Tom Boyd 'not in the best 22', admits skipper

[Sweet Jesus]

Given without Boyd we wouldn't not have won the flag I am happy we did the deal. End of story.

It's only "end of story" if you ignore my question.

Do you agree that Boyd's overall performance has not justified his pay packet?

If you ask again it is unlikely my opinion will change in the next 5 minutes. As I said before I have explained my position. You have had your say. I disagree with you, get over it.

What about when you said "on the surface no he doesn't deserve it"?

It doesn't sound like you disagree very strenuously.

 

[Snake_Baker]

He hasn't made the AA squad since 2012 (his only appearance) so you could argue he's well overpaid as well on the surface of it - but when you add in other factors (WCE obviously play better with him in the side, the alternative at the 2008 draft was Watts slipping as they were clearly the top two prospects) I doubt any WCE regret that signing either.

Of course he has been injured, but if we're going to engage in hypothetical hindsight, there are no limits at all.

The entire discussion collapses in to the present absurdity that we are witnessing here.

 

[Scotland]

Tom Boyd is not in the best 22.

I would've thought that was obvious given he is playing in the VFL.

 

[Senor Ed]

I'm not sure why you continue to remove context when discussing Boyd's relative pay?

You have near universal agreement from all posting that his output has clearly not matched what you would traditionally associate with players of his pay grade - yet you seem to be ignoring the WHY of that pay, and also attempting to gloss over the fact that what the Dogs did actually worked.

This is how all the Boyd threads have gone.

You have one poster adamant that he's not worth the money, with people disputing the fact that its either irrelevant, tangible, intangible, MARBO etc cos we won a flag, which continues for around 100 pages.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

I'm not sure why you continue to remove context when discussing Boyd's relative pay?

I don't. I include the context of what his teammates were paid.

You have near universal agreement from all posting that his output has clearly not matched what you would traditionally associate with players of his pay grade

No I don't. There is significant pushback against this suggestion.

yet you seem to be ignoring the WHY of that pay, and also attempting to gloss over the fact that what the Dogs did actually worked.

They won a flag. No one disputes that. But I don't accept the oversimplification that they won because of Boyd and therefore no salary is too high.

That rationale collapses if you try to apply it consistently.

 

[Jade]

This is how all the Boyd threads have gone.

You have one poster adamant that he's not worth the money, with people disputing the fact that its either irrelevant, tangible, intangible, MARBO etc cos we won a flag, which continues for around 100 pages.

I just think you're being willfully foolish if you don't consider the whole of the situation.

He's not playing great footy, and I suspect most people responsible for the Dogs list management would like to be paying him less.

BUT a high pay packet was necessary to extracting him, and he was the exact profile and type of player the Dogs were crying out for.

And then you went and won a flag with him being a key part of that.

 

[Senor Ed]

Sweet Jesus' assumption is that everyone who contributed to the flag should be paid the same. So he either believes that the water boy's on the day are incredibly underpaid, or he is a communist.

 

[ThirdLegUp]

I'm not sure why you continue to remove context when discussing Boyd's relative pay?

Because he has no leg to stand on if he sees the entire Boyd trade and contract in context.

His entire premise is flawed by the belief that Boyd was only a small part of us winning that game.

 

[Damon_3388]

Where did I mention you?

Well, I am the OP, who entered in the title when creating the thread...

 

[Jade]

I don't. I include the context of what his teammates were paid.

Joe Daniher has a pay packet in the vicinity of $700-$800k.

James Stewart would be roughly $200-$250.

Do we therefore conclude that Daniher is being paid overs, as Stewart is meeting or exceeding his output right now?

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Sweet Jesus' assumption is that everyone who contributed to the flag should be paid the same.

No it isn't.

Because he has no leg to stand on if he sees the entire Boyd trade and contract in context.

His entire premise is flawed by the belief that Boyd was only a small part of us winning that game.

You blokes love bleating about "context" as though that is in itself an argument.

 

[Bulldog Joe]

This is just crammed with false nuance in an attempt to avoid the obvious.

Do you agree that Boyd's overall performance has not justified his pay packet?

You are trying to make a point based on the logic that only performance by the individual can justify the level of contract he is offered.

let's look at an alternative investment.

We have a $10m debt that needs to be serviced over and above all the other costs of the enterprise.

An opportunity arises that will eliminate the debt for the investment of $7m over a period of 7 years. It is not even a new $7m but a redirection of existing money.

Would it be considered a success if the outcome was achieved within 3 years, without the full $7m having been utilised?

Would you also be happy to fulfill your part of the contract and continue to pay for the remaining 4 years until the $7m had been spent?

 

[Senor Ed]

I just think you're being willfully foolish if you don't consider the whole of the situation.

He's not playing great footy, and I suspect most people responsible for the Dogs list management would like to be paying him less.

BUT a high pay packet was necessary to extracting him, and he was the exact profile and type of player the Dogs were crying out for.

And then you went and won a flag with him being a key part of that.

Agree to everything you just said.

And I will continue to back him up, because was one of the primary reasons for one of the greatest days of my life.

The fact is, our captain walked out, we had a ridiculous amount of mandatory cap space to pay, had the ability to sign him on those dollars and we needed something positive to come out of the situation to sell to members. We've also lost no players due to salary cap pressures based on Boyd's contract as it was heavily front loaded.

