Why is our budget so important?

[tigerjoe]

Refering to GM's comment that "Richmond has a budget it needs to stay within, so that is why we need to offload a player to draft Polak" or word's to that effect.

So yes it is good to see financial diligence for once, but at what price?

Budget's can and are broken at the drop of a hat with larger or smaller than expected membership figures, attendances, expected revenues etc, etc......

I am not arguing that we break our budget to get Polak, but if he is what Terry believes will help our list next year then why make it so difficult.
Unless it is a smokescreen we would be silly not to go over budget by say $150-200K just because we want to stay within our budget.
Polak or Ferguson or Perry "could" be just what the doctor ordered (I doubt it) , to help us make the finals and bring our revenues up significantly on what has been projected.

Smokes and mirrors or fiscal discipline?
Well it is Greg Miller who came out with the statement!

 

[GoodOne]

So where do you stop Tigerjoe? Is $250K extranot much, is $500K extra not much, why not go 3 extra players for a cool mill? Whilst the Tigers are in large debt it is very important to be fiscally responsible. Hey if we were fiscally responsible in previous years, we'd be able to get that extra player for $300K instead of paying it as bank interest.

 

[Rosy]

Smokes and mirrors or fiscal discipline?

A bit of a and a bit of b joe. On one hand you'd hardly expect Greg to be announcing we have plenty of $$$ to throw around when we want to get a player as cheaply as possible. On the other hand if we wanted a player desperately enough and he was obtainable I suspect we'd find a way.

It's all a matter of playing the game to our advantage so I wouldn't be too concerned about what is said during trade week.

 

[tigerjoe]

Yes Rosy I too think it is GM at his brilliant best during Trade week, but with a $1million profit this year coming from fiscal discipline surely giving TW what he needs is more important than sticking to the budget where possible and within reason.

 

[Brettstigers]

I found it interesting in the wash up of last year's Fev deal that the publically stated reason for Fev not coming over from our side was our inability to offload two players to keep us under our budget. This year we "have" to offload one player to get Polak.

Given the Fev deal was reportedly only stopped in the 11th hour by Pagan talking Fev out of leaving (and presumanly vice/versa) I think the budget issue is again a smokescreen to the real issue which is Miller wanting to move on fringe players as part of his deal.

If a deal can be done the budget won't be the blocker.

As for Miller's "brilliant best" geeze dude hold up on the rose petals, Miller's trading period BS doesn't smell that good and his trading results to date aren't overly impressive either. Certainly not good enough to warrent naked adulation.

 

[Scoop]

I found it interesting in the wash up of last year's Fev deal that the publically stated reason for Fev not coming over from our side was our inability to offload two players to keep us under our budget.  This year we "have" to offload one player to get Polak.

Given the Fev deal was reportedly only stopped in the 11th hour by Pagan talking Fev out of leaving (and presumanly vice/versa) I think the budget issue is again a smokescreen to the real issue which is Miller wanting to move on fringe players as part of his deal.

If a deal can be done the budget won't be the blocker. 

As for Miller's "brilliant best" geeze dude hold up on the rose petals, Miller's trading period BS doesn't smell that good and his trading results to date aren't overly impressive either.  Certainly not good enough to warrent naked adulation.

Agree on all fronts.

 

[The_General]

It's amazing that people don't trust those at the club more than those outside the club.

Fev was quoted as saying a heart to heart with Pagan changed his mind about leaving Carlton. That had absolutely nothing to do with any deal. Remember, it was he that wanted to leave the blue baggers, he approached his friend Chris Newman and people tried to get a deal done.

It's been reported carlton wanted our first round draft pick from last year, someone like cogs (we offered Krak, Tiva or Hall depending on reports) and weren't prepared to pay part of the huge salary that he came with.

It sounded more to me that even if Fev had said he really wanted out, there was a lot more to be done to get him here, than him kissing and making up at the 11th hour with Pagan.

 

[newyorktiger]

I suspect it has more to do with future years, when the likes of D-Lids and Raines come up again for contract renewal (salary cap and all). Having some wiggle room in the future is important.

 

[Ready]

Yes Rosy I too think it is GM at his brilliant best during Trade week, but with a $1million profit this year coming from fiscal discipline surely giving TW what he needs is more important than sticking to the budget where possible and within reason.

We owe an awful lot more than $1 million. This debt is going to take many, many years to pay off.

Someone should be telling Greg Miller he shouldn't be saying things about considering going over budget even if there's no truth in it at all. No mixed messages. Either say the right thing and do the right thing or say nothing and do the right thing. No third option.

