Mark Neeld Interview: Herald Sun

[H_T 2,941]

Again i know he is there to deliberately wind people up but Denham's lack of knowledge about footy given he is a footy writer is staggering.

Ignore him binman, because that's exactly what he and KB are doing. There's also the comments on Rodan. KB winds him up because he too wants a reaction. It's pathetic.

We got him for the reasons you mention. The fact Denham has no idea about the nature (age/experience/leadership) of our list prior to the trade/draft period, who we can and can't attract for the time being, clouds his blinkered vision.

[Sir Why You Little 34,432]

Denham has a vested interest in the MFC Failing-His own!

[Carrot Top 947]

The only rock-solid certainty is that he has arrested what he saw as a worrying culture at the club, and has methodically gone about building the football list in his own manner.

That line there is the only one that really matters to me. Without that everything else is wasted energy.

[Range Rover 1,935]

It's to stop clubs from trying to save coin by paying their players less; before the salary floor was introduced, clubs like Footscray were paying in the order of 70% of the cap. This means the club will be uncompetitive in the long run, as well as being unfair to the players at that club who were probably being paid less than their true worth and had no easy path for exit.

In my view a club is more likely to be uncompetitive in the long run if it's forced to provide players with dessert before they have eaten their brussels sprouts.

There's probably a smart mathematical formula there that could be worked out, one which solves the issue you mentioned yet still honours the fundamental concept of "reward for results".

This one-size-fits-all policy is bogus.

[rpfc 27,436]

In my view a club is more likely to be uncompetitive in the long run if it's forced to provide players with dessert before they have eaten their brussels sprouts.

There's probably a smart mathematical formula there that could be worked out, one which solves the issue you mentioned yet still honours the fundamental concept of "reward for results".

This one-size-fits-all policy is bogus.

You can't let clubs pay 75% of the cap - they have to be competitive.

We get around it by frontloading contracts so don't be too worried.

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,394]

Can someone explain to me the rationale for it being mandatory for struggling clubs to pay their players what the top clubs pay theirs?

Forgive my ignorance when it comes to economic theory, but I just don't get it. Why? How does it in any way shape or form benefit the competition, or the MFC?

It's to stop clubs from trying to save coin by paying their players less; before the salary floor was introduced, clubs like Footscray were paying in the order of 70% of the cap. This means the club will be uncompetitive in the long run, as well as being unfair to the players at that club who were probably being paid less than their true worth and had no easy path for exit.

I think it's also part of the EBA negotiated by the AFL with the clubs. We need to keep in mind that except for players who have qualified for free agency, players don't have a choice at which club they play. It would be grossly unfair if a player got less money solely because he played at one club (eg, PA, Melbourne or Bulldogs) instead of another (such as Collingwood, West Coast or Adelaide) when he has no say in where he ends up.

Edited March 15, 2013 by La Dee-vina Comedia

[beelzebub 22,225]

Just needs to get 50-100 games into em and everything will fall into place like magic.

Im not sure it will be magic , but games in legs often helps.. it will help us immensely

2013 is another transition development year...yep...another one. I reckon we have the most in the cupboard of these

[Sir Why You Little 34,432]

I think it's also part of the EBA negotiated by the AFL with the clubs. We need to keep in mind that except for players who have qualified for free agency, players don't have a choice at which club they play. It would be grossly unfair if a player got less money solely because he played at one club (eg, PA, Melbourne or Bulldogs) instead of another (such as Collingwood, West Coast or Adelaide) when he has no say in where he ends up.

but you are insinuating here that the MFC will always be a bottom feeder club.

This is exactly why i don't agree with the present situation.

Generous rewards should be available for teams who do rise up the ladder.

How else can it be done?

Of course the players would vote for the present system. They win.

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,394]

but you are insinuating here that the MFC will always be a bottom feeder club.

This is exactly why i don't agree with the present situation.

Generous rewards should be available for teams who do rise up the ladder.

How else can it be done?

Of course the players would vote for the present system. They win.

I was speaking of the past rather than the future when I listed PA, Bulldogs and Melbourne together.

[Sir Why You Little 34,432]

I was speaking of the past rather than the future when I listed PA, Bulldogs and Melbourne together.

