Analysis A quick look toward a rebuild

[BruceFromBalnarring]

I clicked the link, read the post and now have to ask you a question.

What $15M loan? Governments don’t provide a loan service, they provide grants. This is a grant and grants don’t get paid back. So your waffle about the AFL being guarantor is absolutely wrong!

As I understand it, there are 2x $15million amounts. A grant from the Fed Govt, and what needs to be raised by the Swans. It's the second amount that the AFL might be acting as guarantor for.

https://www.smh.com.au/sport/afl/sw...-boost-for-women-s-sport-20190423-p51glx.html

 

[Grand Uncle Horace]

As I understand it, there are 2x $15million amounts. A grant from the Fed Govt, and what needs to be raised by the Swans. It's the second amount that the AFL might be acting as guarantor for.

https://www.smh.com.au/sport/afl/sw...-boost-for-women-s-sport-20190423-p51glx.html

Thanks BfB!

 

[Tedeski]

“I’m hoping our supporters can see that we’ve got a good young group coming through. Our NEAFL team had a good win today, so we think we’ve got some positive things coming through. It doesn’t always gel straight way, but we’ll keep trying to fast-track these kids as quickly as we can,” - John Longmire

I know its not a popular thing around these parts to quote Horse these days, but as I was reading the quotes from Horse's press conference on Saturday Night I was left in no doubt that the club was throwing the towel in on the rest of season, while trying to be as open as possible with the fan base about where we sit and what we plan on doing about it for the rest of the year - play the kids.

So will this year be a small dip for quick reward similar to 2009 or will we face a prolonged period down the ladder? As promised to Heeney2Franklin this is a look at where we sit.

Our Youth

Over the past 3 season we have blooded an impressive 22 young players while trying to compete for finals and avoiding a drop down the ladder but while we made the 2016 Grand Final to begin with we have slowly fallen behind the league as we continue our focus on the draft and allow a gap to open up between our youth and older players. So where we sit now has to leave the question are the kids good enough long term to take us to a Premiership?

Only 3 of the 22 players given their first games since 2016 are signed past 2020 (Mills, Blakey and McCartin) which indicates the club is unsure of where many of the remaining players sit. The likes of Dawson, Jones and O'Riordan are up for renewal this year and Florent, Hewett, Hayward, Ling, McInerney, Melican, Papley, Ronke, Rowbottom and Stoddart follow after next year. Most of this group we know about, but others we need to have games put into them so we can decide what futures they have and what roles they will fill and thus what areas we won't need to cover. Some we might even have to trade to rejig our age profile in the manner GWS keep doing.

Our List Profile

We have 12 players signed past 2020, of those 3 are over the age of 28 at the start of next season (Sinclair, Rampe and Buddy) so while these three will be important to us over the next few years they won't form our long term core. The future core is from the remaining 9 players we have signed long term Blakey, Mills, Heeney and McCartin are all under the age of 24 while Reid, Naismith, Allir, Lloyd and Parker are between the age of 24 and 28.

Its this group (along with the likes of Papley, Cunningham, Jones and Hewitt) that more or less will make up the core of our next successful side. Clearly when we look at this group weaknesses become clear and the direction of our rebuild becomes clear.

So what are our weaknesses?

Given we are playing with more of a focus to play though the corridor this year (abet slowly) our midfield has been a weakness which is not helped by the likes of Jones, Parker, Lloyd and Florent all being in the Top 50 for turnovers in the League. Skilled player by foot are needed badly and the likes of Rowbottom, McInerney and Ling are seen by the club as long term answers in this area but a focus on this continuing won't hurt.

Sinclair and Naismith being our long term rucks is going to be a weakness so has to be addressed sooner rather than later. Sinclair has done a great job carrying the load of our ruck division on his own, is great around the ground but is just not providing our midfield with first use that we need from a ruckman. Naismith is just too injury prone to be relied upon but his first use stats are a tease and show why he is signed for as long as he is.

