Tom Boyd retires

[_M_16_]

Agree with all of this except the bolded. They can make an alt and only tell their friends and family about it if they want. I'd either do that or stay off social media altogether if I were an AFL player.

They shouldn't have to do that though, that's my point. Fans shouldn't feel its their job to stalk private pages. And send private messages of abuse. Players should be able to have normal aspects of their lives where they are able to connect with their friends and family the way everyone does these days, without creating alter egos or not being in touch with close friends and family. People need to be told to back off.

 

[_M_16_]

If his own teammates bullied him i hope the full story comes out one day.

Just as likely that it was all BS as well. Everyone seems to have a source at our club these days, and they are always right. I mean FFS, there was some internal issue in 2014 during the bleak Macca days. But people on BF Bulldogs were running with the Macrae got bullied by people because he is gay. The same Macrae who has a long term GF atm. So I just assume anything that comes from Bulldog fans with knowledge of the inside is not worth hanging on to because they hardly end up right.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Maybe not, those sorts of contracts really shouldn't be offered to young unproven players as there is a danger that they won't be able to live up to it.

The million dollar contracts should only be offered to established stars that have already proven they can produce performances worth that sort of money.

And there's the reason why you weren't a list manager. If you only paid players on established performances, you'd have a team fill with players getting paid more than what they put out on field when their form inevitably drops, whilst completely ignoring making reasonable assessments about how young players are likely to improve and maybe its best to use your salary cap space to "front load" these types of players. Clubs do it all the time to the players we already drafted. Sam Walsh has already extended his contract at the Blues and will be on big, big money in a couple of years time. Has he "deserved" it with on field play? No. Is it bad list management for the Blues to lock him up as one of their highest paid players, three years from now? Also no.

Dogs certainly paid a "tax" on the Boyd contract in the sense that we had the worse position with Griffen leaving, the fact we were a historically small club, and we desperately needed a key forward, so maybe paid a big more, but the principle wasn't incorrect: we had room to chase Lever and Wingard the last two years, nobody we wanted to keep was pushed out. The fact that your Barrett and yourself types find it so silly was that it's so unusual - recruiting a player and paying them in advance of their expected future performance was innovative, rare, and fans of other clubs just couldn't quite believe that the Dogs had the innovative nous to do it in the midst of a disaster of an off-season (captain and coach leaving). Not so much that the contract was good or bad, but they had the balls to offer the contract in the first place.

Lost in all this discussion was the fact that at the time Boyd was less than one year removed being considered one of the best draft prospects of the modern era. He was considered a sure thing number 1 pick at the time, and was considered the sure thing 6 months out from the draft like no player. With all the information that we had on draft day, Boyd was considered the best draft propsect of the year, but probably one of the best 2-3 draft prospects of the last 10 years. There was a reason that every media talking point was which three draft picks and three guns "your club" was going to trade for Boyd.

In the end - mainly due to mental health, and to a lesser extent his back and shoulder injuries - we never saw that potential to pan out, except for flashes in the 2016 finals and in periods here and there otherwise (e.g. being the Dogs best player against Geelong in 2017 less than a month before his first announcement taking time off for his mental health, in that game he had 33 hitouts, 2 goals and 20 touches going through the ruck), but he also showed ability to play two positions (key forward and ruck) that would, at the very least, given him value through flexibility in the modern game. But it doesn't mean that the consensus view of his potential in 2013, 2014 and 2015 was wrong, and in the end, we'll never see Boyd as a 26 year old ruck/forward in the final year of that big money following the "big guys take time" to see if that potential panned out.

But it doesn't make that contract wrong. Thought experiment - imagine we didn't have a national draft, and all 18 year olds entering the league were allowed to negotiate a contract of any monetary value and length with anyone in the league, with the salary cap as the league's only equaliser. How much money do you think the dominant U/18 prospect Boyd receives at the time? With a bidding war among poor teams with needing a key forward and draft cap room (read: Western Bulldogs), that price would have reached pretty close to the $1 million per year. So it makes the Barrett and co, criticisng his contract, the view that he didn't "deserve" the money, completely archaic, and not the best use of salary cap room: because the money was so public, the two teams involved so unusual, it came for criticism, but it's really no difference than whatever big money Carlton will be paying Walsh two years from now. But that's quiet, expected, not publicly reported.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

No.

