Roast How does Damian Barrett still have AFL Media accreditation?

[Persevering Saint]

This is becoming beyond ridiculous.. it’s blatantly clear that he has a personal vendetta against lethers and the club. And his complete and utter lack of integrity and professionalism when it comes to his ‘journalism’ should be held to account.
How can someone in a position like he is in the media continually get away with saying whatever bullshit he wants to fill his own ego, and not be held accountable?

Are you familiar with the recognised state of media across the western world?! Barret is so archetypical he's bordering on cliche.

 

[BrutThough]

Why do people keep saying they had to spend this money on someone so it's fine to spend it on a non-player?

They could have adjusted a couple of contracts to bring payments forward with a little extra bump for any "inconvenience" if they wished. There's heaps of things the club could have done instead of wasting 800k.

Some supporters are so one-eyed here.

No wonder mediocrity is tolerated at the saints.

If you only play 95% of the cap you can bank money from the previous 2 years to pay 105% the next year. But if you dont use that extra cash, you lose it.
We were in the situation where we either spend some of that money, or we dont get to spend it at all and it is all wasted.
Hence why paying Hanners contract was no big deal for us. We were going to lose that money anyway, so why not pay the contract.
And even then, we wouldn't be hitting anywhere near the maximum amount cap we could be paying.
Im pretty sure it's similar to what he was on at the Swans, which was what we needed to do to bring him over and give the Swans the salary cap relief they were after.

 

[Sir Skid]

Hahaaa.
Driving home from airport and SEN talking about Saints and Hannas.
Rang up and got on air. Called out #IPF about 11:20pm tonight for incessant bagging of saints.
Lethers calling him out for no source and been a vengeful spoiled brat since.

 

[Atomboy]

If you only play 95% of the cap you can bank money from the previous 2 years to pay 105% the next year. But if you dont use that extra cash, you lose it.
We were in the situation where we either spend some of that money, or we dont get to spend it at all and it is all wasted.
Hence why paying Hanners contract was no big deal for us. We were going to lose that money anyway, so why not pay the contract.
And even then, we wouldn't be hitting anywhere near the maximum amount cap we could be paying.
Im pretty sure it's similar to what he was on at the Swans, which was what we needed to do to bring him over and give the Swans the salary cap relief they were after.

Given the amount of debt the club has, I don’t think spending $800k on a player who doesn’t get out on the park was required.

I tend to agree with Barrett on this one, the whole deal is so one sided there is something not quite right.

 

[BrutThough]

Given the amount of debt the club has, I don’t think spending $800k on a player who doesn’t get out on the park was required.

I tend to agree with Barrett on this one, the whole deal is so one sided there is something not quite right.

The salary cap is completely independent and not related to the clubs overall debt.
It's not like we could have used Hanner's salary to repay our debts so that's a strange argument to use.
The reasoning from the media at the time on why we got him for so little was because Sydney needed salary cap relief.


Whether or not it was a good decision to recruit him is a seperate issue and something we won't know the answer to for the next few years.
But we did have to spend that money otherwise we lost it. That's just a fact. Now we wait to see if we spent it correctly.

 

[Joffaboy]

Given the amount of debt the club has, I don’t think spending $800k on a player who doesn’t get out on the park was required.

I tend to agree with Barrett on this one, the whole deal is so one sided there is something not quite right.

What has debt got to do with operating revenue?

The debt is mainly non current for capital projects, the Salary Cap is for operating the business.

There is no incentive in paying out the debt when the AFL will pick up the tab.

Really wish amateurs would stop trying to be accountants.

 

[Dr Spaceman]

Really wish amateurs would stop trying to be accountants.

Or doctors!

 

[Hubnester]

We in the media need to be held to account for what we say and report as fact, in the same way we hold to account coaches, players, officiators and administrators.

I wonder if he took this line from Sam McClure personally

 

[SaintsSeptember]

Given the amount of debt the club has, I don’t think spending $800k on a player who doesn’t get out on the park was required.

I tend to agree with Barrett on this one, the whole deal is so one sided there is something not quite right.

It gets explained over and over again, and some people just fail to take it in.

