How many games will Hannebrey play thus year?

[saint6709]

If it’s only a handful can he be retired at season end or would he need to retire ?

[shanegrambeau]

If it’s only a handful can he be retired at season end or would he need to retire ?

Interesting question.

I don’t think he can ‘be retired’ even if he has more injuries or looks unlikely to get a game if fit but has obviously lost speed, agility or other competitive attributes.

What would compel him to retire? Pride? Goodwill credits for post-career aspirations? Most players don’t thinks it’s ‘time’ anyway.

[skeptic]

I think he can be retired or delisted (just a guess)... as long as they pay him out his full entitlements
Don’t know that they can reasonably get all that into the salary cap in one go though.

Hopefully they can negotiate something and transition him into a coaching role or something so that he doesn’t just sit on the list for 2 more years not playing

[The_Dud]

When a young gun coming into his prime like Petracca gets a $900k per year contract, the $800k per year contract we gave to a past-his-prime injury-riddled Hannerbry is even more embarrassing for the club...

[shanegrambeau]

When a young gun coming into his prime like Petracca gets a $900k per year contract, the $800k per year contract we gave to a past-his-prime injury-riddled Hannerbry is even more embarrassing for the club...

Yes, I agree the embarrassment factor night be something he club feels.

But I doubt he gets all that money TBH.

After the pay cut from Corona, the various adjustments etc., the guy still makes plenty, but not as bad as it 'looks'.

Still, it hurts.

[Impatient Sainter]

For mine Hannebrey can be put down in the long list of players who have USED the St Kilda FC as their superannuation retirement funds. How we thought we were going to resurrect his cripled body when Sydney couldnt defies belief, and highlights the clubs incompetence.

I couldnt agree more with the Dud, when we compare what we are paying Hannebrey for not playing, compared to Petracca is a complete indictment on Lethlean, Gallagher and the club.

They have acheived some positives with the list, but their failures are compiling just as quickly!

[shanegrambeau]

For mine Hannebrey can be put down in the long list of players who have USED the St Kilda FC as their superannuation retirement funds. How we thought we were going to resurrect his cripled body when Sydney couldnt defies belief, and highlights the clubs incompetence.

I couldnt agree more with the Dud, when we compare what we are paying Hannebrey for not playing, compared to Petracca is a complete indictment on Lethlean, Gallagher and the club.

They have acheived some positives with the list, but their failures are compiling just as quickly!

I am not across the salary cap rules, but St Kilda is on the AFL drip and doesn’t have a lot of leeway. We are able to delay the cap and ‘underspend’ for two years.

If we had a lot of clout, we might have been able to say, ‘Hey, enough of that. There isn’t a single player worth this much available and willing to come to us, so we wanna ‘bank’ that cap money until there is.

They’d probably still say, ‘Too bad, u messed up, now spend that money’. The managers all know the bind we are in, so do the players. We basically screwed ourselves and as I always reiterate, we are a ‘receiver club’ and this passive. So, pretty easy to rationalize the risk I suppose.

Embarrassing though.

[The_Dud]

For mine Hannebrey can be put down in the long list of players who have USED the St Kilda FC as their superannuation retirement funds. How we thought we were going to resurrect his cripled body when Sydney couldnt defies belief, and highlights the clubs incompetence.

I couldnt agree more with the Dud, when we compare what we are paying Hannebrey for not playing, compared to Petracca is a complete indictment on Lethlean, Gallagher and the club.

They have acheived some positives with the list, but their failures are compiling just as quickly!

I am not across the salary cap rules, but St Kilda is on the AFL drip and doesn’t have a lot of leeway. We are able to delay the cap and ‘underspend’ for two years.

If we had a lot of clout, we might have been able to say, ‘Hey, enough of that. There isn’t a single player worth this much available and willing to come to us, so we wanna ‘bank’ that cap money until there is.

They’d probably still say, ‘Too bad, u messed up, now spend that money’. The managers all know the bind we are in, so do the players. We basically screwed ourselves and as I always reiterate, we are a ‘receiver club’ and this passive. So, pretty easy to rationalize the risk I suppose.

Embarrassing though.

