Talking Carlton Index Lochie O'Brien Kerryn Harrington Lochie O'Brien Kerryn Harrington CFC Home CFC Membership CFC Shop CFC Fixture Blueseum
It is currently Mon Jun 23, 2025 3:47 am

All times are UTC + 10 hours




Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 415 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 21  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Sep 28, 2009 12:11 pm 
Offline
Robert Walls

Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 1:40 pm
Posts: 3460
I actually think his salary is the biggest problem.
We back-ended it so that we pay him less when he goes on the veteran's list, but if we ship him off to another club that won't count and I highly doubt that his manager will agree to anything resulting in Fev getting paid less.

So, we probably can't clear him out because we cannot afford it.

I have mixed emotions about the whole thing. I'd be sad to see him go, but I'm excited by the possibility of what the forward line might be like in his absence.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 28, 2009 12:11 pm 
Offline
Bruce Doull
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2005 12:01 pm
Posts: 34533
Location: The Brown Wedge
woof wrote:
Dr.SHERRIN wrote:
There are no suitors.


I believe the decision the club needs to make today should be limited to whether we want him at the club? What we get for him should not be a consideration.


I agree. We sack him like WCE did with Cousins. If we get something in return it'll be a bonus - if not who cares, at least he won't be infecting our young crop.

If this means we spend the next 2 years waiting for another real shot at the flag, then so-be-it. Our own fault for @#$%&! things up.

_________________
end of message


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 28, 2009 12:13 pm 
Offline
Stephen Kernahan
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2005 2:39 pm
Posts: 15848
The Duke wrote:
woof wrote:
Dr.SHERRIN wrote:
There are no suitors.


I believe the decision the club needs to make today should be limited to whether we want him at the club? What we get for him should not be a consideration.


I agree. We sack him like WCE did with Cousins. If we get something in return it'll be a bonus - if not who cares, at least he won't be infecting our young crop.

If this means we spend the next 2 years waiting for another real shot at the flag, then so-be-it. Our own fault for !@#$%& things up.


+1

_________________
"I had to eat"


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 28, 2009 12:13 pm 
Offline
Garry Crane

Joined: Sun Jun 28, 2009 8:53 pm
Posts: 284
The Duke wrote:
woof wrote:
Dr.SHERRIN wrote:
There are no suitors.


I believe the decision the club needs to make today should be limited to whether we want him at the club? What we get for him should not be a consideration.


I agree. We sack him like WCE did with Cousins. If we get something in return it'll be a bonus - if not who cares, at least he won't be infecting our young crop.

If this means we spend the next 2 years waiting for another real shot at the flag, then so-be-it. Our own fault for !@#$%& things up.


+1


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 28, 2009 12:14 pm 
Offline
Harry Vallence

Joined: Sat Apr 22, 2006 5:24 pm
Posts: 1531
Location: Melbourne
blue in the face wrote:
I would have thought that Fevola was in breach of his contract by bringing the club and the game into disrepute with his actions.

When the club was (rightly) criticized for dropping the specific behaviour clauses from his current contract, I seem to recall that part of the justification was that the standard player contract provides adequate protection in regard to unacceptable behaviours.

I reckon if we chose to, we could tear up his contract.


Your really going after him hey :P


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 28, 2009 12:17 pm 
Offline
Bruce Doull
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2005 12:01 pm
Posts: 34533
Location: The Brown Wedge
bluechampion wrote:
I actually think his salary is the biggest problem.
We back-ended it so that we pay him less when he goes on the veteran's list, but if we ship him off to another club that won't count and I highly doubt that his manager will agree to anything resulting in Fev getting paid less.

So, we probably can't clear him out because we cannot afford it.

I have mixed emotions about the whole thing. I'd be sad to see him go, but I'm excited by the possibility of what the forward line might be like in his absence.


You can't back-end a slary to take advantage of the vets list. His wage will be averaged out over the period of the contract and half of that average will be reduced from TPP, not half the last year or two.

The dumbest thing the club has done in my time as a supporter has been to pay him the $700 odd thousand for 3 years with no behaviour clause.

In fact, it could well be the dumbest decision by any club in the history of the game :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: .