THE CLUB HAS TO SPEND A MINIMUM ON PLAYER SALARIES EVERY YEAR. If they don't spend it on Hannebery they will need to spend it on someone else.
I'll bet David Armitage is on s**t loads.

 

[PoppedCorn]

Wtf is this s**t about dan not having a medical with us?
Ffs this better be * knuckle barrett spinning s**t because if one bit of this is true ill lose my s**t

 

[sunny3193]

Wtf is this s**t about dan not having a medical with us?
Ffs this better be **** knuckle barrett spinning s**t because if one bit of this is true ill lose my s**t

It's garbage.
Sam McClure reported that he had four medicals according to gringo2011

 

[Chazz M Michaels]

If you only play 95% of the cap you can bank money from the previous 2 years to pay 105% the next year. But if you dont use that extra cash, you lose it.
We were in the situation where we either spend some of that money, or we dont get to spend it at all and it is all wasted.
Hence why paying Hanners contract was no big deal for us. We were going to lose that money anyway, so why not pay the contract.
And even then, we wouldn't be hitting anywhere near the maximum amount cap we could be paying.
Im pretty sure it's similar to what he was on at the Swans, which was what we needed to do to bring him over and give the Swans the salary cap relief they were after.

Ok, so apparently everyone knows the status of our salary cap space and all of the contracts with players within the saints.

So apparently we had a spare 800K to give away so we gave it away for the year on a broken down bloke... Ok say that's the case, then please explain the 4 year deal with a 5th year trigger. Do we have 4 years of free salary cap space to give away do we? He only had 3 years left with the Swans. No other club wanted him, Swans would have been happy to get him off the books for nothing. Hannes was keen to come home to melbourne and no-one else wanted him. Where else was he going to end up? Why did they have to give him such huge money with such a long term if there was no competition with getting his services?

Why didn't they play hardball and get swan's to pay a portion of the 1st year's contract if he was in such bad shape? It's going to cost a lot in medical spend to get him right by the sounds of things. Just more costs to our club for a non player.

Collingwood continued to pay a portion of Shaw's contract after he went to GWS. He's much better value that hannes. Saints got screwed in this deal.

Hanne's won't play for half the year, he isn't in the leadership group anymore, won't be training with the main group for a month or more, getting paid huge money and will be contributing very little. How is this a good deal for us?

 

[SaintsSeptember]

Ok, so apparently everyone knows the status of our salary cap space and all of the contracts with players within the saints.

So apparently we had a spare 800K to give away so we gave it away for the year on a broken down bloke... Ok say that's the case, then please explain the 4 year deal with a 5th year trigger. Do we have 4 years of free salary cap space to give away do we? He only had 3 years left with the Swans. No other club wanted him, Swans would have been happy to get him off the books for nothing. Hannes was keen to come home to melbourne and no-one else wanted him. Where else was he going to end up? Why did they have to give him such huge money with such a long term if there was no competition with getting his services?

Why didn't they play hardball and get swan's to pay a portion of the 1st year's contract if he was in such bad shape? It's going to cost a lot in medical spend to get him right by the sounds of things. Just more costs to our club for a non player.

Collingwood continued to pay a portion of Shaw's contract after he went to GWS. He's much better value that hannes. Saints got screwed in this deal.

Hanne's won't play for half the year, he isn't in the leadership group anymore, won't be training with the main group for a month or more, getting paid huge money and will be contributing very little. How is this a good deal for us?

They got Taylor Adams for Heath Shaw. Taylor was the big trade , not Shaw.
Stop comparing Apples with Banana's. We got Parker and Hannebury for next years second rounder.

I'd suggest that Dan's payments would be front ended, and by the time his four years are up, Armitage, Brown, and Geary will have retired. If he triggered his 5th year he's playing good footy.

Who do you think we should be paying all our Salary Cap to? Jack Billings? Paddy McCartin? Blake Acres?

 

[From 45]

Ok, so apparently everyone knows the status of our salary cap space and all of the contracts with players within the saints.

