I'd rather spend that money that is outside the cap, on the footy dept to get or keep the best assistant coaches & on training equipment & aids.

Invest it in our regional development or with our community spirited areas such as Yuendumu.

You're assuming we have hit the minimum.

We have had to front load contracts to get to 92.5% of the cap.

Give his money, or half his money because of the VL, to the kids and you will be inflating their price.

I would prefer, as I said with his enormous pay packet in the last three years, Bruce gets overpaid rather than our kids.

Have to disagree with notion it necessarily inflates their price . It simply allows more lattitude as to how and when they are paid . This benefits the club. The players won't see any discernable dif as I u derstand sporting persons are allowed to portray their earnings over a different period for tax as opposed the man in street ( happy to be coorected there )

Have to disagree with notion it necessarily inflates their price . It simply allows more lattitude as to how and when they are paid . This benefits the club. The players won't see any discernable dif as I u derstand sporting persons are allowed to portray their earnings over a different period for tax as opposed the man in street ( happy to be coorected there )

It come down to paying them more than their market price.

That always comes back to bite you.

Interesting in that article posted above...

I'd take Tambling if the price was right... Many wouldn't.

Interesting in that article posted above...

I'd take Tambling if the price was right... Many wouldn't.

I would but feel Bennell will fill his role off a HBF and be better at it.

It come down to paying them more than their market price.

That always comes back to bite you.

Please explain WHy you're paying them

more ? It allows lattitude of the when ... Doesn't

mean you have to pay more

You're assuming we have hit the minimum.

We have had to front load contracts to get to 92.5% of the cap.

With front loading we paid 100% this year I believe. Going by TH's WW presentation we shouldn't have any trouble keeping above the salary floor until about 2012/13 when the club plans to use that saved cap space for taking in some experienced players at a flag tilt. They seem to have a projection of how they want our cap to behave. You know more about this than I do but surely our list managers have a grasp of things without having to overpay experienced players simply to avoid the pitfall of over playing younger players down the track. It seems by the "apparent" negotiations that the club doesn't want to fork out too much for Bruce and tbh I think this is a better signal to send to the group if we actually want to avoid over paying players down the track.

I would but feel Bennell will fill his role off a HBF and be better at it.

Edit: sorry rpfc, this was not meant to be a reply to your post - finger problems

Happy to give Bruce a 1 or 2 year contract

His fitness should stand for 2 more years (one of his assets)

With such a dearth of experienced players there is plenty of opportunities to get games into young players

So what if he is not a part of a premiership team, others won't be either

Edited September 22, 201014 yr by daisycutter

With front loading we paid 100% this year I believe. Going by TH's WW presentation we shouldn't have any trouble keeping above the salary floor until about 2012/13 when the club plans to use that saved cap space for taking in some experienced players at a flag tilt. They seem to have a projection of how they want our cap to behave. You know more about this than I do but surely our list managers have a grasp of things without having to overpay experienced players simply to avoid the pitfall of over playing younger players down the track. It seems by the "apparent" negotiations that the club doesn't want to fork out too much for Bruce and tbh I think this is a better signal to send to the group if we actually want to avoid over paying players down the track.

This was more an issue during the 08/09 years, where we were paying 85% in real terms and having to frontload to reach the minimum.

Bruce taking a large chunk of the money meant that there was a reduced need to inflate players salaries to reach the minimum.

I agree it is less of an issue now.

But I wonder where we are at in the cap in terms of real terms, if we were at 85% (source is Chris Connolly) only a year ago we wouldn't be far away from that now with retirements and delistings.

Please explain WHy you're paying them

more ? It allows lattitude of the when ... Doesn't

mean you have to pay more

It is less of an issue now that we have frontloaded to reach the minimum because there is no need to spend the money.

But in your scenario there is still no need to spend the money - an extra $50k to 'shore up' a player where you don't think they are worth it, is risky from the point of view that they will base their next contract - when money is tighter - on their inflated wage.

But I wonder where we are at in the cap in terms of real terms, if we were at 85% (source is Chris Connolly) only a year ago we wouldn't be far away from that now with retirements and delistings.

I agree, in real terms there probably hasn't been a significant increase in TPP over previous years. I still think we are poised for that to increase though despite the delistings and retirements and I get the feeling that this expectation is a driving force behind TH's strategy.

But I wonder where we are at in the cap in terms of real terms, if we were at 85% (source is Chris Connolly) only a year ago we wouldn't be far away from that now with retirements and delistings.

I agree, in real terms there probably hasn't been a significant increase in TPP over previous years. I still think we are poised for that to increase though despite the delistings and retirements and I get the feeling that this expectation is a driving force behind TH's strategy.

With quite a few coming out of contract this year, maybe quite a few finished on a "back ended" contract. So with some new front ended contracts ie. Davey.. perhaps the TPP* has increased on last year a little with getting a blend of back ended and utilising the new front ended signings. Tricky strategy, but in good hands. My concern is the balancing act post 2013 when the maturity of players and therefore their contracts swell on top of the one or two big name recruits we might catch.

