zantuck deal

[yandb]

i have just read on another thread that the zantuck deal involved richmond paying 75% of his salary next season.if this is the case then miller has stuffed up big time when you take into consideration our financial situation.i can only hope the poster was incorrect , as i was of the understanding that both parties mutualy agreed to release each other from any obligations . does anyone have any facts to shed light on the situation.

 

[Punt_Road_Roar]

When you consider he was already on our list for next season aswell, I would rather pay him 75% than 100% while at the same time infecting his bad ways onto our youth of tomorrow.

Miller's only mistake regarding Zantuck was the belief that other clubs were keen on his services.

Miller was wise in just pi$$ing him off out the door.

 

[jezza]

Yep, better to get rid of him at any cost. Obviously things are ok financially because we are free to use 2 PSD picks.

 

[Tambo]

it wouldnt be as much as 75% would it? what percentage of hollands contract did we pay?

 

[JohnF]

It's safe to say Miller's attempt to get back at Sheedy has cost us 75 percent of Zantuck's wage (not to mention a slightly better draft position).

Nevertheless it was the right decision by Greg to get rid of him.

 

[silence ofthe Robert]

Just as a discussion piece. Does anyone consider the items below as blunders by Baldrick Miller. I 'd be interested in a 'success' list or more 'blunders'

1. Zantuck deal/ probably cost us at least 50K by his petty shot at Sheedy
2. North Fitzroy attempted merger fiasco
3. Johnson/Wells deal
4. Blumfield
5. Weller
6. Morrison
7. Fleming
8. Nichols
9. Fletcher
10. Marsh
11. Retaining Houlihan & Biddiscombe.
12 Removing (not enforcing) Frawley's performance clause
13. Missing Copeland
14. Missing Solomon
15. Pushing Ottens
16. kangaroos financial position when CEO
17. Operating the worst football dept/team 500k over budget
18. Sipthorp.
19. Conflict of interest by running as director - Will Wright resign?
20. Listening to Bullwinkle "Watch me pull a rabbit out of my hat" Casey.

 

[Punt_Road_Roar]

Just as a discussion piece. Does anyone consider the items below as blunders by Baldrick Miller. I 'd be interested in a 'success' list or more 'blunders'

1. Zantuck deal/ probably cost us at least 50K by his petty shot at Sheedy
2. North Fitzroy attempted merger fiasco
3. Johnson/Wells deal
4. Blumfield
5. Weller
6. Morrison
7. Fleming
8. Nichols
9. Fletcher
10. Marsh
11. Retaining Houlihan & Biddiscombe.
12 Removing (not enforcing) Frawley's performance clause
13. Missing Copeland
14. Missing Solomon
15. Pushing Ottens
16. kangaroos financial position when CEO
17. Operating the worst football dept/team 500k over budget
18. Sipthorp.
19. Conflict of interest by running as director - Will Wright resign?
20. Listening to Bullwinkle "Watch me pull a rabbit out of my hat" Casey.

YOU MISSED 1 MORE BLUNDER

21. silence ofthe Robert

 

[SaveFeriss]

Just as a discussion piece. Does anyone consider the items below as blunders by Baldrick Miller. I 'd be interested in a 'success' list or more 'blunders'


3. Johnson/Wells deal

I think that's already been explained to you more than once.

 

[itsintheblood]

Just as a discussion piece. Does anyone consider the items below as blunders by Baldrick Miller. I 'd be interested in a 'success' list or more 'blunders'

1. Zantuck deal/ probably cost us at least 50K by his petty shot at Sheedy
2. North Fitzroy attempted merger fiasco
3. Johnson/Wells deal
4. Blumfield
5. Weller
6. Morrison
7. Fleming
8. Nichols
9. Fletcher
10. Marsh
11. Retaining Houlihan & Biddiscombe.
12 Removing (not enforcing) Frawley's performance clause
13. Missing Copeland
14. Missing Solomon
15. Pushing Ottens
16. kangaroos financial position when CEO
17. Operating the worst football dept/team 500k over budget
18. Sipthorp.
19. Conflict of interest by running as director - Will Wright resign?
20. Listening to Bullwinkle "Watch me pull a rabbit out of my hat" Casey.

So this is all Millers doing is it? You tossbag. Don't we have a recruiting dept? Is Greg Beck just an illusionary character? Did Danny Frawley have no say at all in who he wanted to take the field each week? Why don't you mention who brought over Nathan Brown and Troy Simmons?????

