Moderators: Saintsational Administrators, Saintsational Moderators
Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/g ... z2N3BKWX9tSt Kilda president Greg Westaway says the defection of Brendon Goddard has highlighted why the divide between the rich and poorer clubs needs to be eased
You've answered your own question.oh when the wrote:Why are we poor, after probably the era of most wins ever
In our 140 yrs.
Collingwood and Geelong were driven very hard from the top to get success in recent years, Costa and Eddie were passionate about it and didn't take a back seat, they were out there drumming up support publicly, pushing the AFL for better deals and pushing to get more sponsors on board. While our Prez, CEO and board appear stable- which is good, their marketing of the club has been very lack-lustre IMHO..samuraisaint wrote:Nettlefold told SEN last week that all the negative publicity we received over the past decade cost the club 7 million dollars or thereabouts. That is why we aren't doing so well.
Although I wish we had won two Flags in the last decade, and another in 97, I remember that Collingwood and Geelong had similar bad luck and have been able to turn it around to a degree. I think getting up and challenging for a premiership is a lot better than being a non contender. We were broke in the late 70's, nearly folded, until Lindsay Fox bought us. Unfortunately not before Melbourne took Ditterich and the Elliots.
But there were some absolutely unfathomable decisions made around this time, sacking Mike Patterson, trading Russell Greene, wasting a lot of time and energy on Doug Cox and Foschini and Morwood, which sapped the energy out of the club and in the end we nearly folded in 84.
The club didn't move out of this until Baldock brought renewed optimism in 1987 , and we added to our young talent with top ups from other clubs. And just like we have gone from being a basket case who would win two games a year, to perennial finalists, and now Grand Final contenders, the Flag will come too. I have seen enough good signs over the pre-season which indicate to me that rumours of our demise have been grossly exaggerated.
It's not neccessarily about having an "extra $750K" in the salary cap, it's that the richer clubs can take calculate gambles with that type of money because they are so financially strong. Paying that amount of money to a player in his 30s is a risk, and the poorer clubs can't just take $750K risks.fingers wrote:I get the concept but all clubs have the same amount to spend in the salary cap - so it's not like anyone can create an extra $750k.
It is the role of the president to speak on club equalisation as a concept but I don't get the corrrelation.
Anyone explain it?
QuestionOfAccuracy wrote:It's not neccessarily about having an "extra $750K" in the salary cap, it's that the richer clubs can take calculate gambles with that type of money because they are so financially strong. Paying that amount of money to a player in his 30s is a risk, and the poorer clubs can't just take $750K risks.fingers wrote:I get the concept but all clubs have the same amount to spend in the salary cap - so it's not like anyone can create an extra $750k.
It is the role of the president to speak on club equalisation as a concept but I don't get the corrrelation.
Anyone explain it?
BigMart wrote:Yes everyone does have the same cap...
What he's saying is rich clubs can afford to take risks, and he had to take a conservative approach...
What I'm interested in, is why the board is making list decisions, why doe we have a list manager and team..... To make recommendations....
What is Greg Westaways experience in footy matters in the last 10 years... That's what you employ and empower people for?!
They overruled incorrectly in 2009 and probably again last year......
At what age exactly does a player lose worth Greg?? When your predicting 4. Years out??
We had two prime examples in 2012
the 2 x 32 year olds in 2012..... One won the B&F and one was all Australian
Dean Cox will be 32 this year, Brent Harvey 35, Dustin Fletcher 38, Barry Hall 34, A
Alastair Lynch 36, Peckett 33, Thompson 34, Adam Goodes 33... Loads of players have played good footy well into their 30's.... What a stupid comment.... Why could we predict he would be worth it at 31.... But not at 32???
If the sticking point was money, fair enough... You can't afford it.... Bit if we decided it on length of contract 3/4 years.... Seriously.... Loyalty runs two ways, players inside an organisation understand this....
