Delistings 2015

[borderbarry]

Defacto posted above that the game has passed Fisher by, and Dempster can be our defence leader. But I think Fisher had the better game even though he would be nowhere near match fit. Maybe he has another season in him after all. He started late to the game from memory, so may not be as worn out as we think. And his best is a lot better than Dempster's best.

[bergholt]

Well can I say Pelchen is really worrying me with some of his contract decisions. Ray and Milera didnt need 2 years as Lee, Simpkin and Siposs didnt. None were ever going to be picked up by other clubs and it now limits our delistings. Milera, Siposs probablt Ray and Simpkin should nearly go at the end of the year.

I imagine all those guys except Ray could be paid out without too many issues. Probably Ray as well. Surely we're well under the cap this year.

[plugger66]

Well can I say Pelchen is really worrying me with some of his contract decisions. Ray and Milera didnt need 2 years as Lee, Simpkin and Siposs didnt. None were ever going to be picked up by other clubs and it now limits our delistings. Milera, Siposs probablt Ray and Simpkin should nearly go at the end of the year.

I imagine all those guys except Ray could be paid out without too many issues. Probably Ray as well. Surely we're well under the cap this year.

Yep of course they can but then we get a pretty poor reputation. remember when Nick Winmar got delisted? Surely its better to just get these things right most of the time at least.

[SainterK]

Agree plugger, contracts are strange under Pelchen.

He also gave Polo, Peake and Raph an extra year when they strung about 3 games between them in 2012.

[st_Trav_ofWA]

with those contracts it may have had something to do with the cap ... we have to pay i think it is 90% of the cap every year , with the raft of young kids coming in i would imagine those contracts were given to make sure we could lose the cap $ from cutting Goddard and Dal while still being in the 90% range ...

[plugger66]

with those contracts it may have had something to do with the cap ... we have to pay i think it is 90% of the cap every year , with the raft of young kids coming in i would imagine those contracts were given to make sure we could lose the cap $ from cutting Goddard and Dal while still being in the 90% range ...

95% but surely that doesnt mean we just waste money to get to the 95%.

[oldie60]

You may find that Ar may have given specific standards for certain individuals to focus on and found that the stats for those things were not where they should be.Due to the lack of experience he may have just gone back to basics and challenged them with simple tasks in order to see at what stage they are at.Whether or not they survive will be seen at the end of the season.

[st_Trav_ofWA]

with those contracts it may have had something to do with the cap ... we have to pay i think it is 90% of the cap every year , with the raft of young kids coming in i would imagine those contracts were given to make sure we could lose the cap $ from cutting Goddard and Dal while still being in the 90% range ...

95% but surely that doesnt mean we just waste money to get to the 95%.

well yeah it does ...
if we are building a war chest of funds then we would be "wasting money" on players who will be removed off the list by the time we go to use the $$

say Dals wage was accounting for 8% of the cap so losing him means we need to spend that somewhere else you sign a Ray Sipposs and Milera for a longer contract to cover that % for the period while you have no interest in hunting the big signing.... then when the time comes to poach a big fish your three blokes come out of contract and you have the cap space to chase the player you want ...

[plugger66]

with those contracts it may have had something to do with the cap ... we have to pay i think it is 90% of the cap every year , with the raft of young kids coming in i would imagine those contracts were given to make sure we could lose the cap $ from cutting Goddard and Dal while still being in the 90% range ...

95% but surely that doesnt mean we just waste money to get to the 95%.

well yeah it does ...
if we are building a war chest of funds then we would be "wasting money" on players who will be removed off the list by the time we go to use the $$

say Dals wage was accounting for 8% of the cap so losing him means we need to spend that somewhere else you sign a Ray Sipposs and Milera for a longer contract to cover that % for the period while you have no interest in hunting the big signing.... then when the time comes to poach a big fish your three blokes come out of contract and you have the cap space to chase the player you want ...

Wouldnt we better giving it to those you are just about certain that will be on the list like Rooy, Joey, Steven, Armo etc than those who really have never shown much at all.

