This is true - it has always stuck in my craw ( the craw, not the craw) that we had to pay out 92% of the salary in our lean years

It's even worse that in our spoon year we paid 100%.

I think it also underlines that there are dealings outside of the cap *shock horror!!*

You like many have missed the point!!!

It is NOT a sport.

It is a BUSINESS!!

I disagree with this premise.

It's very much a professional sport that is run with business acumen. The only thing that matters to me, and I suspect it's the main priority for the club as a whole, is winning a premiership. If it were only a business the main aim would be to post the best profit in the league.

You, and others, are so wrapt up in the notion that footy is a business and not a sport that it's you that "miss the point".

I'd change your username, btw.

Fair point, I actually have read some of the posts but it all becomes chest beating "I'm right and you're wrong" stuff so I stopped. Then I read some more (yeh, I'm a tragic like everyone else here) and just picked up on your comment of "one reason".

Let's face it, nobody really knows why Bruce left and the community bashing of Bobby is pretty silly in the face of that, but the point I was trying to make was that it wasn't for one reason alone.

As you seem so certain that we "couldn't have kept Bruce" can you outline the contract conditions we offered and what Hawthorn offered? I'm not trying to be smart, the simple fact is you can't(and if you could you wouldn't) so you can't make the comment you did.

Bruce left, win win, move on.

I'm a not going to get stuck on the minutiae - I was just trying to give my argument some evidence (sorely lacking in some other posters 'arguments').

I have bolded the 'bruce left' bits of your post because that is my point.

He left.

We didn't force him out, I have tried to fashion a window into his motives and have tried to be logical about it.

You're right that we don't know. We never really can tell what is going on inside someone's head.

But he left the MFC.

The MFC were willing to keep him and offered him above market and a 12th year at this great club.

Cameron the Bruce left the building of his own accord for his own reasons.

Edited December 10, 201014 yr by rpfc

It doesn't remove the fact he was getting paid overs in regard his true worth as a footballer, so it is not really about being stuck on the point. The point is valid no matter the circumstance. As people will always highlight in good sides, those players are getting paid below what the market would pay.

No one else in the market place would have paid what we did for Bruce.

Yes they would have.

You gotta pay someone...

That is the short version of what 45 is saying.

All teams down the bottom of the ladder are overpaying underperformers.

It's the nature of the system.

It doesn't remove the fact he was getting paid overs in regard his true worth as a footballer, so it is not really about being stuck on the point. The point is valid no matter the circumstance. As people will always highlight in good sides, those players are getting paid below what the market would pay.

No one else in the market place would have paid what we did for Bruce.

That is the point 45HG16 is making - others would not have had paid Bruce that money, but we had to pay someone that money - we HAVE to spend 92%. Generally, the salary cap means that poorly performing clubs are in the main paying certain players too much and a fair few Geelong players have accepted below their worth to stay at Geelong.

The best example now is WCE - they are reportedly having salary cap problems - that means that they are paying their playing group the same amount as Geelong/Collingwood - there are some seriously overpaid footballers in the west ( and Brisbane too)

That is the point 45HG16 is making - others would not have had paid Bruce that money, but we had to pay someone that money - we HAVE to spend 92%. Generally, the salary cap means that poorly performing clubs are in the main paying certain players too much and a fair few Geelong players have accepted below their worth to stay at Geelong.

The best example now is WCE - they are reportedly having salary cap problems - that means that they are paying their playing group the same amount as Geelong/Collingwood - there are some seriously overpaid footballers in the west ( and Brisbane too)

repyling to myself now !

Someone did make the suggestion of buying better players instead which I like - I would love to have said " Cam, you aint worth $600K - would rather spend it on Jed Adcock" and since he is out of contract, go out and get him - the problem with this is we can only get an out of contract ( or an in contract) player through trading draft picks which means it may cost us more than we want to spend if the other club plays hard ball ( ie the reason lots of deals dont get done at trade time )- then if the player is out of contract and no deal is done during trade week and he definitely wants out , he falls into the ND or PSD with a price on his head and could be picked up by others before us ( like we had the opportunity with Luke Ball)

Adcock is an interesting choice for an example...

Anyway, in paying 92% or 100% of the cap in lean years, we could (should) have been majorly front-loading contracts.

Not sure if we were, but Tim Harrington was not with the club at that time and his role did not exist.

Adcock is an interesting choice for an example...

Anyway, in paying 92% or 100% of the cap in lean years, we could (should) have been majorly front-loading contracts.

Not sure if we were, but Tim Harrington was not with the club at that time and his role did not exist.

Wouldnt pay $600K for Adcock either but Brisbane have stumped up huge amounts to keep him.

I agree with you on front loading ( as we are reportedly doing now) - I think we are more savvy on player management these days ( Cam Bruce being a very good case in point)

They're paying him $600K?

Wow. Didnt know that.

Another reason the Lions are in so much trouble financially.

Imagine! Black & Power having to settle for well under market value because Adcock is being paid better than Ablett (pre-GC).

Not to say Black & Power haven't probably been paid handsomely in past years.

They're paying him $600K?

Wow. Didnt know that.

Another reason the Lions are in so much trouble financially.

Imagine! Black & Power having to settle for well under market value because Adcock is being paid better than Ablett (pre-GC).

Not to say Black & Power haven't probably been paid handsomely in past years.

whoooaaa - didnt say $600K but all reports from the media ( and we all take that as gospel ! not....) is that he has been given "HUGE" dollars to stay at the Lions, hence the reason they moved Brennan on to free up money to pay him as they were in all sorts of cap problems.

