What They're Saying - The Bulldogs Media Thread

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
I can safely say this thread will die shortly from focusing on Caro, then be revived once Barrett returns to stick the boots in once his holidays are over. campaigners the pair of them anyway
 
Not only is Caro's article piss-poor is journalistic quality, it's actually factually incorrect.
You're not allowed to pay for the contract of a player you traded under contract any more than the value of the contract left over. Griffen had 1 year left on his contract, and assuming he was being paid anywhere between 500-900k per year, that's the maximum we are allowed to contribute to his contract over the four years at GWS. So unless she's suggesting that we're breaking AFL rules, it simply is an incorrect article.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

doggies ftw said:
Taking away the fact that we probably had to do it to get the Boyd deal done, there's absolutely 100% no doubt that I would rather overpay players, especially champs like Murph, Moz and Boyd that have stuck it out at the club over a campaigner like Griffin.

Also people are making out like we wouldn't have been to reach the 95% without paying griffin but I'm sure we could have reworked a few contracts and saved ourselves 800k over the next couple of years when we need it more.

Anyway it's done and there's no point even talking about the contract anymore tbh.
Click to expand...
Separating paying Griffen and the Boyd trade makes no sense. One wouldn't be happening if it wasn't for the other.
It's not like anyone is saying "oh well we had to pay Griffen in order to get to 95%". It's more about. "Hey we're struggling to get to 95% if it gets us Boyd there's no harm done paying Griffen. "

The problem with renegotiating contracts is that it's pretty rare for a player to want to take a pay cut later in their career because they were paid well as a youngster. So if we have a bunch of kids getting paid more than they're worth, what happens when they come out of contract and want more? It sets a dangerous precedent. Boyd's contract is bad enough.

You can't save cap space past 95% and the money has to go somewhere so it's up to whether you'd rather get a deal done for Boyd or pay our blokes more you can't have both.
 
I honestly don't believe anyone is saying Caro is unattractive for her age
Her looks are ok with me
What makes her distasteful is her persistently nasty work . When I see her on tv, I am always reminded of the mad nuns I endured in primary school - just nasty pieces of work - always condemning someone and with an unpleasant venom and more than a hint of enjoyment
 
yebiga said:
I honestly don't believe anyone is saying Caro is unattractive for her age
Her looks are ok with me
What makes her distasteful is her persistently nasty work . When I see her on tv, I am always reminded of the mad nuns I endured in primary school - just nasty pieces of work - always condemning someone and with an unpleasant venom and more than a hint of enjoyment
Click to expand...

I find her a breath of fresh air, courageous, independent and far away the best footy journalist going around.
and it is just wrong to say she is always negative.
True she deals with a lot of s**t, but she didn't make the stuff and it's better out than festering.
She's one of the good guys in my book.
 
Fossie 32 said:
No - I'm just pointing out it does matter that we used the money and it needs to be taken account of as part of the deal. Some people seemed to be saying it doesn't matter, as we needed to use up the salary cap. If you say it doesn't matter [that we could have used it on our players] as we needed to do it to get Boyd, it's a little bit different.

Edit - you changed your answer before I replied :mad:
:p :confused:
Click to expand...
I agree 100% with you here. I was absolutely all for getting Boyd, the club needed the signing desperately after what happened and I didn't lose a wink of sleep losing Griffen and pick 6 for him, on face value i actually believe we are winners from that trade. But if what Caro wrote in the paper yesterday was true about us paying $800k of his Griff's salary next year (the view seems to be pretty consistent this is true) and a further $100k in 3 years, on top of the obviously massive contract Boyd is on, that absolutely smacks of mismanagement to me.

People saying we had to spend the money anyway is a completely wrong way of viewing it. Yes we have to pay 95% of the cap, but if they had negotiated not to pay that much to Griff, we could have absolutely front loaded some current contracts for next year which would free up some serious salary cap space for the coming seasons, which would have helped us a) land another very good player from another club and b) go a long to retaining the current talent on our list.

I understand the arguments that it had to happen to get the deal across the line, but i really question whether such extreme one sided terms were necessary. It's all a moot point now, but i just feel our management team across the board really lacks some real steel, ruthlessness and professionalism that most management at excellent organisations have. I really hope that wasted mone doesn't come back to bite us when some clubs have a real crack at the likes of Macrae and Bonts in a few years who i have no doubt will be superstars.
 
fronkalicious said:
I'd bloody love that. Been my fave player from the prelim core of guys.
Click to expand...
There is no one more bulldog than Murph, would be an excellent choice in all aspects of the decision, and he absolutely would thoroughly deserve it and be universally well liked and respected in the position. I really hope he gets it.
 
Hangzhou Dogs said:
I agree 100% with you here. I was absolutely all for getting Boyd, the club needed the signing desperately after what happened and I didn't lose a wink of sleep losing Griffen and pick 6 for him, on face value i actually believe we are winners from that trade. But if what Caro wrote in the paper yesterday was true about us paying $800k of his Griff's salary next year (the view seems to be pretty consistent this is true) and a further $100k in 3 years, on top of the obviously massive contract Boyd is on, that absolutely smacks of mismanagement to me.

