Good line E

He would have a higher insight into it then most, so it would be an educated guess.

A lot of crap does come out of his mouth though. Carro is the only decent panel member.

What the?

Garry and Grant are the only ones that have played the game champ, there the only ones i listen to

What the?

Garry and Grant are the only ones that have played the game champ, there the only ones i listen to

Garry? He just sits on the fence and plays it boring, Token Male favourite. Grant is just boring with his face set in concrete.

Carro ads entertainment to the show, which at the end of the day its all about.

Edited September 20, 200915 yr by Mr Morton

I think the club's reaction to the whole Burgoyne situation has been interesting. Unlike when Chris Judd was available, the Demons have been very low key and have done nothing to build up supporters' expectations. I really don't believe that Burgoyne fits the profile of the type of player we should be chasing. He's high priced, nearly 27 years old and has just had knee surgery. His introduction into the club at this stage could possibly upset the dynamics of the sort of club the football department has been working so hard to develop.

I think it's a pass.

I think the club's reaction to the whole Burgoyne situation has been interesting. Unlike when Chris Judd was available, the Demons have been very low key and have done nothing to build up supporters' expectations. I really don't believe that Burgoyne fits the profile of the type of player we should be chasing. He's high priced, nearly 27 years old and has just had knee surgery. His introduction into the club at this stage could possibly upset the dynamics of the sort of club the football department has been working so hard to develop.

I think it's a pass.

Agreed. The blokes over-rated anyway.

Garry? He just sits on the fence and plays it boring, Token Male favourite. Grant is just boring with his face set in concrete.

Carro ads entertainment to the show, which at the end of the day its all about.

Its not about entertainment for me - its about critical analysis of different aspects of AFL (ok, but for me that's entertainment...)

Garry sometimes says a lot without saying much, if you know what I mean.

He does play a diplomatic role a lot of the time though, but I'd imagine that's because of his coaching aspirations.

AND his media committments - he has to interview and work with a lot of the players; no good pissing them off.

Grant is obnoxious and argumentative, but I love his opinions. He calls it exactly how he sees it.

He often has some insightful and unexpected views too, imo.

Carro is good sometimes, but last night once again gave a good insight into her true colours - after watching Ricky Nixon speak, she continued to misquote him saying Morris had a broken leg and Nixon had confirmed it.

Nixon was dancing around the matter and did not confirm it, merely alluded to it (probably cos its not entirely true, but its a good story), but it was good enough for Carro and she ran a mile with it.

Hutchy would be no different and i think he's scum.

Unfortunately, if you got rid of him, there'd be 12 guys squirrel-gripping and eye-gouging each other to be his replacement.

I could name a few off the top of my head. Better the devil you know.

Edited September 20, 200915 yr by Enforcer25

An aspect of all this Burgoyne...Lovett type stuff that pleases me is the inference it has with respect to the Trade week as a whole. It gives it impetus and legs. it helps loosen th eclubs up for discussion leading to actual deals. Many deal are not oftern done in isolation causing picks to change and priorities and opportunites elsewhere to emerge.

It all adds to the tree-shaking.... and as they say you just never know what might land at your feet

An aspect of all this Burgoyne...Lovett type stuff that pleases me is the inference it has with respect to the Trade week as a whole. It gives it impetus and legs. it helps loosen th eclubs up for discussion leading to actual deals. Many deal are not oftern done in isolation causing picks to change and priorities and opportunites elsewhere to emerge.

It all adds to the tree-shaking.... and as they say you just never know what might land at your feet

Thats a positive view of it, the other side to it is that the big fish trades stall the progress and stop the trading of the little fish, which is where trade week can be beneficial to everyone. A lot of little nothing deals end up working out pretty well for a lot of players - Farren Ray, Rhys Shaw.

7.5% of the total salary cap is roughly 580k.

(The $7.53m minimum is for next year.)

Let's say that there is a wage inflation to various players of $500k (conservative figure, it may be more). That wage inflation is caused by having to reach the minimum. Our youth and lack of senior stars means that it is in the hands of that promising youth. 5% more here, 10% more there. All designed to get us to the minimum.

Now if that wage inflation remains in 3 or 4 years time, it would mean that $500k is tied up in wages to players that are overpayed.

That $500k is the wage of one very good player. A very good player that we may lose because we haven't the room.