[gringo]

Defacto posted above that the game has passed Fisher by, and Dempster can be our defence leader. But I think Fisher had the better game even though he would be nowhere near match fit. Maybe he has another season in him after all. He started late to the game from memory, so may not be as worn out as we think. And his best is a lot better than Dempster's best.

I'm hoping he can have one more year. Despite the fact that he has had a couple of injured years he was held back because of his degenerative toe which he had fixed last year and this year it's the hammy/ back.

[st_Trav_ofWA]

with those contracts it may have had something to do with the cap ... we have to pay i think it is 90% of the cap every year , with the raft of young kids coming in i would imagine those contracts were given to make sure we could lose the cap $ from cutting Goddard and Dal while still being in the 90% range ...

95% but surely that doesnt mean we just waste money to get to the 95%.

well yeah it does ...
if we are building a war chest of funds then we would be "wasting money" on players who will be removed off the list by the time we go to use the $$

say Dals wage was accounting for 8% of the cap so losing him means we need to spend that somewhere else you sign a Ray Sipposs and Milera for a longer contract to cover that % for the period while you have no interest in hunting the big signing.... then when the time comes to poach a big fish your three blokes come out of contract and you have the cap space to chase the player you want ...

Wouldnt we better giving it to those you are just about certain that will be on the list like Rooy, Joey, Steven, Armo etc than those who really have never shown much at all.

then you run the risk of having guys like Armo and Steven getting paid more than market value and you need to keep on increasing each year to keep them on the list and happy .. say we spread Dals cap space over the guys who are the better performers who more than likely are getting decent enough packages what happens when they come up for contract renewal and we are chasing the big fish ? sure we want to keep these guys but in order to do so we need to increase the package for them hence taking away from what we could spend on the big fish .... Luke ball is a prime example good player for us one we wanted to keep but in the past we over paid him so when his form dropped and we tried to pay him what we felt he was worth he jumped ship ... over paying lesser players means once the contract is done we have no need to renegotiate as we would delist any way so by the time the big fish comes along we cut the three overpaid lesser players draft two new kids and the excess pays for the big fish ..

[plugger66]

with those contracts it may have had something to do with the cap ... we have to pay i think it is 90% of the cap every year , with the raft of young kids coming in i would imagine those contracts were given to make sure we could lose the cap $ from cutting Goddard and Dal while still being in the 90% range ...

95% but surely that doesnt mean we just waste money to get to the 95%.

well yeah it does ...
if we are building a war chest of funds then we would be "wasting money" on players who will be removed off the list by the time we go to use the $$

say Dals wage was accounting for 8% of the cap so losing him means we need to spend that somewhere else you sign a Ray Sipposs and Milera for a longer contract to cover that % for the period while you have no interest in hunting the big signing.... then when the time comes to poach a big fish your three blokes come out of contract and you have the cap space to chase the player you want ...

Wouldnt we better giving it to those you are just about certain that will be on the list like Rooy, Joey, Steven, Armo etc than those who really have never shown much at all.

then you run the risk of having guys like Armo and Steven getting paid more than market value and you need to keep on increasing each year to keep them on the list and happy .. say we spread Dals cap space over the guys who are the better performers who more than likely are getting decent enough packages what happens when they come up for contract renewal and we are chasing the big fish ? sure we want to keep these guys but in order to do so we need to increase the package for them hence taking away from what we could spend on the big fish .... Luke ball is a prime example good player for us one we wanted to keep but in the past we over paid him so when his form dropped and we tried to pay him what we felt he was worth he jumped ship ... over paying lesser players means once the contract is done we have no need to renegotiate as we would delist any way so by the time the big fish comes along we cut the three overpaid lesser players draft two new kids and the excess pays for the big fish ..

Alright forget overpaying guys but if we are choosing players who arent on big money anyway wont most of their slary be replaced by the new player who is replacing them. That would leave bugger all money that surely could be spread around to the better players without really overpaying them. I dont like the fact that guys are on the list that really shouldnt because of poor contract management. I know people dont rate Zac but we lost him because of poor contract management.

