability to play out 9 years. We showed trust & belief in him the others didn't. GWS thought throwing money at him would be the answer, but it wasn't. Hawthorn tried to use their history with him to outweigh the additional security (yrs) we offered. To their credit, they pretty much matched our offer, but he wanted to get to Sydney and out of Victoria and the extra years secured the deal. He could have stayed at Hawthorn for as long and been paid as much (if not more) IMO all going well for him.

 

[doona]

If you go a Google search you'll find various quotes from CEO's etc describing the offers to Buddy at the time.

$2m/yr = GWS: They offered $12m over 6years. This includes $3m in AFL assisted "ambassador" amounts (that we don't get but GWS do??). Plus rumoured chance for further $ from marketing and sponsorship deals on top of this that the AFL had ticked off for GWS prior to our offer coming to light.

That means GWS offer was above market rate, because the salary was not being covered by an AFL team. GWS would of had a "market rate" offer, then the AFL stepped in and made it above market rate to attract GWS.

Hawks: He'd end up with $5.5m less under the 4 year deal but would likely be offered up another deal after his 4 years as he'd only be 30. Assuming he pushed it to 5 years @ approx. $5.5m. He'd be $4.5m down but would be ready to sign a 1-3year contract. Even if it was on 1 yr extensions, it would all be under the new TV rights deal and thus mean a bigger salary cap. Player wages would have been pushed up by that point so his $1.125m now would be $800k in 5 years... I reckon he'd at the very least break even with the Sydney deal here, if not exceed it depending on the secondary contract & salary cap expansion.

Chances are his next contract over 30 would have been considerably lower. Most clubs as well, only offer 1 year contract extensions with players over 30. Sometimes they will give a 2 year deal. How does he know he wont get injuried? Will be able to play at AFL level past 30? some players can, some cant. In addition, how does he know what his next contract would even look like? If he would be thrown to the curb like Stevie J, etc.....

Therfore due to job security, guaranteed money and the chances that he would earn more with us anyway, I would state that our deal was far superior to that. Which is indicative of the Hawks letting him go via free agency as they couldnt match such a good deal.

Therefore I would argue we are paying the market rate, and the GWS were paying above as a good portion of that was outside the cap through the AFL which the market can not actually afford as no club can pay a player outside of the cap.

 

[The King!]

Um.... yep.

He was offered more to play elsewhere - That would by definition mean the market was willing to pay him more, thus we didn't pay market value.

He gave up $$$ to get to his desired club... Am I missing your point?

Who offered him more?

He was offered more than 10 million to play elsewhere?

Lets no pretend he can play for 9 years realistically

 

[Lakeside Swan]

That means GWS offer was above market rate, because the salary was not being covered by an AFL team. GWS would of had a "market rate" offer, then the AFL stepped in and made it above market rate to attract GWS.

No it doesn't. Remove the AFL contribution and their offer is still better than ours. $1.5m > $1.1m p.a. plus money earned in years 7 and beyond.

 

[RW]

Have we gone off topic?

 

[Leg End]

Have we gone off topic?

Not if the topic is "let's find every reason possible to bash our own club".

 

[Millky95]

Not if the topic is "let's find every reason possible to bash our own club".

I really hate the shade of red we use...

 

[doona]

No it doesn't. Remove the AFL contribution and their offer is still better than ours. $1.5m > $1.1m p.a. plus money earned in years 7 and beyond.

1.5 * 6 = 9
1.1 * 9 = 9.9

So guaranteed an extra million. After 6 years, who is to say he would get another contract? Or What he would earn (he may have been offered 300k or so)? Therfore no guarantee.

They are fairly similar offers, so I would argue both ours and GWS offers would be market value. Our offer was more guaranteed money and more years. GWS higher per year, but no guarantees after year 6.

So from money and security, in his eyes our offer could have been superior if the AFL didnt take the GWS offer "above market value".

And I would say "Above market value" because no one in the market was going to pay 2 million per year. The best offer was 1.5 million, but the AFL was going to top up the market value.