- Banned
- #1
What would you rather have?
-
Mobile App Discontinued
Due to a number of factors, support for the current BigFooty mobile app has been discontinued. Your BigFooty login will no longer work on the Tapatalk or the BigFooty App - which is based on Tapatalk.
Apologies for any inconvenience. We will try to find a replacement.
What would you rather have?
- Thread starter Hammerfire
- Start date
- Tagged users None
🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #2
Something i'd like to post on PRE, but i cant, is that a lot of people have criticized Miller for overspending the football department budget by 500k.
If we had taken 3 more rookies, wouldn't this cause overspending again?
Semms pretty hypocritical to me that people criticize Miller for the overspending, then support taking extra rookies, which would cause the overspending to happen again.
Discuss?
If we had taken 3 more rookies, wouldn't this cause overspending again?
Semms pretty hypocritical to me that people criticize Miller for the overspending, then support taking extra rookies, which would cause the overspending to happen again.
Discuss?
we got rookies comming out of ears .knobel gives us a better chance of winnig a few games next year while our rookies develop.as shown on other threads the pressure on delidio already way over the top
Hammerfire said:
For the financial side of things ive heard (PRE) that we are only paying 94% of our salaray cap. Also, rookies are sposed to cost only $30,000 so we could get 3 for under 100 grand.
Thus we could have afforded 3 more under the cap, its just that we cant afford it overall
On that point, What are we paying Knoble? $200,000/$160,000? If so we could have got Kirby, Grundy, Jesse Smith + 3 or so other rookies for the same price...
Rather than having to choose the recyled ruckman or the rookies i would have liked the club to invest in both, its not unreasonable. Overspending on kids for our rebuilding is not a waste of money, myself and im sure many fellow Tiger supporters would have encouraged 'over-spending' if it ment having more potential good players in our ranks.
You have a good attitutde, not botteming out and trying to get draft picks but winning games next year
. I like Knobel, he isnt a bad player. Some of his stats are dreadful but in reality he is a very good ruckman and gives a contest and does his job of getting the ball to the blokes that should have it. He also runs stright at it and farily hard at it.Actully, we only have Foley, Moore and the new kid, Thursfield i beleive. You'd think Moore is now a 'proper' player, but im not sure. If you mean we have too many young players i totally disagree. Im very happy to have the likes of Meyer and Tambling etc. but Every kid we get would be a bonus. The compition for places only makes players better and having a large good of youngests gives you more chance of having many that will come good.
Log in to remove this Banner Ad
not sure u can ever have 2 many youngsters but we do need a balance plus not sure ferals wait till they all develop if we dont win a few games.our record at being patient aint all that good lol
starkravenmad2 said:
Yes, we need balance. No one is disputing that.
However, in the likes of Brown, Richo, Gaspar, Simmonds, Johnson and less class players in Kellaway and Chaffy etc. we do have balance.
Not picking up Knoble was hardly going to push us into a zone of not having enough older bodies.
Ideally I would have liked to have seen us use our 2nd psd pick on a kid then also fill up the rookie list. Realistically though, we picked up 8 players in the national draft, one in the psd and the first pick in the rookie draft. Round 2 of the rookie draft was effectively an 11th round draft pick for us. Getting into needle in a haystack territory. If we were cashed up we could have gambled on some more kids, but as it is we already have quite a few on the list, but not so many mid-aged players. While I'm not a huge Knobel fan, I think he meets our needs more at the moment than some speculative picks on rookies.
Crumden said:
Good point.
Ottens, Fiora and Zantuck loses hurt this even more so. If we want to be a force in 5 or so years we need players now, 23/24/25 to be solid. I trust in Couglan, Pettifer, Newman etc. but Simmonds and Graham will help our cause.
Rookies don't count towards the salary cap.Bentleigh said:For the financial side of things ive heard (PRE) that we are only paying 94% of our salaray cap. Also, rookies are sposed to cost only $30,000 so we could get 3 for under 100 grand.
Thus we could have afforded 3 more under the cap, its just that we cant afford it overall
On that point, What are we paying Knoble? $200,000/$160,000? If so we could have got Kirby, Grundy, Jesse Smith + 3 or so other rookies for the same price...
Regarding Knobel, that is pretty standard money for a guy his age and experience. Similar to what we were paying Zantuck, but Zantuck also had a $30K job at the club on top. When comparing with the rookies, Knobel will probably play 50-100 games at the club. One or two of those rookies may turn out to be good players, or they may all never even make a senior list.
