Mega Thread The Former Player Thread: Part 2

Joined
Oct 9, 2001
Posts
15,503
Likes
7,462
AFL Club
Sydney
Moderator #376
Geez...someone might want to go watch the Andrew Ireland interview with Mike Sheahan. We had no money for Mitchell, plain and simple!
Was about to post the same thing. According to Ireland North's offer for Heeney meant the money available for Tom wasn't there as they paid more for Heeney than they were expecting to entering his 4th year and as Andrew said "In the words of Gil, you can't have everything". Basically it came down to the club deciding out of Tom, Heeney or Mills who they were willing to lose long term.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Bandicoot

Premiership Player
Joined
Feb 2, 2016
Posts
3,511
Likes
2,173
Location
Ballarat, Victoria
AFL Club
Sydney
Other Teams
Melbourne Renegades
You claimed they said the Swans didn't put an offer to Mitchell until August. Both Ted and I have provided multiple links from both parties in negotiations and media reports showing that to be false.

I'm interested in what you think is a credible source given you dismiss multiple parties saying the same thing as lies, yet you accept without question second hand information from an unnamed source on a cruise ship who has made clearly incorrect statements
As other people have already said to you - if you want to accept what player managers say during contract negotiations is fact it's fair to assume you also believe in Santa and the tooth fairy.
 

Kummerspeck

Premiership Player
Joined
Sep 12, 2013
Posts
3,816
Likes
3,185
AFL Club
Sydney
As other people have already said to you - if you want to accept what player managers say during contract negotiations is fact it's fair to assume you also believe in Santa and the tooth fairy.
I accept what player managers and club officials say when their statements are saying the same thing.

What benefit is there to either of them to lie and say negotiations had been going on for months when they hadn't? Do you genuinely believe the Swans hadn't offered Mitchell a contract until August despite the club, Mitchell and his manager commenting on it?
 

connolly

Club Legend
Joined
Jul 29, 2015
Posts
1,929
Likes
2,838
Location
General Santos City, Mindanao
AFL Club
Sydney
Other Teams
Persis Solo, Davao Aguilas FC
Was about to post the same thing. According to Ireland North's offer for Heeney meant the money available for Tom wasn't there as they paid more for Heeney than they were expecting to entering his 4th year and as Andrew said "In the words of Gil, you can't have everything". Basically it came down to the club deciding out of Tom, Heeney or Mills who they were willing to lose long term.
Interesting except there is the issue as to why were McVeigh and Jack given contract extensions? If McV and Jack had been retired there would have been money. Restricting the issue of payments to three player contracts is simply absurd or spin.
 

connolly

Club Legend
Joined
Jul 29, 2015
Posts
1,929
Likes
2,838
Location
General Santos City, Mindanao
AFL Club
Sydney
Other Teams
Persis Solo, Davao Aguilas FC
Was about to post the same thing. According to Ireland North's offer for Heeney meant the money available for Tom wasn't there as they paid more for Heeney than they were expecting to entering his 4th year and as Andrew said "In the words of Gil, you can't have everything". Basically it came down to the club deciding out of Tom, Heeney or Mills who they were willing to lose long term.
But we kept a 32 year old half back flanker on the books and a mid who cant kick beyond 40 metres. Don't buy it. I guess Ireland has to explain something as to why we let a Brownlow Medalist go who is an incredible ball extractor and then we are getting smashed in clearances. You really don't believe the club couldn't have come up with the 600,000 extra by retiring McV and Jack?
 
Last edited:

Tedeski

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Oct 2, 2006
Posts
13,667
Likes
14,473
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Sydney
We find money for GOOD players that want to play at the Swans.
More to it than just not having enough money. Ireland, or any one in his role, would never say that there was issues between player/s & coach. It would be unprofessional.
Clubs find the money. Something changed with Tom at around May or June & I say it was Clarko in his ear.
 

connolly

Club Legend
Joined
Jul 29, 2015
Posts
1,929
Likes
2,838
Location
General Santos City, Mindanao
AFL Club
Sydney
Other Teams
Persis Solo, Davao Aguilas FC
We find money for GOOD players that want to play at the Swans.
More to it than just not having enough money. Ireland, or any one in his role, would never say that there was issues between player/s & coach. It would be unprofessional.
Clubs find the money. Something changed with Tom at around May or June & I say it was Clarko in his ear.
Clearly he wasn't serenading him
 
Joined
Oct 9, 2001
Posts
15,503
Likes
7,462
AFL Club
Sydney
Moderator #384
Interesting except there is the issue as to why were McVeigh and Jack given contract extensions? If McV and Jack had been retired there would have been money.
No there wouldn't have been and this shows your fundamental misunderstanding of how the salary cap works. They had contracts signed prior to mid 2016 (in McVeigh's case 2014) when North offered Heeney $1million a year. So if they retired it would be a sunk cost in our cap regardless (think how Tippett is on our list this year for cap reasons) and we still lose Mitchell because those contracts would've still counted in our cap and with North's offer Heeney would still re-sign for more than expected. So all your done is retire two players but still leave the club counting their contracts against the cap and we still end up in the same position of picking between Mitchell/Heeney/Mills.