 

[Infamy]

Well we have no idea what % we were supposed to be paying for the Essendon deal
There's nothing to base this on except an anonymous poster on a forum, I doubt it would be that much.
I guess it all depends on what Zantuck has nominated as his contract in the PSD, chances are we'd be paying him the difference between his $160k for next year and what ever his nominated price is

 

[Tiger_Of_Old]

Just as a discussion piece. Does anyone consider the items below as blunders by Baldrick Miller. I 'd be interested in a 'success' list or more 'blunders'

1. Zantuck deal/ probably cost us at least 50K by his petty shot at Sheedy
2. North Fitzroy attempted merger fiasco
3. Johnson/Wells deal
4. Blumfield
5. Weller
6. Morrison
7. Fleming
8. Nichols
9. Fletcher
10. Marsh
11. Retaining Houlihan & Biddiscombe.
12 Removing (not enforcing) Frawley's performance clause
13. Missing Copeland
14. Missing Solomon
15. Pushing Ottens
16. kangaroos financial position when CEO
17. Operating the worst football dept/team 500k over budget
18. Sipthorp.
19. Conflict of interest by running as director - Will Wright resign?
20. Listening to Bullwinkle "Watch me pull a rabbit out of my hat" Casey.

The age board.

 

[1980]

So this is all Millers doing is it? You tossbag. Don't we have a recruiting dept? Is Greg Beck just an illusionary character? Did Danny Frawley have no say at all in who he wanted to take the field each week? Why don't you mention who brought over Nathan Brown and Troy Simmons?????

Didnt Beck and Frawley work for Greg Miller? Isnt that the point?

Dont go holding up Brown as some recruiting coup. We offered him the biggest cheque. Plain and simple. Any idiot can get ppl like Wallet, Brown or Simmonds if you're the highest bidder. Which in all cases we were.

The only time money wasnt the only reason, Solomon told Miller to bugger off.

 

[silence ofthe Robert]

So this is all Millers doing is it? You tossbag. Don't we have a recruiting dept? Is Greg Beck just an illusionary character? Did Danny Frawley have no say at all in who he wanted to take the field each week? Why don't you mention who brought over Nathan Brown and Troy Simmons?????

Just asking IITB. Seeing a lot of posters see Baldrick as having this plan to shake up RFC and remake it as a success and giving him credit for things like Deledio and Tambling which had little to do with him (unless you give him credit for the tiges winning only 4 games), I just wondered if my list could reasonably be seen as blunders balancing the ledger. Fair shake of the old sausage guys. You cant give him credit for all the good bits and ignore the bad bits. Lot of it is subjective anyway - we may be better off without Wells, Solomon, Copeland and Ottens. Happy to see a sucess list.

 

[silence ofthe Robert]

YOU MISSED 1 MORE BLUNDER

21. silence ofthe Robert

 

[JohnF]

Didnt Beck and Frawley work for Greg Miller? Isnt that the point?

Dont go holding up Brown as some recruiting coup. We offered him the biggest cheque. Plain and simple. Any idiot can get ppl like Wallet, Brown or Simmonds if you're the highest bidder. Which in all cases we were.

The only time money wasnt the only reason, Solomon told Miller to bugger off.

Exactly 1980.

I give Miller a lot of credit for giving Ottens a reality check though. Not many would have had the guts to make that move. Nipped that overpaid, overrated hack in the bud. Great move.

 

[silence ofthe Robert]

Exactly 1980.

I give Miller a lot of credit for giving Ottens a reality check though. Not many would have had the guts to make that move. Nipped that overpaid, overrated hack in the bud. Great move.

Fair enough. I suppose if we had Simmonds and Ottens rather than Simmonds and say Knobel we would be more dangerous short term. Having said that we wouldn't have Pattision and Meyer and their performances will determine whether the deal was a good one or not. I think Brad is a simple bloke who was happy to stay, but when you're on 450k and get offered 300k and the market is offering much more you really can't stay.

 

[silence ofthe Robert]

I think that's already been explained to you more than once.

Is that the explanation that goes everyone in the football world except Baldrick knew Carlton would lose their first two picks and Miller was effectively stooged handing over a pick 2, when Kane's currency was closer to a pick 6.

 

[JohnF]

Fair enough. I suppose if we had Simmonds and Ottens rather than Simmonds and say Knobel we would be more dangerous short term. Having said that we wouldn't have Pattision and Meyer and their performances will determine whether the deal was a good one or not. I think Brad is a simple bloke who was happy to stay, but when you're on 450k and get offered 300k and the market is offering much more you really can't stay.

Given the lack of influence Ottens has had over a game of football since 2001, I think it was a great 'gamble' to trade him for two first round draft picks. You are right that how Pattison and Meyer go (as well as how Brad goes at Geelong) will be the final say on whether this was a good deal or not, but I would take two first round picks for a guy getting paid on reputation above all else every time.

