CC on his last legs?

[Barnzy]

Ok where to start. You will take reality from a bloke that doesn't attend games or watch the outcome of games but will say for fact things happened?

I don't attend or watch games? What a dumb statement when you don't even know me. That's as easy as me saying you don't have any inside sources and all the sh!t you say is made up.

If you really want to know I went to as many games as I could last year which off the top of my head was 7 or 8. That not enough to meet your superior standard? As I said before, there you go again acting like you're better than everyone else and know more about football. Yes, I rarely make it to Coburg games so I read the reports given by people who can/do go. I've only been to a few. What's the big deal?

Your superior attitude to posting really gives me the sh!ts and I felt it was about time someone called you out on it instead of just the usual who hang of your every word.

 

[hopper]

I don't think CC should be sacked. He's an important part of an off-field team that is dependant on some long term continuity and that "no short cuts" strategic vision.

This said, on face value I do think it's a concern that a player of McGuane's questionable value could be contracted this far into the future. This was the "running scared" type of contract mentality that had us signing Holland and Gaspar to unnecessarily long deals. I think this is an error. McGuane's form from Sunday would need to improve dramatically to justify this decision - and good luck to him with that.

The thing that needs to be remembered is that this (perhaps Jackson) is about the only end contract date on our list that's potentially wrong. In recent years, I would suggest the number has been crippling. The current situation isn't perfect but it's an improvement. I'd also suggest there are probably 1-2 on most lists who are either playing that one season too many, or are contracted beyond an unexpected steep form/injury decline. It happens. I was talking to a Collingwood mate a few days ago who has some concerns about the same thing in regard to Jack Anthony, Tarkyn Lockyer and Tyson Goldsack.

In the end, meh.

And hey TB - you and I agree on many things and I haven't seen a Tiges/Coburg game live since moving to Darwin 6 years ago!! I hope we can still be friends!

 

[Leysy Days]

The AFL landscape is going to be reasonably uncertain for the next few years, with the imminent entry of two predators in GC and GWS, followed by the advent of Free Agency.

I would argue that all football managers must put their best endeavours into ensuring that most of their squads are contracted at all times. Yes, that leads to situations like Jordan McMahon is in at present, but all things considered, that is better than the alternative.

The two new clubs will pounce on uncontracted players and the compensation for them is going to be minimal at best. Why would any club want to dangle a 23 year old 50-60 gamer out for them to take at no expense? Surely, the smart play is to contract each and every player on your list and then if you decide to trade them, to negotiate a trade? As we have seen with Rodan, Schulz, Raines, Pattison and others, even our cast-offs can have value in the market-place, under the right circumstances. Leaving them uncontracted gives you absolutely no power at the negotiating table.

Think about this. GC and GWS have access to 16 uncontracted players each over the next three years. What would happen if the other 16 clubs don’t allow any of their players to fall out of contract, other than guaranteed delistings, over that period? Would they not be forced to trade some of those precious early picks we keep talking about? The alternative will be to pick up a series of discards, which won’t really fit with their grand plans.

Any football manager that allows too many of his players to fall out of contract over the next few years is negligent. As usual, the solution to the problem is to get the right players into your club to begin with. That is much harder to do.

Don’t pot our administrators for contracting players, they are just doing their jobs as they should do them. By all means, pot them for recruiting the wrong ones in the first place, that is another issue.

The problem to leysy with that arguement is that McGuane can still go to one of the expansion clubs for nix. Only a 4 year deal would get rid of that issue. Rather than leave at the end of 2011 he still has the same chance one year later. A 3 year deal doesnt take that option away.

Not that he is likely to be on thise teams radar & if so down the track it will likely give a shot to someone like Gourdis, Grimes etc who will give us as much as Luke in the future at the very least ILO.

Also not sure on the reasoning on the McMahon situation being better than the alternative. He is being paid $330K to play at Coburg. I'm sure FJ would think that money very handy in his budget or Dimma to have an extra developmet coach.

 

[Giardiasis]

I'd like to see a person employed as a list manager, which was CC's old job before his promotion. As far as I'm aware he has not been replaced.

 

[Phar Ace]

The problem to leysy with that arguement is that McGuane can still go to one of the expansion clubs for nix. Only a 4 year deal would get rid of that issue. Rather than leave at the end of 2011 he still has the same chance one year later. A 3 year deal doesnt take that option away.

