List Mgmt. Player Ages Thread

[boncer34]

No one has ever taken a pay cut. Ever.

Yeah sure. The cats paid all their players at market value and didn't pay any of them unders.

Meanwhile back in reality............

My point was it wasn't poor governance. It's great governance.

It's also a dick move to proclaim loyalty has kept the group together and demand players be loyal to the club in order to "keep the group together," but then when its time for the club to show loyalty give the players donuts.

 

[Ben the Gooner]

Never taken a pay cut, just well under market value. He was never paid at market value, so it wouldn't be a paycut to accept unders.

Well done Cats, your semantics mean you suddenly haven't treated Chappy like crap.

 

[vinum coupe]

i don't think anyone sees it as poor governance, rather just poor form.

It'd be like us pushing Fletcher out the door if he expressed an interest in playing on and was physically capable. I'd be ropeable at that

Maybe.
There are people on our board who are rope able. I'm not that's all.

We honestly have no idea what was discussed other than Chappy being offered a lesser role.
It needs to be remembered that a year ago Chappy was fighting for a 3 year deal, and we were only offering one.

And back then he was saying things like "I wouldn't rule out playing elsewhere"

Rines is right in that you dont just throw out players because a 20 year ole 'might' be good.
But they have to find out. Pronto.

And Chappy had an option to help us do that. Pods is another one that just had to move.
If we get one ruck to actually stay fit there will be big problems. We'd keep playing Vardy out of position and that has a domino effect.

It's easily the most ruthless we have been in 10 years. But we just happened to do it to a guy that the entire Cats board knew would never call it a day himself.
It's not in his nature.

 

[AlterRob]

Yeah sure. The cats paid all their players at market value and didn't pay any of them unders.

Meanwhile back in reality............

My point was it wasn't poor governance. It's great governance.

It's also a dick move to proclaim loyalty has kept the group together and demand players be loyal to the club in order to "keep the group together," but then when its time for the club to show loyalty give the players donuts.

The fact that if it is indeed true that all the players took pay cuts to stay together, then surely the club has repaid champs like Chappy with 3 premierships?

 

[Mercurial89]

I don't think Geelong are that bad for doing this. They know chappy can still play, but they are in a tough spot and hard decisions have to be made. If they aren't ruthless enough the team will go from being a constant contender to down the bottom. Chappy is in a hard position too because he loved the club and wants to do what is right but also he is a warrior he knows he can still play.

I don't think geelong are the bad guys, they are making the best of a bad situation.

Let's hope chappy makes the best of his chance and imparts some strong value and culture on our club, so that we can use it to get some success.

 

[Art Vandelay_]

Yeah sure. The cats paid all their players at market value and didn't pay any of them unders.

Meanwhile back in reality............

My point was it wasn't poor governance. It's great governance.

It's also a dick move to proclaim loyalty has kept the group together and demand players be loyal to the club in order to "keep the group together," but then when its time for the club to show loyalty give the players donuts.

Chapman was offered a contract for 2014 but the indication that he would only be guaranteed 8-10 games (presumably against the weaker oppostion) led to chapman leaving on his own, he was not pushed out he simply refused to accept their offer.
So if by loyalty you mean give him a contract... check the club did do that.
if by loyalty you mean give him a sizeable contract with good money why would they do that for a 31 year old who managed the same amount of games as they were guaranteeing him 2014 (8)

 

[Jade]

So its ok to expect them to take massive pay cuts to stay at the club but when the reverse is required its also ok to shaft them?

Pathetic logic and I know plenty of Cats fans who are disgusted with their club.

Nah I disagree - I don't think the Cats did anything wrong.

They are future proofing themselves by actively seeking to lower their age profile. I don't have a problem with that and I understand the logic.

They were happy for Chappy to stay, but just couldn't guarantee him consistent game time.

I think both parties, Chappy and the Cats acted in good faith, and I completely disagree that the Cats did anything wrong.

 

[Halftimehero]

As far as I am concerned I think Geelong did everything right with Chappy, coz now he is a BOMBER

 

[Ambrosia]

Chapman was offered a contract for 2014 but the indication that he would only be guaranteed 8-10 games (presumably against the weaker oppostion) led to chapman leaving on his own, he was not pushed out he simply refused to accept their offer.
So if by loyalty you mean give him a contract... check the club did do that.
if by loyalty you mean give him a sizeable contract with good money why would they do that for a 31 year old who managed the same amount of games as they were guaranteeing him 2014 (8)

I personally have no problem with what Geelong did. They have plenty of young kids who need playing time and need to upgrade players off the rookie list to stop other clubs from poaching them.

But If you think offering a player of Chappy's ilk an 8 game contract is a sign of loyalty you are deluded.

 

[Stopher]

The difference in the number of players aged 29+ at Geelong compared to Essendon is huge, hence why Essendon could probably afford more to have a player in that age bracket come in.

 

[WEEVZ]

So the worst thing about us signing Goddard is we are linked to every player under the Sun now lol

I will start next years rumour Patty Dangerfield to the Bombers has anyone else noticed that when hes back in Melb he hangs around mostly Essendon Players

Didn't we make a big play for him last year? Wouldn't be the slightest bit surprised if we made a play for him again once he becomes a free agent.

