Mark Neeld Interview: Herald Sun

[cowboy_from_hell 2,390]

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?

At least with free agency we can now pay overs for quality players and meet the 95 percent instead of having a dud list and still paying 95 percent. If our fringe players don't show anything this year Neeld can bring out his trusty axe and cull away again whilst offering plenty of dollars for someone who can play footy.

[DEE fence 5,042]

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.

isn't it a case of it equaling out over several years, and it's only to 95% that they must pay. I actually like the ability to front load contracts because we are less likely to be in a situation where the club ends up paying a player on someone else's list ( a'la Woewodin) if they don't perform. This of course will bite us on the arse when we become a successful club and have everyone coming out of contract at the same time... how i hope to have that problem

[dpositive 1,767]

I'll stick my neck out and say that, unless the club is falling apart halfway through next season, the Board should offer him a contract extension ahead of time. It gives him confidence that he has adequate time to build his list and gives the club a stability that it hasn't had for a long time. He's clearly not here to feck about and neither should the club.

You really are sticking your neck out

I think Ill be a little bit cautious with mine.

I do like Neelds approach and hope fervently we achieve improved results this year.

Neeld knew he was appointed for 3 yrs

he analysed the players on the list many of them high draft picks so with some perceived talent and presumably set them targets based on his experience and played them in circumstances that he dictated (although may have been affected by injuries)(having No Intimate Knowledge I have no concerns with any of his decisions)

he had a say in the recruiting and release of players ( I have no concerns with any of his decisions)

he has now had time with the players to display his character and the strategies and requirements he has of them

He has a well rounded and I would assume selected coaching team who all have had time to digest his strategies and demands.

In short I reckon he should be fine and a contract extension should be offered ahead of time to reinforce all of the above and the stability etc you indicate .

However I would not make it conditional on the Club"not falling apart"

but on actual improvement on the ladder with wins over many sides and close competitive efforts against the others.

I am yet to be assured of the on field real time coaching patterns and strategies. If Neeld is right and with NIK I can only be satisfied that he is aware of opposition tactics and Industry trends and has the ability to use the tools( players )he has in the right combinations to achieve those results.

I am dpositive and am even more positive than ever that the club is capable of great things But I really need to see that improvement in results and attitudes. When we win we do so and accept it as a result of planned effort and strategy not as a shock result, when we lose we hate it, but know we put our best planned effort and stategy in and are prepared to alter the strategy to win the next game. I dont expect to see the players slump their shoulders when things get tough I expect them to show pride not arrogance. Its something to do with culture and its growing.

The club needs to make its coaching decision with that culture in mind and reinforce the message through its treatment of Neeld.

[Demon Dynasty 17,109]

RB I will love him when we start winning games.

Until then he is just another coach of the MFC with a plan.

I like he is not making any predictions.

He knows that he started with a bottom list and that will take way longer than 2013.

I hope I have the ability to stay the course.

Me too!!!

[Demon Dynasty 17,109]

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.

You mean literally take our ground WYL? As in the G!!! And we end up at $#%tihad!!!???

Edited March 16, 2013 by Rusty Nails

[Dees2014 2,377]

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 really think you are missing the point here. Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't the point here that front loading the salaries means in cash terms we pay our players more than they are worth in the early years!at the club so that later when we become more successful, and therefore greater pressure for salary increases owing to better performance, we "cash in" that accumulated overpayment. In other words it greatly lessens the pressure on the salary cap in a successful era, something the like of Collingwood, Geelong and hawthorn would dearly love now.

I think it makes a great deal of sense and the club should be applauded for it. It also makes it very much easier to keep star players like Watts, Trengove, Grimes and young guns hogan, toumpas and Viney once we achieve some success. We should applaud it

[Sir Why You Little 37,242]

I really think you are missing the point here. Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't the point here that front loading the salaries means in cash terms we pay our players more than they are worth in the early years!at the club so that later when we become more successful, and therefore greater pressure for salary increases owing to better performance, we "cash in" that accumulated overpayment. In other words it greatly lessens the pressure on the salary cap in a successful era, something the like of Collingwood, Geelong and hawthorn would dearly love now.

I think it makes a great deal of sense and the club should be applauded for it. It also makes it very much easier to keep star players like Watts, Trengove, Grimes and young guns hogan, toumpas and Viney once we achieve some success. We should applaud it

i have already stated i understand Frontloaded Contracts ok.

Now tell me this as an example, Who on our current list deserved the same pay packet as a player on the Swans Cats Filth or Hawks lists in the years 2011-12 seasons??

If you answer, Why?

Edited March 16, 2013 by why you little

[rpfc 28,843]

i have already stated i understand Frontloaded Contracts ok.