_________________
end of message


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 28, 2009 12:17 pm 
Offline
Alex Jesaulenko
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2005 8:35 am
Posts: 20245
Location: 父 父 父 父 父 父
Gilly34 wrote:
old55 wrote:
Ideally I think you should move him on - your "Judd" window extends out 5-6 years, beyond when Fev will be around so you have time to replace him and a history of getting your man - Stevens, Judd, Warnock etc. But I think pragmatism will rule - it will come down to whether there's a market for him. You need to get a fair price and there wont be too many suitors. IMO Collingwood is probably the team that could benefit most but I just can't see that deal happening.



I worry we are damaging our "Judd" window, by artificially inflating our probabilities of a "Fev" window.


Are you suggesting we're pissing on the window?

_________________
Congratulations CK95


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 28, 2009 12:19 pm 
Offline
formerly Army the Wonderkid
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 8:30 pm
Posts: 2058
Location: The Burbs
The Duke wrote:
In fact, it could well be the dumbest decision by any club in the history of the game :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: .


Pick 31 (Chapman) for Mick Mansfield.

_________________
Formerly: Ackland the Wonderkid / Army the Wonderkid / quivering mess / molsey / Tony Lynn Fan Club


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 28, 2009 12:20 pm 
Offline
Ken Hunter

Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2006 6:54 pm
Posts: 14686
Location: The Vodka Train
.. . .love Fev the footballer, top FF going around currently, and probably for the next 2/3 years.. ..but that's it.. ..it's professional sport nowadays, and as a club we're still trying to catch up professionally.. ..IF all the stories coming out are even half true Fev's in big trouble,, or rather he should be.. ..unfortunately, i love our club but i hate it's attitude.. ..carlton has a shizen 'culture', and Fev doesn't help it one bit.. ..we need to manage our list, not Fev individually.. ..if other players are really offside with him, he has to go.. ..simple..

_________________
..if you can't be good, be good at it..


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 28, 2009 12:22 pm 
Offline
Bruce Doull
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2005 12:01 pm
Posts: 34533
Location: The Brown Wedge
Ando the Wonderkid wrote:
The Duke wrote:
In fact, it could well be the dumbest decision by any club in the history of the game :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: .


Pick 31 (Chapman) for Mick Mansfield.


You know we don't speak of this on TC anymore - you're in breach of rule ______ and must be suspended immediately!

_________________
end of message


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 28, 2009 12:22 pm 
Offline
Garry Crane

Joined: Sun Jun 28, 2009 8:53 pm
Posts: 284
bluehammer wrote:
Gilly34 wrote:
old55 wrote:
Ideally I think you should move him on - your "Judd" window extends out 5-6 years, beyond when Fev will be around so you have time to replace him and a history of getting your man - Stevens, Judd, Warnock etc. But I think pragmatism will rule - it will come down to whether there's a market for him. You need to get a fair price and there wont be too many suitors. IMO Collingwood is probably the team that could benefit most but I just can't see that deal happening.



I worry we are damaging our "Judd" window, by artificially inflating our probabilities of a "Fev" window.


Are you suggesting we're pissing on the window?


Fev's pissing on our window :razz:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 28, 2009 12:23 pm 
Offline
Mike Fitzpatrick
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2006 2:39 pm
Posts: 4684
Location: In a Venetian Palazzo
bluehammer wrote:
Gilly34 wrote:
old55 wrote:
Ideally I think you should move him on - your "Judd" window extends out 5-6 years, beyond when Fev will be around so you have time to replace him and a history of getting your man - Stevens, Judd, Warnock etc. But I think pragmatism will rule - it will come down to whether there's a market for him. You need to get a fair price and there wont be too many suitors. IMO Collingwood is probably the team that could benefit most but I just can't see that deal happening.



I worry we are damaging our "Judd" window, by artificially inflating our probabilities of a "Fev" window.


Are you suggesting we're pissing on the window?


:clap:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 28, 2009 12:25 pm 
Offline
Garry Crane
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2005 6:31 pm
Posts: 295
Synbad wrote:
The man that holds the key to fevs future right now isnt or shouldnt be stickss... it will be swann...

unless somethings changed... fev is a goner...



Inside word or guess?

_________________
"Go blues"

Feel my love...............


