Brisbane face another big loss

[||-GOB-||]

Re: Brisbane crowds are falling

Due to Lions sucking and QLD rugby teams doing well, it was easily forseen this drop.

Where did the Reds come in the S14? Dead last? The same place where the Broncos have been for a large part of the season? Yeah...

You must realize, people from Queensland are horribly fickle, for eg. Lions crowd avergae would be higher than the Bronco's if they didn't have the Queensland derby games. If a team plays poorly the people aka the bandwagon jump off. It's in the QLD psyche.

Pfft.

 

[FuManchu]

You think we are staying towards the bottom longer than the normal? We were in the GF in 2004, and are showing improvement this year, so i think you are premature in that call. What is the cycle in your opinion?

3 to 5 years, from falling out of finals action to rising back to finals action.

You dont think the club gambled at the end of 2003 to maintain an ageing and stagnant list ( top 25 players) for the sake of one more go?

 

[Snuka]

Who's complaining FuManchu? I'm very happy to suffer any so called 'consequences' that come from winning 3 flags and winning a heap of games. Don't tell me C'wood wouldn't have the same.

 

[Helix]

3 to 5 years, from falling out of finals action to rising back to finals action.

You dont think the club gambled at the end of 2003 to maintain an ageing and stagnant list ( top 25 players) for the sake of one more go?

Yes, I do, and I am not upset in the slightest. I am still happy with it knowing what we know now, and would be thrilled to serve the 3-5 years you specified. By my calculations, we are in year 3, so might prove to be about right, the signs are there, do you agree?

 

[FuManchu]

Who's complaining FuManchu? I'm very happy to suffer any so called 'consequences' that come from winning 3 flags and winning a heap of games. Don't tell me C'wood wouldn't have the same.

I did say most clubs would

 

[FrangaRoo]

Re: Brisbane crowds are falling

And the AFL want a 2nd team in QLD now??

Lethal Leigh is spot on...it is far from ready.

 

[Snuka]

3 to 5 years, from falling out of finals action to rising back to finals action.

You dont think the club gambled at the end of 2003 to maintain an ageing and stagnant list ( top 25 players) for the sake of one more go?

Did you watch any of 2004, I didn't see a 'stagnent' team, they played some very good football (and I know some from the Lion's board would even argue it was the best team we had). I'm not sure it was a gamble at all. When a football club faces a choice between doing all they can to win a premiership and not doing all they can then surely there is only one choice to be made and there is no argument or regrets to be had. It's what being a football club is all about...As I said, C'wood would be the same.

*edit; and in response to your last post, who's complaining again?

 

[FuManchu]

Yes, I do, and I am not upset in the slightest. I am still happy with it knowing what we know now, and would be thrilled to serve the 3-5 years you specified. By my calculations, we are in year 3, so might prove to be about right, the signs are there, do you agree?

The biggest concern for Brisbane at the momemt is the tenuous state of one or two players and the on going fitness concerns of your best player. What is the depth level to replace one or two major permanant losses?

You have had some good results this year, and that may be due to some good coaching or some latent talent that shines then goes off the boil. But when the club came out with the 5 co captains, it said to me that the club is really relying on those 5 players more than is healthy. What lies beyond those 5?

 

[Grimreepah]

but is has flow on effects to list management, recruitment of existing AFL players, salary cap pressures, non contributions of players still being paid due to various reasons. Budgeting/ players salaries issues do effect the on-field fortunes.

Fair enough, but in terms of any flow on, if you have good list management then this should be beneficial to your budget. Is the journalist saying we have managed our list poorly? It's all very well to point the finger now that we are paying the price, but if the benefits we have previously reaped outweigh the costs now, then it is worth it.

 

[beatnik]

3 to 5 years, from falling out of finals action to rising back to finals action.

