by morell » Tue Nov 22, 2016 4:44 pm
by bird of prey » Tue Nov 22, 2016 5:53 pm
Suri wrote:Trader wrote:Morell, I don't understand why you are so against allowing clubs to spend money.
There are blokes that spend 200k on a boat and fishing equipment because they enjoy that hobby and find it a great way to fill their weekends.
There are other blokes who don't like to fish, but would rather watch local footy. So rather than spending 200k on a boat, they donate 10-15k a year to their local club. If a club has 10-20 of these blokes floating around, which is easily the case at some of the bigger clubs, then why shouldn't that club be allowed to spend $200k a year on players?
The fisherman is allowed to spend his money to buy a better boat, why cant the footy fan donate and enable his side to buy a bigger ruckman?
I don't buy the argument that we need to cap the top end to push the quality of players around, that's a false economy of football talent. Div 7 isn't meant to be equal to Div 1, there is no reason for the talent to be equally spread.
I wouldn't mind just one of those guys
by Yank Man » Tue Nov 22, 2016 6:12 pm
bird of prey wrote:Suri wrote:Trader wrote:Morell, I don't understand why you are so against allowing clubs to spend money.
There are blokes that spend 200k on a boat and fishing equipment because they enjoy that hobby and find it a great way to fill their weekends.
There are other blokes who don't like to fish, but would rather watch local footy. So rather than spending 200k on a boat, they donate 10-15k a year to their local club. If a club has 10-20 of these blokes floating around, which is easily the case at some of the bigger clubs, then why shouldn't that club be allowed to spend $200k a year on players?
The fisherman is allowed to spend his money to buy a better boat, why cant the footy fan donate and enable his side to buy a bigger ruckman?
I don't buy the argument that we need to cap the top end to push the quality of players around, that's a false economy of football talent. Div 7 isn't meant to be equal to Div 1, there is no reason for the talent to be equally spread.
I wouldn't mind just one of those guys
Haha. A former A grade coach of yours was doing that for years
by daysofourlives » Tue Nov 22, 2016 6:31 pm
jo172 wrote:human_torpedo wrote:I agree the C9AFL should have the same salary cap as Country Leagues.. Barring obviously the fuel allowances
But you also need to look at your definition of 'champion footballers'.. Who is the last champion footballer lost to country leagues?
Sure Pembroke would have loved to see Angus Kurtze in their colours. I know we (and ROCS) would have loved to see Jesse O'Brien.
by Trader » Tue Nov 22, 2016 10:55 pm
morell wrote: When that fisherman spending 200k on his boat results in the guy in his tinny not being able to enjoy his weekend with the reels, then it would be apt. That's what everyone misses. Amateur football is a network. We're all interconnected. You cannot have some clubs paying huge money and not have it affect other clubs that can't.
by BigB » Wed Nov 23, 2016 6:40 am
by Look Good In Leather » Wed Nov 23, 2016 8:51 am
BigB wrote:Yes there are 7 Divisions to allow for all levels of success, but a Div 7 club with aspirations but little cash should have the potential at least to rise up the Divs in the same way a club with lots of dollars can. Whilst I think the cap is hard to police, I can't see another way to stop particular clubs dominating, or others under poor management falling over.
by morell » Wed Nov 23, 2016 9:21 am
Yes it does. And this is precisely what I mean by people thinking we're all in distinct, separate, quantifiable buckets of players and clubs and divisions - instead of what we really are - a series of social networks, connections and relationships.Trader wrote:morell wrote: When that fisherman spending 200k on his boat results in the guy in his tinny not being able to enjoy his weekend with the reels, then it would be apt. That's what everyone misses. Amateur football is a network. We're all interconnected. You cannot have some clubs paying huge money and not have it affect other clubs that can't.
Your right, the 200k a year fisherman doesn't stop the bloke in his tinny.
However, equally, inflating the price of a marlin doesn't stop you standing on the jetty and catching a squid or two.