The salary cap is 100% paid for by the AFL for every club, with every club following the same rules.

The soft cap is where the difference is.

[shanegrambeau]

For mine Hannebrey can be put down in the long list of players who have USED the St Kilda FC as their superannuation retirement funds. How we thought we were going to resurrect his cripled body when Sydney couldnt defies belief, and highlights the clubs incompetence.

I couldnt agree more with the Dud, when we compare what we are paying Hannebrey for not playing, compared to Petracca is a complete indictment on Lethlean, Gallagher and the club.

They have acheived some positives with the list, but their failures are compiling just as quickly!

I am not across the salary cap rules, but St Kilda is on the AFL drip and doesn’t have a lot of leeway. We are able to delay the cap and ‘underspend’ for two years.

If we had a lot of clout, we might have been able to say, ‘Hey, enough of that. There isn’t a single player worth this much available and willing to come to us, so we wanna ‘bank’ that cap money until there is.

They’d probably still say, ‘Too bad, u messed up, now spend that money’. The managers all know the bind we are in, so do the players. We basically screwed ourselves and as I always reiterate, we are a ‘receiver club’ and this passive. So, pretty easy to rationalize the risk I suppose.

Embarrassing though.

The salary cap is 100% paid for by the AFL for every club, with every club following the same rules.

The soft cap is where the difference is.

Yes, but whilst clubs have their kitty to spend, they are not equal in terms of attracting players, nor are the players’ salaries within a particular club or across all the clubs.

So a weak club, that has a hard time attracting players has a dollar as does the strong club with players lining up at its doors but the dollar of the weaker club loses its purchasing power..its devalued from a clubs perspective but paying overs from the manager/player perspective.

Perfect for a former champ cut down by injury and ageing..In a sense, the interstate clubs pre academy had the same thing, so Sydney was a familiar ‘destination club’ for over-the-hill or players playing the ‘back nine’ of their careers.

Seriously, can you suggest what we might have done in late 2018 (or whenever it was) instead of buying Hanners? What were our alternatives given we had to spend that money and that lists are restricted in size. I didn’t follow it closely, but my impression was that we really had few choices...

[Wayne42]

For mine Hannebrey can be put down in the long list of players who have USED the St Kilda FC as their superannuation retirement funds. How we thought we were going to resurrect his cripled body when Sydney couldnt defies belief, and highlights the clubs incompetence.

I couldnt agree more with the Dud, when we compare what we are paying Hannebrey for not playing, compared to Petracca is a complete indictment on Lethlean, Gallagher and the club.

They have acheived some positives with the list, but their failures are compiling just as quickly!

I am not across the salary cap rules, but St Kilda is on the AFL drip and doesn’t have a lot of leeway. We are able to delay the cap and ‘underspend’ for two years.

If we had a lot of clout, we might have been able to say, ‘Hey, enough of that. There isn’t a single player worth this much available and willing to come to us, so we wanna ‘bank’ that cap money until there is.

They’d probably still say, ‘Too bad, u messed up, now spend that money’. The managers all know the bind we are in, so do the players. We basically screwed ourselves and as I always reiterate, we are a ‘receiver club’ and this passive. So, pretty easy to rationalize the risk I suppose.

Embarrassing though.

The salary cap is 100% paid for by the AFL for every club, with every club following the same rules.

The soft cap is where the difference is.

Yes, but whilst clubs have their kitty to spend, they are not equal in terms of attracting players, nor are the players’ salaries within a particular club or across all the clubs.

So a weak club, that has a hard time attracting players has a dollar as does the strong club with players lining up at its doors but the dollar of the weaker club loses its purchasing power..its devalued from a clubs perspective but paying overs from the manager/player perspective.

Perfect for a former champ cut down by injury and ageing..In a sense, the interstate clubs pre academy had the same thing, so Sydney was a familiar ‘destination club’ for over-the-hill or players playing the ‘back nine’ of their careers.

Seriously, can you suggest what we might have done in late 2018 (or whenever it was) instead of buying Hanners? What were our alternatives given we had to spend that money and that lists are restricted in size. I didn’t follow it closely, but my impression was that we really had few choices...

