Explain to me something..

[Bentleigh]

Why did we give Krak a huge contract (as in, alot on money) because we were apparently "just" meeting the min salary requirment of 92.5% or whatever it is, and yet a very short time later we cannot afford a player this draft period into our salary cap.

 

[jackson_rules]

Why did we give Krak a huge contract (as in, alot on money) because we were apparently "just" meeting the min salary requirment of 92.5% or whatever it is, and yet a very short time later we cannot afford a player this draft period into our salary cap.

DANNY FRAWLEY

 

[PLSC]

its the main reason vic clubs suck

like when hawthorn were paying the same as port's premiership team when they came 15th in 2004, its a joke

 

[banzai]

Frawley loved him.

 

[PLSC]

you know what

i keep hearing that he is like the best boxer at the club and then in a game shows nothing, same as simmo whos a black belt and has only really had a biff against the saints which was great

bring back staff

 

[tigerdan]

Why did we give Krak a huge contract (as in, alot on money) because we were apparently "just" meeting the min salary requirment of 92.5% or whatever it is, and yet a very short time later we cannot afford a player this draft period into our salary cap.

Because we are just posturing and don't want to spend any picks if we can.

Also, looking long term it might be handy to be the club with the most room to move in the salary cap should a big fish become out of contract from the west somewhere...

 

[_RT_]

Because we are just posturing and don't want to spend any picks if we can.

Also, looking long term it might be handy to be the club with the most room to move in the salary cap should a big fish become out of contract from the west somewhere...

Very good point that, in the next few years there will be some kids over the border who may want to come home and with the Tigers beginning to show some potential you would want to be in a good position to be able to make offers at any superstar that is coming along.

Also Wallace wants kids to mould and by getting 3-4 per year he will have 15-20 Top quality kids at the end of his 5 years contract, and will be ready to take the fans to the promised land.

 

[FlyingTiger]

Smoke and mirrors by the Marvelous Magician Miller



PS Let's hope he is as good as he thinks he is.

 

[Weaver]

Why did we give Krak a huge contract (as in, alot on money) because we were apparently "just" meeting the min salary requirment of 92.5% or whatever it is, and yet a very short time later we cannot afford a player this draft period into our salary cap.

Remember in school when they gave you a bit of text to read and you had to understand it? How did you go on answering those questions?

Go back and read what Miller said. Now look closely at the word budget.

We can not afford to take on a large contract (net) and remain under our budget. No mention of the cap at all.

Our budget might be be 95% of the cap for all we know.

 

[itsintheblood]

Why did we give Krak a huge contract (as in, alot on money) because we were apparently "just" meeting the min salary requirment of 92.5% or whatever it is, and yet a very short time later we cannot afford a player this draft period into our salary cap.

Don't believe everything you hear bentleigh. Miller is a snake.

 

[corporal]

I'd hope so, how the hell are we going to get anywhere is we can't pay the full cap and pick up quality players

...oh yeah and Krak is immensly overpaid

 

[jezza]

I'd hope so, how the hell are we going to get anywhere is we can't pay the full cap and pick up quality players

...oh yeah and Krak is immensly overpaid

Because we have been in a poor financial position, and even though we've had a good profit result, we are a long way off the big clubs. We only have so much money to go around, so it's come down to a choice of do we allow that bit more for player payments which would mean we could get someone like Polak without having to trade away anyone, or do we go for the extra spending in football operations (more coaches, better facilities etc).

I'm happy with the choice we've made, we're making progress and eliminating our debt, but we will never be a serious long term threat to other clubs unless we start matching them in coaching, facilities, sports science etc. Best to do it now while we have a large group of young players that can benefit greatly from it.

 

[corporal]

Because we have been in a poor financial position, and even though we've had a good profit result, we are a long way off the big clubs. We only have so much money to go around, so it's come down to a choice of do we allow that bit more for player payments which would mean we could get someone like Polak without having to trade away anyone, or do we go for the extra spending in football operations (more coaches, better facilities etc).

I'm happy with the choice we've made, we're making progress and eliminating our debt, but we will never be a serious long term threat to other clubs unless we start matching them in coaching, facilities, sports science etc. Best to do it now while we have a large group of young players that can benefit greatly from it.

Fair point however this has to be balanced against players development being hindered because we are totally weak on the field in some area's,

If our key defenders consist of:

Gaspar (will struggle to play a full year I would imagine)
Hall (don't really need to comment)
Schultz (much debate whether he is a forward or defender)
Thursfield (remembering he has played 2 1/2 good games in his career and is coming back from a knee reco)

I think I would rather "dip" into the million dollar profit and pick up a KKP if it meant it was going to provide a stronger team for our youngers to be developing in.

Whilst I don't necessarly want to get rid of Krakeour, if it comes down to his $275,000 salary stoping us getting Polak then hopefully we can trick the Kangeroo's into to trading something decent for him

 

[Goldust]

Remember in school when they gave you a bit of text to read and you had to understand it? How did you go on answering those questions?

Go back and read what Miller said. Now look closely at the word budget.

We can not afford to take on a large contract (net) and remain under our budget. No mention of the cap at all.

Our budget might be be 95% of the cap for all we know.

GOOD explanation, Weaver. Though think our budget is towards the lower scale of the 90s and not 95% or above.

 

[Bentleigh]

Because we are just posturing and don't want to spend any picks if we can.

Also, looking long term it might be handy to be the club with the most room to move in the salary cap should a big fish become out of contract from the west somewhere...

Lets hope this is correct

 

[duckboy]

Greg Denham was trying to suggest this morning that he thought it could be TPP pressure not budgetary pressure that was causing us to pause on Polak. I can't believe that we'd be anywhere near 100% of the cap.