So apparently we had a spare 800K to give away so we gave it away for the year on a broken down bloke... Ok say that's the case, then please explain the 4 year deal with a 5th year trigger. Do we have 4 years of free salary cap space to give away do we? He only had 3 years left with the Swans. No other club wanted him, Swans would have been happy to get him off the books for nothing. Hannes was keen to come home to melbourne and no-one else wanted him. Where else was he going to end up? Why did they have to give him such huge money with such a long term if there was no competition with getting his services?

Why didn't they play hardball and get swan's to pay a portion of the 1st year's contract if he was in such bad shape? It's going to cost a lot in medical spend to get him right by the sounds of things. Just more costs to our club for a non player.

Collingwood continued to pay a portion of Shaw's contract after he went to GWS. He's much better value that hannes. Saints got screwed in this deal.

Hanne's won't play for half the year, he isn't in the leadership group anymore, won't be training with the main group for a month or more, getting paid huge money and will be contributing very little. How is this a good deal for us?

Aren't you insinuating the same thing regarding what hes getting paid and that no other club wanted him?

 

[Chazz M Michaels]

They got Taylor Adams for Heath Shaw. Taylor was the big trade , not Shaw.
Stop comparing Apples with Banana's. We got Parker and Hannebury for next years second rounder.

I'd suggest that Dan's payments would be front ended, and by the time his four years are up, Armitage, Brown, and Geary will have retired. If he triggered his 5th year he's playing good footy.

Who do you think we should be paying all our Salary Cap to? Jack Billings? Paddy McCartin? Blake Acres?

I'm not sure you understand what I'm saying.

I'm saying it's a very bad deal and I don't believe anyone can justify otherwise at this point in time. Everyone keeps coming back with "well we had free cap space so it doesn't matter" - Do we have 4 years of free cap space? How do people know if it's front-ended or not? Or is this just an assumption to suit a narrative?

Are you saying he's worth paying $800k a year for 4 years even if he never plays just because we had no-one else to pay money to during the 2019 season?

He wasn't worth the money Sydney were paying him in 2018, he isn't worth the $800k (or $1M if you believe the front loaded assumption) we are paying him in 2019. I said it was a bad deal from the start. He's now out almost indefinately and been removed from leadership group and yet people are sitll adamant it was ok to pay him huge money.

We could have targeted other players under contract with 1 year to run or even uncontracted free agents, why did they target Hannebery who had 3 years to run? How did they even know he was available to be traded well before the trade period? The whole deal stinks and it's just a coincidence that Lethlean is best mates with Hannebery snr.

Why the hell did they target someone with 3 years to run, had barely played for 2 years and was obviously cooked body-wise by anyone that watched him...?

 

[SaintsSeptember]

I'm not sure you understand what I'm saying.

I'm saying it's a very bad deal and I don't believe anyone can justify otherwise at this point in time. Everyone keeps coming back with "well we had free cap space so it doesn't matter" - Do we have 4 years of free cap space? How do people know if it's front-ended or not? Or is this just an assumption to suit a narrative?

Are you saying he's worth paying $800k a year for 4 years even if he never plays just because we had no-one else to pay money to during the 2019 season?

He wasn't worth the money Sydney were paying him in 2018, he isn't worth the $800k (or $1M if you believe the front loaded assumption) we are paying him in 2019. I said it was a bad deal from the start. He's now out almost indefinately and been removed from leadership group and yet people are sitll adamant it was ok to pay him huge money.

We could have targeted other players under contract with 1 year to run or even uncontracted free agents, why did they target Hannebery who had 3 years to run? How did they even know he was available to be traded well before the trade period? The whole deal stinks and it's just a coincidence that Lethlean is best mates with Hannebery snr.

Why the hell did they target someone with 3 years to run, had barely played for 2 years and was obviously cooked body-wise by anyone that watched him...?

StKilda isn't worth paying the cap at the moment, so you aren't going to get your value for money however you do it.
I'd much prefer they pay cash and get a spud player, than to trade someone like Jack Sinclair , or Newnes.

 

[Sippa]

I don’t think I’ve ever seen one journalist have such a repetitive agenda against one player and club .. it’s like he will keep going until hanners retires without playing a game and he can just scream I told you so .