Not that he is likely to be on thise teams radar & if so down the track it will likely give a shot to someone like Gourdis, Grimes etc who will give us as much as Luke in the future at the very least ILO.

Also not sure on the reasoning on the McMahon situation being better than the alternative. He is being paid $330K to play at Coburg. I'm sure FJ would think that money very handy in his budget or Dimma to have an extra developmet coach.

Think you just countered your own counter Leysey ;D

And on the McMahon payment, you reckon we are $330K over the minimum payments already?

 

[tigertim]

There you go again Bob, just because you put together fancy little paragraphs with your over the top optimism doesn't mean you know everything about football. Just because I live so far away from the city and can't get to every single game doesn't mean I don't know as much as you or anyone else about football. Quite arrogant and selfish of you to suggest otherwise. I also laugh at everytime you post you have to put in inside word and how you 'know' the club is headed in the right direction and you know what's going on inside the RFC like you have a million sources. Your attitude when posting like you have a superior view to others is just ridiculous.
I think you're wrong on this one, McGuane shouln't have been re-signed to a 3 year deal and Jackson should've been traded at the end of last year.

I thought I was the only one who noticed this. Thank God.

 

[IanG]

Agree with TOT that our recruiting is ultimately to blame but cannot agree that keeping such a deficient footballer is good list management.

It doesn't stop us from trading him. Like I said we've hardly got an alternative at the moment nor are likely to for those 3 years.

I'd like to see a person employed as a list manager, which was CC's old job before his promotion. As far as I'm aware he has not been replaced.

Blair Hartley partially fills that role. I would think that his career path would see him eventually become the actual List Mgr.

 

[geoffryprettyboy]

Great debate.

 

[Leysy Days]

And on the McMahon payment, you reckon we are $330K over the minimum payments already?

Thats the rider. Wouldnt know.
We could have spent it better than going to Jordie's sky rocket though. Who is nothing at all to do with CC it must be said.

 

[Big Cat Lover]

It doesn't stop us from trading him. Like I said we've hardly got an alternative at the moment nor are likely to for those 3 years.

Blair Hartley partially fills that role. I would think that his career path would see him eventually become the actual List Mgr.

Guess what stops us from trading him - no other club will have him.

No alternative? We have plenty of alternatives that can do just as poorly as Mcguane. Rance/Polak would be just as bad, at least it would allow me to curse a different name.

Gourdis should have been promoted, he has much better physical attributes and IMO shows better composure at Coburg than Mcguane at AFL level. Whether that will transfer to AFL level I am not sure but I knwo what McGuane can do and regularly does and it's not good enough now and won't be good enough in 3 years time. Gourdis is not some weedling that needs physical protection. Hopefully he can get onto the main list and we can give him a chance.

 

[Tigers of Old]

And hey TB - you and I agree on many things and I haven't seen a Tiges/Coburg game live since moving to Darwin 6 years ago!! I hope we can still be friends!

:hihi

 

[Tiger74]

Guess what stops us from trading him - no other club will have him.

what have you heard on this? when did we try to shop him?

 

[Jason King]

Blair Hartley partially fills that role. I would think that his career path would see him eventually become the actual List Mgr.

He did alot of good at the power, hopefully he can for us.

 

[IanG]

No alternative? We have plenty of alternatives that can do just as poorly as Mcguane. Rance/Polak would be just as bad, at least it would allow me to curse a different name.

Gourdis should have been promoted,

Dea has shown recently how big the jump is, suffice it to say that IMHO you're underestimating it, not physically but in terms of disposal. Gourdis is still probably 2 years away from being able to be a regular, hopefully he'll be promoted at the end of this year then spend the following year establishing himself. Polak can't play man on man and Rance is still a long way from being able to do that effectively as well.

 

[rockstar_tiger]

Hurts the opposition? What games are you watching? :spin

Sorry to quote selectively, don't have much time so just wanted to give a quick response.

I meant he hurts the opposition physically. He's one of the few who actually slams blokes into the ground, knocks 'em over in packs and goes hard. I loved the game where he kept Franklin goalless for 3 quarters and absolutely smashed into him everytime Lance went near the ball.

GC17 can only sign him at the end of this season. Why then didn't we only give him a 2 year deal taking him to the end of 2011.