Defense continue to soak up the pressure the midfield is giving up. You can see with the attempted trades for Moore and then Langdon last year that the club wants to improve the defense so they can release Mills into the midfield as they have with Jones. With what we have on our books currently Melican hasn't proven himself other than what we saw in 2017 and with Grundy out of the side and likely to retire at the end of the year we need to decide whether he is the long term replacement. The signs currently aren't promising. Depth in this area and an improvement to the midfield will help this group more than anything else.

So? Skills, Ruck, Defense - Its the midfield stupid.

The midfield is getting killed and in turn its hurting other areas of the team. The defense is getting overrun and the skills of the players on the way out when we have the ball means the forward line either has to chase after a turnover or is out of position because they are getting sucked up the ground. Improving the above areas can help the midfield out but it won't be the only way to solve the midfield issues. It will involve the coaches working to the strengths of the midfield via the gameplan they use.

So, just where are we at?

When you put this altogether it paints the coaching staff in a bad light, but I think the club isn't even thinking about sacking Horse let alone moving on from him. This board can become an echo chamber at times and doesn't reflect what the rest of the supporter base think nor the club itself. If the club was thinking of sacking Horse or he was told his job was in danger the above quote wouldn't of been made. A change in gameplan has started to take place and we're starting to look at what our list has available, I think Horse will be given time to put in place the start of the rebuild.

So if we get our trades right (if we make them) we could have a one year dip, but realistically this could be a prolonged dip as our core isn't as strong as the core we had in 2009. Its promising that a different kind of gameplan is being attempted but currently we just don't have the cattle to pull it off and it might be sometime until we do. People calling for a change of gameplan or more attacking style won't get what they want because even a move to play though the corridor has proven beyond this group of players and taking on more risks has seen the ball turned over in greater numbers.

I like our list in parts but we need this time down the ladder as we need to reinvent the list further than we can while challenging for finals and that means a few years out of the finals.

That's excellent Robbie!
Love it.
I'm with you in the thinking that the club will go with Horse for the rebuild, unless of course he is already destined to go elsewhere.
The club seems extremely happy with him.

 

[Tedeski]

Good analysis

I think the coaching group is a key part of the list build. I know we have a horse thread. But they will be a key part

As a group reid parker allir lloyd and naismith is a poor core

We have blooded a lot of kids, hopefully we can use a few as trade chips to upgrade overall.


I dont agree with your last points, horse might in my view push the rebuild publically to assist in keeping pressure off that the board may hint at,


A lot of where we find ourselves was self induced, poor list management

The recruitment of Buddy may be looked at as the poorest list management decision in years to come. Sure it was a brilliant decision for the club off field but it has ultimately hamstrung our ability to keep certain players or perhaps even attract other players in the key age bracket range where we are under represented.
Hindsight is wonderful but there is the list management blunder right there with $1.3M sitting in the grandstand alongside the coaches for two weeks.
Just saying.

 

[robbieando]

I clicked the link, read the post and now have to ask you a question.

What $15M loan? Governments don’t provide a loan service, they provide grants. This is a grant and grants don’t get paid back. So your waffle about the AFL being guarantor is absolutely wrong!

Our facilities at Royal Hall of Industries will cost $55 million. We have received $40million in grants so far.

$20 million from the NSW Government, $5 million from the AFL for $5million and $15 million from the federal government. We don't don't have the money on hand to make up the short fall and we don't have the assets to borrow that amount of money without help from the AFL.

 

[robbieando]

Not sure why you seem to get so pissy if someone doesn’t take your word as gospel

Not like you work at the club mate

You sure like to throw that line around at people who hold view points that don't line up with your own. Maybe debate the post rather than put down posters.

As for the post itself he didn't say anything that went against what I've posted already in this thread. I agree about having a review and have said so in this thread and elsewhere on this board (I was the posted the he referenced that brought up the fact we haven't had a review for such a long time). I was only pointing out that reviews aren't far reaching as he would hope for in terms of looking backwards.