 

[starkravenmad2]

dosent really matter how ottens or for that matter ty preforms at other clubs the point is they wearnt preforming at richmond..ottens case he wasnt preforming anywhere near what we were paying him and ty for all we know might have been preforming to his maximum but off field was just a ordinary bloke and influnce on club.so either way we win by miller off loading him

 

[silence ofthe Robert]

Given the lack of influence Ottens has had over a game of football since 2001, I think it was a great 'gamble' to trade him for two first round draft picks. You are right that how Pattison and Meyer go (as well as how Brad goes at Geelong) will be the final say on whether this was a good deal or not, but I would take two first round picks for a guy getting paid on reputation above all else every time.

I agree that his influence has wained since 2001 and more particularly since his back injury in 2002 (he seems to have lost the ability to mark 1 or 2 back in a pack which he was great at and his kicking is not as deadly). However if you looked at the Stats ratings ( I know - can be deceiving) he was still ranked 12th and 16th in 2003 and 2004 despite underperforming.

I have never worked out how Brad would continually tap the ball down over his left shoulder behind him and we continually lost the ball out of the middle. Was he hitting it in the wrong spot. Were our midfielders complete duds, was the midfield coach to blame. I dont know? I just feel that with a good midfield group and strategy, Brad is a very dangerous ruckman, (who can also play a bit!!)

 

[JohnF]

I agree that his influence has wained since 2001 and more particularly since his back injury in 2002 (he seems to have lost the ability to mark 1 or 2 back in a pack which he was great at and his kicking is not as deadly). However if you looked at the Stats ratings ( I know - can be deceiving) he was still ranked 12th and 16th in 2003 and 2004 despite underperforming.

I have never worked out how Brad would continually tap the ball down over his left shoulder behind him and we continually lost the ball out of the middle. Was he hitting it in the wrong spot. Were our midfielders complete duds, was the midfield coach to blame. I dont know? I just feel that with a good midfield group and strategy, Brad is a very dangerous ruckman, (who can also play a bit!!)

Probably a bit of all that Rob, but I think more than anything, the way that players get tagged in the centre nowadays, winning tap outs is not as important as it used to be, and as such Ottens statistics embellish him and his worth. The accuracy of Ottens' tap outs weren't that bad but opposition players were reading them easily as they just had to stay close to our rovers and put them under a bit of pressure, which makes it hard to shark the ball from the ruck tap outs.

Other than his tap outs, which he was clearly one of the best at in the comp, the rest of his game was very average. As you said, his kicking and marking suffered after his injuries and he was also struggling to cover the territory needed to keep up with some of the other ruckmen.

 

[Crumden]

Miller only came on board about 2 minutes before the Johnson trade. I know he is both praised and vilified for this trade, but I'm not sure that he had much of a hand in that trade or in the subsequent abuse of our picks at the draft that year. I think what came out of it is that Miller subsequently took a lot of say off Frawley in off-field areas and our drafting and trading has improved dramatically since (though time will be the true measure of this).

I don't see missing Solomon and Copeland as a blunder. The fact that 2 players with such strong ties with their club were almost convinced to come across seemed to indicate his skill. Maybe the blunder was targeting players with those strong ties, but maybe it was those qualities that attracted Miller in the first place. If its a blunder, I'd rather see someone making mistakes like this trying to improve the club rather than see someone making no mistakes because they are doing nothing.

Regarding the North-Fitzroy merger, I don't think it was so much a Miller fiasco as a case of the AFL having an agenda to improve the team in Brisbane. I think its fair to say that the CEO position isn't Millers caper though.

The overspend on the football budget raises some interesting points. Part of the overspend was due to playing so many kids last year and the subsequent transfer fees that are tied to the number of games they play, as well as promoting rookies to the senior list. I think this part of it is a long term investment that will serve us well. The rest (maybe the bulk, I'm not sure) is harder to justify given our finishing position this year.

 

[Tiger_Of_Old]

The overspend on the football budget raises some interesting points. Part of the overspend was due to playing so many kids last year and the subsequent transfer fees that are tied to the number of games they play, as well as promoting rookies to the senior list. I think this part of it is a long term investment that will serve us well. The rest (maybe the bulk, I'm not sure) is harder to justify given our finishing position this year.

Since which has been rectifyed with Ottens and Fiora being traded for Symonds and a bunch of kids.
This is what Miller is getting at.he seen the problems when he arrived and now that he,s half way there he wants to finish the job.
Along come 2 former board members who couldnt take the heat but now are prepared to take all the glory without lifting a single finger and make no mistake TW will watch his Football department wilter down to nothing if the alternative get in.
The plans are in place.What each supporter has been praying for is a light at the end of the tunnel.well its there people and its not because of the likes of Macek,Schwab,Welsh and Wood.

cheers!

 

[peejay]

Sipthorp ?????? Please explain.