Gaff was being offered much more elsewhere but re-signed with us for less.Whilst Nic Nat took a contract for less money ( fair enough he hasnt played much ) I didnt see that same attitude with Lycett , Gaff and McGovern . All wanting big bucks . Well I may be wrong but I sensed some of our boys a bit money hungry . Not sure where this talk recently about pay cuts comes from (Hopefully from many not just a few )to get Kelly in but in the long run success will bring its own financial rewards .
Here's an article saying that some players took a 'financial sacrifice' to bring Kelly in. Whether that's just NicNat getting a lesser deal to the giant one he had previously had or other players accepting less, we'll never know. Delisting Masten helped open up a chunk of room also.It’s more like would you work for slightly less in a job that is more enjoyable and has greater personal rewards, as well as providing better long term prospects.
Because believe it or not some lists are better than others.I don't get the "he took unders" thing.
Yeo, Shuey, Gaff, McGovern, Darling and now Kelly are probably paid like top 6 players. Why would other clubs necessarily offer more? I know media love a beat up about salaries from Norf etc, but how much more can they actually offer without destroying their salary cap - look at what Buddy & Tippett have done to Swans.
It's easy. "Unders" simply means agreeing to a contract potentially worth less than another contract that was potentially on offer that was potentially worth more. There is zero transparency.I don't get the "he took unders" thing.
Didn't Nisbett say at the time of his signing, we were waiting on third party deals to be approved?It's easy. "Unders" simply means agreeing to a contract potentially worth less than another contract that was potentially on offer that was potentially worth more. There is zero transparency.
Pick a player, any player. I'll go with McGovern as an example.
McGovern as a then 26 year old two time All Australian who had played 90 odd games was out of contract and eligible for free agency. As an accomplished key position player in his prime he was worth an above average contract. No one knows the exact figures, but player managers and list managers all talk to each other and it's easy to frame a rough guide. He's a $700k-1m player at market value. You're unlikely to sign/keep him for less, and if you are paying more it's a strategy to buy his services above the market rate. All we know is that he signed for 5 years.
So as a journo you find someone to talk to. Shouldn't be too hard to find out which clubs are interested or not and whether any numbers are being thrown around. A bunch of clubs being interested around the same contract amount isn't newsworthy. The Herald Sun ran with 4 years @ $800k as our initial offer which was enough to see contract talks put on hold until the end of the season (which they weren't, he re-signed in July last year). How accurate is that? Who knows. It was then reported that he was offered 6 years @ $1.2m a year to leave. How accurate is that? Who knows. Easy from then on. 4 x $800k as the minimum, 6 x $1.2m as the max. From there you just pick something in the range you are happy with. You just need to say 'believed to be worth' whenever you get into specifics.
Possibly, I don't remember personally.Didn't Nisbett say at the time of his signing, we were waiting on third party deals to be approved?