News Brisbane kick off talks with Aish's management. Already.

[whatboutbob]

Well, I was being a touch dramatic, but I think it's fair to say that this high profile draftee has been moved significantly up the waiting list. Whichever way you slice it it appears to be our list management strategy is being affected more by PR considerations than usual.

...or is the PR just a bit more on the front foot...?

 

[POBT]

Whichever way you slice it it appears to be our list management strategy is being affected more by PR considerations than usual.

I don't agree with that conclusion. I think effective list management is the primary driver and the club is just looking to take advantage of that from a PR perspective.

In any event, I'm not sure that a club's top 10 draft pick is ever that far from the top of the pile in terms of re-signing priorities.

 

[POBT]

By way of comparison, both Karnezis and Polec signed 1 year contract extensions in the July of their debut year on the list.

 

[Ironmonger]

I don't agree with that conclusion. I think effective list management is the primary driver and the club is just looking to take advantage of that from a PR perspective.

Based on what?

By way of comparison, both Karnezis and Polec signed 1 year contract extensions in the July of their debut year on the list.

Surely that comparison supports my argument? This is being floated more than four months earlier in the timeline than any other contract extension either of us can think of.

In any case, my argument assumes that this was a deliberate leak by the club, with some substance behind it. I suppose it might've been an off-the-cuff remark by Warren.

 

[chopperduck]

Again though Tom, this comes after we lost 5 players last year, the media is going to give a running commentary on everything Aish related. For all we know ever year for the past 4 years we could be indicating to, and especially our first pick, that we want to sign them for an extra year.

I dont think anything outside of normal is happening except higher media reporting. We arent splashing all this over our website, its being reported in the media. Our young player retentionis about the obly thing the media want to know about us this year.

After everyone jumped ship at the end of last year the club was potted for apparently not locking down our young players, now we indicate we want to do that and people are getting still worrying about things.

 

[POBT]

Based on what?

Based on it being most likely that the list management is the primary driver, not the PR. I don't expect a lot from the club but it would be nonsensical for it to be the other way around.

Surely that comparison supports my argument? This is being floated more than four months earlier in the timeline than any other contract extension either of us can think of.

So your concern is about a 4 month period? I really don't see the difference. In both instances, the club has locked up promising first year players well before their contract expiry date. And we don't know how much earlier the club started discussions with Karnezis and Polec's management. Presumably, there had been ongoing discussions prior to the actual announcement in July....which is pretty much what the article is saying we want to do.

In any case, my argument assumes that this was a deliberate leak by the club, with some substance behind it. I suppose it might've been an off-the-cuff remark by Warren.

I can see that the club has possibly leaked or encouraged the story. I suspect it is more likely that Davis just wanted an angle to write a story on Aish but the former is certainly possible.

But I just can't make the link that because a story appeared in the paper, it therefore means that we've changed our list management strategy because we want better PR. For starters, I think it is excellent list management to attempt to lock up Aish early. Secondly, it is consistent with what we have done in the past and what other clubs have done with their highly promising youngsters. Finally, the obvious conclusion is that, if this is a deliberate strategy, it is more likely in my mind that we're simply sending out the message "we are being proactive with our list management".

 

[POBT]

I seem to recall the club putting Rich on some sort of media ban in the 2009 pre-season. I can also remember Voss trying to water down expectations about Rich in his debut year.

With Aish, the club almost seems proactive in raising supporter expectations. Every opportunity, someone is talking him up.

 

[Ironmonger]

Based on it being most likely that the list management is the primary driver, not the PR. I don't expect a lot from the club but it would be nonsensicaly for it to be the other way around.

It seems that my argument is that it's not good for PR to drive our list management strategy, and your response is that our list management strategy isn't driven by PR because it's not good for PR to drive our list management strategy. Perhaps I don't understand your argument, or you don't understand mine. Or perhaps there's more common ground than we realise.

I don't think it's the worst thing in the world for marketing considerations to have some impact on our list management: I'm sure it was a factor to some degree in offering Browny another contract.