People saying we had to spend the money anyway is a completely wrong way of viewing it. Yes we have to pay 95% of the cap, but if they had negotiated not to pay that much to Griff, we could have absolutely front loaded some current contracts for next year which would free up some serious salary cap space for the coming seasons, which would have helped us a) land another very good player from another club and b) go a long to retaining the current talent on our list.

I understand the arguments that it had to happen to get the deal across the line, but i really question whether such extreme one sided terms were necessary. It's all a moot point now, but i just feel our management team across the board really lacks some real steel, ruthlessness and professionalism that most management at excellent organisations have. I really hope that wasted mone doesn't come back to bite us when some clubs have a real crack at the likes of Macrae and Bonts in a few years who i have no doubt will be superstars.
Click to expand...
How do you know this isn't already happening? I have no trouble believing that even if we were to pay everyone's entire contract out next year we'd still be under 100%. I've heard some rumours that we'll have plenty left for a big crack next year.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

immortalmike said:
How do you know this isn't already happening? I have no trouble believing that even if we were to pay everyone's entire contract out next year we'd still be under 100%. I've heard some rumours that we'll have plenty left for a big crack next year.
Click to expand...
I'm not concerned

it isn't as if we have a bunch of parrots managing things down at the Whitten oval
 
The financial side of the deal is okay with me. It seems outlandish on face value, but once you delve deeper into our player payments situation it makes sense.
I do feel that we should have pushed for another mid range pick to come back our way though, even if it were only moving our pick 27 into pick 23.
 
cecil said:
The financial side of the deal is okay with me. It seems outlandish on face value, but once you delve deeper into our player payments situation it makes sense.
I do feel that we should have pushed for another mid range pick to come back our way though, even if it were only moving our pick 27 into pick 23.
Click to expand...
GWS had to commit 23 to a player, but I understand your point
wish we got a little more back still
 
the conch said:
I find her a breath of fresh air, courageous, independent and far away the best footy journalist going around.
and it is just wrong to say she is always negative.
True she deals with a lot of s**t, but she didn't make the stuff and it's better out than festering.
She's one of the good guys in my book.
Click to expand...
She has made her name on exposing and moralising on the unsavory behavior of adolescent men

And she loves it
Absolutely loves it
 
Hangzhou Dogs said:
There is no one more bulldog than Murph, would be an excellent choice in all aspects of the decision, and he absolutely would thoroughly deserve it and be universally well liked and respected in the position. I really hope he gets it.
Click to expand...

Will deservedly go down as a club great, not only for his on field work.

His Age articles continually demonstrate how much he loves the club and understands its' culture, history and what it means to the people that have followed it for decades.

Our ex captain could learn a thing or two from Bob.
 
cammo78 said:
Will deservedly go down as a club great, not only for his on field work.

His Age articles continually demonstrate how much he loves the club and understands its' culture, history and what it means to the people that have followed it for decades.

Our ex captain could learn a thing or two from Bob.
Click to expand...
I like him as well. BUT as a senior player what did he do about Griffen, Mcartney and the rest of the playing group last season?

According to Smorgan. Sweat FA. This is not a good example of leadership..
 
zucvv said:
We are playing finals next year! according to David King :):thumbsu:

http://www.news.com.au/national/wes...rn-for-new-coach/story-e6frfkp9-1227128677306
Click to expand...

Yes noticed that, King is a pretty hard marker and has been very hard marker of ours especially pre Macca.

His quote "Seven wins in 2014 and five loses by less than 10 points paints a rosy picture. Expect the Dogs to be in contention for the bottom bracket of the eight."

I agree with it, but will say this that there is not a lot of difference between being in top 8 contention and ending up bottom 4 often it's missing those close ones. Capability is there, need a lot to go right. The kids will really have to have stepped up big time.
 
paul scholes said:
We're so far under it isn't funny .
What got lost in Caro's vitriol was the salary removed from Cooney Higgins Jones and even old concrete hands Tutt.
I also think people are BELIEVING everything she writes as gospel.
Click to expand...
Have said it before, but cooney, higgins, jones and tutt will earn around $1.2mill per year between them for the next couple of years at least. We get crameri and boyd for that price (my mail on boyds deal is around $800k with some incentives).
 
I'm surprised King went from "worst defense in the competition" (which I agree with) to "Expect the Dogs to be in contention for the bottom bracket of the eight."

I'd be stunned if we finish anywhere near the 8.
immortalmike said:
How do you know this isn't already happening? I have no trouble believing that even if we were to pay everyone's entire contract out next year we'd still be under 100%. I've heard some rumours that we'll have plenty left for a big crack next year.
Click to expand...
Get to work, JMac.
CARLISLE%20Jake.png
HoskinElliott297.png
KOLODJASHNIJ%20Kade.png
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top