Also, remember the likes of Jolly was traded for a first round draft pick just recently. If Knobel had been available in the trade, everyone would have been talking him up (as players up for trade generally are) and we would have been rapt to get him for 'free'.
He is a good pick up. However, Knoble + a couple rookied kids would be a far better option long term. Saying all that I beleive Plough understands we will not be a top 4 team next season and has room on the list for a influx of kids next year.
Saints didnt think so.
Crumden said:
Saints didnt think so.
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #12
Saints are going to get r*ped by the salary cap in a few years.
Ball apparently signed for 2 year on around 250k, so once that's done he will be wanting the big bucks if he keeps going along the way he is now.
Reiwoldt will be screaming for money, and Hamill's loaded contract has a few years on it.
Ball apparently signed for 2 year on around 250k, so once that's done he will be wanting the big bucks if he keeps going along the way he is now.
Reiwoldt will be screaming for money, and Hamill's loaded contract has a few years on it.
Hammerfire said:
You'd think so eh.
however, If they can hang on to the core players; Ball, Rewolot, Del Santo , Goodard, Maquire etc. they wil still have a class side.
sante
Emu
Knobel
3 kids instead of Knoble eh.
You could put all 3 kids and Hall against Steven King at once in round 1 and still none of them would touch the ball in a ruck contest.
We needed a ready-made ruckman to support Stafford and Simmonds. Knoble was the best available and was rightly taken. He is no Marsh and may well relegate Stafford to back-up ruckman.
You could put all 3 kids and Hall against Steven King at once in round 1 and still none of them would touch the ball in a ruck contest.
We needed a ready-made ruckman to support Stafford and Simmonds. Knoble was the best available and was rightly taken. He is no Marsh and may well relegate Stafford to back-up ruckman.
Fishfinger said:
Why should we not be able to get rookies + Knoble? It shouldnt be a question of one or the other.
I thought we were working on a 5 year plan? If so you'd think the kids would be the proiety?
sante
Emu
Knobel is 24...........add 5 years and then he is 29 and will still have a few years left. BTW, Knobel is younger than Simmo so there ya go! End of StoryBentleigh said:
That's not what you were saying. You wanted 3 rookies instead of Knoble, not as well as.Bentleigh said:
The answer is obvious as to why we can't have both. Money.
🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.
Fishfinger said:
If you read what I said, I stated we should be able to get both. Its shouldnt be a option of 1 or the other.
If the Lions get 6 rookies and we get 1 its a sad day for the club. We should be able to afford more than 94% of our cap.
The Lions didn't get 6 rookies, they got one.
Brisbane and Sydney reserve some NSW and Qld youngsters prior to the draft for their reserves sides.
If you check the draft you'll see Brisbane passed in rounds 2&3. The players in the subsequent rounds are their "reserved" players.
As for adding you think we should get both in this thread, that's not the case in the "Trent Knobel you little beauty" thread where you clearly agreed with SOTR's opinion that he is a dud and added that you would have preferred a handful of kids.
Brisbane and Sydney reserve some NSW and Qld youngsters prior to the draft for their reserves sides.
If you check the draft you'll see Brisbane passed in rounds 2&3. The players in the subsequent rounds are their "reserved" players.
As for adding you think we should get both in this thread, that's not the case in the "Trent Knobel you little beauty" thread where you clearly agreed with SOTR's opinion that he is a dud and added that you would have preferred a handful of kids.
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #22
Wallace has fired up his media machine again, i've seen at least 6 different positive articles about Richmond in the last day or so.
Sure most of them are about Knobel and other Richmond stuff, but still!
Sure most of them are about Knobel and other Richmond stuff, but still!
There are still 2 weeks until the end of December.
Go on Caro, surely in that time you could conjure something so you can say you at least wrote one positive article about Richmond in 2004.
Then again, not likely.
Go on Caro, surely in that time you could conjure something so you can say you at least wrote one positive article about Richmond in 2004.
Then again, not likely.
Bentleigh said:
The Lions and Swans are eleigible for 9 rookies because they have priority over home grown picks that aren't drafted in the national draft. Of the Lions 6 picks, 5 were Queenslanders. Their picks are as much about trying to get credibility in the local market by having Qld kids on the list as anything else. They are also in a better financial postion to take a gamble on rookies after three succesive premierships than we are after 20 years of failure.
