TalkingCarlton
http://www.talkingcarlton.com/phpBB3/

Figure$
http://www.talkingcarlton.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=2114		 Page 1 of 7
Author:  BlueMark [ Thu May 12, 2005 1:22 pm ]
Post subject:  Figure$
Here are some of the contract figures that have been bandied around on this site as being gospel

Kouta $800 000+
Campo $600 000+
Whits $600 000+ (well into apparently)
Nick $500 000
Houla $350 000
Fev $250 000
Others $500 000 (the players we sent to other clubs)

Total $3 600 000

subtract 700 000 for veterns list

Total $2 900 000

That leaves $3 600 000 for 32 players at $112 500 each.

I wonder if some of the above figures might not be a little rubbery?
Author:  ryan2000 [ Thu May 12, 2005 1:29 pm ]
Post subject: 
at the end of this year, minus off the McKernan contract and we should be a few hundred 000's better off.

Whitnall would have to take a pay cut. $600k is way to much.
Author:  BlueMark [ Thu May 12, 2005 1:45 pm ]
Post subject: 
Ryan I do not believe that the 'gospel' figures are correct, that is why I collated them to illustrate the fact. Do you really think that the rest of the playing group is on an average of 112 500 each, some are certainly under but even 1st year players are on 45 000 base. How much would French be on? Teague? and others, well above the 'average' I would think

The figures being qouted for some players simply do not stand up to examination
Author:  ryan2000 [ Thu May 12, 2005 1:49 pm ]
Post subject: 
BlueMark wrote:
Ryan I do not believe that the 'gospel' figures are correct, that is why I collated them to illustrate the fact. Do you really think that the rest of the playing group is on an average of 112 500 each, some are certainly under but even 1st year players are on 45 000 base. How much would French be on? Teague? and others, well above the 'average' I would think

The figures being qouted for some players simply do not stand up to examination


No, i don't believe them to be correct.
I especially get pissed of when Kouta is still refered to as a $million dollar player!

I do understand what your trying to do.
Author:  Blue Vain [ Thu May 12, 2005 1:51 pm ]
Post subject: 
What are you saying Mark?
Are you saying these figures are definitely incorrect?
Or you believe they may not be right?

SEN reported this morning that Campo is on $620k.
He has knocked back an offer from the club for $300k.
Is that incorrect?

You stated yesterday that our second tier is our weakness.
Perhaps our second tier is poor because there is no available money?

I have no doubt that Campo, Kouta and Red would be taking over 20% of our TPP this year.
Add Stevens, Lappin, Houla etc and it doesnt leave a lot.

I personally dont care how much anyone gets paid, as long as they deserve it.
Lets be conservative and say Lance recieves 7% of our TPP.
Are we getting value for money?
He was abysmal on Saturday and lost every one on one contest he was involved in before half time.
Gaspar absolutely flogged him and from 24 inside 50s in the first half, Lance scored one point.
How did he get it? He cheated and stood in the 50 while his opponent ran off with the ball.
He was fortunate Richmond turned it over and he was by himself.

I dont care if we pay one million dollars to a player.
but if a player demands it, he better deliver on what he's offering.
Author:  BlueMark [ Thu May 12, 2005 2:16 pm ]
Post subject: 
Yes but if we rip into a player for what he is earning, then shouldn't we at least know what the real figure is? Not that have the right to and not what somebody alledlgy states that it is. If we are taking what SEN is qouting as the 'truth' then God help us.Fact is no one knows what each player really earns. Most are guess's at best and are often tend toward the hyperbolic. I have always taken reported earnings with a fairly large dose of salt.

And yes Whits was bad in the first half last week but so were 21 others. BTW it is te first time I have heard a player as having cheated for scoring a goal by choosing to make himself an attacking option.
Author:  ryan2000 [ Thu May 12, 2005 2:20 pm ]
Post subject: 
I think the way in which the Club is going about contracts now (ie - based on that cetain players posistion in the AFL ect, ect, ect) is the correct way.

With Lance, when he was on fire, he deserved good money, but had the club been in the same posistion that they were back then......................i have no doubt that he would be on far less.

Which is why i'm happy with the club baulking at Fev wanting half a million an year and offering Campo $300k.
Author:  BlueWorld [ Thu May 12, 2005 2:32 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Figure$
BlueMark wrote:
Here are some of the contract figures that have been bandied around on this site as being gospel

Houla $350 000

I wonder if some of the above figures might not be a little rubbery?


That one is. On a lot less than that.
Author:  mjonc [ Thu May 12, 2005 2:56 pm ]
Post subject: 
Did i mention nobody on our list is worthy of $500k+ contracts. NOBODY!!
Author:  Blue Vain [ Thu May 12, 2005 2:58 pm ]
Post subject: 
BlueMark wrote:
BTW it is te first time I have heard a player as having cheated for scoring a goal by choosing to make himself an attacking option.


Interesting philosophy. :?
If the opposition win the ball, the forward doesnt have to chase or apply pressure.
He can just bludge and hang back because he's being "an attacking option"

I'm sure when Gaspar was running up the ground setting up play, Teague, T/Bird etc were impressed with Reds "attacking" style. :wink:

I'm sure Denis enjoyed it as well.

