Autopsy Negatives vs Hawthorn

[dinnaz]

I wouldnt be surprised if Allen has to stay deep because of an injury or something similar. Plenty of stuff behind the scenes we don't know about that would limit Simmo's options especially with 0 players in reserve.

Doesn't sound good.

Yep

 

[plays tall 1]

Checking the AFL injury list for 2023, it appears most clubs have 1-2 hamstring injuries on their list.
We currently have 3 (Gov, Shuey, Ryan). Burgeil and Long are back playing. Shuey is an ankle/hamstring. Ryan was a back/hamstring. Young players in other clubs get hamstrings, there's no rule saying they can't?
Yeo's groin problem is often a long+recurring type injury experienced by most clubs.
Which players were 'allowed' to get fat? Gov actually trimmed down and was in his best shape ever.
NN has usually carried a pork belly through his later seasons, but has apparently trimmed down.
Most clubs have ankle, foot, leg injuries as most common, with a bit of concussion and a sprinkle of hammies.

AFL Official Injury Update & Injury List - AFL.com.au

Latest AFL injury updates and news from all 18 clubs of the Australian Football League.

www.afl.com.au

Even the club now recognises they have a problem with injury management, particularly hamstring injuries. But by all means live in denial, and keep telling yourself the current debacle is simply due to bad luck if it helps you to get by.

 

[Ishmael_]

Were you crying about the list back in 2018? the writing was on the wall back then, hindsight is easy the club was focused on a flag during that time and we got one with a list that overperformed (not that talented) now we have to suck it up and go on the next run.

Could have the list been managed better? sure, but what we are seeing now is the result of choices that were made 5 years ago.

lol. No, I wasn't crying because I'm a grown man.

It's also not my job as a supporter to plan for contingencies.

However, if it was my job and I went all in on a gamble, with zero de-risking, zero hedging - and it flopped, it would not be good for my career.

 

[DanWCE]

lol. No, I wasn't crying because I'm a grown man.

It's also not my job as a supporter to plan for contingencies.

However, if it was my job and I went all in on a gamble, with zero de-risking, zero hedging - and it flopped, it would not be good for my career.

Are grown men not allowed to cry?

 

[ziad]

Are grown men not allowed to cry?

We are free.

 

[Ishmael_]

Are grown men not allowed to cry?

Haha, I'm from a long line of stoic Dad criers, so definitely not.

Crying about your football team being bad is for children.

Absolutely weeping after a premiership, now that's for the big dogs.

 

[eaglesnutcase]

We are free.

That you Willie??

 

[Astro7]

Even the club now recognises they have a problem with injury management, particularly hamstring injuries. But by all means live in denial, and keep telling yourself the current debacle is simply due to bad luck if it helps you to get by.

??? - I'm not denying anything, nor am I telling myself anything? I'm not declaring it's bad luck?
Those are your words, I'm trying to find facts in amongst a lot of hysteria, some of which you've posted, just generalisations. I don' think it's any one thing but a combination of many things adding up over a period of time, one of which is injuries. My original post was having a laugh at the humorous mis-wording of a commentator regarding injuries. But I'm pretty sure a larger percentage of our injuries are collision injuries, as stated by the club.

My stance on all this is that things will probably get worse before they get better, but things may improve in the latter half of the season (lose by much less that is) and we will battle through to the end of season, prune back the players list, hopefully draft wisely and prudently, reset for another season and off we go again, probably still with Simmo at the helm..(but who knows after the next 3 games?)(I'm ok with him gone by years end, providing he's replaced by a better coach?)

I'm fully accepting of where we're at, what lies ahead, and the years involved.
That long term scenario will still play out regardless of which heads we execute or install in the meantime.
To perfectly honest, I think Kranky Al's post/pix sums it all up beautifully..while we're busy pointing the 'finger of blame' in a circle game, time marches on regardless and we'll come out the other side of this bermuda triangle, this sh*tstorm, in better shape...because it simply couldn't get any worse...(could it?)

 

[maverick001]

You don't understand. Few people seem to.

