The Review

[Tiger74]

No issue at all with signing developing players who are going to be at the club for at least an extra year. None at all. Though even young gun Collins only got one year. i.e this one.

The one's leysy has an issue with is signing fringe journeymen that have already found there ceiling like Shulze & King to multi year deals like we have. If there are get out clauses (hopefully) we will soon find out. Little doubt they will both be delisted if there are. If not we're hamstrung for both "dead" $$$ & more importantly a spot to develop another young footballer in there place.

On the B & F, do you think Collins will win it as well. ;D

It depends upon how the extensions are geared L. Been mentioned elsewhere, but someone said they had the understanding King's final year had similar performance requirements to the Rodan one (which we were able to execute to walk away from). I don't know if this is fact (for either), but if these kind of get out clauses are in, great. Unfortunately we are all guessing and assuming though - we won't get a real idea of whats happening and who's on what till years end.

 

[Leysy Days]

He would be top 5 easily if he had played in every game. We might have to accept a top 10 finish at this stage as being an outstanding result for a young player in his first season as a senior footballer.

So it appears we signed the mature duds (King, Shulze) up for two & now have to up the ante to the talented young players that have (shock horror) improved that we signed for just one (as leysy's been told on Collo).

Hopefully as you suggest there are some get out clauses for us for the one's we wish to delist. Spose we'll find out soon enough.

 

[meltiger]

It depends upon how the extensions are geared L. Been mentioned elsewhere, but someone said they had the understanding King's final year had similar performance requirements to the Rodan one (which we were able to execute to walk away from). I don't know if this is fact (for either), but if these kind of get out clauses are in, great. Unfortunately we are all guessing and assuming though - we won't get a real idea of whats happening and who's on what till years end.

When making a comparison to Rodan - Wasn't he #a - Coming off injury when re signed & #b - Given a 1 year incentive based deal?

 

[Tiger74]

When making a comparison to Rodan - Wasn't he #a - Coming off injury when re signed & #b - Given a 1 year incentive based deal?

Definitely on (a), not sure on (b) - as mentioned the person saying this understood there was another year on the deal if RFC wanted it (which (if right) we obviously didn't).

 

[BloodOath]

I know Shulz has another year to go be truely how can someone like that be on a list for what will it be 9 years?? Really that is an indication of how bad our club has been - its an utter disgrace - list clogger at best!

 

[GoodOne]

I know Shulz has another year to go be truely how can someone like that be on a list for what will it be 9 years?? Really that is an indication of how bad our club has been - its an utter disgrace - list clogger at best!

It will be 8 years and if he averages the number of past games from this point forward, it will equate to around 86 games or approximately 10 games per season and an average of 8.6 possessions and .8 goals per match. And how much would that have cost us, $200-$300K a year or $1.6 to $2.4mill. One question. Why? How can we be so stupid? Has to go down as one of the biggest farces in the club's history, and there've been a few.

 

[mad_tiggy911]

Ian don't defend the indefensable. Your clutching at straws protecting Cameron. The Football department is a shambles and he is in charge.

Dunno enough about them or how much Wallace's requirements influenced their plans.

You've got to be kidding. You dont need to know much about the medical, fitness and conditioning staff to see they are not doing thier job. Its clear as day our players are under sized. Just more evidence that your delusional and are willing to accept mediocracy.

 

[The_General]

Interesting.

So Cameron re-signed all those players. But it doesn't say how long each one is for, which is the big thing.

An extremely negligent decision from him if he has in fact signed up Shulze & even moreso King until the end of 2010. If so the buck stops 100% with him on those deals. Things like those can massively restrict & hamper clubs to improve the list.

Bloody hell, if the above is correct was hoping we were over these ridiculous contractual obligations to poor players when Miller was shown the exit.

It's certainly a decent black mark next to Cameron's name if it is the case.

Yep, I agree. I'm really disappointed we resigned king for 2 years. Schulz has had a very disappointing career, and I would have forced him onto a 12mth deal, to see if he could perform consistently. It's amazing how performance dips when it's not a contract year.

Can handle the kids getting contracts, but borderline players, GRRR.

That's 1 year of Cameron's 5 year gone, and a handful of bad decisions already. I get nervous thinking bout it.

 

[IanG]

Ian don't defend the indefensable. Your clutching at straws protecting Cameron. The Football department is a shambles and he is in charge.

Involved with the club are you? Cause you're making the sorts of claims that only someone involved would know. Otherwise you're just blowing smoke. Now why not try refuting what I actually said.

You've got to be kidding. You dont need to know much about the medical, fitness and conditioning staff to see they are not doing thier job. Its clear as day our players are under sized. Just more evidence that your delusional and are willing to accept mediocracy.

Very good, now answer what I actually said.

 

[mad_tiggy911]

Very good, now answer what I actually said.

I can't answer what you said. How about asking me a question.

 

[IanG]

I can't answer what you said. How about asking me a question.

You didn't refute any of what I said and just went off on a generalised tangent. So refute what I said and maybe we can actually have a discussion.

 

[the claw]

The picks we had last year were ideal for our list needs. In hindsight we could have taken only 1 of Thomson and Hislop but it appears we went with both due to uncertainty over Coughlan's recovery which IMHO is a reasonable proposition.

As General Manager of Football or whatever his title is he was involved in putting down the player rebellion which would have made the club look like basketcase.

were they. seems to me it would not have mattered what picks we took they would have addressed list needs.
what about processes what changed nothing. no assessment of current players no assesment of potential recruits. just 3 nd picks, recyled players taken again 3 in fact . the worst area of recruitment over the yrs ball usage is once again ignored with the exception of one 30yr old recruit.and finally failure once again to remove chronic long term under achievers from the list in fact the opposite happened many were resigned.

it all points to the fact we have no real processes in place.

 

[the claw]

Lust management :hihi Freudian slip there :hihi

Seriously obviously its not but again I don't know the details behind how he was re-signed.

you dont know the details but you defend what is to most a mistake.

 

[IanG]

were they. seems to me it would not have mattered what picks we took they would have addressed list needs.
what about processes what changed nothing. no assessment of current players no assesment of potential recruits.

How do you know what assessments were done? Its not something that would get publicised. I'n be flabbergasted if Francis Jackson hadn't done a lot of work on potential recruits.

AFAIK Cameron is doing a far reaching review of the list as part of the general review going on.

you dont know the details but you defend what is to most a mistake.

I didn't defend King's re-signing.

 

[the claw]

So it appears we signed the mature duds (King, Shulze) up for two & now have to up the ante to the talented young players that have (shock horror) improved that we signed for just one (as leysy's been told on Collo).

Hopefully as you suggest there are some get out clauses for us for the one's we wish to delist. Spose we'll find out soon enough.

are they even looking at delisting the likes of schulz and king if past history is anything to go by the answer is no.this review had damn well better be all encompassing and they had better be prepared for adverse findings.

theres enough pundits out there now to know a white wash when they see one.