* Will be interesting to see if the salary cap increases during this period and what effect that might have. Whether that will benefit TH's strategy moving forward. (Sorry ! )

jcb...do you see Bruce playing as part of a Melbourne GF team ?

No- I see him playing for the next two years as a permanent player. A third year interchange or Casey. Fourth year doubtful to be on our list.Premiership player- I'd love him to be one --that would mean we one won in 3 years. GO GO DEES GO. .

Good for you thinking that he has up to 4 years left, but you will have to go and watch a Swans game to see him do it, that's Shepparton Swans with Robbo and Ooze.

That point you made about "being the last Melbourne player to gets votes in the Brownlow is proof that he still has the legs" is an idiotic arguement and you know it. It means jack sh!t about him being able to run out the year. There were 22 players playing in round 22 for Melbourne, does that mean the rest of our list can't run out the year? If you really want to make these comments, tell me why he didn't he get best on ground for all of our wins? And if he was sooo good in Round 21, why didn't he win the game for us in Round 22? From memory, some would argue that he cost us the game in that match - was his carelessness due to a lack of fitness? Your point has nothing.

I have great fears that if he were to get a 2 year contract, that in the 2nd year, there is greater chance of him getting that tap on the shoulder toward the end of the season, then there will be another interesting group on here claiming we don't do anything to build loyalty and a great culture in the Club, and by the sounds of it JCB, you'll be the president of that group.

I understand your points. However the difference is this-I think he deserves a one or two year contract.One year preferable however 2 would sit fine with me.I do think he could play 3.Similar to Junior.As state earlier in another post- he is a very fit footballer and missed alot of pre season last year and ran out the season in fine style gaining two Bronlow vots in the 21st game.

My concern is the balancing act post 2013 when the maturity of players and therefore their contracts swell on top of the one or two big name recruits we might catch.

I agree, it is almost inevitable that we will come to such a point regardless of list management but that is life I suppose. We are definitely going to have to get creative down the track. I'm thinking Jack Watts as environmental ambassador for Hankook not enough tyres are recycled in this country.

* Will be interesting to see if the salary cap increases during this period and what effect that might have. Whether that will benefit TH's strategy moving forward. (Sorry ! )

This is the latest article I could find from a half-assed search. The cap as well as ASA amounts go up next year but after that it is in limbo by the looks. Free agency and the format of player contracts (if they change) will put a spin on things too. Either way I think TH's strategy isn't too susceptible to cap changes on its own it is just a matter of how liberal they can be down the track.

Edited September 22, 201014 yr by 1858

With quite a few coming out of contract this year, maybe quite a few finished on a "back ended" contract. So with some new front ended contracts ie. Davey.. perhaps the TPP* has increased on last year a little with getting a blend of back ended and utilising the new front ended signings. Tricky strategy, but in good hands. My concern is the balancing act post 2013 when the maturity of players and therefore their contracts swell on top of the one or two big name recruits we might catch.

* Will be interesting to see if the salary cap increases during this period and what effect that might have. Whether that will benefit TH's strategy moving forward. (Sorry ! )

Personally, I hope in season 2013 that we don't have to look for one or two big name recruits. I'd like to think that the handfule of early draft picks from the rebuild will be those big names, and we wont have to lure them to come to the Club becasue they will already be here with well structured contracts.

I think we have learnt alot from the success of Geelong, especially in the efforts of keeping this team together for a decade, with (hopefully) minimal fear of losing our better players.

I understand your points. However the difference is this-I think he deserves a one or two year contract.One year preferable however 2 would sit fine with me.I do think he could play 3.Similar to Junior.As state earlier in another post- he is a very fit footballer and missed alot of pre season last year and ran out the season in fine style gaining two Bronlow vots in the 21st game.

I still don't understand this part of your opinion. Obtaining votes in Round 21 means bugger all about him being able to run out a full season. As you said, he missed a lot of the preseason, so does that mean we have to manage him that way in the years to come just so he can be our best player in round 21? Personally, I'd like someone that is going to get votes in every game. Based on your logic, do you agree with Juniors departure because he failed to get votes at the end of the season?

We agree, he deserves a one year contract, no arguement whatsoever. As I said, 2 years is dangerous, becuase if he drops off between then and now, he WILL get the tap on the shoulder, which will lead to endless rants on here about Bailey having no respect for the club stalwarts. Any more than 2 years is just plain stupidity.

Bruce might be able to run out a season, but we are playing football here, not running a marathon. Will his skills and speed be suffucient to sustain his spot in the seniors for the next 2 years? Personally I doubt it.

I still don't understand this part of your opinion. Obtaining votes in Round 21 means bugger all about him being able to run out a full season. As you said, he missed a lot of the preseason, so does that mean we have to manage him that way in the years to come just so he can be our best player in round 21? Personally, I'd like someone that is going to get votes in every game. Based on your logic, do you agree with Juniors departure because he failed to get votes at the end of the season?

We agree, he deserves a one year contract, no arguement whatsoever. As I said, 2 years is dangerous, becuase if he drops off between then and now, he WILL get the tap on the shoulder, which will lead to endless rants on here about Bailey having no respect for the club stalwarts. Any more than 2 years is just plain stupidity.