I'll try and find the post that articulated it perfectly.

It's a fine. WITHIN THE CAP. Multiplied exponentially. I'm throwing random numbers here, but lets say we overspent by $100,000, we'd then have to take out $200,000 of the cap. It's a real stinger of a penalty. For context, the total soft cap (that is, payments for the football department not including the players salary)), is $6.95 million this year. $500k of that is ~7%.



Again. So it's plain. WITHIN THE SOFT CAP.

Why is it done like this?
To stop clubs with oodles of $$$ like us from outspending clubs like North who have to live within their means.


So. That's like, four physios.

Again, because that's REALLY what the club needs right now. Less S+C personnel.

Still want to go ahead?

Ok I had no idea.

So say we overspend in one year by $100k. The following year we are only allowed to spend soft cap less $200k? That does suck

 

[maverick001]

This is what I feel is lost in the injury crisis discussion, a lot of the guys on the injury list aren't coming back and if they are, it'll be sporadically or at a much reduced output to their glory years.

Ha yes taking it to the extreme, if we still had Lecras, Kennedy, Priddis

View attachment 1694859

One of my freo mates hit me with this, i am amuse

Yep I'm pretty sure it's Birds of Tokyo

 

[ziad]

This was last week, who is our new bunny. Percentage will be important come GF, no Draft. Remember boys

---

 

[Rowan18]

Ok I had no idea.

So say we overspend in one year by $100k. The following year we are only allowed to spend soft cap less $200k? That does suck

This is not true. You pay the tax on the overspend but the tax doesn't count in your softcap (otherwise you'd end up paying tax on tax going on year after year).

 

[kranky al]

Ha yes taking it to the extreme, if we still had Lecras, Kennedy, Priddis

Yep I'm pretty sure it's Birds of Tokyo

He missed the inflatable walk through doodad

 

[Mop]

Ok I had no idea.

So say we overspend in one year by $100k. The following year we are only allowed to spend soft cap less $200k? That does suck

Yep. I did the maths and we’d be fined in the region of $3.4 million if we were to pay him out in full at a lump sum
He’s rumoured at $800-$900k a year as per fox sports: let’s meet at the middle and say $850k

We can break this season in half, so he’s due $475,000 for this season’s remains and $1.7m for the next two.
First year it’s 200% over $500k.
So.. we’re talking a total penalty of $4.35m

This doesn’t even factor in the paying of a new coach to take the reigns either.

 

[Mop]

This is not true. You pay the tax on the overspend but the tax doesn't count in your softcap (otherwise you'd end up paying tax on tax going on year after year).

I dispute this. Still trying to find my original source though

 

[Mop]

I am still actively trying to get a straight answer from AFL affiliated people

 

[Bob Fossil]

Darling's lack of effort was palpable.

 

[Rowan18]

I am still actively trying to get a straight answer from AFL affiliated people

I think the problem is that Hawthorn is the only club the has ever exceeded the cap (when they paid out $1M to clarko). I saw an article last year saying the Hawks were negotiating the tax with the AFL (as the AFL had never charged it and didn't really know how it would work).

 

[Bender_]

I think the problem is that Hawthorn is the only club the has ever exceeded the cap (when they paid out $1M to clarko). I saw an article last year saying the Hawks were negotiating the tax with the AFL (as the AFL had never charged it and didn't really know how it would work).

Realistically it's probably more of an attempt at a deterrent than anything else. Doubtful the AFL is going to penalise clubs that are suckling from their teat just to have to pay the fine for them to pump funds back into them.

 

[Mop]

I think the problem is that Hawthorn is the only club the has ever exceeded the cap (when they paid out $1M to clarko). I saw an article last year saying the Hawks were negotiating the tax with the AFL (as the AFL had never charged it and didn't really know how it would work).

It wouldn’t be like the AFL to make up rules Willy Nilly, would it? Colour me shocked.

And I should probably concede that even if my interpretation is the correct one, doesn’t mean that’s what they’d actually enforce.

 

[DieSwans]

We've been there for a while now mate. We've now started digging.

Okay, champ, thanks...