BTW, he could'nt convert.
It was a point.
Author:  SurreyBlue [ Thu May 12, 2005 3:27 pm ]
Post subject: 
:lol: .... GO MARK!!!
That's my new slogan. :P
Author:  Sumo [ Thu May 12, 2005 3:44 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Figure$
BlueMark wrote:
Here are some of the contract figures that have been bandied around on this site as being gospel

Campo $600 000+
Whits $600 000+ (well into apparently)


From some information I've received, add $75K to Campo & take $75K from Red. Still $1.2m which is far too much.

I can only hope Campo doesn't accept the offer & goes back to Adeliade. I'd take a 2nd/3rd rnd draft pick & a saving of $450-$500Kpa for him
Author:  King Leonidas [ Thu May 12, 2005 3:48 pm ]
Post subject: 
How can supporters debate what players are earning if they do not know what players are earning?

The mind boggles. :shock:
Author:  Effes [ Thu May 12, 2005 4:07 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Figure$
BlueWorld wrote:
BlueMark wrote:
Here are some of the contract figures that have been bandied around on this site as being gospel

Houla $350 000

I wonder if some of the above figures might not be a little rubbery?


That one is. On a lot less than that.


Remember when he threatened to leave (to go to Melb or St Kilda)
Author:  Elwood Blues1 [ Thu May 12, 2005 4:19 pm ]
Post subject: 
Shorter contracts like the ones Geelong are serving up are the way to go..only Scarlett and Ottens are on more than 2 year deals....our deals with Kouta, Campo, Lance were poorly managed and to me 500K or 600K what does it matter?..we have not seen 500K's value out of any of them for the last couple of seasons...its been money down the drain...maybe Kouta gave us some reasonbale return last year but package the three together and its been a poor return...
Author:  BluesRockMyWorld [ Thu May 12, 2005 4:29 pm ]
Post subject: 
If Campo knocked back a 300K offer - tell him hes dreaming. No way known will he/could he get more than that from any other club. The guy is 30years old FFS. No way any other club would touch him - put simply too old and too much $$.

If he really wants to play footy next season then he is going to have to get realistic as to what he is worth. The offer of $300 K from the club (if true) is more than generous if you ask me...
Author:  Jarusa [ Thu May 12, 2005 4:30 pm ]
Post subject: 
There is another side issue as well.

Let's say a player is on a 3 year back-ended contract structured as follows:

Year 1: $200,000
Year 2: $400,000
Year 3: $600,000

Now if that player plays to the level of a $400,000 player each of those three years is it acceptable to bag that player in the third year for not playing like a $600,000 player?

Of course not.

Unless we know the average cost of a contract, bagging a player for a earning a certain amount in one particular year could be misleading.
Author:  BlueWorld [ Thu May 12, 2005 4:32 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Figure$
Effes wrote:
BlueWorld wrote:
BlueMark wrote:
Here are some of the contract figures that have been bandied around on this site as being gospel

Houla $350 000

I wonder if some of the above figures might not be a little rubbery?


That one is. On a lot less than that.


Remember when he threatened to leave (to go to Melb or St Kilda)


Yes he was offered about that much by other clubs but he stayed at Carlton for less.
Author:  gerry atric [ Thu May 12, 2005 4:39 pm ]
Post subject: 
This speculation is a little pointless. It just reflects how crap the previous administration was. If you're offered huge dough as a player you're hardly going to say you're worth half that. We should have played hardball way before the Hamill situation. Although it is also worth noting that Campo was a b&f and Red a 21 yr old All Australian I think about when the contarcts were done, and at that stage clubs tried to tie up players long term. The other problem is back ending contracts so players get absurd amounts in their last years. According to Rohan Connolly Hamill was on 700k + last year at the Saints. It also really irks me that we are paying for players who play for other teams.

I guess if you have a 21 yr old all australian and you tie him up for 4 years and at 24 he is J Brown, you'd be pretty happy. But unfortunately Red is not J Brown. Also back ended contracts are out of context if you quote the final year.

Good news is Collo will have non of that nonsense, and I'm happy for greedy bastards to go elsewhere. My theory is that if you are an AFL footballer and you can't set yourself up for life on 330k a year for 10-12 years, then you are dumb and are not going to set yourself up whatever you're on
Author:  SurreyBlue [ Thu May 12, 2005 4:39 pm ]
Post subject: 
Jarusa wrote:
There is another side issue as well.

Let's say a player is on a 3 year back-ended contract structured as follows:

Year 1: $200,000
Year 2: $400,000
Year 3: $600,000

Now if that player plays to the level of a $400,000 player each of those three years is it acceptable to bag that player in the third year for not playing like a $600,000 player?

Of course not.

Unless we know the average cost of a contract, bagging a player for a earning a certain amount in one particular year could be misleading.


Exactly. A lot of smoke screens Jarusa. :wink:
Page 1 of 7 All times are UTC + 10 hours
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/