Even so, there is NO excuse for giving Hanners, the Spectator, such a long contract, it should have been shorter, with options to extend if he was regularly fit and playing.

[The_Dud]

For mine Hannebrey can be put down in the long list of players who have USED the St Kilda FC as their superannuation retirement funds. How we thought we were going to resurrect his cripled body when Sydney couldnt defies belief, and highlights the clubs incompetence.

I couldnt agree more with the Dud, when we compare what we are paying Hannebrey for not playing, compared to Petracca is a complete indictment on Lethlean, Gallagher and the club.

They have acheived some positives with the list, but their failures are compiling just as quickly!

I am not across the salary cap rules, but St Kilda is on the AFL drip and doesn’t have a lot of leeway. We are able to delay the cap and ‘underspend’ for two years.

If we had a lot of clout, we might have been able to say, ‘Hey, enough of that. There isn’t a single player worth this much available and willing to come to us, so we wanna ‘bank’ that cap money until there is.

They’d probably still say, ‘Too bad, u messed up, now spend that money’. The managers all know the bind we are in, so do the players. We basically screwed ourselves and as I always reiterate, we are a ‘receiver club’ and this passive. So, pretty easy to rationalize the risk I suppose.

Embarrassing though.

The salary cap is 100% paid for by the AFL for every club, with every club following the same rules.

The soft cap is where the difference is.

Yes, but whilst clubs have their kitty to spend, they are not equal in terms of attracting players, nor are the players’ salaries within a particular club or across all the clubs.

So a weak club, that has a hard time attracting players has a dollar as does the strong club with players lining up at its doors but the dollar of the weaker club loses its purchasing power..its devalued from a clubs perspective but paying overs from the manager/player perspective.

Perfect for a former champ cut down by injury and ageing..In a sense, the interstate clubs pre academy had the same thing, so Sydney was a familiar ‘destination club’ for over-the-hill or players playing the ‘back nine’ of their careers.

Seriously, can you suggest what we might have done in late 2018 (or whenever it was) instead of buying Hanners? What were our alternatives given we had to spend that money and that lists are restricted in size. I didn’t follow it closely, but my impression was that we really had few choices...

I can’t remember who else was around then, but spend it on a young player coming into his prime.

Alternatively they could have restructured some current players contracts (front end them) and then use the extra cash in later years to pick up a young gun, eg Treloar.

But paying way-overs for a broken down player is never the right answer.

[shanegrambeau]

For mine Hannebrey can be put down in the long list of players who have USED the St Kilda FC as their superannuation retirement funds. How we thought we were going to resurrect his cripled body when Sydney couldnt defies belief, and highlights the clubs incompetence.

I couldnt agree more with the Dud, when we compare what we are paying Hannebrey for not playing, compared to Petracca is a complete indictment on Lethlean, Gallagher and the club.

They have acheived some positives with the list, but their failures are compiling just as quickly!

I am not across the salary cap rules, but St Kilda is on the AFL drip and doesn’t have a lot of leeway. We are able to delay the cap and ‘underspend’ for two years.

If we had a lot of clout, we might have been able to say, ‘Hey, enough of that. There isn’t a single player worth this much available and willing to come to us, so we wanna ‘bank’ that cap money until there is.

They’d probably still say, ‘Too bad, u messed up, now spend that money’. The managers all know the bind we are in, so do the players. We basically screwed ourselves and as I always reiterate, we are a ‘receiver club’ and this passive. So, pretty easy to rationalize the risk I suppose.

Embarrassing though.

The salary cap is 100% paid for by the AFL for every club, with every club following the same rules.

The soft cap is where the difference is.

Yes, but whilst clubs have their kitty to spend, they are not equal in terms of attracting players, nor are the players’ salaries within a particular club or across all the clubs.

So a weak club, that has a hard time attracting players has a dollar as does the strong club with players lining up at its doors but the dollar of the weaker club loses its purchasing power..its devalued from a clubs perspective but paying overs from the manager/player perspective.

Perfect for a former champ cut down by injury and ageing..In a sense, the interstate clubs pre academy had the same thing, so Sydney was a familiar ‘destination club’ for over-the-hill or players playing the ‘back nine’ of their careers.