You dont think the club gambled at the end of 2003 to maintain an ageing and stagnant list ( top 25 players) for the sake of one more go?

no-one is denying that - it is an established fact

i think the issue is simply that the lions are ahead of schedule in terms of coming out of the cycle you described

for example: if 3-5 years is the norm, then our 4th flag gamble surely adds a year or two - so let's say 5-7 years is the norm for clubs back-ending contracts etc as we did

in our 3rd season out of the finals, we are in 12th spot despite having the youngest and least experienced side in the comp - i'm quietly pleased with the way things are shaping up

peace

 

[FuManchu]

Did you watch any of 2004, I didn't see a 'stagnent' team, they played some very good football (and I know some from the Lion's board would even argue it was the best team we had). I'm not sure it was a gamble at all. When a football club faces a choice between doing all they can to win a premiership and not doing all they can then surely there is only one choice to be made and there is no argument or regrets to be had. It's what being a football club is all about...As I said, C'wood would be the same.

*edit; and in response to your last post, who's complaining again?

It was still a very good team in 2004, but one year older and one year further away from evolving as most lists have to. One year makes a big difference. Especially as the salary cap got a little bit tighter for you, some of the older players found it that little bit harder to get over injuries and you had missed out on some of the top of the draft picks for a few years by then.

I reckon you get 3 years at the top, you had 4 due to a number of circumstances, but some of the deliberate decisions by the club are still playing out now.

 

[Snuka]

It was still a vey good team in 2004, but one year older and one year further away from evolving as most lists have to. One year makes a big difference. Especially as the salary cap got a little bit tighter for you, some of the older players found it that little bit harder to get over injuries and you had missed out on some of the top of the draft picks for a few years by then.

I reckon you get 3 years at the top, you had 4 due to a number of circumstances, but some of the deliberate decisions by the club are still playing out now.

For the unknowledgible among us, can you take us through each of these 'deliberate' decisions? I couldn't believe a smart poster like yourself could believe that backended contracts are restricted to Brisbane.

 

[FuManchu]

Fair enough, but in terms of any flow on, if you have good list management then this should be beneficial to your budget. Is the journalist saying we have managed our list poorly? It's all very well to point the finger now that we are paying the price, but if the benefits we have previously reaped outweigh the costs now, then it is worth it.

No-one is questioning the benefits of what happened 3 years ago, as I said, most clubs would do it in a heartbeat. But there was aprice to pay and I'm still n ot sure there is the depth at the club right now to translate to a big ladder rise for the next 2 or 3 years. A few good drafts and things may change. but even the benefits of a good draft really take 2 at best and most likely 3 years to come to fruition.

 

[Helix]

The biggest concern for Brisbane at the momemt is the tenuous state of one or two players and the on going fitness concerns of your best player. What is the depth level to replace one or two major permanant losses?

You have had some good results this year, and that may be due to some good coaching or some latent talent that shines then goes off the boil. But when the club came out with the 5 co captains, it said to me that the club is really relying on those 5 players more than is healthy. What lies beyond those 5?

I am not a fan of the 5 captain policy either, but for reasons different to your concerns. If anything, it allows those 5 players to share the responsibilty on the day, as lets be honest, Michael Voss and Nathan Buckley type leadership is rare.

I think there is quite a bit after those 5, the likes of Roe, Adcock, Drummond, Rischetelli, Patfull, and Stiller have shown, as well as the new players like Wood, Clarke, and Leuenberger (still very early to be sure). Dont forget the team that beat West Coast had 14 players under 50 games, not a bad effort.

 

[Grimreepah]

But when the club came out with the 5 co captains, it said to me that the club is really relying on those 5 players more than is healthy. What lies beyond those 5?

I reckon some of the deliberate decisions by the club are still playing out now.

FuManchu, your point seems to be that we don't have many experienced players at the moment and that we sacrificed our current stock to keep together our premiership team. Unless there is some hidden depth, this just seems to be stating the obvious.

 

[FuManchu]

For the unknowledgible among us, can you take us through each of these 'deliberate' decisions? I couldn't believe a smart poster like yourself could believe that backended contracts are restricted to Brisbane.

You contracted some players for extensive contract periods knowing that the last years of those contracts would see greatly diminished performances from them. Voss and Scott for starters. Other clubs may very well back end contracts, but I'm not sure too many would do it knowing that the final years they would be paying excessive amounts for a player with real injury problems and as a consequence their outputs would be considerably less. (carlton did it with Kouta, but have him cheaply this year)

 

[Helix]

You contracted some players for extensive contract periods knowing that the last years of those contracts would see greatly diminished performances from them. Voss and Scott for starters. Other clubs may very well back end contracts, but I'm not sure too many would do it knowing that the final years they would be paying excessive amounts for a player with real injury problems and as a consequence their outputs would be considerably less. (carlton did it with Kouta, but have him cheaply this year)

For starters and for finishers. The only other example is Leppa, who suffered an unusual injury. Who else?

