Undeeterred

I agree.

Clarko for mine.

Oh of course, I'm not disputing that at all. All I am saying is that when we talk about what players are worth, we have absolutely no idea and are just pulling those opinions out of our bums. At least when we have opinions on something like a football game, we have some basis on which to have those opinions. Player value is completely different.

Sure you can take note, but how about this: How many players can you realistically name as knowing their contract value? Of those, how many are you sure about and how many are media speculation? and Have you adjusted for time, salary cap pressure at particular clubs, and various other list management strategies that were going on when those deals were signed? If you can say yes to all of this, then I applaud you. Otherwise, you're just making stuff up.

Yes, of course it does, but how would you or I or anybody else be able to attach that value sensibly?

As I was reading the last few pages of this thread this comment was brewing in my mind, but I'm glad you've made it for me. It is laughable that any of us can make any reasonable judgement about what Frawley is 'worth'. How the feck would any of us have the faintest, unless we are involved in player management in some capacity?

It isn't so much that we disagree with you Picket, it is just that you speak such a load of bollocks it is very hard not to give it to you mercilessly.

Does that make Franklin Band 2? That changes things somewhat... Funny, I thought Sylvia was Band 2! My bad.

We would be extremely, extremely stiff not to get Band 1 for Frawley. Wasn't Sylvia Band 2? Puh-leese.

dpositive - what's worse is that because we've been so rubbish for so long, with nobody to really pay but with a minimum spend we have to meet, we've frontloaded the bejeesus out of a lot of contracts in past years. Therefore, even a lot of our better players have been paid more than their actual salary in early years, leaving more cap space we have to find someone to pay now. That's part of the reason why Frawley is an unrestricted free agent, because he got a fair whack of moolah early and is now not in the top 'X' earning players (rpfc is much better on this stuff than me...)

Or maybe he is concentrating and your powers of mind reading are non-existent.

So instead of paying Frawley overs to keep him, are you suggesting we give Blease, Tapscott, Strauss and Clisby and extra $100k each? That's paying overs... And we can't spread spend into the non-AFL listed players (which in any case I think would be a waste of money too).

And wtf did the rest of that dribble mean??

If he wants 7, someone will probably give it to him. I think it will be similar to the Lance Franklin deal - there's no way Sydney really expect him to play for 9 years and my guess is that they just figure they'll pay him out when he eventually crashes and hope that there's enough left in the salary cap when it eventually happens. I also think that smart clubs are planning for the increase in salary cap that's coming - where they can basically sign someone like Frawley for 'free'.

Stupid quote button not working again. Re the cue in the rack and Scott looking for percentage. That doesn't mean his players gave a stuff when we served up that rubbish in the first half... They had clearly gone to sleep, no matter what their coach said he wanted.

Geelong - cue in the rack much?

I think he was expressing the opinion that you often post a load of bollocks that he doesn't bother reading.

Even if he could go around again, I just couldn't bring myself to support that arrogant sh!tbag.

Clearly, Nasher. I'm just pointing out that whilst he clearly isn't up to the grade, saying he looked 'completely lost' at AFL level after a couple of games is a bit silly.

Didn't seem any more lost than someone like Dom Barry in his first couple of games. Just sayin'.

By 'you all', I did mean, the OP, Frawley and Watts together...

You clearly don't understand negotiations. His negotiating power is that he can do whatever he likes and there's absolutely nothing we can do about it, so we best keep him happy. 'The best interests of the club' is not negotiating leverage, it is merely a begging, whiny request for him to please be nice to us. Chip has all the cards and the club sensibly recognises this. Issuing ultimatums in this scenario is plainly the silly thing to do.

When you have no negotiating power, you don't go all crazy and demand resolution. That's the surest way to get a big F-off.

Me too! Picket Fence! Serious doubts!!

The question that does spring to mind is WTF you're all doing at the Precinct, of all places...