Simmonds contract a master stroke by Miller?

[Dean3]

Greg Miller stated the money we offered Simmonds was what we offered Ottens.That is the annual salary.I have no problems with that part just the 5 years.

MB, what we offered Ottens is the reason he's at Geelong.

 

[johnson2richo2003]

MB, what we offered Ottens is the reason he's at Geelong.

There were reason,s why he was offered a reduction.Once again Otto showed his worth when facing a solid opposition.3 touches in a match.

 

[AngryAnt]

Greg Miller stated the money we offered Simmonds was what we offered Ottens.That is the annual salary.I have no problems with that part just the 5 years.

Oh I remember this now. Other clubs were offering Simmonds the same money and we could not afford any more. Ottens left because he also was offered around 300k and did not want to accept the pay cut.

Simmonds came to us on the same money as was offered elsewhere but for the five years. If we had not given him the long contract, no Simmonds.

 

[mb64]

What is the big problem with longer contracts? If a player wants security versus higher and shorter term payments, then that is a reasonable trade-off. It doesn't stop you trading them 2 years into a contract, and in fact may make them more tradeable as the price is structured to be not so high.

Of course, injury and injury-related poor form is the possible downside, but it is isn't a ridiculous risk to take as some may suggest. It is obvious too that a long term contract on a very high wage is not recommended...Gaspar being the prime example, but injury hurt us there too.

I notice that not too many complained about Wallace being given a long term deal. When you are rebuilding a long term deal makes sense.

Talking players here Deano,Mercuri of Essendon,Kouta & Gaspar are just 3 of the long term contracts that have gone wrong.If they get injured or are playing poorly early in their contracts what other clubs will be interested in them?None.

 

[TOT70]

Long-term contracts aren't really necessary because most players are happy to stay at a club if they are playing well. Other offers are easily parried by extending the contract before it runs out, as we have done with Deledio and Newman already this year.

It is when players are unhappy that problems arise, as we saw with Ottens. I doubt that more money would have kept him anyway. His move was more about playing where he could be icing on the cake (am I mixing my pastries?), rather be than a team leader with expectations of having to work hard. The Cats have got what they were after.

Now that Simmonds has his contract, good luck to him-at least he isn't overpaid.

 

[Dean3]

Talking players here Deano,Mercuri of Essendon,Kouta  & Gaspar are just 3 of the long term contracts that have gone wrong.If they get injured or are playing poorly early in their contracts what other clubs will be interested in them?None.

So you'd have let Kouta walk?

Anyway, I already said that overpriced long termers are a no-no - so we agree on that. But the Simmonds contract is different and isn't the evil you think it is just because it is longer then normal.

 

[No 4]

Any way ladies and gents your thoughts please.  :clap

Over to Claw ;D

5 yr deals are crap.  they are even worse when you give them to 27 yr olds whose best is close to being behind them. i have always liked simmonds as a player as a ruckman in fact. but theres no way i would have given him or anybody else a 5 yr deal.

People have forgotten Knoble? His tap work allowed Troy to be ployed at CHF successfully.

 

[mb64]

Talking players here Deano,Mercuri of Essendon,Kouta & Gaspar are just 3 of the long term contracts that have gone wrong.If they get injured or are playing poorly early in their contracts what other clubs will be interested in them?None.

So you'd have let Kouta walk?

Yes,with the money he's on.He was given a 5 year deal at age 28 on massive money which is reportedly around 1 mil per year.A crazy contract.

 

[Anduril]

Greg Miller stated the money we offered Simmonds was what we offered Ottens.That is the annual salary.I have no problems with that part just the 5 years.

Oh I remember this now. Other clubs were offering Simmonds the same money and we could not afford any more.  Ottens left because he also was offered around 300k and did not want to accept the pay cut.

Simmonds came to us on the same money as was offered elsewhere but for the five years.  If we had not given him the long contract, no Simmonds.

Simmonds also WANTED to come to Richmond, a point everyone is forgetting (and Terry pointed this out recently). And when you think this was just after we'd won the wooden spoon it says a lot about Simmo......

 

[mb64]

Greg Miller stated the money we offered Simmonds was what we offered Ottens.That is the annual salary.I have no problems with that part just the 5 years.

Oh I remember this now. Other clubs were offering Simmonds the same money and we could not afford any more. Ottens left because he also was offered around 300k and did not want to accept the pay cut.