 

[TOT70]

It is simply code for, "We want to trade but not with early picks. Take one of these players instead."

As if Greg Miller would ever worry about spending a few sheckels more than was budgeted.

 

[blaisee]

Refering to GM's comment that "Richmond has a budget it needs to stay within, so that is why we need to offload a player to draft Polak" or word's to that effect.

So yes it is good to see financial diligence for once, but at what price?

Budget's can and are broken at the drop of a hat with larger or smaller than expected membership figures, attendances, expected revenues etc, etc......

I am not arguing that we break our budget to get Polak, but if he is what Terry believes will help our list next year then why make it so difficult.
Unless it is a smokescreen we would be silly not to go over budget by say $150-200K just because we want to stay within our budget.
Polak or Ferguson or Perry "could" be just what the doctor ordered (I doubt it) , to help us make the finals and bring our revenues up significantly on what has been projected.

Smokes and mirrors or fiscal discipline?
Well it is Greg Miller who came out with the statement!

welcome to 2004

 

[blaisee]

I found it interesting in the wash up of last year's Fev deal that the publically stated reason for Fev not coming over from our side was our inability to offload two players to keep us under our budget.  This year we "have" to offload one player to get Polak.

Given the Fev deal was reportedly only stopped in the 11th hour by Pagan talking Fev out of leaving (and presumanly vice/versa) I think the budget issue is again a smokescreen to the real issue which is Miller wanting to move on fringe players as part of his deal.

If a deal can be done the budget won't be the blocker. 

As for Miller's "brilliant best" geeze dude hold up on the rose petals, Miller's trading period BS doesn't smell that good and his trading results to date aren't overly impressive either.  Certainly not good enough to warrent naked adulation.

the fev deal didnt go through because no other club wanted our overpaid hacks. Fev would have been a tiger this year, guaranteed.

 

[blaisee]

Yes Rosy I too think it is GM at his brilliant best during Trade week, but with a $1million profit this year coming from fiscal discipline surely giving TW what he needs is more important than sticking to the budget where possible and within reason.

We owe an awful lot more than $1 million. This debt is going to take many, many years to pay off.

Someone should be telling Greg Miller he shouldn't be saying things about considering going over budget even if there's no truth in it at all. No mixed messages. Either say the right thing and do the right thing or say nothing and do the right thing. No third option.

miller will say and do whatever he wants, if he thinks it is going to help him at the trade table.

Everybody should take anything said this week with a grain of salt.

This is a week of smoke and mirrors and negotiation. Relax and enjoy the ride

 

[Cutterst]

A couple of years ago when we lost $2 million and our overall debt rose to approx. $5 million, the RFC and the AFL entered into an agreement to manage our finances. The AFL went guarantor (AFL re-direction order to the ANZ) to our Bank. We agreed to only pay (I think) about 97 % of our salary cap and I think our yearly business plan was, at that stage, worked out in conjunction with AFL consultants.

I think that is the budget constraint and I think it will stay in force until there is another one or two more big yearly profits especially with the Punt Road development looming.

 

[poppa x]

Businesses have budgets so they ensure they do not spend cash they don't have.

The profit/loss is not a book figure that can be overspent without consequences.  It's real $'s and to spend it you have to have it. the best example is the Cain/Kirner era where cash was treated with no respect.

 

[TigerPort]

With a large debt comes a large interest bill to be paid. So we would be paying the big nasty bank $300,000 to $400,000 when we could be paying for an extra player or better still a full book of rookies.

We need to continue to work within a budget to get rid of the debt and then we will have some room to move - say in four years time if we continue the $million profits we will probably have the debt cleared. At that time Lids and the rest of the kids will be aged around 23 and fully hitting their straps and we will be cashed up to top up on a high profile player then

 

[GoodOne]

  the best example is the Cain/Kirner era where cash was treated with no respect.

Long live the polka dot!

 

[Al Bundy]

With a large debt comes a large interest bill to be paid. So we would be paying the big nasty bank $300,000 to $400,000 when we could be paying for an extra player or better still a full book of rookies.

We need to continue to work within a budget to get rid of the debt and then we will have some room to move - say in four years time if we continue the $million profits we will probably have the debt cleared. At that time Lids and the rest of the kids will be aged around 23 and fully hitting their straps and we will be cashed up to top up on a high profile player then

Spot on & the best way attempt to sustain long term success by keeping the talent that emerges & attract better players to the club