My point is that we seem to be doing something differently this year, probably in response to the go-home five, and I'm not sure we should be doing anything differently. Possibly, as whatboutbob says, it's purely cosmetic, but I'm not convinced.

So your concern is about a 4 month period? I really don't see the difference. In both instances, the club has locked up promising first year players well before their contract expiry date.

I disagree. There's a great deal to be learnt about young players in their first 4 months playing senior footy. It is a very significant difference.

And we don't know how much earlier the club started discussions with Karnezis and Polec's management. Presumably, there had been ongoing discussions prior to the actual announcement in July....which is pretty much what the article is saying we want to do.

I guess I'm making the assumption that discussions are at a point where we're confident of an announcement soon. That seems fair enough, because it would be highly embarrassing to the club if that wasn't the case.

Possibly we'd flagged to Karnezis' and Polec's management that we wanted to re-sign them before round one of 2011 too. But it doesn't seem likely, and I doubt it would've taken four months to negotiate a one year extension in either case.

I can see that the club has possibly leaked or encouraged the story. I suspect it is more likely that Davis just wanted an angle to write a story on Aish but the former is certainly possible.

But I just can't make the link that because a story appeared in the paper, it therefore means that we've changed our list management strategy because we want better PR. For starters, I think it is excellent list management to attempt to lock up Aish early. Secondly, it is consistent with what we have done in the past and what other clubs have done with their highly promising youngsters. Finally, the obvious conclusion is that, if this is a deliberate strategy, it is more likely in my mind that we're simply sending out the message "we are being proactive with our list management".

I honestly don't believe it's excellent list management to re-sign a player before the first scheduled senior game. Or to flag that you intend to. You disagree, and I guess you have your reasons, but it's hardly common practice.

To say it is consistent with past practice seems to be stretching the definition of that word to its limits. I would suggest that it is not consistent with past practice on the basis that this is the earliest in any Brisbane player's career that we've heard anything about an extension. Earlier than Karnezis, earlier than Polec, earlier than anyone.

I agree with your conclusion. It just doesn't contradict my point at all. I'm sure we're sending out that message, I'm just not sure we're not compromising our list management in doing so.

 

[chopperduck]

I wouldn't be so sure Tom. If we signed players in July, i think it's safe to say there would have been a few months of contract talks before something was signed and agreed on. Likewise after the blasting the list managment got last year for having so many players coming off contract at once, they had said that they had tried signing a few of those guys at the start of the year.

Again, whilst we might not usually hear much about this normally, doesn't mean it doesn't normally happen. I think this is far more likely to be media pushing the envelope on this rather than us, our signing on young talent is going to be topic #1 this year for Brisbane media coverage, and anything and everything will be reported on and the club is going to be asked to commment on it as well. In light of what happened last year, it would be poor for the club PR to just ignore the talk, but likewise, as i mentioned above, we aren't exactly shouting this from the roof tops ourselves, there is no mention of this on the club website either. We all know how much player managers talk, and i'm not sure who Aish is with, but with him being the highly rated young guy who isn't native from QLD that we drafted, the spot light will firmly be on him all year, and his management for any and all 'news' about any contract signing, or non signing for that matter.

 

[POBT]

The contention that it is being driven by PR doesn't make any sense to me whatsoever. But I guess if you think it is a bad idea to start negotiations this early, then I suppose it makes sense that you think there must be an ulterior motive.

I said earlier in this thread that not only do I think it is good practice to get the contracts immediately extended but I hope we do exactly the same for every other draftee.

 

[Ironmonger]

I wouldn't be so sure Tom.

I think if we've never, ever heard about it happening before, the most likely reason is that it hasn't happened before.

Part of the problem with this argument is that we're treating Polec and Karnezis as the norm, when actually they were extreme examples of particularly early contract extensions.

And of course the players you refer to were all in at least their second year on the list.

I said earlier in this thread that not only do I think it is good practice to get the contracts immediately extended but I hope we do exactly the same for every other draftee.