Seriously, can you suggest what we might have done in late 2018 (or whenever it was) instead of buying Hanners? What were our alternatives given we had to spend that money and that lists are restricted in size. I didn’t follow it closely, but my impression was that we really had few choices...

Even so, there is NO excuse for giving Hanners, the Spectator, such a long contract, it should have been shorter, with options to extend if he was regularly fit and playing.

Good point Wayne.

What's with all the years? my only answer was that his manager had us over a barrel. Our power to leverage anything was shot.

[MickThomas]

He had a 4 year deal plus a 5th based on trigger clause yeah? Is this his 3rd or 4th year?

His first yr was 2019, 5 games.
2020, yr 2, 8 games.
2021 is yr 3

(From St K App)

[MC Gusto]

So we are still into him for another season

What a joke

[Ghost Like]

For mine Hannebrey can be put down in the long list of players who have USED the St Kilda FC as their superannuation retirement funds. How we thought we were going to resurrect his cripled body when Sydney couldnt defies belief, and highlights the clubs incompetence.

I couldnt agree more with the Dud, when we compare what we are paying Hannebrey for not playing, compared to Petracca is a complete indictment on Lethlean, Gallagher and the club.

They have acheived some positives with the list, but their failures are compiling just as quickly!

I am not across the salary cap rules, but St Kilda is on the AFL drip and doesn’t have a lot of leeway. We are able to delay the cap and ‘underspend’ for two years.

If we had a lot of clout, we might have been able to say, ‘Hey, enough of that. There isn’t a single player worth this much available and willing to come to us, so we wanna ‘bank’ that cap money until there is.

They’d probably still say, ‘Too bad, u messed up, now spend that money’. The managers all know the bind we are in, so do the players. We basically screwed ourselves and as I always reiterate, we are a ‘receiver club’ and this passive. So, pretty easy to rationalize the risk I suppose.

Embarrassing though.

The salary cap is 100% paid for by the AFL for every club, with every club following the same rules.

The soft cap is where the difference is.

Yes, but whilst clubs have their kitty to spend, they are not equal in terms of attracting players, nor are the players’ salaries within a particular club or across all the clubs.

So a weak club, that has a hard time attracting players has a dollar as does the strong club with players lining up at its doors but the dollar of the weaker club loses its purchasing power..its devalued from a clubs perspective but paying overs from the manager/player perspective.

Perfect for a former champ cut down by injury and ageing..In a sense, the interstate clubs pre academy had the same thing, so Sydney was a familiar ‘destination club’ for over-the-hill or players playing the ‘back nine’ of their careers.

Seriously, can you suggest what we might have done in late 2018 (or whenever it was) instead of buying Hanners? What were our alternatives given we had to spend that money and that lists are restricted in size. I didn’t follow it closely, but my impression was that we really had few choices...

Really? You can't think of any other way / ways of spending that money?

[repta]

Krispy Kreams for Hannebrey this year.

[shanegrambeau]

For mine Hannebrey can be put down in the long list of players who have USED the St Kilda FC as their superannuation retirement funds. How we thought we were going to resurrect his cripled body when Sydney couldnt defies belief, and highlights the clubs incompetence.

I couldnt agree more with the Dud, when we compare what we are paying Hannebrey for not playing, compared to Petracca is a complete indictment on Lethlean, Gallagher and the club.

They have acheived some positives with the list, but their failures are compiling just as quickly!

I am not across the salary cap rules, but St Kilda is on the AFL drip and doesn’t have a lot of leeway. We are able to delay the cap and ‘underspend’ for two years.

If we had a lot of clout, we might have been able to say, ‘Hey, enough of that. There isn’t a single player worth this much available and willing to come to us, so we wanna ‘bank’ that cap money until there is.

They’d probably still say, ‘Too bad, u messed up, now spend that money’. The managers all know the bind we are in, so do the players. We basically screwed ourselves and as I always reiterate, we are a ‘receiver club’ and this passive. So, pretty easy to rationalize the risk I suppose.

Embarrassing though.

The salary cap is 100% paid for by the AFL for every club, with every club following the same rules.

The soft cap is where the difference is.