Now tell me this as an example, Who on our current list deserved the same pay packet as a player on the Swans Cats Filth or Hawks lists in the years 2011-12 seasons??

If you answer, Why?

Just because you say you understand something does not mean you do understand something.

We are not paying players like the players at the top clubs. We are pushing the bulk of the financial payments of multi year contracts into the first few years so it may look like we are paying the full cap but we are paying part of next year's cap this year.

[dee-luded 2,959]

RB I will love him when we start winning games.

Until then he is just another coach of the MFC with a plan.

I like he is not making any predictions.

He knows that he started with a bottom list and that will take way longer than 2013.

I hope I have the ability to stay the course.

OD, I think the key is to NOT Pump up the players tyers, but let their footy in Premiership games do the talking for them.

Most here like to over inflate the players reputations & this short circuits their development & output.

Lets all keep the heat on the players, (nicely) & watch their improvement.

[Sir Why You Little 37,242]

Just because you say you understand something does not mean you do understand something.

We are not paying players like the players at the top clubs. We are pushing the bulk of the financial payments of multi year contracts into the first few years so it may look like we are paying the full cap but we are paying part of next year's cap this year.

i know what we are doing in regards to FRONTLOADING.

But the 18 Clubs all work under THE SAME Salary Cap Template...Correct??

The difference between the TOP 4 side Pay Scale & the Bottom Side Pay Scale should be between 20-25%.

It isn't & i think it is wrong. But the PA have locked that one in no doubt.

So we are stuck with it. Under performing teams on fat paychecks

I repeat i understand the Front loaded sliding value contract.

FFS

[H_T 3,049]

No need to be so bitchy WYL.

We have to pay someone, and if it weren't for bulging front loaded contracts given the nature of our list, we wouldn't be snatching KPP in Dawes and Clark.

The fact our list is young and devoid of quality talent, together with the LM staggered contracts strategy, enables our club to strike when we are able to.

Sides like Carlton couldn't move last trade period due to the nature of their list.

I'm sorry that I've basically repeated what other have said, and I agree with them, but you simply don't understand.

[Fitz Fitzpatrick 886]

i think WYL is trying to say that he does understand the whole idea of frontloading but considers the 95% minimum payment of the salary cap as too high for underperforming clubs. Yes MFC are getting around it by front loading but I believe his point is that the minimum should be more like 75% . More the principle of the policy rather than the way the dees are getting around it

[rpfc 28,843]

i think WYL is trying to say that he does understand the whole idea of frontloading but considers the 95% minimum payment of the salary cap as too high for underperforming clubs. Yes MFC are getting around it by front loading but I believe his point is that the minimum should be more like 75% . More the principle of the policy rather than the way the dees are getting around it

Great, so the difference between the 'haves' and the 'have nots' will be $4m and not the $1.5m that was listed in the paper today.

Fitzroy was doing that did you know? They were happy to stay in existence and not get near anything.

[Sir Why You Little 37,242]

i think WYL is trying to say that he does understand the whole idea of frontloading but considers the 95% minimum payment of the salary cap as too high for underperforming clubs. Yes MFC are getting around it by front loading but I believe his point is that the minimum should be more like 75% . More the principle of the policy rather than the way the dees are getting around it

Correct thankyou.

[Sir Why You Little 37,242]

Great, so the difference between the 'haves' and the 'have nots' will be $4m and not the $1.5m that was listed in the paper today.

Fitzroy was doing that did you know? They were happy to stay in existence and not get near anything.

Not at all....I am sure many incentives could then be implemented...The way it is now is that the clubs are locked in.

If the list is underperforming they still get top $$$

Do not agree with it, never will...actually makes it harder for clubs to rise.

Our performances since 2007 are a fine example of such.

[Sir Why You Little 37,242]

No need to be so bitchy WYL.

We have to pay someone, and if it weren't for bulging front loaded contracts given the nature of our list, we wouldn't be snatching KPP in Dawes and Clark.

The fact our list is young and devoid of quality talent, together with the LM staggered contracts strategy, enables our club to strike when we are able to.

Sides like Carlton couldn't move last trade period due to the nature of their list.

I'm sorry that I've basically repeated what other have said, and I agree with them, but you simply don't understand.

I fully understand where Carlton and other clubs are at...That is their own choice.

You can agree with whom ever you like, but please do not tell me i do not understand, i have been watching the MFC slowly unravel itself for decades.

[tonatopia 278]

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?

By having to spend at least 95%, it encourages lower clubs to poach stars from other clubs with salary cap issues, thereby distributing quality players over the breadth of all afl clubs, creating a more even league and greater viewing spectacle.