Remove this Banner Ad

Mumford's "fortune"

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

D

Deep North

Senior List
Joined
Mar 7, 2007
Posts
181
Reaction score
56
Location
Brisbane
AFL Club
Geelong
Other Teams
Melb Victory, West Ham
Was just listening to 3AW, they were discussing Sydney and Caro lobbed in that she's been told Mumford was paid an "absolute fortune" to move to Sydney. Does anyone know how much this fortune is? I thought he'd moved on because he was behind Blake and Ottens in the pecking order.
 
Re: Mumford' "fortune"

The club tried to convince him to stay and he must have had second thoughts as the swans then upped the offer to 4 years.

Sydney overpaid him, we got Duncan as compensation. I'm still none the wiser why so many people have massive hard ons for Mumford.
 
Re: Mumford' "fortune"

He is a promising young player but he doesn't deserve that much money. I don't blame him for taking it; he must have known that he would be behind the pecking order of Blake and Ottens for awhile. So he goes to a decent club with a good paycheck; can't cargue with that.
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

Re: Mumford' "fortune"

Slightly less Tritagi, but you have to wonder how well the Swans will cope after putting over 1.1 million a year into Mumford, Seaby, McGlynn and Kennedy. All are solid players, but none scream out "star" to me.

Heard a rumour a certain dual-brownlow medalist basically told them to get him another shot before he retires, and is basically on rookie wages (ala Harley in 09?). No idea of validity, (personally think Hall's $$$ leaving a bigger opening), but remains to be seen I guess.

Duncan looks a ripper too. One of the commentators said he'd been on your list for 3 years....just confused, or is he an ex-rookie or mature ager or something?
 
Re: Mumford' "fortune"

First year draftee straight from the u-18s. You must be thinking of Motlop maybe, although it is only his second year this year.
 
Re: Mumford' "fortune"

Mumford has been playing very well and looked superb against the roos yesterday, personally i think its a loss and that he is and will be a better player than blake. But at the end of the day the salary cap restrictions forced our hand and there was nothing else we could do. And we have managed to get Mitch Duncan as compensation so cant have any complaints there
 
Re: Mumford' "fortune"

Selective Retention said:
First year draftee straight from the u-18s. You must be thinking of Motlop maybe, although it is only his second year this year.
Click to expand...

Yeah that's what I thought...only saw about half of your game last week and this comment made me think twice....given his size and quick adaption to AFL, I thought perhaps I'd just overlooked it at draft time.
 
Re: Mumford' "fortune"

YIIIABLETTT said:
Mumford has been playing very well and looked superb against the roos yesterday, personally i think its a loss and that he is and will be a better player than blake. But at the end of the day the salary cap restrictions forced our hand and there was nothing else we could do. And we have managed to get Mitch Duncan as compensation so cant have any complaints there
Click to expand...

Most will be of the opinion that Simpson will be better then Mumford and Blake in the end anyway.
 
Re: Mumford' "fortune"

Mummy was awesome yesterday, and showed he is far ahead of Blake. Will hurt watching him play for Sydney for the next 5-10 years. :(
 
Re: Mumford' "fortune"

And_ROOS said:
Most will be of the opinion that Simpson will be better then Mumford and Blake in the end anyway.
Click to expand...

Really?! I've not heard anything like that anywhere. I've never seen Dawson so would have no idea.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Re: Mumford' "fortune"

BONG RIPS MKII said:
who cares about moneyford?

poor mans ben hudson
Click to expand...


If taking Sydney's generous offer (but still relatively modest by AFL standards) makes Mummy a money hungry mercenary than I can't wait to hear what pearler you'll come up with for GAJ if decides to run around for the GC for 2 M a season (or close to it). :rolleyes:
 
The figure I heard was something like $1.2 million over three years, more money than has ever been thrown at an essentially untested player.

You can't keep everyone, it's about taking lemons and making lemonade. Based on what I've seen of Mitch Duncan it's exactly what we've done.
 
Re: Mumford' "fortune"

TMS said:
Heard a story that part of Mumford's decision to follow the money was because his sister(?) is quite unwell and it was a great opportunity to help her out with her medical bills.
Click to expand...

I hadn't heard that. To me it's a no brainer though, as a footballer you only have to look at Matty Egan to see how a first class career can end in a second.
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Sydney aren't paying him that much for what he offers now; as with any ruckman, you hope to have them when they're at their best at 27-28 years old.

Mumford is still only 24.

It will be very annoying watching him run around for Sydney in 3-4 years time.

Unfortunately, we just couldn't match that kind of coin.
 
I think Mumford really wanted ToG. The Cats should have sacked Blake (unless he was under contract) and used the money to pay Mumford. He's obviously a better ruckman and displays aggression toward the ball, unlike Blake, who looks lazy.
 
Re: Mumford' "fortune"

maryjames said:
Blake is the perfect ruckman in our team he taps it.. That's all he has to do.
Click to expand...

hahaha yep l got home after the game and turned the telly on and Blake had that shot at goal and the commentator's said this will bring the house down. And yeah he missed and commentator's how many kicks for Blake they said only one and then someone said it looks like it too.and then they said his job is to tap and hand pass.
 
GrandBlue said:
I think Mumford really wanted ToG. The Cats should have sacked Blake (unless he was under contract) and used the money to pay Mumford. He's obviously a better ruckman and displays aggression toward the ball, unlike Blake, who looks lazy.
Click to expand...

Can't wait for Round 7, that match should settle the argument once and for all. :thumbsu:
 
GrandBlue said:
I think Mumford really wanted ToG. The Cats should have sacked Blake (unless he was under contract) and used the money to pay Mumford. He's obviously a better ruckman and displays aggression toward the ball, unlike Blake, who looks lazy.
Click to expand...

Hot dog, we have a weiner.

I'd like to think we'd have gotten rid of Blake & held on to Mummy if their contracts were up at the same time.

Blake has been utterly, utterly crap so far this year. Was a huge part in the momentum shift against Freo last week.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top Bottom