 

[Sir Skid]

I don’t think I’ve ever seen one journalist have such a repetitive agenda against one player and club .. it’s like he will keep going until hanners retires without playing a game and he can just scream I told you so .

Caro did the same thing until The Age guard dogs called her off.

 

[soups1982]

Time to insert some facts here. Again have been verified by my St Kilda contact.

- Hanners turned up in November in ripping condition and trained solidly for a month
- The contract with Hanners doesn't have St Kilda as exposed as it may look on the surface


Now in my mind, they made a mistake trying to remove him from the leadership group, hoping it would not get out. Lack of transparency makes the club look amateurish and gives the impression of something to hide. Secrets like that always get out, and hopefully the club learns from it.

 

[Dr Spaceman]

I don’t think I’ve ever seen one journalist have such a repetitive agenda against one player and club .. it’s like he will keep going until hanners retires without playing a game and he can just scream I told you so .

Hannebery hasn't played yet as he is unable to train at 100% due to hamstring and calf problems caused by pain emanating from his arse.

Barrett is simply a pain in the arse.

 

[BrutThough]

Ok, so apparently everyone knows the status of our salary cap space and all of the contracts with players within the saints.

So apparently we had a spare 800K to give away so we gave it away for the year on a broken down bloke... Ok say that's the case, then please explain the 4 year deal with a 5th year trigger. Do we have 4 years of free salary cap space to give away do we? He only had 3 years left with the Swans. No other club wanted him, Swans would have been happy to get him off the books for nothing. Hannes was keen to come home to melbourne and no-one else wanted him. Where else was he going to end up? Why did they have to give him such huge money with such a long term if there was no competition with getting his services?

Why didn't they play hardball and get swan's to pay a portion of the 1st year's contract if he was in such bad shape? It's going to cost a lot in medical spend to get him right by the sounds of things. Just more costs to our club for a non player.

Collingwood continued to pay a portion of Shaw's contract after he went to GWS. He's much better value that hannes. Saints got screwed in this deal.

Hanne's won't play for half the year, he isn't in the leadership group anymore, won't be training with the main group for a month or more, getting paid huge money and will be contributing very little. How is this a good deal for us?

The club has stated multiple times over many years that we have A LOT of room in our cap. This is common knowledge from everyone.

And just by looking at our team, it's obvious we aren't paying anywhere near the maximum amount. We were offering Shiel around $1.3m a year to come, which was on top of what we had already agreed to pay Hanners. So clearly this deal isn't putting a dint in our cap. So yes, we did have a spare 800k to give away to a guy with a much better resume that anyone else on our list.

As stated before, we got him for so cheap because Sydney needed room in their salary cap and we could afford to pay his contract. If they were going to pay part of his contract the first year, then we would have had to give up much more to get him. They let him go for nothing so they could get what they wanted - cap space.

 

[gringo2011]

Time to insert some facts here. Again have been verified by my St Kilda contact.

- Hanners turned up in November in ripping condition and trained solidly for a month
- The contract with Hanners doesn't have St Kilda as exposed as it may look on the surface


Now in my mind, they made a mistake trying to remove him from the leadership group, hoping it would not get out. Lack of transparency makes the club look amateurish and gives the impression of something to hide. Secrets like that always get out, and hopefully the club learns from it.

Mc Clure said 4 years with a trigger clause I think.

 

[dct66]

Why do people keep saying they had to spend this money on someone so it's fine to spend it on a non-player?

They could have adjusted a couple of contracts to bring payments forward with a little extra bump for any "inconvenience" if they wished. There's heaps of things the club could have done instead of wasting 800k.

Some supporters are so one-eyed here.

No wonder mediocrity is tolerated at the saints.

Don't you think the club would have weighed up all those options before signing Hanners?

 

[Snailspace13]

Satan will bide his time, and slap him down again.
Looking forward to that!

Well if we can REBUILD Hanners,Lethers has another 3to4 more years up his sleeve, to do so.

 

[Pakenhamsaint]

Fev chases headlines almost as fast as he chases his uber-eats packages.

He's part of well....a big club of those who have been in a good paddock since hanging up the boots.