News Hinkley is staying -3 year contract extension.

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
Gossip Girl on her regular 5AA spot has back tracked.

She admitted she was wrong in her story yesterday when she said there was no performance clause. For those who didn't read it or missed where I posted it back on page 75.

Early on Monday, when the Port board held an unscheduled meeting, Hinkley had already been offered a two-year extension on significantly better money than his previous long-term deal. The best the coach of five years could have hoped for one week earlier was a third year on performance terms. But by the time the Port directors broke up on Monday, chief executive Keith Thomas was given the green light to improve that offer and the instruction to resolve the stand-off whatever it took. Hinkley, having already achieved contrition from his chairman, David Koch, received the extension he requested with no performance clause.


She admitted that every contract has performance clauses. She said there would be bonuses if Port makes finals, grand finals and win a premiership. She said he would earn a lot more if meets those targets. This is exactly what Rooch said yesterday that there were incentives and performance clauses.

Gossip Girl - You were wrong!! - AGAIN.
So she just talks shit like Denham. I knew Rucci was on the money.
 
Was hoping we had another opponent in China this year
Nah the GC have a problem with not having their home ground until late May because of the Comm Gaes and then having to rip the track out and then replanting the turf so a "home game" in Shanghai solves part of that problem.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

I am not enjoying this ride. How can anyone enjoy a zip - 5 result vs the Crows. Can't understand why so many Port supporters accept this garbage.
If you read my post it refers to not dwelling on the past as its done. There was a dramatic shift to playing the young guys after that loss and thats what im talking about when i say playing the kids. If we did nothing after that loss then i think you have a point.
We will not lose the next showdown.
 
A lot will depend on what we draft and trade for this year. There is going to be some players looking for new homes and I hope we really get into this trade week meat market. I think there's going to be some ok players from Perth looking to extend there football life's some would be worth looking at.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

That was in addition to having Butcher and Schulz already on the list at the start.

It's not Ken's fault that we didn't have a decent list profile when he got here. He's been trying to rectify that over five years, and it takes time. It's why we invested heavily into last year's draft - to fast track the development of Powell-Pepper, Drew, Marshall and Atley so that we could still challenge for a flag with Ryder, Boak and Robbie Gray.

That's why we play with a small forward line. It's nothing to do with having an aversion to talls. It has to do with an aversion to talls that don't want to apply any sort of defensive pressure.
Nah have to disagree. It comes down to gameplan preference.
Hawthorn always added an extra tall whenever someone was injured. Some of the talls they tried out would have struggled to get a game in our team over the last couple of years.

Not having a go at Hinkley with the next bit but just responding to some of the claims, when it comes to drafting talls I don't think we have done any different to what we have always done. If anything we have used fewer early draft picks on KPFs in recent years than under Choco but I'd have to check that. IIRC both Lobbe and Trengove were recruited as tall forwards, and there were more.
 
Nah have to disagree. It comes down to gameplan preference.
Hawthorn always added an extra tall whenever someone was injured. Some of the talls they tried out would have struggled to get a game in our team over the last couple of years.

Not having a go at Hinkley with the next bit but just responding to some of the claims, when it comes to drafting talls I don't think we have done any different to what we have always done. If anything we have used fewer early draft picks on KPFs in recent years than under Choco but I'd have to check that. IIRC both Lobbe and Trengove were recruited as tall forwards, and there were more.

Well of course it comes down to game plan preference. Hawthorn could get away with playing an extra tall because their midfield skills were elite.
 
If you read my post it refers to not dwelling on the past as its done. There was a dramatic shift to playing the young guys after that loss and thats what im talking about when i say playing the kids. If we did nothing after that loss then i think you have a point.
We will not lose the next showdown.
As I have stated numerous times we should have been playing the kids earlier. We then wouldnt have been thrashed by the Crows, we would have had enthusiastic kids not worn out senior players with a loser mentality. The future is most defintely the kids. The problem with Ken is everything is done way too late and this has been a problem since 2015.
 
... The problem with Ken is everything is done way too late and this has been a problem since 2015.
Ken is reactive which is why, unless he can change, he will never be a great coach.
 
Well of course it comes down to game plan preference. Hawthorn could get away with playing an extra tall because their midfield skills were elite.

Can you expand on this?

Are you saying that Hawthorn are less likely to turn the ball over because of their kicking skills so they are able to maintain structure regardless of ability, where as we have to pick a short player if a tall is out because our other talls can't defend well enough for when we inevitably turn the ball over?
 
You wont get anything out of mr rainbows and lollipops.

Remember after the Crows loss when he was all depressed for a couple of weeks? It was like that Simpsons episode where Lisa gets rebellious and tells Ms Hoover to shove it.
 
To pressure them into backing off because we know they can't afford it.

Your version is just as likely but there's also a reason why Port would throw a figure at them.

Either way I think we can take it with a grain of salt like just about every other media beat up over the past few days. I know stuff all about any coaches' contract but it's not inconceivable they could have performance incentives like players - make finals, win premierships etc. If they hit all those targets maybe a contract could be worth $900K. And really who has any idea how it compares to what other coaches are being paid?

Wish I was getting that sort of coin. But without the responsibility and stress. ;)

I'm Gossip Girl! :D

LOL I find it funny we would even be mildly surprised that someone called Gossip Girl on 5AA is making up bullshit. The only sad thing is, she has more credibility than Greg Denham. ;)
 
Well of course it comes down to game plan preference. Hawthorn could get away with playing an extra tall because their midfield skills were elite.
Crikey Janus. You have an incredible ability to find excuses. :D
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top