Fair call, but that attitude has to be erased otherwise clubs like Carlton will take our ground, if that happens we will never get it back.

[demoniac 1,243]

Not at all. Where is the hunger to improve?

Our list at this time should not be paid the same amount as Top 4 clubs.

and it is not payed the same amount as a Top 4 Team. We are paying 100% of the cap in 2013 now but we achieve that by bring forward payments to players due to be payed in 2014 under their contracts. So our actual 2013 spend might be 90 or 95%% of the cap. By doing this we create room in the salary cap going forward to either retain or attract players.

Tim Harrington was bougfht to the club to 'regularise' our player payments structure and I am confident that he has done that.

[demoniac 1,243]

Exactly. I happened to listen to Denham on on SEN yesterday and he was scathing about how much we were paying Dawes and banged on an on about it. I know its all part of a shctick to rile people up and get them to call etc but his ignorance of the facts, how the salary caps work and the dees current position is still staggering. In response to KB saying something like they had to pay someone he had no intelligent response and just repeated several times that no matter what we should not be paying Dawes so much.

I've never called in to talk back but i was sorely tempted. Few dees fan would not agree we paid overs for Dawes however:

1. We would not have got him otherwise

2. He met a specific structural need

3. There were few players in that price range out there

4. GWS or Freo would have paid way way overs to get cloke as we would have - its the nature of the free agency (and trading) beast

5. We have to pay 92% of the cap FGS. Maloney, Green and Rivers all left the club last year - probably 3 of our top 6 highest paid players last year.

6. Given that, and the fact that we have a very young list, how on earth would we have met the 92% threshold without paying a new recruit overs. Of course we could have paid all players more but that has huge risks - who wants a bunch of over paid players running around, not great for culture. Also we have already front-loaded a lot of contracts so we are limited how much extra we can pay

Again i know he is there to deliberately wind people up but Denham's lack of knowledge about footy given he is a footy writer is staggering.

I'm Ashen faced.

[Samsara 65]

I like Neeld but it's results that speak volumes in this case, not words.

[jabberwocky 2,301]

The only rock-solid certainty is that he has arrested what he saw as a worrying culture at the club, and has methodically gone about building the football list in his own manner.

That line there is the only one that really matters to me. Without that everything else is wasted energy.

I know I will get some heat for this but I feel that regardless of what happens herein Neeld has been successful in his first phase of his attempts to reshape the football club.

And that to me speaks of his ability to manage and direct.

So now we wait to see if the next phase is successful.

[Sir Why You Little 34,432]

and it is not payed the same amount as a Top 4 Team. We are paying 100% of the cap in 2013 now but we achieve that by bring forward payments to players due to be payed in 2014 under their contracts. So our actual 2013 spend might be 90 or 95%% of the cap. By doing this we create room in the salary cap going forward to either retain or attract players.

Tim Harrington was bougfht to the club to 'regularise' our player payments structure and I am confident that he has done that.

A Top 4 club should have far more reason to pay 100% of the cap than a bottom club.

I fully understand Front Loading Contracts...All clubs would be using this policy....but i will always question whether it is good governance that our list circa 2007-12 was on the same pay scale as Top 4 Clubs...

Back in Norm Smith's day it was only the Senior side who got paid...during the depression this would mean whether a player could feed his family or not.

I don't expect a system quite as harsh in 2013, but i will always question the fat payment for small reward which has been part of our club the entire time i have been supporting...

Edited March 15, 2013 by why you little

[stuie 7,374]

I like Neeld the bloke as much as the next guy. Straight forward, says the right things. But some of the fawning here over a coach who took us to 4 wins last year is WAY over the top. We already know he can say the right things, but we won't know until the end of this year if he can actually coach or not, and I'd rather a good coach than a good interviewee.

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,394]

A Top 4 club should have far more reason to pay 100% of the cap than a bottom club.

I fully understand Front Loading Contracts...All clubs would be using this policy....but i will always question whether it is good governance that our list circa 2007-12 was on the same pay scale as Top 4 Clubs...

Back in Norm Smith's day it was only the Senior side who got paid...during the depression this would mean whether a player could feed his family or not.

