rpfc

Look, that is the way I would do it and with a level-headed player and a manager with a bit of integrity will be happy enough to make it work. But I have the distinct feeling that, in this hypthetical scenario, the manager of Morton will be slipping secret notes to Hutchison to say that Morton, 22 with 80 games experience, is on an insulting salary at the MFC and that it would be hard work to keep him. Here's hoping we don't lose anyone in 2012/13/14 because we have no room...

Big games? We haven't had one of those since Freo in 2006. He has also played as the number 1 forward and got the attention that comes with that mantle. And he had a very consistent year through that attention. Jurrah, Watts, and, possibly, one of Garland, Morton, and Wonaeamirri will relegate Bate to 3rd/4th 'attention-grabber' in the future. Haven't seen him shirk a contest, his lack of lateral movement means he doesn't get to enough contests but I see him as hard enough. As for the marking, he can have days where he is a 'one-grabber' and days when he is not. But he is 22 and has more than enough potential to get me excited, and he has done enough so far to justify that excitement.

That would effectively mean that in this hypthetical Morton has been given $750k over 10/11 when we wanted to pay him $500k in 10/11. It just screws up our wage structure.

And that is the danger with taking Jacey's approach. A little frontloading can be a helpful thing, a lot of frontloading can screw up our wage structure. I think Davey will get a very good wage for the next two or three years...

And McDonald staying. And Bruce being on big money (which a few on here complain about whenever he plays a bad game). I have the CBA on hand so those figures are correct.

The more things change... Riewoldt is your prototypical CHF of the modern era. Moves up the ground when needed, runs into space in all directions and attacks a pack when a long kick is directed forward. I think Watts is more suited to this 'CHF type role.' (And that was the point is was trying to make with my Watts remark in an earlier post. Lots of things taken the wrong way recently on 'Land. Just saying...)

That belongs in the Jack Watts thread. HFF, roaming up the ground if the mids are under the gun or moving into space in the 50 - is a very good lead-up target. But Jurrah will need his room and so will Watts. Bate in between them being ignored would be my ideal.

It's a fantastic short term fix. But if you do that, what about 2011? You have already frontloaded so much that the shortfall is even greater. Do you throw out Morton's contract and give him his $450k again? That would mean he was on $900k over two years and not $500k. And then do you give him more on his next contract? Considering it was artificially inflated you could say no, but Connors, Nixon, and Pickering would maximise what they can get for their clients and you've opened the door to their players being on big money.

And what of Jurrah and Watts? If we can't develop them into players who can kick 50 goals a season with good service then what are we doing here? And Bate kicked 27 goals and had 25 assists with awful delivery and scarce service. He will get worse as we get better?

(The $7.53m minimum is for next year.) Let's say that there is a wage inflation to various players of $500k (conservative figure, it may be more). That wage inflation is caused by having to reach the minimum. Our youth and lack of senior stars means that it is in the hands of that promising youth. 5% more here, 10% more there. All designed to get us to the minimum. Now if that wage inflation remains in 3 or 4 years time, it would mean that $500k is tied up in wages to players that are overpayed. That $500k is the wage of one very good player. A very good player that we may lose because we haven't the room. That is all I am worried about. I applaud the frontloading of contracts, and it will be a short term fix to get up to $7.53m. But the fact remains that our younger players are paid more than their counterparts at other (older) teams and it may come back to bite us in a few years time when someone is squeezed out that needn't have been squeezed out. A large contract, like the one Burgoyne would be given, short-circuits this problem to a large extent.

I have nothing to add (as I have seen little of any of these kids) other than I don't want another Molan situation. Just take the best player available and develop Jurrah, Bate, and Watts. And teach Martin how to kick.

If I was Eade, unless there was a silly trade, I would tell this kid that a contract is a contract and if you are good enough you will play.

Possibly, although I just recalled the fact that he is on the VL, so half is wage is not included. So it would actually be less. Also, Bruce will be on the VL in place of Robbo so half his wage doesn't go under the cap. Makes it even more difficult to get to the $7.53m.

This is his manager regretting the advice he gave his client mid-year and trying to orchestrate a trade, the Bulldogs would be anything but agreeable. I mean, they signed him a few months ago...

