1858

Of all the draft hopefuls, Trengove is sounding more and more like being closest to the perfect package. Midfield marking ability in the corridore is something that has hurt us greatly over the last few years.

I was interested to know a bit more about Black and I am now satisfied that if we go with say Carlisle before him it is a good call. We need a tall KP more so than a tall utility I think.

Looks very American sports inspired to me, which i personally dont like, but I can understand how they'd think it was a good idea.

Now that you mention it, it does remind me a little of the Baltimore Ravens.

Excellent work, the site looks great!

hey know its only my first post, maybe i dont have a right to making replys or anything, haha

but i wouldnt be too suprised if essendon use pick 16 as part of a burgoyne trade, considering if i was andrew lovett the last place i would want to be is port

(remember chad cornes and brogan giving him hell over there last year)

if essendon were willing to give up their 1st rounder and lovett, their first rounder and pick 16 is essentially the same deal for them, only lovett is at st kilda

Yeah mate, that is a fair point. My pov was that Port are after good experienced players not just picks but at the end of the day if they got picks 10 and 16 from the Bombers they could always trade either of those picks for another player. Gotta love trade week.

I guess if they weren't before they are now out of the Burgoyne equation.

Just heard but not 100% that it is going to be Jamar and pick 11 for Shaun Burgouyne. Just waiting for confirmation.

I don't like this at all if true.

Edit: Port are delusional if they think Hawthorn are giving them Schoenmakers, Birchall or Lewis PLUS pick 9. No wonder the Hawks have backed down a little.

Absolutely and this is why I reckon Burgoyne would have to be starting to get jack of it all. The whole world knows that what Hawthorn has offered is quite reasonable given the circumstances so if Port continue down this road then I reckon Burgoyne could say stuff 'em and go in the PSD or ND.

I thought it was Hawthorn knocking back pick 9, not Port??

If Port are saying no to pick 9 they will probably lose him for nothing, because nobody will give them much more than that. He may be a good player but at 27 and with a dodgy knee, 9 is a very very good deal.

I think Hawthorn have always been happy to part with pick 9, they are happy with their youth stocks. Pick 9 and a player is pretty good but Port are after pick 9 and a "good" player. 3 players mentioned by Port are Ryan Schoenmakers, Grant Birchall and Jordan Lewis. Understandably they are all required by Hawthorn.

Sounds like Port and Hawthorn are at a genuine stalemate now, Burgoyne would probably be getting very frustrated with this. If he ends up going to Melbourne it has to be PSD IMO which he may be more open to now.

It has also been rumoured (here on DL) that we are having a crack at him....

I think the rumour was more an "Adelaide youngster" and then subsequent suggestions/speculation/wishes that it could be Knights. Would be a massive get though.

It has no baring on the trade notion in this thread but Port are reported to be up to their necks in at least 6 trades. Whether this trade goes through or not, they will be 1 of (if not the) busiest teams next week. I won't bother analysing this trade too much other than to say NO to Westhoff.

I actually can beleive the Adelaide player suggestion. I could see us having a crack at Knights or Mackay, Dangerfield would not even be a hope though.

Done.

DD, DH and Pet membership (lol) included.

Jones is an obvious keeper for me. Watch him go up a notch next year. Jamar is no world beater but are we really in a position to lose him simply to upgrade 11 to 8?

Barry must have just got back from Adelaide.

I really hope we take Trengove with the first pick.

If he watched Trengove yesterday against the bays he would have been very impressed.

We aren't the first club where a player has asked to be traded and we won't be the last. Footy life has it's ups and downs. Our ups will show next year when we put out a much faster midfield. We have a couple of elevated and non-elevated rookies from this year who now may get a bigger crack along with Scully and co.

Dont we get something stupid like 300000 to play that Canbera game ?

I beleive that is around the mark.

Wed be doing rather well to get that sort of money at the G ..new deal or not ...unless we put about 50000 bums on seats...and most not being members ( of anything )

I realise that but the club negotiated that figure for a reason. That is the benefit the club is prepared to give away it's home ground advantage for. Now the relative benefit is arguably less than 200k given the MCG benefit as well as hopefully bigger crowds as the team improves in 2010. From a pure total cash in hand pov we still get 300k for playing in Canberra and if the club is looking solely at that then I wouldn't expect them to change anything as you suggest. All I am asking is does anyone think the club will weigh it up now from a relative benefit pov?

We probably get more money playing in Canberra, even with the new deal.

I don't mind playing 1 game a season up there until the contract expires.