Is that a view that you've always had, or do you think it's a logical response to the go-home five?

 

[POBT]

I also think that an underlying assumption might be either (a) because Aish is the only one mentioned in the press, he is the only one we're negotiating or interested in negotiating with; or (b) that list management is linear and you have to wait for one domino to fall before the next one can.

I'd be highly surprised if, for example, we haven't been doing the contract dance with Rocky for a little while now. And probably a few others that we're keen to keep.

 

[chopperduck]

We are all probably going around in circles a bit with this and how we interpret this news, and there is guess work on both sides as to the reasons and motives. As with most things, the truth is probably somewhere in between. We are probably doing nothing different than what we normally do with all of our draftees. A 3 year contract is something that we want as standard for players we draft, so giving an indication that we would like to sign him for that 3rd year is just being consistent with that, and signing players for a 3rd year is something we have done in the past, prior to the go home 5. Because the focus in the media is on our player retaining abilities after last season, the PR department might very well be leaking a bit of extra info to try and combat this media profile that has been given to us, which is an unhappy club that can't keep young talent (cue Lloyd). So in that way, i don't blame the club for being a bit more front footed with anything about retaining young players. The process i don't think is any different in to how we go about our list management, but maybe we are reporting the activity a bit more.

With how dumb the Vic media especially are with profiling our club, i certainly don't blame them for trying to break this image of a sinking ship. You can bet that if we get off to a slow start and struggle early, every article will start suggesting how unhappy we are and how we will struggle to retain our young players. Rocky is gone, Bergs is finally going to GWS, Rich back to WA to join his best mate Yeo, Aish looks disinterested and Mayes regrets signing so early.

 

[Ironmonger]

I also think that an underlying assumption might be either (a) because Aish is the only one mentioned in the press, he is the only one we're negotiating or interested in negotiating with; or (b) that list management is linear and you have to wait for one domino to fall before the next one can.

I'd be highly surprised if, for example, we haven't been doing the contract dance with Rocky for a little while now. And probably a few others that we're keen to keep.

A is definitely an assumption I'm making. And it might be wrong, of course. I don't know the context in which the comments were made. And 'Brisbane have initiated contract negotiations' might just be a bald-faced lie.

B isn't entirely wrong. It's just an oversimplification.

 

[POBT]

Is that a view that you've always had, or do you think it's a logical response to the go-home five?

Not forever but for some time. How many players drafted in (say) the top 50 are delisted after 2 years? Very few, at least by us. That being the case, what is the likelihood of signing a draftee for three years and then regretting that decision? It seems to me to be a low risk solution to an obvious problem - that a 2nd year player may get seduced by his home town club/s.

I thought it was a good move when we did it with Rich and would have had no qualms if we'd done it a few months earlier.

We've had a go home problem for years, in fact as long as I've been supporting a Brisbane club. It just manifested itself most obviously last year. It has been clear for some time that "normal" list management practices won't work for us. We have to try other things and contracting early, for longer, makes sense.

 

[POBT]

A is definitely an assumption I'm making. And it might be wrong, of course.

You don't think we're talking contracts to any other player on our list?

 

[chopperduck]

I think if we've never, ever heard about it happening before, the most likely reason is that it hasn't happened before.

I don't think you need to assume that though. Previously we've been very very quiet about any and all contract talk. We don't normally even mention dollar amounts or contract length, who we are talking to or looking to lock away. It is hard to judge on what previously was 'the norm' when we have very little information to go on. The most recent info we've had is that they tried very hard to lock away most of the go home 5, starting from the start of each year, right through with no success. I also think it would be extremely silly for clubs to take 6 months off contract and list management work and not bother at the start of the year. To think that clubs aren't talking to players, both theirs, and other clubs in January i think is a little silly. I'm sure we will be trying to lock away all the smaller contracts throughout the year, or atleast getting a ball park figure worked out, so that come off season we know how much money we have to spend on the bigger fish, and to splash around in FA.