Take his $7mil contract as $1m / per annum, or a signing bonus etc, he was worth money.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

You are trying to make a point based on the logic that only performance by the individual can justify the level of contract he is offered.

let's look at an alternative investment.

We have a $10m debt that needs to be serviced over and above all the other costs of the enterprise.

An opportunity arises that will eliminate the debt for the investment of $7m over a period of 7 years. It is not even a new $7m but a redirection of existing money.

Would it be considered a success if the outcome was achieved within 3 years, without the full $7m having been utilised?

Would you also be happy to fulfill your part of the contract and continue to pay for the remaining 4 years until the $7m had been spent?

Why do you choose to tie yourself in these knots to avoid the obvious?

Boyd's overall performance has not justified his pay packet. It's that simple.

Why does it pain you to acknowledge this? It's bizarre.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Joe Daniher has a pay packet in the vicinity of $700-$800k.

James Stewart would be roughly $200-$250.

Do we therefore conclude that Daniher is being paid overs, as Stewart is meeting or exceeding his output right now?

You should make whatever argument you deem sensible based on their performance.

 

[Mofra]

Joe Daniher has a pay packet in the vicinity of $700-$800k.

James Stewart would be roughly $200-$250.

Do we therefore conclude that Daniher is being paid overs, as Stewart is meeting or exceeding his output right now?

Good example.
You'd have to ignore the fact that Joe is one of (if not, the) most exciting young KPF in the competition and unlike Stewart attracts the no 1 defender every single week.

Again, context is key.

 

[Isaac Cumming No 1]

Sure, but there's no guarantee that works either.

It is known however, that after making the moves they did with Boyd, they won a flag.

One is not necessarily the cause of the other - but it did happen.

I don't think a club with a successful culture thinks that way. The impression is left of a club that thinks they really aren't good enough to contend through multiple years. A flag is absolutely a cause for celebration, it's in the Cabinet and was earned the hard way. But it doesn't mean you then settle in and accept mediocrity.
I do get supporters are not the football department, but there are signs in their trading and gameplan since 2016 that it's an accurate reflection if the club culture overall. In the lack of enthusiasm to change and adapt

 

[Bulldog Joe]

Why do you choose to tie yourself in these knots to avoid the obvious?

Boyd's overall performance has not justified his pay packet. It's that simple.

Why does it pain you to acknowledge this? It's bizarre.

I am not tying myself in any knots.
My point is that it is not simply a football based decision or outcome.
Whatever spin you put on it, it was a brilliant financial and business decision for the football club.

 

[Jade]

Good example.
You'd have to ignore the fact that Joe is one of (if not, the) most exciting young KPF in the competition and unlike Stewart attracts the no 1 defender every single week.

Again, context is key.

And the fact that Daniher was highly sought after and hence required a greater pay packet to keep. Or the fact that we effectively had to go in to a bidding war with Sydney before he'd even been drafted. Or the fact that he is highly marketable. Or that he's in our leadership group...

 

[Mofra]

It's only "end of story" if you ignore my question.

Do you agree that Boyd's overall performance has not justified his pay packet?

What about when you said "on the surface no he doesn't deserve it"?

It doesn't sound like you disagree very strenuously.

Because I provided context which you are either incapable or unwilling to acknowledge.

In your world, on the basis of 2017 Tom Boyd is a far better player than Nic Nat because his output was higher. I'm not willing to make that argument but following your line of reasoning it's true.

 

[Jade]

I don't think a club with a successful culture thinks that way. The impression is left of a club that thinks they really aren't good enough to contend through multiple years. A flag is absolutely a cause for celebration, it's in the Cabinet and was earned the hard way. But it doesn't mean you then settle in and accept mediocrity.
I do get supporters are not the football department, but there are signs in their trading and gameplan since 2016 that it's an accurate reflection if the club culture overall. In the lack of enthusiasm to change and adapt

I've been fairly vocal in other threads that the Dogs have had multiple failings following their flag victory, on field and off.

 

[Isaac Cumming No 1]

I've been fairly vocal in other threads that the Dogs have had multiple failings following their flag victory, on field and off.

Fair enough
It just seemed in thread a bit like a flag forgives everything that's all.

 

[Jade]

Fair enough
It just seemed in thread a bit like a flag forgives everything that's all.

Yeah I certainly don't think that way. My opinion on the Dogs has been quite strong in that winning the flag has papered over some fairly glaring management issues.

However, in the context of this thread, I don't see how the recruitment of Boyd can be seen as one of those. It's a risk that ultimately may not pay off as much as they would have liked, but it was certainly a risk worth taking.

 

[The_Flying_Egg]

Was a good individual performance in the 2016 GF worth mortgaging so much of the future for?

Yes

The only reason he played in the ruck was because of how terrible he was as a permanent forward.

This is just completely incorrect

 

[Sweet Jesus]

I am not tying myself in any knots.
My point is that it is not simply a football based decision or outcome.
Whatever spin you put on it, it was a brilliant financial and business decision for the football club.

I'm not putting any spin on it. That's what you're doing.

Boyd's overall performance has not justified his pay packet. It's that simple. Where's the spin?