I know what a positive influence he can have on our young players and older players with his ultra dedication to hard work and his actions on the training track and gameday. One of the fittest players in the afl so no better Role models for Viney, Toumpas, Barry, Kent, MJones to show them what it takes to become a top line AFL player and how hard and how much sacrifice you have to go to the next level.

I'm comfortable with your comments and I understand the sentiment of the philosophy behind such a move, but I don't want the club to be dumping ground for players who are genuinely finished.

Wouldn't the Bulldogs also require him to mentor their young charges?

He's not the future and if posters are high fiving his potential signing, we're not really setting our standards very high.

I am more upset to learn we are not able to pay 100% of the cap than not getting a PP.

Im not familier with the whole cap systerm Stinga can you explain what that means?

I am more upset to learn we are not able to pay 100% of the cap than not getting a PP.

Same, it's not acceptable in today's football climate.

It's not even nearly acceptable.

Im not familier with the whole cap systerm Stinga can you explain what that means?

It means that we are not competing on a level playing field.

We are starting off on a deficit before we even grace the field.

For all our short comings and poor performances, how can a side be expected to succeed starting so far back.

But... That is the challenge that Roos said he relished, we do at least appear to have the right people in place.

We are in a better position now than the same time last year, but it's going to take a lot of work before we see results.

I don't think we are the Port Adelaide of the comp, they had better talent and top shelf talent sitting there for use leading into 2013.

They'll have more leading into 2014, they will make further inroads, we simply don't have that talent, but we'll need to do something.

It means that we are not competing on a level playing field.

We are starting off on a deficit before we even grace the field.

For all our short comings and poor performances, how can a side be expected to succeed starting so far back.

But... That is the challenge that Roos said he relished, we do at least appear to have the right people in place.

We are in a better position now than the same time last year, but it's going to take a lot of work before we see results.

I don't think we are the Port Adelaide of the comp, they had better talent and top shelf talent sitting there for use leading into 2013.

They'll have more leading into 2014, they will make further inroads, we simply don't have that talent, but we'll need to do something.

Cheers mate.

The Salary Cap Dazzel...it's how much we can pay our players.

We are at present performing on the field at the same level as GWS and behind GCS. We are told that we have enough talent to turn it around. Yet those two teams who are trying to mature as we are have significantly more talent than us on their list and they not only pay 100% of the salary cap they pay well above it. Which means they are better placed to retain the greater talent they already have and still bring in more when needed.

How are we suppose to compete with the expansion clubs let alone the top teams of the competition who will be the greatest benefactors of free agency?

True equalisation would be either giving us sufficient funding to allow us to pay 100% of the cap and attract and retain players or providing us with with draft assistance to bring in the talent we may not be able to attract or providing us with a fixture that assists us to generate the funds ourselves. The latter is by far the most preferable.

No doubt the ability to restructure our football department and bring in someone like Roos is huge. But i suspect we are on a dripfeed to struggle town.

The fact that we cannot pay the entire cap at the minute does not concern me.

The fact that we have few people to pay the cap to does concern me.

Give us money to fill the cap and all we would have is our inadequate list on more money.

We need assets to move to bring in talent, and with Watts close to re-signing it means that we are down to Pick 2 in this years draft to help our fortunes in the next few years (and of course, our low picks in the coming seasons).

The cap is important to equalize the comp but it is about pulling talent from big clubs to smaller clubs. But with the rule that you must pay all but 5% of the cap it generally means you overpay an think o imaginative ways to create future space; Schwab's front loaded contract idea being one of those.

If you want to see a competitive Melbourne it should concern you.

Peter Jacksons comment was not overpaying an inadequate list. It was about the difficulty in addressing that inadequacy without being able to afford 100% of the cap.

"he said it was no secret the club needed midfielders but it was restricted in what it could afford to offer because it wasn't able to pay 100% of the cap at the moment".

You are right to be just as concerned about not not having the talent on our list in the first place (although the AFL will tell you we have plenty). And having the assets to satisfy a club in a trade is important. But you won't get to that point unless we can convince players to come to us and without being able to pay 100% of the cap we are at a significant disadvantage in a very competitive market.

I still chose to believe there is a way through this but it does stack the odds against us.

Im not familier with the whole cap systerm Stinga can you explain what that means?