I had an issue with an earlier post of his from last week, which looking back wasn't the right thing to do.

 

[Punts]

So buddy is failure Ted

 

[Tedeski]

So buddy is failure Ted

I'll give you a little more time to read my post again Punts.

 

[Mick Oxlong]

Our facilities at Royal Hall of Industries will cost $55 million. We have received $40million in grants so far.

$20 million from the NSW Government, $5 million from the AFL for $5million and $15 million from the federal government. We don't don't have the money on hand to make up the short fall and we don't have the assets to borrow that amount of money without help from the AFL.

The AFL is not going to ‘loan’ Sydney or any other Club monies. They are not a financial institution, they are unable to provide loans. It is illegal.

 

[Tedeski]

Just to clarify my post Punts, I wouldn't change anything for the world regarding Buddy, but as a list management decision it will be looked back on as damaging. I've always maintained that view but I'm sure the club looked at it as an off field bonanza, which has been a true success as it also stopped our main rival GWS, with unlimited AFL funding, from boosting their membership on the back of Buddy. But that in itself also brought the CoLA out for discussion & in turn we lost it on the back of recruiting Buddy, further reducing our funds to spread around the rest of the list.

I think we all know this. We don't like it but I'm not really telling everyone anything they didn't already know deep down.

 

[Mick Oxlong]

As I understand it, there are 2x $15million amounts. A grant from the Fed Govt, and what needs to be raised by the Swans. It's the second amount that the AFL might be acting as guarantor for.

https://www.smh.com.au/sport/afl/sw...-boost-for-women-s-sport-20190423-p51glx.html

Yes, if they have to borrow from a financial institution but the $15M will not be required to be paid back in one lump sum. This would occur over many, many years and it certainly wouldn’t be at the rate that would put financial strain on the club. Their vision will most likely be...shortfall now, cover interest now and grab more grant later. They would’ve completed their due diligence on this or no stakeholder would’ve ticked off! It’s what Geelong is doing as we speak!

 

[caesar88]

Nice idea for a discussion but ya’ll lost me at ‘trade Florent.’

 

[Wayne Swan]

Best thing for the rebuild is to manage the balance of this year on field by getting games into emerging players as they earn them in the NEAFL. Really need to think hard before playing Gold Pass players again this year, except for SCG farewell games.

Too many times we ignore players who are "on fire" in the NEAFL and instead stick with underperforming players or mysteriously selecting other players for promotion who are not kicking the door down. Best time to promote them is whilst they are in ripping form. Thinking here of late 2017 when Foote was getting games over Dawson who was smoking it in the NEAFL. Be interesting to see this weeks selections!

 

[robbieando]

The AFL is not going to ‘loan’ Sydney or any other Club monies. They are not a financial institution, they are unable to provide loans. It is illegal.

Better tell GWS....

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl...year-on-top-of-23m-grant-20190327-p51845.html

GWS received a loan of $1.75m from the AFL in November to cover a budget deficit, having previously borrowed $750,000 less than 12 months earlier. The documents reveal the expansion club owes $1.475 million to the AFL and has $534,000 of cash in the bank. The $1.475 million is payable on demand by the AFL, although it is not expected to immediately pursue the repayment until the Giants have the available funds.

In any case I never said they would loan us money. We will get that money from a bank.

As we don't have the assets to guarantee against such a loan amount, the AFL will act as guarantor as they have for other clubs.



What is wrong in what I'm saying?

 

[Mick Oxlong]

Better tell GWS....

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl...year-on-top-of-23m-grant-20190327-p51845.html



In any case I never said they would loan us money. We will get that money from a bank.

As we don't have the assets to guarantee against such a loan amount, the AFL will act as guarantor as they have for other clubs.

View attachment 665433

What is wrong in what I'm saying?