 

[blynd_freddie]

My point is that we seem to be doing something differently this year, probably in response to the go-home five, and I'm not sure we should be doing anything differently.

Yes, this is snipped but I believe still in context - It's a statement I cannot fathom anyone agreeing to - it reads like you are suggesting to sitting on hands/sweep under the carpet is the right thing to do? Flabbergasted!

 

[chopperduck]

I also think with Polec and Karni, we sensed the go home factor and maybe we did try early on them, but it still took until that 2nd year to get another year locked away. It's hard to say much in previous years and before 08 our list management was completely arse backwards, we had no talent on the list and salary cap pressure because we were paying spuds big money to not go home. Wasn't Hooper on something like 300k reportedly ??

We had that big clean out with, IIRC that Reid guy from SA who help by changing our TPP to align better with our B&F finishes, meaning the top players get the money, not the crappy players threatening to go elsewhere. It took awhile to get that cleaned up, and a lot has changed in the past 5 years with our list management. I think Warren is a big pusher for this 3 year draftee deal as well.

 

[POBT]

FWIW, I agree with TomFC that I don't think we entered into formal contract discussions this early with Rich, Polec and co. I can't rule it out but, even with our notorious secrecy in the past on all things "contract", I think some word would have got out about it. I think it is probable that, if we do want to extend Aish's contract straight away, that it is earlier than we have done in the past.

 

[POBT]

I also think with Polec and Karni, we sensed the go home factor and maybe we did try early on them, but it still took until that 2nd year to get another year locked away.

Pretty sure they both extended in mid-2011.

 

[chopperduck]

It certainly might be earlier than what we have previously done, but i would think it would be more in relation to how we want 3 year deals, more so than doing it just to combat the PR about the go home 5. Any positive PR we get about retaining players that comes along with signing anyone in years 1-3 is just a bonus to slowly chip away at reputation we now have as an incubator for talent.

 

[Ironmonger]

You don't think we're talking contracts to any other player on our list?

Is that what you were saying? Apologies if it was.

To clarify, the assumption I'm making is that Aish is being treated differently from other players in his position due to his profile.

Yes, this is snipped but I believe still in context - It's a statement I cannot fathom anyone agreeing to - it reads like you are suggesting to sitting on hands/sweep under the carpet is the right thing to do? Flabbergasted!

Well no, I don't think we should be doing anything differently in regard to player contracts. I don't think length of the contracts was the issue for the go home five. You might disagree, but I don't think you need to be flabbergasted. Although I like that word.

It's pretty clear that the comment is in the context of contract negotiations. I don't think I should have to start every sentence with 'in the context of contract negotiations' to have my meaning understood.

 

[blynd_freddie]

Is that what you were saying? Apologies if it was.

To clarify, the assumption I'm making is that Aish is being treated differently from other players in his position due to his profile.



Well no, I don't think we should be doing anything differently in regard to player contracts. I don't think length of the contracts was the issue for the go home five. You might disagree, but I don't think you need to be flabbergasted. Although I like that word.

It's pretty clear that the comment is in the context of contract negotiations. I don't think I should have to start every sentence with 'in the context of contract negotiations' to have my meaning understood.

Yeah got the jist of it Tom - I like the thought of scattering contract signings throughout the year - in the not so distant past we've had many players grouped towards the end of the season waiting to be re-contracted. Sure, a great/convenient time to decide on the future of 'fringe players' and squeeze/tighten contracts but by spacing major contract renewals throughout the early part of year/season also seems to be an increasing trend with many other clubs at the moment - I can see both logistical book balancing benefits and that it could also help keep [free agency] wolves at bay.

 

[POBT]

All three Gold Coast draftees have signed contract extensions, according to the Courier Mail. Article quotes Clayton as saying taking draftees is at least a 3 year commitment.

They also have Lonergan, Cameron, Sumner and Schade locked away to the end of next year, O'Meara to 2016 and Martin til 2017.