He deserved a 4 year commitment IMO as he had given us ten year of service and had never entertained leaving although 3 clubs have had a crack at him
Some players are finished at 27? Depends ion factors... Cooney, Hamill......
BigMart wrote:Brilliantly when we got Hamill, Gehrig, Voss, Powell????
Hamill was disgruntled and we traded Pick 4 for him... Paid him a huge contract?? Do you reckon on output he was worth the money he got paid from 2001-2008 considering he did not play in the last two season?? And was a HFF who average 1.2 goals per game, getting as much as power fwds of the comp....I loved Aaron but he wasn't a star, but we paid him as one?? Because we had underpaid kids as stars
Gehrig?? We traded Pick 18 for him... He was the frustrating underacheiving whipping boy at WCE.... The fans hated him... He had a great career at StK... But no better (not as good probably) as Hall... A player we already had
Voss and Powell were as a result of finishing last... Both #1 picks in the pre season draft, and the were obvious picks ATT
IMO
Our great recruiting in 2000/2001 was a net result of about zero, perhaps even we lost out
Hall..... Gehrig
Everitt....... Hamill
Penny........ Wakelin
Then there was Lawrence, Capuano, Delaney, Gale, Powell, Knobel, McGough, Ackland...... And others at that time
Brilliant....... Was a result of being last and benefitting from it
BigMart wrote:You make decisions on the best interests of the club, but understand those decisions have ramifications. Footy clubs are a business in many ways, but the culture is such that the important stakeholders (fans and players) have a much more of an emotional connect. So when a decision is made, more factors than just the bottom line must be considered.
Boards should steer clear of footy matters and worry about appointing the right People to do so..
They have made enough off field blunders to worry about footy matter.
BigMart wrote:Why, do they have more expertise than the footy dept when knowing what the fans want??
If they don't like the decisions made by the footy dept they can terminate their contract... But really once they have employed a footy dept... The should let them do their job. Not Vito decisions they make. What sort of structure is that??? At what point do they intervene??
Never, should be the answer there... There a board, acting on behalf of members to employ people to run a club..
The footy dept should run the club??
Perhaps Greg should sit in the coaches. Box and make decisions???!!
Your last word hit the nail right on the head. Hamill.....BigMart wrote:Yes everyone does have the same cap...
What he's saying is rich clubs can afford to take risks, and he had to take a conservative approach...
What I'm interested in, is why the board is making list decisions, why doe we have a list manager and team..... To make recommendations....
What is Greg Westaways experience in footy matters in the last 10 years... That's what you employ and empower people for?!
They overruled incorrectly in 2009 and probably again last year......
At what age exactly does a player lose worth Greg?? When your predicting 4. Years out??
We had two prime examples in 2012
the 2 x 32 year olds in 2012..... One won the B&F and one was all Australian
Dean Cox will be 32 this year, Brent Harvey 35, Dustin Fletcher 38, Barry Hall 34, A
Alastair Lynch 36, Peckett 33, Thompson 34, Adam Goodes 33... Loads of players have played good footy well into their 30's.... What a stupid comment.... Why could we predict he would be worth it at 31.... But not at 32???
If the sticking point was money, fair enough... You can't afford it.... Bit if we decided it on length of contract 3/4 years.... Seriously.... Loyalty runs two ways, players inside an organisation understand this....
He deserved a 4 year commitment IMO as he had given us ten year of service and had never entertained leaving although 3 clubs have had a crack at him
Some players are finished at 27? Depends ion factors... Cooney, Hamill......
Hawks came good in the 90'ssaintspremiers wrote:You've answered your own question.oh when the wrote:Why are we poor, after probably the era of most wins ever
In our 140 yrs.
We are historically useless.
It takes several flags over a few decades to become a power club. Look at the Hawks. They were a basket case for their first 50 odd years in the AFL and only came good in the 90's after several flags.
Perhaps had we delivered the expected 4 flags in the past decade that we should've, we'd now be a power club also.
Well done by Ghostaway for making a rare public speech.
