Remove this Banner Ad

Just heard?

  • Thread starter Thread starter jumpman5
  • Start date Start date
  • Tagged users Tagged users None

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Blue Red and Gold said:
Well what do you know, you do know after all.
What? I didn’t know what it was and I asked.

:p didn’t work and I didn’t know what it was.
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

^^^^ And you guys whinge about bad posting:confused:

Back on Welsh, I think it's great that the club has show faith by keeping him on the list:thumbsu:
Take the cut Scotty and be grateful.
 
jc67 said:
^^^^ And you guys whinge about bad posting:confused:

Back on Welsh, I think it's great that the club has show faith by keeping him on the list:thumbsu:
Take the cut Scotty and be grateful.

I didn’t know what something was, so I asked for an explanation. I cannot control it if someone takes umbrage with one of my post.

He hasn’t accepted it yet and could ask to be traded or simply delisted if he refuses the pay cut, Ben Hart was allegedly offered a performance based contract and we now know that it isn’t under consideration any more.

Jason Torney is close to signing a new 1 year contract – source channel 7 news.
 
Its not like this is a huge story.

The club wants to get its value for money. I doubt its a pay cut of $100K but I wouldn't be one bit surprised if its a performance based contract with incentives if certian criteria is met.

In other word, if Welshy can stay on the park, play a certain number of games and kick a set number of goals he would most likely earn the same money he would have if he signed a fixed contract without the pay cut.

I rate Welshy as a player and many will disagree with that assesment but to be brutally honest, he most definetly hasn't earnt his money this year. Going back to 2005, he most certainly did.

I expect him to stay. Media is trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill.
 
After Hart was supposedly cut after not accepting a performance based contract, you would expect Welsh would be keen to sign & prove his value.

He still is one of our most dangerous forwards - when on the park, so no problems with keeping him.
 
Kane McGoodwin said:
After Hart was supposedly cut after not accepting a performance based contract, you would expect Welsh would be keen to sign & prove his value.

He still is one of our most dangerous forwards - when on the park, so no problems with keeping him.
$100 000 cut sounds huge for us wee mortals but it depends what he was on. If he was on say $300 000 and was asked to go to $200 000 that is still good money. Remember he played only 6 games last year and this would reflect in his salary.
 
I doubt he would've been on 300K

I reckon he was on 250 and now down to 150
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Stiffy_18 said:
Its not like this is a huge story.

The club wants to get its value for money. I doubt its a pay cut of $100K but I wouldn't be one bit surprised if its a performance based contract with incentives if certian criteria is met.

In other word, if Welshy can stay on the park, play a certain number of games and kick a set number of goals he would most likely earn the same money he would have if he signed a fixed contract without the pay cut.

I rate Welshy as a player and many will disagree with that assesment but to be brutally honest, he most definetly hasn't earnt his money this year. Going back to 2005, he most certainly did.

I expect him to stay. Media is trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill.

fair
 
AndrewJo said:
$100 000 cut sounds huge for us wee mortals but it depends what he was on. If he was on say $300 000 and was asked to go to $200 000 that is still good money. Remember he played only 6 games last year and this would reflect in his salary.

you're right, it all depends.

though, if we penalised all players who have injury...
 
Crow-mo said:
isn't the average near 200k now?

he'd have been well above the average
Pretty close to it.

Given the increase in player payments, Welshy probably just hasn't received the growth in salary he may of been expecting - ie. say $100K cut v ave, but say only $70K in actual terms.
 
crows98 said:
No –


With Trent Hentschel and Rhett Biglands have a 12 month injury, that’s 44 match payments plus final they have to find that will be included as part of the 2007 salary cap because both player were injured playing in a structured AFL match.

They are doing this to make sure next year they do not exceed the salary cap and get a fine.
If our club or any club had not worked out a worse case scenario for salary payouts then They shouldnt be there.

It aint fair to cut one players pay because another got injured,you cut someones pay because of there performances or because someone more valuable comes along.
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Sounds like good business sense to me. Welshy has to be on the park to be of benefit to the team. He's no good to us sitting in the bleachers. An incentive for him to do the right thing by his body to ensure he spends more time on the ground than off and also an incentive for him to prove his worth by achieving more (by kicking more goals). Good decision by the AFC :thumbsu:
 
jc67 said:
Take the cut Scotty and be grateful.
If he wants to play AFL footy, I dont think he has a choice but to accept the pay cut. He wouldnt be getting much interest at the trading table, if any at all. What is he? 28? 29? He's always been injury prone. He left his first club to go home. He's got to accept the pay cut, or play for Westies in the SANFL in my mind.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top Bottom