They are a guarantor specialist with an ever growing money tree? Do you think the banks will take into consideration default of loan on AFL’s guarantor services should they be required? I.e if nobody can pay their loans, can the AFL afford to? That’s a lot of money to guarantee especially following a banking Royal Commission and you think they’re just gonna plonk another $15M on it? Due diligence sausages, due diligence!

Re GWS, if you think that is a loan then you’re kidding yourself. It’s merely a way to appease other clubs. If you don’t have a financial ‘licence’, you cannot loan money!

 

[Grand Uncle Horace]

Maybe debate the post rather than put down posters.

Time for some reflection methinks.

 

[robbieando]

Re GWS, if you think that is a loan then you’re kidding yourself. It’s merely a way to appease other clubs. If you don’t have a financial ‘licence’, you cannot loan money!

Then why are GWS disclosing that to ASIC via their annual report? If they can't surely they must be breaking the law correct?

 

[robbieando]

Time for some reflection methinks.

Please point out where I've directly attacked someone in this thread.

I'll wait

 

[The King!]

The recruitment of Buddy may be looked at as the poorest list management decision in years to come. Sure it was a brilliant decision for the club off field but it has ultimately hamstrung our ability to keep certain players or perhaps even attract other players in the key age bracket range where we are under represented.
Hindsight is wonderful but there is the list management blunder right there with $1.3M sitting in the grandstand alongside the coaches for two weeks.
Just saying.

Like you said once I think if we win 14 or 16 no one would care

Buddy long terms always worried me but I won’t pretend I wasn’t happy at the time

 

[The King!]

You sure like to throw that line around at people who hold view points that don't line up with your own. Maybe debate the post rather than put down posters.

As for the post itself he didn't say anything that went against what I've posted already in this thread. I agree about having a review and have said so in this thread and elsewhere on this board (I was the posted the he referenced that brought up the fact we haven't had a review for such a long time). I was only pointing out that reviews aren't far reaching as he would hope for in terms of looking backwards.

I had an issue with an earlier post of his from last week, which looking back wasn't the right thing to do.

Lol didn’t throw s**t around just not like you to tell people not to post here or take their stupid idea elsewhere was just unlike my experience with you

You are always pretty switched on and respectful when I talk to you , pissy was harsh though sorry

Good thread and sorry if I took it ofF course and I am course am not perfect I mean close but not quite

 

[Mick Oxlong]

Then why are GWS disclosing that to ASIC via their annual report? If they can't surely they must be breaking the law correct?

You tell me, you’re the one that appears to know it all. I’ll just attach these images for you as a starter!

 

[robbieando]

Lol didn’t throw **** around just not like you to tell people not to post here or take their stupid idea elsewhere was just unlike my experience with you

You are always pretty switched on and respectful when I talk to you , pissy was harsh though sorry

Good thread and sorry if I took it ofF course and I am course am not perfect I mean close but not quite

Sorry, I was harsh on one poster last night I'll admit, but I wasn't telling him what to post or take an idea elsewhere. I can come across as grumpy at times and your post just shocked me to be honest.

I loved your posts in this thread last night.

 

[Tedeski]

Like you said once I think if we win 14 or 16 no one would care

Buddy long terms always worried me but I won’t pretend I wasn’t happy at the time

I think we were all happy at the time.
I just knew one day I would have to be punished for having so much joy all at once & so early at Hawthorn supporters' expense.

 

[sataris]

Am just glad that there is acknowledgement that this is not good enough.

if the board decides to keep Longmire, that's ok.

At least the board aren't looking at the last 15 years of success as a get out of jail free card for the shithouse display we've been seeing for the last little while.

 

[Olian]

Hard to know if this thread is about a rebuild of the playing list or the development of the new facilities.

Either way better facilities will attract and keep players.

As for the playing list we just need to continue to go to the draft. Avoid trading in mature players who won’t necessarily assist us in the medium term.