Yes that is one way to do it. Bruce is on $500+, Green $400+, JMac would be looking at $250k-300k at a guess, and Davey's contract is being negotiated right now. But there is still a ways to go to reach the $7.53m minimum that we have to pay. Chris Connolly has already said that we are frontloading contracts. For instance, if Morton is getting $500k over 2 years they might pay him $300k in 2010 and $200k in 2011. Those numbers have no source, they may be well off. It is just an example to help people wrap their heads around what I am saying. But the fact remains that our youth and our lack of stars means that our kids will be payed more than their counterparts at other clubs. This is not a problem at the moment. It only becomes a problem when these inflated salaries are renegotiated when we are good in a few years time and we have to pay even more over-the-odds salaries. I am having trouble figuring out how this is that difficult to understand. And it is not the overriding reason why I would like to pursue Burgoyne, merely an added bonus in my eyes.

Nothing spectacular, but a solid season never-the-less. He will never be the dynamic mid, but if he can clean up his disposal and have more run in his legs, he will be a very good accumulator of valuable possessions. Might not be as good, but much in the style of Lenny Hayes.

It's amazing how opinion changes on Bate. Very happy to have this consistent, versatile, and mature 22 year old spend a decade in the forward line as we push for a flag. Very capable of kicking 40 goals next season, or averaging 25 touches in the midfield.

I'm not talking of a 'break-out' season. I can't speak for all but I want Watts to play 16+ games. If he happens to play well in 5 of those games, well that's great. Performances do not interest me, development does. We need to give him games; if he is fit and his head is on straight - he plays.

Everitt signed a contract mid-year, this is his manager stirring up sh!t. He won't go anywhere.

We are paying around 85% of the cap in real terms with frontloading of the younger players contracts to bring the number up to 92.5%. CC has mentioned this once or twice during the year in articles and in interviews. That number will only fall further with Robbo, Whelan, Wheatley, and one or two others going. We 'have to pay someone' and it leads to over-the-odds salaries like the one that McLean has had the last two years. With Green and Bruce tying up a $1m the problem could be worse but I would still prefer one big inflated salary to 10 players with 10/20% more than what they would normally be paid. The precedent is worse in this instance because these are kids and not a Premiership midfielder and AA selection.

Sylvia played the best game of any MFC player this year (Hawks) and would have 2 or 3 other games in the top 10 but the B+F rewards consistency and that is why Davey, Moloney, Bruce, Bate, and Frawley will (IMO) finish above him. Morton, Jones, McLean, and Grimes will finish around where Sylvia finishes. He was much more consistent than in previous years, but that is coming off a low base.

He is a star. He should be the highest paid player at our club if he ends up here. That money, not in hands of Burgoyne, will be spent on the contracts of younger players. Therefore, they will have inflated salaries which is not desired for when we have to squeeze everyone in and all these kids are asking for more on top of the inflated salaries they have been paid. If any player managers ask Schwab why he is on so much he should turn around and say that their players will get compensated to similar degree when they are a Premiership winning midfielder and AA. We payed Woey and TJ supplements because they were contracted. He is OOc. PA will not pay a cent next year to Burgoyne unless he is in teal.

Garland doing what Grimes was doing so that Grimes can play in the guts. Backman.

Walking on egg shells here... You took the vowel thing as an condescending insult?! It's naive to think that any player asking for more from the back-to-back wooden spooner than the Premiers, is 'dumb.' It's naive to say we should not bother with Burgoyne and instead look at someone who wants to be at the club. Who are these people? The teenagers that are forced to come to us? The players that are already here? Just not anyone who wants more than their perceived worth... Goodbye Brock... He's a good player, we can fit him in our cap, he would hasten our move to the top, and, if he comes to the club relatively cheaply, he won't get in the way of our rebuild. As opposed to a Judd-deal that cost a very solid KPF (Kennedy), a future star midfielder (Masten), and whatever speculative 50/50 kid they got at Pick 20 (Notte, I think). Our deal could be for nothing, or Pick 18 and a middle tier player. Let's ask around and do our due diligence, but a player is out there that could dramatically improve our team. Let's stop being so precious and go after a talent.

Also, I think you are naive. But you're not alone. And I mention Bruce's contract to point out that we have to pay someone, and why not Bruce and Green and Burgoyne on big money? Better than Morton on silly money now, and even sillier money when we are half decent and need cap room.