Simmonds came to us on the same money as was offered elsewhere but for the five years. If we had not given him the long contract, no Simmonds.

Simmonds also WANTED to come to Richmond, a point everyone is forgetting (and Terry pointed this out recently). And when you think this was just after we'd won the wooden spoon it says a lot about Simmo......

Don't forget the attractive 5 year package we offered him might have helped sway him to tigerland.

 

[Tubytiger]

Greg Miller stated the money we offered Simmonds was what we offered Ottens.That is the annual salary.I have no problems with that part just the 5 years.

Oh I remember this now. Other clubs were offering Simmonds the same money and we could not afford any more.  Ottens left because he also was offered around 300k and did not want to accept the pay cut.

Simmonds came to us on the same money as was offered elsewhere but for the five years.  If we had not given him the long contract, no Simmonds.

Simmonds also WANTED to come to Richmond, a point everyone is forgetting (and Terry pointed this out recently). And when you think this was just after we'd won the wooden spoon it says a lot about Simmo......

Don't forget the attractive 5 year package we offered him might have helped sway him to tigerland.

That fact alone got Simmonds to the club

 

[No 4]

what ever! The fact right now is our rucking combination of Troy/Trent/Adam looks great. Throw in CHF for Troy/Adam.

 

[mb64]

Greg Miller stated the money we offered Simmonds was what we offered Ottens.That is the annual salary.I have no problems with that part just the 5 years.

Oh I remember this now. Other clubs were offering Simmonds the same money and we could not afford any more. Ottens left because he also was offered around 300k and did not want to accept the pay cut.

Simmonds came to us on the same money as was offered elsewhere but for the five years. If we had not given him the long contract, no Simmonds.

Simmonds also WANTED to come to Richmond, a point everyone is forgetting (and Terry pointed this out recently). And when you think this was just after we'd won the wooden spoon it says a lot about Simmo......

Don't forget the attractive 5 year package we offered him might have helped sway him to tigerland.

That fact alone got Simmonds to the club

Agree Tuby

 

[yandb]

simmonds was 25 when he signed the contract with richmond, he will be 30 when it finishes what's wrong with that?

 

[mb64]

simmonds was 25 when he signed the contract with richmond, he will be 30 when it finishes what's wrong with that?

Plenty if he gets injured & loses form.

 

[Brettstigers]

Just a few points:

1. Simmmonds played centre half forward in his first year without much success and only improved when moved into the ruck for which he has changed his body shape.
2. Stafford has been preferred to Knobel because he has done a lot of work at full forward leaving Simmonds in the ruck.
3. On Saturday Knobel didn't get much time because Simmonds didn't need relief in the ruck
4. I thought we made around 150k per annum on Ottens (400k => 250k) so while it may be five years we have a better player (not as injury prone) and saving big bucks each year. If Simmonds does keep going like he has this season then I reckon he would easily have been able to pull in a $350k contract at the end of this year. Ask St Kilda what they would pay at the moment or better yet ask Everitt's agent.

 

[GoodOne]

simmonds was 25 when he signed the contract with richmond, he will be 30 when it finishes what's wrong with that?

Plenty if he gets injured & loses form.

When you talk about risk of losing a player to injury and lost form, there is also risk the other way, put someone on a two year contract and pay much more later if they excel. Whichever way you look at it there is potential risk. The pertinent point is that the Tigers went after Simmonds because they believed in him being an important cog in the team for the future and they knew to get him to Tigerland only a 5 year deal would be accepted. So whilst, I dont think you go around offering every player a five year deal, on the odd occassion, if thats what it takes and at the right price and for the right reasons, why not?

Cheers

 

[AngryAnt]

simmonds was 25 when he signed the contract with richmond, he will be 30 when it finishes what's wrong with that?

Plenty if he gets injured & loses form.

When you talk about risk of losing a player to injury and lost form, there is also risk the other way, put someone on a two year contract and pay much more later if they excel. Whichever way you look at it there is potential risk. The pertinent point is that the Tigers went after Simmonds because they believed in him being an important cog in the team for the future and they knew to get him to Tigerland only a 5 year deal would be accepted. So whilst, I dont think you go around offering every player a five year deal, on the odd occassion, if thats what it takes and at the right price and for the right reasons, why not?

Cheers

Yep - a risk we had to take on this occasion. Sometimes you gotta roll dem bones.