News Our new Football Ops Manager - welcome Adam Kelly!

Remove this Banner Ad

Have you listened to Blight in the last few years? He’s from another era. I love him for what he delivered the Crows in 97/98 but I don’t ever want him near our club again.

Couldn’t disagree more

Listening to him it’s clear only his age and willingness would prevent him from once again being a rain maker
 
Yep. Fagan last night, we will be spending over the cap.

Chapman today, I’m not sure if we will be spending over the cap
Caught my eye as well, the only thing I can think is if Campo gets a job at Carlton then there is no Payout and no over the top payment.
But Fagan thru out the entire review has mentioned the club is well position and will spend over the cap to get the right result. So I am leaning toward his comment being the correct one.
 
Caught my eye as well, the only thing I can think is if Campo gets a job at Carlton then there is no Payout and no over the top payment.
But Fagan thru out the entire review has mentioned the club is well position and will spend over the cap to get the right result. So I am leaning toward his comment being the correct one.
I would definitely say Fagan is more across the detail than Chapman
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Couldn’t disagree more

Listening to him it’s clear only his age and willingness would prevent him from once again being a rain maker

He’s spoken openly on radio about how he doesn’t understand modern footy clubs and wouldn’t have half the things in place that have led to success at Richmond, West Coast, Hawthorn etc. That’s a red flag for me. If he’s sitting on some master plan for an elite football club he certainly didn’t pass the info to the Gold Coast in all the years he was up there.
 
How is it possible to pay over the cap?

It's a cap. A limit. If we can just ignore it, then what is the point?
Gather you mean The Football department Cap (soft Cap) which has differant rules to the salary Cap,
When you go over the Soft cap you cop a tax of 100% on every $, which is why Clubs tend to avoid overspending
Following is an extract from this article.
"The soft cap is $9.5 million in 2018, not including the separately capped player payments of $13.6 million (including club marketing deals). The AFL view, as put to the clubs, is that the soft cap – which requires clubs to pay a 100 per cent tax if they exceed the limit – has created a more equal competition than in the days before its introduction in 2015 "

 
No he didn’t. He was unsure of the cap and if tax would be paid
Chappy is consistently unsure of facts he should know.

Incompetent or clueless or covering up?

Either way, be needs to go.
 
Sorry, disagree. If 5AA had a link up I'd put it there (right after checking my facts!).

This was yesterday morning (Saturday), said luckily as a club we are in a good fiscal position so can afford to pay it.

Burton was on staff and Campo on contract- both got payouts (as you'd expect)
Fair enough & money well spent!
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Yeah I heard the interview. I agree about the payouts, but what does industry standards mean? There’s an industry formula? That was just deflection and taking the focus away from the fact we have to pay them.

As for the cap, he was vague if we would have to, but said we would if needed.
I gather we paid them out in accordance with their award.
 
How about we just move on from this constant belief that the entire review was focussed on trying not to sack Burton - they sacked him, he is done. Let the new era begin
No competent reviewer would have recommended keeping Burton.

Dunstall knows his stuff so was never in doubt.

Shows how clueless our club's decision makers are.

Our Board members should be turned over as what is the point in having them if they are not going to fix things when they go bad & need to rely on outsiders to do their job.
 
No competent reviewer would have recommended keeping Burton.

Dunstall knows his stuff so was never in doubt.

Shows how clueless our club's decision makers are.

Our Board members should be turned over as what is the point in having them if they are not going to fix things when they go bad & need to rely on outsiders to do their job.

Down the Bay the same board appointed and sacked coach after coach

After way too long they resigned and a new board came in with a five year plan. Reached a GF under Mickan, kept at it it a couple more years then handed over.

Chiggy came in and has just completed a 7 year stint resulting in a flag

There has to be turnover based on accountability at some point. The problem is despite the stuff ups we know about, starting with Tippet, the current board can point to a GF in 2017 as recent evidence of being on the right track
 
Does the footy manager have anything to do with the actual game style? If not, I’d be happy with Neil Craig for that role..


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app
Did Neil Balme have any say the style of play at pies, cats, tigers. No he did not. Neil Craig is probably the best candidate for that position hence why AFL want him at the suns.
 
Off the top of my head, could we not ask Dunstall about doing the role himself. Seems a pretty good operator. Though would doubt he would do it.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app
 
No competent reviewer would have recommended keeping Burton.

Dunstall knows his stuff so was never in doubt.

Shows how clueless our club's decision makers are.

Our Board members should be turned over as what is the point in having them if they are not going to fix things when they go bad & need to rely on outsiders to do their job.

I genuinely think that this is a point that people missed: calling for the review wasnt wholly commendable, it was in part damning.

The reason people were calling for the review so strongly was that it would force accountability- i.e. that if it occurred that they would be forced to act.

None of that makes its necessity alright- why were the actual decision makers so unable to see what everyone could tell from a distance, and if they were why should we have faith in them now?
 
I genuinely think that this is a point that people missed: calling for the review wasnt wholly commendable, it was in part damning.

The reason people were calling for the review so strongly was that it would force accountability- i.e. that if it occurred that they would be forced to act.

None of that makes its necessity alright- why were the actual decision makers so unable to see what everyone could tell from a distance, and if they were why should we have faith in them now?
Chapman seems to be avoiding this criticism with the "I'm stepping down next year" talk, though part of me just thinks it's a delaying tactic to wait and see if the heat dies down.
 
Chapman seems to be avoiding this criticism with the "I'm stepping down next year" talk, though part of me just thinks it's a delaying tactic to wait and see if the heat dies down.

Yeah, it's basically: "you can't fire me, I quit.... in 12 months".

The really hard to process thing is that it demonstrates a chutzpah that has been entirely absent from his chairmanship otherwise.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top