We made a commitment and it seems to be in our best interests to stick to it.

That is what I was getting at. Relatively speaking, the Canberra deal is worth less now so once the contract expires unless we renegotiate a better return I'm just wondering if we are more likely to let it go in favour of playing at the MCG now.

Just wanted to bump this.

I don't know much about the details of our designated home game in Canberra but does anyone see this changing as a result of the new MCG deal?

Cats

(The $7.53m minimum is for next year.)

Fair point, it will increase next year. Are you 100% sure about that figure though.

2010 Salary Cap - $7,950,000 (92.5% = $7,353,750)

2011 Salary Cap - $8,212,500 (92.5% = $7,596,562)

Just on the point of front loading, if we continue down that track I understand that there is potentially a short fall that could catch up with us. Surely it comes down to the rotation of contracts though, if the cycles are spread out then that gives us leeway so the club can keep on top of it. Not to mention that next year and beyond we will no doubt be in the market for multiple experienced players to complement the list. Either way you have pointed out something interesting here, maybe Newton does serve a purpose now.

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.

You seem on the money with all the details of contracts and figures so I should have perhaps paid more respect to your pov mate. I wasn't sure whether the 92.5% minimum specified by the AFL this year on us was the actual floor.

Having said that

Salary Cap: A$7,693,750

Salary Floor: A$7,116,718.75 (92.5%)

So we are apparently paying 85% of the salary cap in real terms. From this (in very simple terms) we may have a 7.5% or greater shortfall in the future based on the aggregate of existing contracts and value of expiring contracts.

7.5% of the total salary cap is roughly 580k.

Robbo was on the veterans list but is set to be replaced so there is a shortfall as you say as well as other retirees.

Most uncontracted players are likely to go on a higher salary through natural progression of market value (not overpaying) some of which I would expect to be significant. From the sounds of it you have a pretty good idea of who comes out of contract and the details of existing players.

If Burgoyne came to MFC he could reasonably ask for 500/550k per year. Factor this in.

My point is not about getting SB but getting him at possibly 200k per year over the odds (the principle anyway). Surely we have enough senior players and players in general coming out of contract who will get a normal pay increase based on their market value not to mention other trade options that we can use cap space for (at their market value I might add). I just find the concept of having to pay 10 kids over the odds a little too simplified given the circumstances of what the club may do to work around this.

Maybe the black hole is bigger than what I give credit to and you probably understand that aspect better than I do but I still can't see it as a justification to pay over the odds for SB to the tune of 200k per year. Anyway I respect your insight you obviously know a lot about this stuff.

1858

Actually that's SA's ABC channel and you won't get the programme in Victoria.

From all accounts Jack played well off half forward, set up a number of targets, showed his skills and kicked the one goal early in the game.

I saw bits of the game as well and the commentators liked the way he worked hard to finish off plays and work to space today. I just like the fact that he is a 2 sided player and reasonably well developed for a youngster.

I believe Burgoyne is on $450,00 at the moment & hes after about $50,000 more a year because of the higher cost of living in Melb compared to Adel.Its not true that he said he would want $700,000 just to go to Melb because he would have to do more work etc.

Sounds about right going by what Port supporters say on BF (not that you would go by BF for your sources). I couldn't imagine him asking for that sort of money simply because he would have to work harder. Having said that there is nothing stopping him from asking for it simply because we could pay it though - if he definitely hasn't then I think 500k ballpark is not unreasonable for us to go with.

He has said that he will make his mind up by the end of this week about who it will be.He said he knows Hawks have less room in theyre cap than Melb & Ess so he would go there for $50,000 less to fit under the cap if thats the club he chooses.He dosnt want to hold Melb to ransom he was looking at each clubs financial position.Looks like at this stage though its more between Melb & the Hawks ahead of Ess from what he has said

Interesting, so it may come down to how much he wants to look after Port.

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.

Again, why?

Why would the club inflate player contracts instead of taking them on their merit (paying as "normal" as you put it)? You seem to have a grasp of the numbers which is fine, I don't know the rules that govern how a club goes about it's contracts but unless the club is forced to pay a certain proportion (not maximum threshold like this year) under regular conditions then I don't understand why they would pay inflated salaries.

Burgoyne would naturally command a high price tag no matter where he went but to justify potentially over paying him 150k - 200k (based on the figures tossed up in this discussion) because we have extra cap space is madness unless there are regulations I am unaware of - our club isn't that inept surely.

That polo looks nice. The one that is currently on sale is horrible.

Definite improvement.