And Black and Power havent settled for under market as it is all about timing and when contracts come out. I think ( i will stand corrected) that Black and Power came out of contract this year and are still being well paid in the new contracts but less than the last contracts which is about right - twilight of their careers. So their new pay would be going down whilst Adcocks will be going up dramatically.

Ablett three years ago was on the cusp off being sensational when he signed his last contract - his contract renewal was one year too early - had it been one year later Geelong would have had to pay god knows how much more. The first year of his last contract was his true breakout superstar year. We signed Frawley for 4 years - if he keeps improving exponentially it may prove to be a cheap contract ( it could go the other way).

From a financial standpoint, the one I really dont understand is Trengove and why he signed for 3 years ? At the time there was much conjecture about who would go number one - Sculley or Trengove - I ask now - who will get the bigger contract for 2012 and probably onwards ? Sculley by a long way - as a drafted player I would have only gone with a two year contract.

They're paying him $600K?

Wow. Didnt know that.

Another reason the Lions are in so much trouble financially.

Imagine! Black & Power having to settle for well under market value because Adcock is being paid better than Ablett (pre-GC).

Not to say Black & Power haven't probably been paid handsomely in past years.

Read properly, you clown.

Someone has to be the highest, why wouldn't it go to one of our most consistent players? And if he's in the top 2-3 money earners in the worst performed club it's obvious how he'd be in the top 50 or so earners in the league, especially when you consider that the Geelongs, St. Kildas etc. have to share the same pie (and bigger slices) to more players.

Interestingly deegirl on O'logy who has been proven right a number of times with her mail, has recently posted that it was learnt that Bruce's contract made him the 16th highest paid player within the AFL.

This makes sense.

Interestingly deegirl on O'logy who has been proven right a number of times with her mail, has recently posted that it was learnt that Bruce's contract made him the 16th highest paid player within the AFL.

This makes sense.

It's my one arguement against the standardized pay scale of the salary cap. During the years 2007-2009 the MFC should have paid no more than 60% of the cap. Our team didn't deserve more than that. What incentive is their for certain players to get huge payments, when playing no more than ordinary Football.

Cameron Bruce set himself up beautifully didn't he, & then scarpered. In 2011 we should start to pay the 92%, but in the previous years mentioned that was a Joke.

I am sure the AFL would come up with some reason, but what other organization pays its employee's top dollar when they have neither the skill or experience?

Who squeezed who Bobby??

It's my one arguement against the standardized pay scale of the salary cap. During the years 2007-2009 the MFC should have paid no more than 60% of the cap. Our team didn't deserve more than that. What incentive is their for certain players to get huge payments, when playing no more than ordinary Football.

If you could do that we would still have Fitzroy and they would be an embarrassment.

If you could do that we would still have Fitzroy and they would be an embarrassment.

Yes i understand that to a point, but in 2008 our list did not deserve to be paid Top Dollar-we just were not good enough.

Read properly, you clown.

Shut up! Stop shouting down everyone that has an opinion!

I'm thoroughly sick of your intolerance...

Shut up! Stop shouting down everyone that has an opinion!

I'm thoroughly sick of your intolerance...

Grrrrr!!

Shut up! Stop shouting down everyone that has an opinion!

I'm thoroughly sick of your intolerance...

Grrrrr!!

Just have a listen to you guys.....

WHAT HE SAID:

Bruce paid back the club in full plus interest with his efforts over his long career of 224 games. Their treatment of McDonald was an absolute disgrace.

WHAT THAT MEANS:

The club has no right to make a decision as to whether a 34 year old player who is starting to show signs of aging should be allowed to continue playing. The decision is up to the player himself and not the club.

THE IMPLICATIONS:

The club has not won a flag for decades and if permits that sort of weak attitude to prevail, it won't win another one for several more decades and nobody will care or consider it an absolute disgrace.

Fair point, I actually have read some of the posts but it all becomes chest beating "I'm right and you're wrong" stuff so I stopped. Then I read some more (yeh, I'm a tragic like everyone else here) and just picked up on your comment of "one reason".

Can anyone smell the irony here?

WHAT HE SAID:

WHAT THAT MEANS:

THE IMPLICATIONS:

As far as posts go this is pure art.

Reminds me of when the Americans had to fight the Taliban.... who were using artillery given them by the Americans to fight the Russians.

Can anyone smell the irony here?

This thread is so full of irony it's like a bhp smelter..... you know iron...y.

sorry terrible similie, best I could do before tea

Cameron the Bruce left the building of his own accord for his own reasons.

On this we agree and it would seem we now agree that we can't say it was to win a flag.

On this we agree and it would seem we now agree that we can't say it was to win a flag.

Er, not quite. Still very debatable as to whether this was an issue, either minor or major

Why approach only hawthorn? Why not shop around? Why not nominate for trade, ND etc

There is a strong whiff of CB/Hawks collusion to avoid trade and ND (nixon afterall)

As you said before probably more complex than a single issue, but what was the tipping point issue and to what extent was a flag tilt involved?

Er, not quite. Still very debatable as to whether this was an issue, either minor or major

Why approach only hawthorn? Why not shop around? Why not nominate for trade, ND etc

There is a strong whiff of CB/Hawks collusion to avoid trade and ND (nixon afterall)

As you said before probably more complex than a single issue, but what was the tipping point issue and to what extent was a flag tilt involved?

Well said DC. This is where the R. Nixon factor kicks in (not the Milhouse one, the other one!).

Why was it only Hawthorn??? and does anybody care...

Who did kill Laura Palmer? B)