Heath Black a Saint for sure

Member · Joined: 26 Jul 2000

Well c'wood have s/t/u/f/f/e/d this trade up again.

From What I have been told C'wood's offer didn't even come close to that of St-Kildas.
The saints are paying him so much money it's absolutely ridiculous.

The most disappointing thing about this whole thing is that Black's first choice of club was Actually C'wood.
But our offer was not even in the ball park.

St-Kilda is so tight up in the salary cap that they have told spider that they want to trade him in order to give them some room to move, even though spider decided to stay as evidenced on the footy show.

Bring back 'Gubby' Allan, at least he can do the mafia type dealing to get players. Balme and Swann are soft in there trading frenzy.

Yes we are interested in Croad, but there is no way in hell that he will end up at C'wood.

Well Eddie, the question is " which player did we miss out on again" and not "who did we pick up"

If we don't enhance our squad with some quality they can have my membership.

I am tired of missing out on young quality players.

I guess I am still pissed of on missing out on Lockett so many years ago.

B.MAN · Posted: Wed Oct 03, 2001 6:50 am

just wondering member,who actually told about the magpies offer was no way near as much as st kildas offer,

Brown26 · Posted: Wed Oct 03, 2001 8:22 am

It's not Eddie's fault that we have better players than St Kilda and thus can't offer Black so much money under the salary cap!!! The sign of a good trade will be who we get still in contract from other clubs, ie. a hawthorn tall, a ruck, etc.

I say we don't need any big names either, I would love to get Thompson, Everit etc, but we don't need them. We can get Stafford and (Ben) Holland much cheaper, and still be VERY sucessful!

Pies for Premiers 2002, 3, 4, 5, 6....

MarkT · Joined: 07 Aug 2001 Location: Melb

I would be amazed if our total player payments were as high as St.Kilda's. We have more room in our cap but must have decided what he was worth and stuck to that. As long as our assessment of his worth was close to the mark then we have done the right thing. I obviously have no idea what he was offerred nor what he is worth. I suspect non of us here do.

pants42 · Joined: 05 Jun 2001

Dunno if it would be our fault,if Black wants more money than success, well perhaps he should go to them.

Greg J · Posted: Fri Oct 05, 2001 4:55 am

Surely we can afford him more than the saints.

The question is how much do we want to pay for him. If he is asking too much, it is better to let the Saints come up with the money to pay him and hopefully cripple themselves for the next couple of years (not us).

Greg J

Black_White · Posted: Fri Oct 05, 2001 5:40 am

Re: Salary Cap

All teams MUST spend 95% of the total allowed salary cap - AFL rule.

This means that we, whilst finishing at the bottom of the table, had to spend 95% of what Essenscum and Norf spent while they won premierships. Totally fair eh?

So today we have young up and coming stars, no-one on the "Veterans list" (correct me if I'm wrong) and no signifigant retirements to loosen the money we now pay.
Our youngsters have agents in their ears saying "club so & so will give you mega $$$". So young guy wants CFC to pay more.
This means that we cannot afford the high tags that some players from other clubs think they are worth. (remember, they have agents to).

The agents are killing our game!

-Craig

FAITH

pants42 · Joined: 05 Jun 2001

Here, Here,Craig agents are acting in there own self interests as well, the higher the money they can extort from a club the better their wallets look, when do Bucks&Richo come on the vets list?

JiMc · Posted: Fri Oct 05, 2001 5:53 am

I think you hit the "nail on the head" Black_White. You are correct we dont have anybody thats even close to being on the veterans list which I guess is one of the major problems we have at Collingwood. St "self destruct" Kilda I believe have "Lowe" and "Burke" on their vets list, so I guess they have more room for manouvering and going further into debt than what we are willing to do. If the money that Black is getting is correct at St "self destruct" Kilda then good luck to him...he can rot down at the bottom of the ladder and go from one loser team to another....

GO PIES....

Joel · Joined: 23 Mar 1999 Location: Mornington Peninsula

I think Collingwood is doing the right thing. Unless we can afford players in the short term aswell as in the long term then we have to stay away from them. While we would all love to so Black and Co. at Collingwood, I think in the end we are making the right decision.

The past has showed that somes big name aren't always good recruits.

JDF

MarkT · Joined: 07 Aug 2001 Location: Melb

Craig, what you say is all correct. However, the players have a right to representation because history shows they screwed if they don't. There is plenty of money in the game to pay players - it just gets pissed up against too many walls or given to basket cases that can't runa business. There are footy club directors who would be held personaly liable for debts in the "real world" but they get handouts in this world.

Agents are the curse of the club but players make the game after all. They should get a fair % of the $.

Greg J · Posted: Sat Oct 06, 2001 5:41 am

You have to remember that the more the player gets paid the more the players manager gets paid. Pretty cool incentive. But with salary caps, a winner will always be represented by a loser.

Player management is becoming a real murky area that will probably be held (in hindsight) as the reason for some clubs failure.

I do not know what the solution is, as I can see no way to get rid of player managers. I do not trust the AFL or the clubs to introduce (self) regulation, as the bias would then swing the other way (and I think the AFL and clubs already have too much power over the players through the compulsory "players contract"). Maybe it is up to the Players Association to step in and be in charge of (self) regulation.

I think Collingwood should simply refuse to deal with some player managers. If all the clubs did the same, these managers will be abandoned by their players en masse (as they face the prospect of no contract). But this smacks of market collaboration or price fixing, and as such is prohibited by the Trade Practices Act.

Greg J

Greg J · Posted: Sat Oct 06, 2001 6:18 am

St "self destruct" Kilda are relying on the security of the AFL's agreement with the TV consortium to provide 8 games a weekend for 22 weeks (plus finals, which probably dictate a final 8 but we havenot been told about).

It will not be long before, the money our club earns for the AFL is used to bail out a bunch of dicks who could not a gang bang in their local brothel. There is no accountability when running a footy club, they all ducked under the umbrella of limited liability a decade ago

Greg J

MarkT · Joined: 07 Aug 2001 Location: Melb

GregJ,
your last post is absolutely correct. Clubs can be irresponsible because they get bailed out. I heard Eddie say if St.Kilda loose money because of the deals they are doing they shouldn't be supported but they will.

Re your prior post, I can't agree.
Managers do damage players and clubs but that's life. As you said, without them the AFL and Cluba screw players - they did it for 100 years. The player are the game and they raise the money - not the AFL and not the clubs. It is the clubs who are to blame, not the managers. Clubs make offers and force the market up. Managers try and squeeze clubs but it only works if clubs pay. If a club goes broke it is because they voluntarily spend more than they make.

I agree that some managers are not very honerable and they cause problems. They are beggining to be found out. MM made an interesting comment on talking footy about this and basically said there are some you should not deal with. I think Heath Black has been passed up because of this faqct more than anything else.