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 28, 2009 12:30 pm 
Offline
Rod Ashman

Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2005 9:35 am
Posts: 2125
I wouldn't fine him or give him any directions. I would tell him that clearly he has contempt for his team mates, his club and everyone associated with it by his continual behavioural problems both on and off the field. I'd tell him he has compromised the coaches position, because the coach took a more trusting line with Fev and extravagently praised him when he did right but Fev had contempt for that approach. I don't want him to be directed to do anything, he can make his own decisions. I would tell him he is off the leadership group (how could he have got on there in the first place!!!). I would tell him he is training and playing with the Ants for 4 weeks at least. If we lose games at the start of the season it is his fault, does he care about that? If after 4 weeks he has been impeccable in leadership and 1%s (and off the field) he may be promoted. If not he will stay with the Ants until he plays like a player who is doing everything to redeem himself. If he can't play and act like a leader instead of a naughty boy he can be traded at the end of 2010 and he can be satisfied in the knowledge that he really hurt and undermined the club and the people of the club. No more treating him like a child. Treat him like a man and if he can't act like one he can go and we will be made to look foolish and will have spent millions on a player who treated us with contempt. It is his call.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 28, 2009 12:30 pm 
Offline
Horrie Clover
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2008 8:16 pm
Posts: 303
Do we know what time this meeting is gonna take place?

_________________
cruise (Kreuze) missile:
a very accurate flying bomb.
SOURCE: http://library.thinkquest.org/3785/glossary.html


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 28, 2009 12:35 pm 
Offline
Stephen Silvagni
User avatar

Joined: Fri Aug 15, 2008 6:46 am
Posts: 28227
Brendan might be encouraged to simply retire and head OS in search of a punting career.

Our TPP would then be freed up to chase a future big fish ie. Taylor Walker


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 28, 2009 12:37 pm 
Offline
Harry Vallence
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2005 12:17 pm
Posts: 1639
Location: Within the old Carlton recruting zone ...
Quote:
Quote:
I believe the decision the club needs to make today should be limited to whether we want him at the club? What we get for him should not be a consideration.


I agree. We sack him like WCE did with Cousins. If we get something in return it'll be a bonus - if not who cares, at least he won't be infecting our young crop.

If this means we spend the next 2 years waiting for another real shot at the flag, then so-be-it. Our own fault for !@#$%& things up.




Unfortunately cutting him loose will set us back more than 2 years. Our questionable list management and preoccupation with finding defenders means we only have one a half keyforwards capable of playing at the level required ... Fev + Waite who's time is split between forward and defence. Fisher, Cloke, Edwards and Hartlett are NOT the forward line answers.

As for cutting Fev loose without gaining any compensation, all I can say is that I'm glad you aren't at the helm of the Carlton FC. He has HUGE currency in this market with most clubs crying out for a power forward who can kick bags of goals. Why would we turn our back on draft picks or quality players if they are offered up to us.

For what it's worth ... I'd keep him.

_________________
In WADA we trust


Last edited by Mrs Caz on Mon Sep 28, 2009 12:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.
quotes fixed


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 28, 2009 12:39 pm 
Offline
Stephen Kernahan
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 2:09 pm
Posts: 17222
If anyone thinks for a millisecond that Brendan Fevola can punt an NFL football, they are sorely mistaken. Not an option for him.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 28, 2009 12:42 pm 
Offline
Stephen Silvagni
User avatar

Joined: Fri Aug 15, 2008 6:46 am
Posts: 28227
Dr.SHERRIN wrote:
If anyone thinks for a millisecond that Brendan Fevola can punt an NFL football, they are sorely mistaken. Not an option for him.


Why wouldn't he be able to adapt like the others who've succeeded?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 28, 2009 12:44 pm 
Offline
Wayne Johnston

Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2005 9:21 pm
Posts: 8214
blue in the face wrote:
I would have thought that Fevola was in breach of his contract by bringing the club and the game into disrepute with his actions.

When the club was (rightly) criticized for dropping the specific behaviour clauses from his current contract, I seem to recall that part of the justification was that the standard player contract provides adequate protection in regard to unacceptable behaviours.

I reckon if we chose to, we could tear up his contract.



No behaviour clauses in the contract and the Standard Player contract doesn't cover just getting p1ssed and behaving like a d1ck. Manager, Players Association won't allow you to tear that one up. There's laws against that as it's a binding contract.

When it comes down to it he's just behaved like a d1ck, nothing more, not punched anyone, kicked an Indian taxi driver, drove drunk, not glassed the missus etc.... There's alot worse in the playing group in the competition.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 415 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 21  Next

All times are UTC + 10 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: ByteDanceSpider and 38 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group