That is all I am worried about.

I applaud the frontloading of contracts, and it will be a short term fix to get up to $7.53m. But the fact remains that our younger players are paid more than their counterparts at other (older) teams and it may come back to bite us in a few years time when someone is squeezed out that needn't have been squeezed out.

A large contract, like the one Burgoyne would be given, short-circuits this problem to a large extent.

Chris Connolly has already said that we are frontloading contracts. For instance, if Morton is getting $500k over 2 years they might pay him $300k in 2010 and $200k in 2011. Those numbers have no source, they may be well off. It is just an example to help people wrap their heads around what I am saying.

But the fact remains that our youth and our lack of stars means that our kids will be payed more than their counterparts at other clubs. This is not a problem at the moment.

Then you frontload Mortons contract to 450 K for 2010 and 50K for 2011. How is that going to be inflated? It's still 500K over 2 years.

You frontload everyone's contract if we have to and keep rolling it every year. Brock might be earning 375K per year. You pay 700K first year and 50K next year.

We'll make 92.5 easy.

Then you frontload Mortons contract to 450 K for 2010 and 50K for 2011. How is that going to be inflated? It's still 500K over 2 years.

You frontload everyone's contract if we have to and keep rolling it every year. Brock might be earning 375K per year. You pay 700K first year and 50K next year.

We'll make 92.5 easy.

It's a fantastic short term fix.

But if you do that, what about 2011?

You have already frontloaded so much that the shortfall is even greater.

Do you throw out Morton's contract and give him his $450k again? That would mean he was on $900k over two years and not $500k. And then do you give him more on his next contract? Considering it was artificially inflated you could say no, but Connors, Nixon, and Pickering would maximise what they can get for their clients and you've opened the door to their players being on big money.

Edited September 21, 200915 yr by rpfc

Thats a positive view of it, the other side to it is that the big fish trades stall the progress and stop the trading of the little fish, which is where trade week can be beneficial to everyone. A lot of little nothing deals end up working out pretty well for a lot of players - Farren Ray, Rhys Shaw.

Its not a clear cut thing is it !! what might happen is that the big fish themselves havent changed much but the accompanying pick could. It changes the weight of balance within the footy dept's thinking. They had x. y. and z picks and were looking to grab an A B or C type player when now they have f.g. and z picks and now can possibly look at a D or F..or vice versa have to change tack because of now having lesser picks might look to another trade etc..

The Bigger trades can and often do have fall out attached. This is where life can get interesting in trade week...or die a death ( I appreciate )..Somehow I think this year will be quite active.

Bris/Toiges have already all but traded.. Port HAS to trade, Dogs will probably also; more will follow after the GF.

You can be sure many a FD are scribbling away with pencils and erasers ( or digital varieties thereof ) honing lists..and playing out possible scenarios

It's a fantastic short term fix.

But if you do that, what about 2011?

You have already frontloaded so much that the shortfall is even greater.

Do you throw out Morton's contract and give him his $450k again? That would mean he was on $900k over two years and not $500k. And then do you give him more on his next contract? Considering it was artificially inflated you could say no, but Connors, Nixon, and Pickering would maximise what they can get for their clients and you've opened the door to their players being on big money.

You roll it again. 300K 2011 and 50K 2012.

Edited September 21, 200915 yr by jacey

Carro is good sometimes, but last night once again gave a good insight into her true colours - after watching Ricky Nixon speak, she continued to misquote him saying Morris had a broken leg and Nixon had confirmed it.

Nixon was dancing around the matter and did not confirm it, merely alluded to it (probably cos its not entirely true, but its a good story), but it was good enough for Carro and she ran a mile with it.

Carro was with that fairys on thats one I agree. A hot spot is not even close to a broken leg anyway.

(The $7.53m minimum is for next year.)

Fair point, it will increase next year. Are you 100% sure about that figure though.

2010 Salary Cap - $7,950,000 (92.5% = $7,353,750)

2011 Salary Cap - $8,212,500 (92.5% = $7,596,562)

Just on the point of front loading, if we continue down that track I understand that there is potentially a short fall that could catch up with us. Surely it comes down to the rotation of contracts though, if the cycles are spread out then that gives us leeway so the club can keep on top of it. Not to mention that next year and beyond we will no doubt be in the market for multiple experienced players to complement the list. Either way you have pointed out something interesting here, maybe Newton does serve a purpose now.