If you regulate the price of that very first Marlin, it causes a cascade of price reduction down the divisions and allows for more quality fish for all. It doesn't mean Mitchell Park are going to all of a sudden be able to recruit Matthew Pavlich or Steve Summerton (Marlins) but it does mean we get to keep hold of ... Travis Hyde, Chris Farrell and Brandon Walczak (Whitings).Trader wrote:To say D1 or country clubs inflating the price of the top end players prevents D7 mitchell park from enjoying their weekend is a load of trollop! You're never going to catch a marlin so don't stop those than can and want to catch one from doing so!
And yet we're living in the safest time to work in human history.Trader wrote:As for protecting the clubs from harming themselves, that's just modern society isn't it. Previously we allowed the stupid to remove themselves from the gene pool, now we put a fence around the pool and have a WHS form for everyone to fill out.
by morell » Wed Nov 23, 2016 9:48 am
Jim05 wrote:Bloody socialists!
by Trader » Wed Nov 23, 2016 10:52 am
morell wrote:You lack basic level empathy Trader and your privilege taints the way you think.
by human_torpedo » Wed Nov 23, 2016 11:00 am
Trader wrote:morell wrote:You lack basic level empathy Trader and your privilege taints the way you think.
C'mon Morgs, just cause I don't agree with you doesn't mean you need to have a swipe at me personally.
As you've said several times on here, if we didn't have different opinions a forum would be a very boring place.
To avoid banging on when we clearly aren't going to come to an agreement, I'm happy to agree to disagree on the economics of amateur football talent.
However, can you please explain to me (as someone who clearly doesn't understand lower grade footy), why does Mitchell Park need to buy a whiting or 3?
You talk about the need to maintain lower grades as places for social footy and gateways for people to join the game and hopefully move up. I agree with this completely. What I don't understand is why that requires Whiting to occur? Can't they simply be 22 unpaid blokes running around having a kick and a catch?
by Dogwatcher » Wed Nov 23, 2016 11:00 am
Trader wrote: You talk about the need to maintain lower grades as places for social footy and gateways for people to join the game and hopefully move up. I agree with this completely. What I don't understand is why that requires Whiting to occur? Can't they simply be 22 unpaid blokes running around having a kick and a catch?
by Trader » Wed Nov 23, 2016 11:09 am
Dogwatcher wrote:Trader wrote: You talk about the need to maintain lower grades as places for social footy and gateways for people to join the game and hopefully move up. I agree with this completely. What I don't understand is why that requires Whiting to occur? Can't they simply be 22 unpaid blokes running around having a kick and a catch?
When Whiting are getting paid to play average footy in Div 5, Div 6 and Div 7, how do you keep them in the net?
by marbles » Wed Nov 23, 2016 11:10 am
by Trader » Wed Nov 23, 2016 11:15 am
human_torpedo wrote:Im not sure Mitchell Park are chasing the Whiting. Well they might be, I cant say that for sure. I read it as its become easier to retain players from poachers since the salary cap has come in because the money on offer hasn't been as high and inflated as it was in recent years gone by..
That part I agree with. Some of the players I know, even mates of mine, have had inflated prices paid to them in recent years because of the spiralling trend that we faced a couple of years back. In that regard I think the salary cap has been good IMO
by Footy Chick » Wed Nov 23, 2016 11:27 am
Gatt_Weasel wrote:if they (Walkerville) dont win the flag ill run around the block of my street naked :) you can grab a chair and enjoy the view
by human_torpedo » Wed Nov 23, 2016 11:34 am
by jo172 » Wed Nov 23, 2016 11:36 am
by Trader » Wed Nov 23, 2016 11:41 am
human_torpedo wrote:If it ever gets to a point where you have to spend $54k in div 7 to be competitive, then all is lost.. I was gob smacked when Jo172 dropped his call yesterday that a division 7 side spending mirrored that of a mid range div 1 club - That shouldn't happen.
Competitions SANFL Official Site | Country Footy SA | Southern Football League | VFL Footy
Club Forums Snouts Louts | The Roost | Redlegs Forum |