Another way to look at this mate is - paying the full cap is paying 100% the least clubs are allowed to pay is 92.5%( unless it's changed). If clubs like ours which are down the bottom are paying 100% it means some players are getting far more than they are worth. If we are currently paying 92.5% it means we have room to move at the end of 2014 to make a play for someone. Not being able to pay the whole salary cap should affect us to much until we become more competitive and start pushing to play finals. Clubs have the option of paying young players who are possible future stars more than they are worth in their first couple of years , then when they are 22-23 the club can pay them less and it should even out nicely. This is done to avoid players being squeezed out when they playing finals. Richmond paid Martin overs in his first three years, then offered him a contract rumoured to be around 500k, he wanted more as it seems he conveniently forgot about his initial over payments. Whether he is worth 500 is debatable. I thought I read Jack T , Jack G and Watts were all paid overs in their initial contracts because we were meant to be the next Geelong about now. In recent years clubs have tended to follow one of two models with regards to the salary cap. Hawks/Pies have a marquee player who makes the most. In this case it's Buddy and Cloke. Then 2-3 players on the next level down - a Hodge, Mitchell, Rough / Swan, Pendles, Shaw. The list goes down in levels until you reach first year players on a fixed(in most cases) amount. Geelong realised it has so many stars on its list so it told its senior players were only go to pay you 500k max, the players agreed, stuck together and the results speak for themselves. 3 flags, 1 grand final loss and a prelim loss by 1 kick.

I started this post about 8 this morning but got sidetracked.

Another way to look at this mate is - paying the full cap is paying 100% the least clubs are allowed to pay is 92.5%( unless it's changed). If clubs like ours which are down the bottom are paying 100% it means some players are getting far more than they are worth. If we are currently paying 92.5% it means we have room to move at the end of 2014 to make a play for someone. Not being able to pay the whole salary cap should affect us to much until we become more competitive and start pushing to play finals. Clubs have the option of paying young players who are possible future stars more than they are worth in their first couple of years , then when they are 22-23 the club can pay them less and it should even out nicely. This is done to avoid players being squeezed out when they playing finals. Richmond paid Martin overs in his first three years, then offered him a contract rumoured to be around 500k, he wanted more as it seems he conveniently forgot about his initial over payments. Whether he is worth 500 is debatable. I thought I read Jack T , Jack G and Watts were all paid overs in their initial contracts because we were meant to be the next Geelong about now. In recent years clubs have tended to follow one of two models with regards to the salary cap. Hawks/Pies have a marquee player who makes the most. In this case it's Buddy and Cloke. Then 2-3 players on the next level down - a Hodge, Mitchell, Rough / Swan, Pendles, Shaw. The list goes down in levels until you reach first year players on a fixed(in most cases) amount. Geelong realised it has so many stars on its list so it told its senior players were only go to pay you 500k max, the players agreed, stuck together and the results speak for themselves. 3 flags, 1 grand final loss and a prelim loss by 1 kick.

I started this post about 8 this morning but got sidetracked.

Thanks mate starting to get a better idea of it now thanks to you guys!

This topic is a thread in-and-of-itself but we have been front loading contracts in the recent past to attempt to not overpay players and reach the threshold of 95% of the cap.

This tells me that being able to pay more right now is not as important as getting talent in say that in the future we can pay people their worth.

I wonder what Mahoney and Jackson think about Schwab's front loading of contracts - I feel it can be effective assuming you use the room created to lure players and that it doesn't artificially inflate a players worth which was my initial problem with the idea a few years ago.

Done asnd Dustined!

Done asnd Dustined!

er-huh.

You don't understand my play on words?

Sorry, done and dustined!

Sorry, done and dustined!

Oh good lord. Can one of the mods please get rid of this demoneye fool? He's filibustering every thread.

Had nothing better to do during a boring GF. G I hate Hawthorn, and was so hoping Freo would kick thier butts! Will have to wait for the mighty Dees next year to extract some revenge!

Oh good lord. Can one of the mods please get rid of this demoneye fool? He's filibustering every thread.

The Guy's a clown.

The Guy's a clown.

No, clowns are occasionally funny.

Get real! Not trying to be funny! Isn't this what these sort of threads are all about, a bit of to-ing and fro-ing?

Trollollollollooooo!

And besides, shouldn't this thread be over with by now? PP is dead in the water