The Potential Trading Of McMahon | PUNT ROAD END | Richmond Tigers Forum
  • IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.

The Potential Trading Of McMahon

rosy23 said:
Yes but as I said salary cap isn't the issue here. We still have a big debt despite being on the right track to service it. I don't think it would be prudent to throw away $300,000 to get rid of a player who at worst would add depth and keep others honest.
Click to expand...

As already been said, he's being paid 300k out of the cap. If we keep him, we don't get to keep it or spend it on other areas outside of player salaries. We should have a lot of room to work with a few retirements and de-listings so they should be at least entertaining the option.
 
CptJonno2Madcow2005 said:
Would you rather Mcmahon sitting around on the couch and getting 300K or actually being made to earn it via Training and albiet Coburg?
Click to expand...

I couldn't care less how he get's his 300k, he's got it no matter what because he has a contract. Unless he walks, 300k is coming out of the cap. However, I would rather get rid of him now and free up another spot on the list for a kid to have a shot at it as I know another season of McMahon isn't going to help anyone.
 
Well Barnzy I'm happy to wait and see how those managing our list deal with the situation considering their superior knowledge of what Jordan brings to the table compared to what is required to move him on.
 
Barnzy said:
I couldn't care less how he get's his 300k, he's got it no matter what because he has a contract. Unless he walks, 300k is coming out of the cap. However, I would rather get rid of him now and free up another spot on the list for a kid to have a shot at it as I know another season of McMahon isn't going to help anyone.
Click to expand...

Agree. In 2010 he is getting 300k no matter what. Why not try and free up a spot for a kid and pay half of McMahon's salary plus the rookie wages (150k + 75k if the kid plays a lot of football, the figure will be closer to 55k IMO) you still come out ahead. Cannot understand, why people would be againist trying to improve the list this way.
 
rosy23 said:
Well Barnzy I'm happy to wait and see how those managing our list deal with the situation considering their superior knowledge of what Jordan brings to the table compared to what is required to move him on.
Click to expand...

McMahon won't stay on the list on what 'he brings to the table', we all know that he doesn't bring much and if he didn't have a contract he would be a 100% certainty to be de-listed. The only thing that will stop it is if the stupid past list management of the past is still haunting them. As I said I think we should have a bit of room to move in with the cap this year with a few more retirements and de-listements but of course I don't know the exact figures.

One thing I expect from them though is if there is room to get rid of him then he should be out the door quicker than a PRE'ster can say "dud".
 
Barnzy said:
I couldn't care less how he get's his 300k, he's got it no matter what because he has a contract. Unless he walks, 300k is coming out of the cap. However, I would rather get rid of him now and free up another spot on the list for a kid to have a shot at it as I know another season of McMahon isn't going to help anyone.
Click to expand...
You don,t seem to get it do you.We in affect will be paying out approx 400k+ if we payout McMahon on a Kid and if you go by where Mcmahon sits on the list it will be a kid of around pick 60+.
Thank God your not in charge with List management
 
IanG said:
I'd rather see the money spent on development rather than paying McMahon out.
Click to expand...

How do you propose that to happen? The salary cap is total player payments, it has nothing to do with development/football department funding. Do people not realise this? Why do you think clubs like Collingwood dominate in facilities and player development? Because they get so much money from sponsors, etc.

Also if we keep McMahon it's not like we don't have to pay him, he still get's the 300k, if we get rid of him we still have to pay him too but we get a new player on a very low wage (mate who was drafted last year to the Kangas at pick #59 gets around 85k in his first year. That's not much sacrafice to get rid of McMahon for good.
 
SCOOP said:
Agree. In 2010 he is getting 300k no matter what. Why not try and free up a spot for a kid and pay half of McMahon's salary plus the rookie wages (150k + 75k if the kid plays a lot of football, the figure will be closer to 55k IMO) you still come out ahead. Cannot understand, why people would be againist trying to improve the list this way.
Click to expand...
And why should Mcmahon agree to a lesser payout?
 
CptJonno2Madcow2005 said:
And why should Mcmahon agree to a lesser payout?
Click to expand...

He is not, we pay half his wage, the club he goes too pays the other half. Still gets his $300k.
 
CptJonno2Madcow2005 said:
You don,t seem to get it do you.We in affect will be paying out approx 400k+ if we payout McMahon on a Kid and if you go by where Mcmahon sits on the list it will be a kid of around pick 60+.
Thank God your not in charge with List management
Click to expand...

Yeah, effectivley only sacrafice around 60-80k in the salary cap (total player payments, nothing to do with anything else) to get rid of McMahon for good and get a promising youngster in to take his place who actually has a shot at making it. Not to mention the amount of space freed up with retirements and de-listments this year. That would be a huge mistake....::) geez some people are just so stupid.... :rofl
 
Barnzy said:
How do you propose that to happen? The salary cap is total player payments, it has nothing to do with development/football department funding. Do people not realise this? Also if we keep McMahon it's not like we don't have to pay him, he still get's the 300k, if we get rid of him we still have to pay him too but we get a new player on a very low wage (mate who was drafted last year to the Kangas at pick #59 gets around 85k in his first year. That's not much sacrafice to get rid of McMahon for good.
Click to expand...

The cap is only an issue if we're right on the 92.5% and I doubt we are.
 
Barnzy said:
That would be a huge mistake....::) geez some people are just so stupid.... :rofl
Click to expand...

Gee, the rolly eyes and laughing at people in the same sentence. Impressive.
 
SCOOP said:
He is not, we pay half his wage, the club he goes too pays the other half. Still gets his $300k.
Click to expand...

I think most of this discussion is in regard to paying him out to get rid of him if he's not traded.
 
rosy23 said:
I think most of this discussion is in regard to paying him out to get rid of him if he's not traded.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't pay him to sit out the entire year.
 
rosy23 said:
I think most of this discussion is in regard to paying him out to get rid of him if he's not traded.
Click to expand...

Trading him would be a massive bonus and we would come out in the green, paying him out only puts us in the red by 60-80k (rookies wage) and in terms of cap space and what's about to be freed up, that's just loose change.
 
Barnzy said:
Good to see you ignored my entire post, didn't expect anything less from you. ;)
Click to expand...
Good comeback.You really are wasting your talents here.Why don,t you give the club a ring.I,m sure they can use your wisdom around the place.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
< Cousins OUT | What do you as a supporter accept as a redeemable game v Crows >
Official PRE merch now on Redbubble!
Top Bottom