Saying with more money involved American leagues are probably far less understanding because those teams are very much focused on their bottom lines. And in a league like the NFL there’s probably a heap of blokes with issues afraid to take time off and speak about their problems because they fear losing their spot on their team.

Only recently in the NBA has it become acceptable to speak out about issues and even then the reception hasn’t exactly been positive. The US leagues lag behind the AFL and I think a lot of players are afraid to speak out because of feared backlash and possible career problems.

Except that’s not what I said at all.

Think you're missing the point a bit.

It's not about the money and expectations, rather than the all-consuming nature of how the cities that support footy and the media and the involvement in the public. No other cities in the world are intense about their sporting teams as Melbourne, Adelaide and Perth are in terms of the amount of journalists that cover it, how much the broader public is invested in it and how much it dominates the lives of its citizens.

Furthermore - even with the players getting paid more and more "expectation" to meet that payment - the private ownership, for profit nature of these sports might be easier on a players mental health, because it makes the relationship easier. When you underpeform, you're only letting down the private owner willing to pay you that much and it impacts your ability to get the next paycheck, and the reason you are getting paid that much in the first place is because that's what the market has deemed you worth in a for-profit, entertainment business. Whereas in the AFL, you're under the pressure of the concept of a member-driven, decades-old club and a sport that's more part of the fabric of Australian society/history/culture than other sports - you're letting down the fans, you have responsibility as part of the tapestry of Autralian history and culture. It's why our competition has a father-son rule, an obsession with certain clubs having important jumper numbers, etc, etc. You get paid because members pay for tickets, not because a private owner is trying to extract entertainment value out of you. It's easier to see how your expectations, place in the world and feeling of external pressure would be different in the AFL compared to other sports.

 

[PP34]

Think you're missing the point a bit.

It's not about the money and expectations, rather than the all-consuming nature of how the cities that support footy and the media and the involvement in the public. No other cities in the world are intense about their sporting teams as Melbourne, Adelaide and Perth are in terms of the amount of journalists that cover it, how much the broader public is invested in it and how much it dominates the lives of its citizens.

Furthermore - even with the players getting paid more and more "expectation" to meet that payment - the private ownership, for profit nature of these sports might be easier on a players mental health, because it makes the relationship easier. When you underpeform, you're only letting down the private owner willing to pay you that much and it impacts your ability to get the next paycheck, and the reason you are getting paid that much in the first place is because that's what the market has deemed you worth in a for-profit, entertainment business. Whereas in the AFL, you're under the pressure of the concept of a member-driven, decades-old club and a sport that's more part of the fabric of Australian society/history/culture than other sports - you're letting down the fans, you have responsibility as part of the tapestry of Autralian history and culture. It's why our competition has a father-son rule, an obsession with certain clubs having important jumper numbers, etc, etc. You get paid because members pay for tickets, not because a private owner is trying to extract entertainment value out of you. It's easier to see how your expectations, place in the world and feeling of external pressure would be different in the AFL compared to other sports.

Nope.

Americans are just as crazy about their sports and the media heat is just as bad if not worse because you have a whole city focusing on one team in a league. They also comfortably have us covered in terms of media following the sports.

 

[Flags_In_The_Bag]

Hope Tom tells his side of his footy career in detail someday. Best wishes for him and his future.

Stay tuned for open Mike

 

[Flags_In_The_Bag]

A few off posts in a thread on a forum quickly go from heresay to truth.

See you find it convenient that I am trying to protect a player at my club while I find it convenient that all the so called mean bullies from your own club have now been banished from the club.

Fact is if Luke went to the Bombers instead you would say what a shitty bloke

 

[iBeng]

Could he make a return now the Dogs are in finals? I mean, he hasnt been delisted yet so hes still playable, right?

 

[Sentinel]

Could he make a return now the Dogs are in finals? I mean, he hasnt been delisted yet so hes still playable, right?

Could he? Yes. Will he? Definitely not.