 

[Art Vandelay_]

I personally have no problem with what Geelong did. They have plenty of young kids who need playing time and need to upgrade players off the rookie list to stop other clubs from poaching them.

But If you think offering a player of Chappy's ilk an 8 game contract is a sign of loyalty you are deluded.

they offered a 1 year contract but could only guarantee 8 games he could have played 22 if form stayed up but could only guarantee 8.
That says more about the young players that their improvement meant that a 250 game player match winning ability could only be guaranteed 8 games

 

[Ambrosia]

they offered a 1 year contract but could only guarantee 8 games he could have played 22 if form stayed up but could only guarantee 8.
That says more about the young players that their improvement meant that a 250 game player match winning ability could only be guaranteed 8 games

I seriously doubt that's the way it was worded or else Chapman would have gladly stayed. Being selected in the side if your form warrants it is all any player wants. The way I understand the situation is that Chapman was told we are looking to play the kids next year you will only be played in 8-10 games.

 

[smooth mover]

lets hightail our way past the Westpac centre and get in Jesse Whites ear? would be good insurance now we are set to lose both Gumbleton and Crameri.

Look I know there's alot of people here against us going after Jesse White but if we did lose both Crammer's & Gumby we'd have to atleast inquire about him.... I do see some upside to picking him up but only if we lose both those players....

 

[Jade]

Look I know there's alot of people here against us going after Jesse White but if we did lose both Crammer's & Gumby we'd have to atleast inquire about him.... I do see some upside to picking him up but only if we lose both those players....

So the question here is WHY THE **** ARE WE LOSING BOTH?!?!?

Gumbleton would stay if told he would be starting round 1 barring injury.

 

[Chambo]

From the way Ken was talking when the White deal first broke, I have no doubt he'll be a tagger. Once Wingard moves in there full time, you add a couple of years into Wines and probably pick up another 2-3 prospects in the draft, it'll be a scary team. Burgess working with Gumby's talent will be a frightening thing to see. Prepare yourselves for forward 50 tackles, big dukes and an incredible, midfielder-esque engine if you get him.

Most Essendon supporters are telling Freo/Port supporters that if they get Gumby they will get something special...if this is the case why aren't we keeping him now that Crameri is gone?

I know it might be Scott's choice but surely he will play most games with Crams gone?

 

[Ambrosia]

Look I know there's alot of people here against us going after Jesse White but if we did lose both Crammer's & Gumby we'd have to atleast inquire about him.... I do see some upside to picking him up but only if we lose both those players....

I'd much rather select a Mitch Thorpe or Ben Brown or make a good offer to Gumby.

 

[BrunoV]

No one has ever taken a pay cut. Ever.

You guys need to be really careful throwing crap our way. You dont even know what you've got yet.
I'm happy for Chappy to play anywhere. Could not care less. And I did think he had another year in him.

Chappy was offered a role that would assist us in transition. It's his choice to not be the team man and help us through it.

But don't start throwing poor governance crap our way, you guys hold that crown.

Pay cuts are not the issue and you and Balme know it. It is just something that can be denied when the issue is that players were being underpaid (based on their talent and salary cap restrictions - not that this is unique to Geelong).

 

[Ambrosia]

So the question here is WHY THE **** ARE WE LOSING BOTH?!?!?

Gumbleton would stay if told he would be starting round 1 barring injury.

But does he start round 1? I much prefer playing Daniher who has a higher ceiling and is better at ground level.

 

[Zach Package]

Look I know there's alot of people here against us going after Jesse White but if we did lose both Crammer's & Gumby we'd have to atleast inquire about him.... I do see some upside to picking him up but only if we lose both those players....

i'd prefer White to McKernan. Although drafting someone from a state league such as @Yoda_s man Ben Brown would possibly be just as good

 

[Jade]

But does he start round 1? I much prefer playing Daniher who has a higher ceiling and is better at ground level.

My preference is to play Daniher and Gumbleton together, Hurley back with Carlisle and Pears out of the side.

Gumby is still the best natural forward on our list. Madness to let him go IMO.

 

[Ben the Gooner]

Most Essendon supporters are telling Freo/Port supporters that if they get Gumby they will get something special...if this is the case why aren't we keeping him now that Crameri is gone?

I know it might be Scott's choice but surely he will play most games with Crams gone?

Because he walked out on us.

 

[marky53]

My preference is to play Daniher and Gumbleton together, Hurley back with Carlisle and Pears out of the side.

Gumby is still the best natural forward on our list. Madness to let him go IMO.

Carlisle out of the side?

 

[Jade]

Carlisle out of the side?

Hurley with Carlisle in the back line, Pears out of the side.

 

[Chambo]

Because he walked out on us.

He's definitely gone or exploring what's out there?

Surely he'd be in the round 1 side? I think JoeD isn't quite ready to step up and we shouldn't expect him to in 2014, with Crammers gone Gumby could be quite valuable to us in the next year or so?

I've a always been a big believer in having two power/key forwards - when JoeD is ready Hurley moves down back...from memory Bomber is a big fan of Hurley the backman, could see it happen in 2014?