There are scenario's in which we could offer 3 instead of 2 that would be good decisions. There are also some scenario's where it's clearly a bad one. Without the facts, we can only speculate why the decision was made.

However, I'd keep in mind it means he'll get a game for 2 years, then in teh 3rd year he could be insurance as some younger backmen come along.

We won't have many young talls burst onto the scene in less than 2 years that force Luke out of the team. Therefore regardless of how long the contract is, we are likely to require him in our best 22 for two more seasons and most likely a third.

We can't match GC's salary so Luke asks for 3 years instead of 2. We wouldn't get much in return for him under the AFL's compensation scheme, so the question is: Does the RFC gain more from losing Luke with poor compensation, or is it worth the risk of giving him an extra year on his contract?

Given our lack of quality key defenders, the club's position on the ladder and the 15-20 or so players who would be delisted before McGuane, I'd say even if he does go backwards, there is very little chance we'd want to delist him at the end of next year anyway.

I look at the alternatives this situation could have panned out, and while I am not privvy to the details, I can picture one or two scenarios in which CC's decision to sign Luke for 3 years would be of greater benefit to the club than any of the alternatives.

The only way it would have been a bad decision is if he said "Luke, we think you're great, here, sign on for 3 years and for more money than you're currently worth".

Considering the GC situation, I think that situation is highly unlikely, even if it has happened at this club in the past.

 

[Barnzy]

Sorry to quote selectively, don't have much time so just wanted to give a quick response.

I meant he hurts the opposition physically. He's one of the few who actually slams blokes into the ground, knocks 'em over in packs and goes hard. I loved the game where he kept Franklin goalless for 3 quarters and absolutely smashed into him everytime Lance went near the ball.

I reckon that trait is overrated. Tom Hislop and Jake King do the same but pity they can't do much else. Would much rather a player have natural skill and a football brain.

As we saw last year in that Collingwood game, when we tried to get a bit physical they just smashed us all over the park with superior ability. I'ts kind of funny how all these limited footballers like to play aggressive, maybe they think they need to add another element to their game to try and survive. Anyways, each to their own I guess.

 

[Tigerbob]

I don't attend or watch games? What a dumb statement when you don't even know me. That's as easy as me saying you don't have any inside sources and all the sh!t you say is made up.

If you really want to know I went to as many games as I could last year which off the top of my head was 7 or 8. That not enough to meet your superior standard? As I said before, there you go again acting like you're better than everyone else and know more about football. Yes, I rarely make it to Coburg games so I read the reports given by people who can/do go. I've only been to a few. What's the big deal?

Your superior attitude to posting really gives me the sh!ts and I felt it was about time someone called you out on it instead of just the usual who hang of your every word.

I never said you didn't attend games, I said the games you do not attend yet comment on them as if you were there is laughable.

I thought I was the only one who noticed this. Thank God.

Haha how'd I know. Simpletons alive and kicking.

 

[rockstar_tiger]

All Luke's contract does is prevent us from delisting him at the end of next year.

While he's not in our top 10 players, I think it's highly unlikely that there isn't 15 players we will delist ahead of Luke over the next 2 seasons.

In fact, there are about 15 average players uncontracted this year alone.

That gives us plenty of options for the minimum of 7-8 we'll be getting rid of. This would ony be a problem if we didn't have anybody worse to delist :hihi

 

[Phar Ace]

Dea has shown recently how big the jump is, suffice it to say that IMHO you're underestimating it, not physically but in terms of disposal. Gourdis is still probably 2 years away from being able to be a regular, hopefully he'll be promoted at the end of this year then spend the following year establishing himself. Polak can't play man on man and Rance is still a long way from being able to do that effectively as well.

As you see him play, has his football been downhill since his NAB cup game against Hawthorn?

Most of us would have seen that game, and it was commendable. Like others perhaps, I assumed he can, or has at least, replicated that game. I thought he was destined for our backline this year, not in a couple of years time. Why is he not ready IYHO?

 

[tigertim]

I never said you didn't attend games, I said the games you do not attend yet comment on them as if you were there is laughable.

Haha how'd I know. Simpletons alive and kicking.

Simpleton? Oh, I'm shattered Bobby. You didn't manage to work in a reference to "seeing the plan" or a "nudge nudge, wink wink I know someone at RFC". Disappointing.