 

[FuManchu]

FuManchu, your point seems to be that we don't have many experienced players at the moment and that we sacrificed our current stock to keep together our premiership team. Unless there is some hidden depth, this just seems to be stating the obvious.

Its more than knowing there is a lack of experience, its also knowing you are not going to trade players for better draft picks ( so you can keep the list together) and also being at the top of the ladder and therefore your draft picks are going to be after the cream is taken , and thats for a few more years than is normal. There are flow on effects. Success has a price, prolonged success has a prolonged price

 

[FuManchu]

For starters and for finishers. The only other example is Leppa, who suffered an unusual injury. Who else?

Lappin has had a few lean years, (not this year)

 

[Snuka]

You contracted some players for extensive contract periods knowing that the last years of those contracts would see greatly diminished performances from them. Voss and Scott for starters. Other clubs may very well back end contracts, but I'm not sure too many would do it knowing that the final years they would be paying excessive amounts for a player with real injury problems and as a consequence their outputs would be considerably less. (carlton did it with Kouta, but have him cheaply this year)

Seriously, I don't really know which players were given new contracts or the details of those contracts at the end of 2003...perhaps you could enlighten me?

But seriously, you really don't think other clubs wouldn't do the same for a chance at another flag? Seems a little naive to me mate. One example you mentioned, Scott, was very ready to play this year before injuring himself in the preseason.

 

[Grimreepah]

Its more than knowing there is a lack of experience, its also knowing you are not going to trade players for better draft picks ( so you can keep the list together) and also being at the top of the ladder and therefore your draft picks are going to be after the cream is taken , and thats for a few more years than is normal. There are flow on effects. Success has a price, prolonged success has a prolonged price

How do you think we got Chris Schmidt?

Nah, fair enough, I agree. That was the sacrifice we made. Although you seem to be confusing 'lean years' for players being out injured.

 

[FuManchu]

Seriously, I don't really know which players were given new contracts or the details of those contracts at the end of 2003...perhaps you could enlighten me?

But seriously, you really don't think other clubs wouldn't do the same for a chance at another flag? Seems a little naive to me mate. One example you mentioned, Scott, was very ready to play this year before injuring himself in the preseason.

You're not reading what I'm saying.

I said that most clubs would do it, but there are consequences.

Answer this: After losing in 2004, the club would have known that they were years off another tilt. True???

What were the benefits of hanging on to some of your good players at the end of that years when they had real trade value and could have bought you some real value in some real good drafts? By that, I mean players that werent going to be around for the next rise up the ladder?

 

[Helix]

Lappin has had a few lean years, (not this year)

Are we just naming injured players, or the ones with backended contracts who fail to preform in the final year(s)?

 

[Snuka]

Its more than knowing there is a lack of experience, its also knowing you are not going to trade players for better draft picks ( so you can keep the list together) and also being at the top of the ladder and therefore your draft picks are going to be after the cream is taken , and thats for a few more years than is normal. There are flow on effects. Success has a price, prolonged success has a prolonged price

Your kidding about the trades...seriously, how many trades are done during trade week? I'd say it's very arguable that the price of success has to be high and prolonged. Look at E'don, Adelaide & W'C...great examples of clubs who have been able to field very high quality teams for long periods without the high draft picks. There is no reason that Brisbane can't do the same if those high up do a good job.

Lappin has had a few lean years, (not this year)

Lappin has never had a lean patch, unless your referring to injuries...which was really only last year, usually very sturdy and always elite.

 

[Helix]

You're not reading what I'm saying.

I said that most clubs would do it, but there are consequences.

Answer this: After losing in 2004, the club would have known that they were years off another tilt. True???

What were the benefits of hanging on to some of your good players at the end of that years when they had real trade value and could have bought you some real value in some real good drafts? By that, I mean players that werent going to be around for the next rise up the ladder?

Loyalty might be one reason. These guys who rewarded us deserved to play for the club they wanted to in my opinion. This may not be the case, but I like to think it had some role.