Yes, but whilst clubs have their kitty to spend, they are not equal in terms of attracting players, nor are the players’ salaries within a particular club or across all the clubs.

So a weak club, that has a hard time attracting players has a dollar as does the strong club with players lining up at its doors but the dollar of the weaker club loses its purchasing power..its devalued from a clubs perspective but paying overs from the manager/player perspective.

Perfect for a former champ cut down by injury and ageing..In a sense, the interstate clubs pre academy had the same thing, so Sydney was a familiar ‘destination club’ for over-the-hill or players playing the ‘back nine’ of their careers.

Seriously, can you suggest what we might have done in late 2018 (or whenever it was) instead of buying Hanners? What were our alternatives given we had to spend that money and that lists are restricted in size. I didn’t follow it closely, but my impression was that we really had few choices...

Really? You can't think of any other way / ways of spending that money?

Not across the rules (so shouldn't comment - 'cept I'm a fan, so I shout 'n spout ) but i assume you absolutely have to buy players with the money. Personally, I could think of better ways to spend it. Say bribing the St Kilda City Council officials and Cricket Australia honchos (all sporting bodies are good for it?) so that we can play Brisbane at the Junction next year in Heritage Round. (might have to bride the AFL official or two to re-introduce heritage round too)

[saynta]

For mine Hannebrey can be put down in the long list of players who have USED the St Kilda FC as their superannuation retirement funds. How we thought we were going to resurrect his cripled body when Sydney couldnt defies belief, and highlights the clubs incompetence.

I couldnt agree more with the Dud, when we compare what we are paying Hannebrey for not playing, compared to Petracca is a complete indictment on Lethlean, Gallagher and the club.

They have acheived some positives with the list, but their failures are compiling just as quickly!

I am not across the salary cap rules, but St Kilda is on the AFL drip and doesn’t have a lot of leeway. We are able to delay the cap and ‘underspend’ for two years.

If we had a lot of clout, we might have been able to say, ‘Hey, enough of that. There isn’t a single player worth this much available and willing to come to us, so we wanna ‘bank’ that cap money until there is.

They’d probably still say, ‘Too bad, u messed up, now spend that money’. The managers all know the bind we are in, so do the players. We basically screwed ourselves and as I always reiterate, we are a ‘receiver club’ and this passive. So, pretty easy to rationalize the risk I suppose.

Embarrassing though.

The salary cap is 100% paid for by the AFL for every club, with every club following the same rules.

The soft cap is where the difference is.

Yes, but whilst clubs have their kitty to spend, they are not equal in terms of attracting players, nor are the players’ salaries within a particular club or across all the clubs.

So a weak club, that has a hard time attracting players has a dollar as does the strong club with players lining up at its doors but the dollar of the weaker club loses its purchasing power..its devalued from a clubs perspective but paying overs from the manager/player perspective.

Perfect for a former champ cut down by injury and ageing..In a sense, the interstate clubs pre academy had the same thing, so Sydney was a familiar ‘destination club’ for over-the-hill or players playing the ‘back nine’ of their careers.

Seriously, can you suggest what we might have done in late 2018 (or whenever it was) instead of buying Hanners? What were our alternatives given we had to spend that money and that lists are restricted in size. I didn’t follow it closely, but my impression was that we really had few choices...

Really? You can't think of any other way / ways of spending that money?

Not across the rules (so shouldn't comment - 'cept I'm a fan, so I shout 'n spout ) but i assume you absolutely have to buy players with the money. Personally, I could think of better ways to spend it. Say bribing the St Kilda City Council officials and Cricket Australia honchos (all sporting bodies are good for it?) so that we can play Brisbane at the Junction next year in Heritage Round. (might have to bride the AFL official or two to re-introduce heritage round too)

Ah, so that's what happened to Dave.

[repta]

I spoke to some of the StKilda people at the time of recruitment and their position was that
- they wanted to create a destination club for high profile Players. We tried and failed with a large number previous to Hannebrey.
- We needed to use our Salary cap. We had a lot of young players which were realistically not going to push the payment requirement up high enough'
- We wanted the expertise in leadership, training and Premierships at a player level.