[gringo]

It's a pretty bad look to go to the senior players and offer more than their contract stipulated also. That sounds just as stupid if not more so.

[plugger66]

It's a pretty bad look to go to the senior players and offer more than their contract stipulated also. That sounds just as stupid if not more so.

Its actually impossible and was never suggested by anyone from what I read. Who said that Gringo because its plainly against AFL rules.

[st_Trav_ofWA]

Alright forget overpaying guys but if we are choosing players who arent on big money anyway wont most of their slary be replaced by the new player who is replacing them. That would leave bugger all money that surely could be spread around to the better players without really overpaying them. I dont like the fact that guys are on the list that really shouldnt because of poor contract management. I know people dont rate Zac but we lost him because of poor contract management.

but it comes down to the fact you cant have a team full of kids earning min wage just as much as you cant have a team full of stars earning maximum wage ... at this point i think we are managing the payments and contracts well .. it might seem strange now but looking at the big picture long term it does make sence ... with Dawson we were in shell shock hence we stuffed that up and that said we did have a decent contract put to him at the time its just the Freo contract was more .. i stand by that had dawson not wanted to follow Ross and decided to stay then Peak Polo and Raph would not have got an extra year , but Dawson wanted to go so again we kept "non impact players" on the list for one more year...
Pelchen is all about smoothing out the contracts at the club cause we had a generation of extreemly well paid players at the top end and dead wood at the bottom end as the stars retire and the dead wood is cut from the team we will be left with a more even spread of pay scale players and hopefully a giant kitty to get a big name free agent or retain a indemand bolter in our list

[saintsRrising]

Definites:

Retired:Hayes, Maister
Delist if not retired: CJ, Dunell, TDL

In the balance:
Simpkin, Milera, Minch (R) and Shenton (R)

Shenton more likely to be elevated than Minch, but I think at this stage neither is likely.

With Shenton the recent good form of Savage and Roberton off HB may deny him an elevation combined with the club sticking with Gwilt and Dempster

Elevations:
Templeton and Weller.


Maybe 4 picks in the draft and if we finish bottom perhaps 1 in the PSD.

[noob]

Whoever the list manager is, which I think was ameet bains, must be best mates with all the players. Before you know it he has signed all the players on 2 year contracts..

[saint6709]

Definites:

Retired:Hayes, Maister
Delist if not retired: CJ, Dunell, TDL

In the balance:
Simpkin, Milera, Minch (R) and Shenton (R)

Shenton more likely to be elevated than Minch, but I think at this stage neither is likely.

With Shenton the recent good form of Savage and Roberton off HB may deny him an elevation combined with the club sticking with Gwilt and Dempster

Elevations:
Templeton and Weller.


Maybe 4 picks in the draft and if we finish bottom perhaps 1 in the PSD.

agree with this - but like simpkin......think shents in trouble - given that he is behind Webster and wright and geary as well - with gilbert also able to play his role

[bergsone]

Shenton. has been good each chance he has had .Really deserves another year

[PJ]

Shenton. has been good each chance he has had .Really deserves another year

Not sure Shents is what we need - HBFer.

[noob]

from tonight's performance Gwilt and Schneider should Retire.

[Con Gorozidis]

Schneider has to go.
Besides making crap videos he has done almost nothing for three years.
Time we started facing facts and stopped living in 2009-10.
That was 5 years ago.

[SainterK]

from tonight's performance Gwilt and Schneider should Retire.

11cm....

[Bluthy]

I think Gwilt is becoming a list clogger. He's still useful but he's stopping young players getting a game back there and keeping players on the rookie list. We need to free up space on the list and try our luck by going deep in the draft including new rookies looking for players who can use the footy to set up play from the back.

[noob]

from tonight's performance Gwilt and Schneider should Retire.

11cm....

11cm shorter? Yet the taller man out runs him? right.