Bruce might be able to run out a season, but we are playing football here, not running a marathon. Will his skills and speed be suffucient to sustain his spot in the seniors for the next 2 years? Personally I doubt it.

Billy, you're being a bit tough on JCB and reading too much into his comments

He just made a point that Bruce has good fitness which is an important consideration for an ageing player

He then emphasised that by pointing out he had a limited pre-season and also was able to finish off the season well

Thats quite reasonable and relatively easy to understand I would have thought

Billy, you're being a bit tough on JCB and reading too much into his comments

He just made a point that Bruce has good fitness which is an important consideration for an ageing player

He then emphasised that by pointing out he had a limited pre-season and also was able to finish off the season well

Thats quite reasonable and relatively easy to understand I would have thought

Sorry, I don't see how that is being tough or reading too much in to their comments. I'm just asking the question about how we can say a player still has good years left in him just because he polled votes in Round 21. Does this qualify him for an extra year in contract negotiations? I would like to think that Bruce would NOT use this arguement in his negotiations.

Is that being too harsh? Sorry, but harden up.

Edited September 23, 201014 yr by billy2803

Sorry, I don't see how that is being tough or reading too much in to their comments. I'm just asking the question about how we can say a player still has good years left in him just because he polled votes in Round 21. Does this qualify him for an extra year in contract negotiations? I would like to think that Bruce would NOT use this arguement in his negotiations.

Is that being too harsh? Sorry, but harden up.

He didn't say that was the only reason. He just made one reasonable point

But have it your way

For what its worth, I spoke to Hutchy last Friday night adn he said no Melbourne players would go to the GC. I mentioned both Jones & Bruce and he said the danger of them leaving is much closer to home than the GC.

He didn't say that was the only reason. He just made one reasonable point

But have it your way

Sorry Daisy, but if you look at his previous posts in this thread, there has been a consistent call of Bruce having 3-4 years left. The main point he used was his ability to run out the year, which he backed up with the comment about the Brownlow votes in Round 21.

I'm just after a bit more justification for giving him a contract of more than 1 year (although I'm pretty sure I've mentioned that I would consider a 2 year deal).

As I mentioned, concerns with Bruce over the next 2 years is will his skill level and speed be of a high enough standard to play AFL? Maybe, but more importantly, will it be up to the standard that will keep him in OUR team? I think in a lot of patches this year, he showed his disposal was substandard and costly for us. His speed, especially in Round 22 hindered us. It wouldn't matter how old he was, he would need to improve these things over the coming years to keep up with the pace and football brain of Scully, Trengove, etc.

I'm sure these are some of the questions being raised in his negotiation, and I'm sure it wont be answered by Bruce's manager saying that he scored votes in Round 21.

Sadly, I've inherited the Dean Bailey-King of the Tough Call approach. Bailey's attitude is part of the reason why this Club is moving forward, not backwards.

I would give him two years and tell him it will be his last contract.

If he has issues with that then he can go a get an extra 200k and 15 games from another club in 2013.

The guy might have more than two years left, but to maximise our list Jamar should be placed on the VL in 2013 and Davey in 2014. Bruce has two years left and Green has three. I believe you can have up to 4 Vets but there is a money incentive to keep it at 2.

Edited September 23, 201014 yr by rpfc

I agree, it is almost inevitable that we will come to such a point regardless of list management but that is life I suppose. We are definitely going to have to get creative down the track. I'm thinking Jack Watts as environmental ambassador for Hankook not enough tyres are recycled in this country.

This is the latest article I could find from a half-assed search. The cap as well as ASA amounts go up next year but after that it is in limbo by the looks. Free agency and the format of player contracts (if they change) will put a spin on things too. Either way I think TH's strategy isn't too susceptible to cap changes on its own it is just a matter of how liberal they can be down the track.

Thanks for that link..so it increases to $8.21 million. plus ASA.

I know I said it is "my concern", but I'll add that I am sure everything will be fine and managed well.

Personally, I hope in season 2013 that we don't have to look for one or two big name recruits. I'd like to think that the handfule of early draft picks from the rebuild will be those big names, and we wont have to lure them to come to the Club becasue they will already be here with well structured contracts.

I think we have learnt alot from the success of Geelong, especially in the efforts of keeping this team together for a decade, with (hopefully) minimal fear of losing our better players.

Agree. After all I did say "might". Would be wonderful if it wasn't the case. However, you look at Geelong - Ottens, Collingwood - Jolly, Ball, St.Kilda - Gardner, Ray, Dawson, Peake, Schneider, Lovett (*cough*), Bulldogs - Hall, Aker, Hawks - Burgoyne, Gibson.

They all top up with needs in some shape or form.

I would give him two years and tell him it will be his last contract.

If he has issues with that then he can go a get an extra 200k and 15 games from another club in 2013.

The guy might have more than two years left, but to maximise our list Jamar should be placed on the VL in 2013 and Davey in 2014. Bruce has two years left and Green has three. I believe you can have up to 4 Vets but their is a money incentive to keep it at 2.

You would make a good list manager rp. You are 'better than that'