In hindsight
- Attracting other free agents has been good with Stkilda taking many new players after a long run of failures. (how those free agents have preformed is outside this discussion)
- We took up the requirement on the Salaray cap, however now it is restraining us and ultimately could cost us players as we will not have the availability.
- Hannebrey was removed from the leadership very quickly. I am unsure of his training ability, however as he is perpetually injured or on modified programmes when not injured he will have added nothing.
- Overall Stkilda are performing much better since he arrived. Although I actually don't think it has anything to do with him.

Stupid decision at the time. Continues to be a stupid decision.

I maintain, Hannebreys injuries are to do with age and there is no cure for old.

[whiskers3614]

I spoke to some of the StKilda people at the time of recruitment and their position was that
- they wanted to create a destination club for high profile Players. We tried and failed with a large number previous to Hannebrey.
- We needed to use our Salary cap. We had a lot of young players which were realistically not going to push the payment requirement up high enough'
- We wanted the expertise in leadership, training and Premierships at a player level.

In hindsight
- Attracting other free agents has been good with Stkilda taking many new players after a long run of failures. (how those free agents have preformed is outside this discussion)
- We took up the requirement on the Salaray cap, however now it is restraining us and ultimately could cost us players as we will not have the availability.
- Hannebrey was removed from the leadership very quickly. I am unsure of his training ability, however as he is perpetually injured or on modified programmes when not injured he will have added nothing.
- Overall Stkilda are performing much better since he arrived. Although I actually don't think it has anything to do with him.

Stupid decision at the time. Continues to be a stupid decision.

I maintain, Hannebreys injuries are to do with age and there is no cure for old.

The people who signed him up on that long a contract could not have been unaware of his issues, therefore I suggest fraud and corruption of sorts.That level of mismanagement would not otherwise be possible.
I would start an enquiry into Lethlean's actions and work my way down the chain of command till the culprits were exposed and defrocked!

[Laurie]

Piss him off and let him enjoy a drink just like the good old days.

[The_Dud]

I spoke to some of the StKilda people at the time of recruitment and their position was that
- they wanted to create a destination club for high profile Players. We tried and failed with a large number previous to Hannebrey.
- We needed to use our Salary cap. We had a lot of young players which were realistically not going to push the payment requirement up high enough'
- We wanted the expertise in leadership, training and Premierships at a player level.

In hindsight
- Attracting other free agents has been good with Stkilda taking many new players after a long run of failures. (how those free agents have preformed is outside this discussion)
- We took up the requirement on the Salaray cap, however now it is restraining us and ultimately could cost us players as we will not have the availability.
- Hannebrey was removed from the leadership very quickly. I am unsure of his training ability, however as he is perpetually injured or on modified programmes when not injured he will have added nothing.
- Overall Stkilda are performing much better since he arrived. Although I actually don't think it has anything to do with him.

Stupid decision at the time. Continues to be a stupid decision.

I maintain, Hannebreys injuries are to do with age and there is no cure for old.

The people who signed him up on that long a contract could not have been unaware of his issues, therefore I suggest fraud and corruption of sorts.That level of mismanagement would not otherwise be possible.
I would start an enquiry into Lethlean's actions and work my way down the chain of command till the culprits were exposed and defrocked!

I think a few might owe an apology to Barrett who rightfully called out both the recruitment and leadership decisions at those times.

[mad saint guy]

Here's hoping he does the right thing and agrees to retire with a partial payout. He's milked us for 3 years with zero output; perhaps we give him another 300k to pack it up at the end of this season. No idea if that would be allowed though

[R. Harvey 3 votes!]

He had a 4 year deal plus a 5th based on trigger clause yeah? Is this his 3rd or 4th year?

His first yr was 2019, 5 games.
2020, yr 2, 8 games.
2021 is yr 3

(From St K App)

f***! He needs to just retire!

[Yorkeys]

"Hanne-brey", hee haw hee haw. Stubbornly injured. Will not carry a load. Made an ass out of a few; must be go away negotiations in play given current mid field stocks, need to free up cap, unlikely finals appearance till 2022 and the chronic injuries of the poor fellow. Have more words been printed about a non player in the history of the game. Perhaps Pucovski, but different game.