If I were a player I'd be extremely unhappy with having a contract so heavily front-loaded in the 450-50k example. I'd be asking my manager to get a (much) better deal than that.

Fair point, it will increase next year. Are you 100% sure about that figure though.

2010 Salary Cap - $7,950,000 (92.5% = $7,353,750)

2011 Salary Cap - $8,212,500 (92.5% = $7,596,562)

Just on the point of front loading, if we continue down that track I understand that there is potentially a short fall that could catch up with us. Surely it comes down to the rotation of contracts though, if the cycles are spread out then that gives us leeway so the club can keep on top of it. Not to mention that next year and beyond we will no doubt be in the market for multiple experienced players to complement the list. Either way you have pointed out something interesting here, maybe Newton does serve a purpose now.

And McDonald staying. And Bruce being on big money (which a few on here complain about whenever he plays a bad game).

I have the CBA on hand so those figures are correct.

If I were a player I'd be extremely unhappy with having a contract so heavily front-loaded in the 450-50k example. I'd be asking my manager to get a (much) better deal than that.

And that is the danger with taking Jacey's approach. A little frontloading can be a helpful thing, a lot of frontloading can screw up our wage structure.

I think Davey will get a very good wage for the next two or three years...

If I were a player I'd be extremely unhappy with having a contract so heavily front-loaded in the 450-50k example. I'd be asking my manager to get a (much) better deal than that.

Why? If you get the lump sum up front you can make the money work for you, increasing your real earnings over the period. If you want more than 50K coming in the second year it wouldn't be hard to arrange.

You roll it again. 300K 2011 and 50K 2012.

That would effectively mean that in this hypthetical Morton has been given $750k over 10/11 when we wanted to pay him $500k in 10/11.

It just screws up our wage structure.

That would effectively mean that in this hypthetical Morton has been given $750k over 10/11 when we wanted to pay him $500k in 10/11.

It just screws up our wage structure.

okay I'll change it to 400K first year, 100K second year to make it fit a bit better.

400K 2010.

300K 2011.

50K 2012. That's still 250K a year. Is that any different from earning 250K every year.

It will need to be managed very carefully by an actual accountant.

I'm sure these kids have some financial planners to help them out with savings or putting their money to work for them (ie property, shares whatever).

Edited September 21, 200915 yr by jacey

okay I'll change it to 400K first year, 100K second year to make it fit a bit better.

400K 2010.

300K 2011.

50K 2012. That's still 250K a year. Is that any different from earning 250K every year.

It will need to be managed very carefully by an actual accountant.

I'm sure these kids have some financial planners to help them out with savings or putting their money to work for them (ie property, shares whatever).

Look, that is the way I would do it and with a level-headed player and a manager with a bit of integrity will be happy enough to make it work.

But I have the distinct feeling that, in this hypthetical scenario, the manager of Morton will be slipping secret notes to Hutchison to say that Morton, 22 with 80 games experience, is on an insulting salary at the MFC and that it would be hard work to keep him.

Here's hoping we don't lose anyone in 2012/13/14 because we have no room...

Footy Classified tonight.

Hutchie believes Burgoyne will choose Hawthorn, with Essendon in with a definite chance. Says it is unlikely to be Melbourne. If there is some truth to it, its not really surprising.

Who knows. I guess we'll find out Monday.

Then again on the footy show last thursday Hutchy said Pendlebury will play, end of story.

PS. I tape the footy show, fast forward to Hutchy and get the goss and then delete the whole show. I can't watch that crap.

Edited September 21, 200915 yr by Redleg

Bris/Toiges have already all but traded.. Port HAS to trade,

Little birdy told me that since the movement of Rawlings & McCrae to Brisbane they may be having second thoughts ... the call is now up to Voss ... with 2 newly appointed assistants who would have one hell of alot of egg on their face re-comments they made a Tigerland.

Little birdy told me that since the movement of Rawlings & McCrae to Brisbane they may be having second thoughts ... the call is now up to Voss ... with 2 newly appointed assistants who would have one hell of alot of egg on their face re-comments they made a Tigerland.

certainly adds a new dimension to the goings on doesnt it !!

So when is the SB going to nominante his club? I thought it was today?