Restricting the issue of payments to three player contracts is simply absurd or spin.
To you it might be, but simply put the Swans expected to pay Heeney and Mills a certain amount into the future (not the $1 million a year North offered Heeney) and still be able to keep Mitchell. Once North offered Heeney $1 million a year to join them after the 2016 season that threw out any forward planning that club had done around the salary cap into the future for us to keep Heeney away from North and meant a player we wanted to keep was lost.

So while yes we have "bad" contracts we could name like Tippett, McVeigh and Jack's they were known and expected costs against the cap when planning to re-sign Mitchell started. North offering $1million for Heeney and thus having to overpay to keep him wasn't. Thus the reason why it comes down to those three contracts and not others.

Its not as easy as saying lets retire so and so.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Oct 9, 2001
Posts
15,503
Likes
7,462
AFL Club
Sydney
Moderator #386
Even so.
Heeney, Mills or Mitchell?
Two Local boys over one that would have left at tge end of his next contract should he have signed for two or three more years.
Yeah but its been shown that the two local boys aren't giving us any expected discounts for being locals and we are paying more than we expected so that being said, I'm not blaming Tom for looking after his own interests and getting the best deal for himself. We could've had all three (and the overpaid older locals named above) with a bit more foresight.

So the club doesn't get a pass on this either.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Bandicoot

Premiership Player
Joined
Feb 2, 2016
Posts
3,511
Likes
2,173
Location
Ballarat, Victoria
AFL Club
Sydney
Other Teams
Melbourne Renegades
Interesting except there is the issue as to why were McVeigh and Jack given contract extensions? If McV and Jack had been retired there would have been money. Restricting the issue of payments to three player contracts is simply absurd or spin.
But we are talking the end of 2016 with regards to Mitchell. McVeigh and Jack were our current captains at that time. The fact that they have been given extensions this year is not relevant.
 

Bandicoot

Premiership Player
Joined
Feb 2, 2016
Posts
3,511
Likes
2,173
Location
Ballarat, Victoria
AFL Club
Sydney
Other Teams
Melbourne Renegades
We find money for GOOD players that want to play at the Swans.
More to it than just not having enough money. Ireland, or any one in his role, would never say that there was issues between player/s & coach. It would be unprofessional.
Clubs find the money. Something changed with Tom at around May or June & I say it was Clarko in his ear.
Again, you are only guessing with that statement. You would rather post a guess than take any notice of what his family actually say.
Some people just can't get their heads out of the sand at all.
 

Bandicoot

Premiership Player
Joined
Feb 2, 2016
Posts
3,511
Likes
2,173
Location
Ballarat, Victoria
AFL Club
Sydney
Other Teams
Melbourne Renegades
Even so.
Heeney, Mills or Mitchell?
Two Local boys over one that would have left at the end of his next contract should he have signed for two or three more years.
And why do you continue to make rubbish comments based on nothing more than an apparent distaste for Mitchell. Are you related to Longmire?
 

Bandicoot

Premiership Player
Joined
Feb 2, 2016
Posts
3,511
Likes
2,173
Location
Ballarat, Victoria
AFL Club
Sydney
Other Teams
Melbourne Renegades
I accept what player managers and club officials say when their statements are saying the same thing.

What benefit is there to either of them to lie and say negotiations had been going on for months when they hadn't? Do you genuinely believe the Swans
Our own CEO has now confirmed that there were other contracts that needed to be finalised before Mitchell was looked at. When they turned out to be more that expected and there was simply little money left for Mitchell and he would have had to take a significant pay cut do you still believe the agent's comments that "we are close do getting a deal done".
Get your head out of the sand.
 

Kummerspeck

Premiership Player
Joined
Sep 12, 2013
Posts
3,816
Likes
3,185
AFL Club
Sydney
Our own CEO has now confirmed that there were other contracts that needed to be finalised before Mitchell was looked at.
So do you believe club officials on contract talks or not? You've repeatedly dismissed statements from the club about this.

When they turned out to be more that expected and there was simply little money left for Mitchell and he would have had to take a significant pay cut do you still believe the agent's comments that "we are close do getting a deal done".
When the club says the same thing, yes. When the manager also states that the club has been calling and they've been discussing the contract, I'd tend to believe that the club had been doing so, rather than being completely negligent and actively ignoring a player who wanted to re-sign as you claim you were told.


Get your head out of the sand.
So you believe that Mitchell was proactively attempting to negotiate a contract but was ignored until August? Yes or no question.
 
Top Bottom