I don't expect a system quite as harsh in 2013, but i will always question the fat payment for small reward which has been part of our club the entire time i have been supporting...

Clubs might be limited in their ability to set payments, but not in their ability to determine the length of a contract. A player who is overpaid might find that he doesn't get a contract extension.

[Sir Why You Little 34,432]

Clubs might be limited in their ability to set payments, but not in their ability to determine the length of a contract. A player who is overpaid might find that he doesn't get a contract extension.

which = Bad Planning

[P-man 13,168]

I found his comments about Sylvia to be most interesting. I've often wondered how a guy like Col kept his spot in Neeld's side, as he possesses traits both on and off the field that seem at odds with Neeld's philosphy and hard line approach. Either Col has done a real sell job on Neeld, or the lightbulb may finally switch on this year.

[BrisbaneDemon 1,494]

I feel sorry for Mark Neeld, He is under a whole lot more pressure then Bailey faced in his first 2 years. The thing i worry about was that Bailey said all the right things, never got overly excited and look how that ended for us all (put us back 7+ years). I love the character of the man. Im just hoping and praying that he can coach and pull us off the bottom of the ladder.

[rpfc 27,436]

I fully understand Front Loading Contracts...All clubs would be using this policy....but i will always question whether it is good governance that our list circa 2007-12 was on the same pay scale as Top 4 Clubs...

I don't think you do understand...

The Frontloading of the contracts is not something that ALL clubs can do, it is only something that can be done by clubs that have space in that year. Collingwood cannot do it for example. The Lions went through real troubles when Brown's backended contract meant he was suddenly being paid double what he was the previous year.

The more good players on their second or third contract a team has, the less space they have on their cap and the less ability to frontload contracts.

It is a fortunate byproduct of how bad we have been...

If the cap is $10m and we are frontloading $1m (so effectively paying 90%) then that means that if salaries are equal for the next year you have 20% free for the next season and gives us great flexibility and ability to chase a FA in that year or in the next few years before the 2nd and 3rd contracts of our kids are signed.

There would only be a few clubs in our boat - the rest are pushing players to sign below market to keep them, trading out for more freedom, or allowing FAs to leave to keep the bulk of their list.

I really wish we could get the PFA to sign off on the contracts being made public - but that is another argument.

Edited March 15, 2013 by rpfc

[Nasher 33,047]

It's futile mate.

[Sir Why You Little 34,432]

I don't think you do understand...

The Frontloading of the contracts is not something that ALL clubs can do, it is only something that can be done by clubs that have space in that year can do. Collingwood cannot do it for example. The Lions went through real troubles when Brown's backended contract meant he was suddenly being paid double what he was the previous year.

The more good players on their second or third contract a team has, the less space they have on their cap and the less ability to frontload contracts.

It is a fortunate byproduct of how bad we have been...

If the cap is $10m and we are frontloading $1m (so effectively paying 90%) then that means that if salaries are equal for the next year you have 20% free for the next season and gives us great flexibility and ability to chase a FA in that year or in the next few years before the 2nd and 3rd contracts of our kids are signed.

There would only be a few clubs in our boat - the rest are pushing players to sign below market to keep them, trading out for more freedom, or allowing FAs to leave to keep the bulk of their list.

I really wish we could get the PFA to sign off on the contracts being made public - but that is another argument.

Yes i understand Cap Limits rpfc, & that each club has their own set of Headaches

But i will say it again....I believe it is a very poor situation when the bottom side list earns the same as the Top Four Lists...

Value for money is right out of balance.

[rpfc 27,436]

Yes i understand Cap Limits rpfc, & that each club has their own set of Headaches

But i will say it again....I believe it is a very poor situation when the bottom side list earns the same as the Top Four Lists...

Value for money is right out of balance.

They are earning, I would estimate, more than a million less than the best teams.

Paying someone $400k one year and $100k the next is what we are doing. That player is still 'on' $250k but we pay him $400k to help us reach the minimum and give us flexibility to go and get Clark et al.

This isn't an argument where we both have points and agree to disagree - we are not paying as much as the best clubs.

It's as simple as that.

[Nasher 33,047]

I'd love to know how Club A paying 92% of the cap and Club B paying 100% of the cap equals both clubs paying the same.