Strijk contract problems

Remove this Banner Ad

Geoffe_Miles said:
O.K. D4E, i am not shy of offering an opinion and backing up what i say.

Firstly, there are 4 easy ones - it's well documented that McKinley and Spangher want out and intend to go back to Victoria for more opportunity elsewhere, so there is two traded players. And it's clear that Hansen and Nicoski have had the black texta put through their name by the club hierarchy already. They won't get another game, so there is 2 delistees.

Now for the radical part. This will get the nuffs nuffs on here who hate me and follow me around the boards posting snarky comments fired up. I would be looking over the course of the next 2 seasons to move on every player at the club over 24 with the exception of the 3 all Australians - Cox, Kerr and Glass. I think things are that grim and every player we have over 24, bar those 3, are not good enough.

So on my list of other delistees/tradees is - Brett Jones, Embley, Rosa, Adam Selwood, Lynch (this is tied in to the fate of Sullivan, we need to keep one of them as a spare ruckman), Wilkes, Sullivan, Dalziell. Notte, Houlihan, McGinnity and Ebert would survive for the time being but would by told that they need to step up soon.

I would go and find as many 21-26 year olds in the secondary comps in the country who have good disposal and an aggressive and competeitive mind set to import in to fill the gaps, a bit like Hams and strijk.

Things are grim and we can't keep kidding ourselves and talk about a rebuild but not actually do it. Those experienced bloks on that list are just not good enough. Most of them are over 100 games and they just aren't contributing. Even in the games or parts of games where we have been competitive it has not been these so-called team leaders lighting the fuse and getting us going in these good patches. It's blokes like Strijk, Stevens, Shuey who have ignited us.

I would rather player a 21-25 year old rookie who may or may not become a quality player for us than persist with blokes who have been given one long extended opportunity after anothe to come good for 5-8 years and have never made it, ala Selwood and Rosa.

Thats what i would do. But i am sure we won't. I don't expect any of those players to go bar Hansen, Nicoksi, Spangher and McKinley. The changes will be minimal except for an import from another club that they will buy to take pressure off them from teh accusation they haven't done anything to generater imporvement and change.
Click to expand...
When did Nicoski have a line put through his name? You may well disagree, but the club consistently play him when he is fit.

As for the rest of the names you listed, most of those blokes have contracts, so good luck with that.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

mightyeagles123 said:
lol come on, we gotta be ruthless here..

Matthew Priddis (useless + slow) best 22
Ben McKinley (forward who cant kick a goal anymore) needs to be played naturally, he is not cyril rioli. keep him!
Beau Wilkes (last line of depth at best!) cant get rid of everyone! ok backup at best. wont ever be best 22

We wont be in premiership contention with Priddus extracting to give to the opposition or to put a player directly into trouble.
I cant see a place for McKinley going forward (Unless he ups his game many fold in all areas)
Wilkes... I mean come on, I cant see him being a depth player in a team in premiership contention.
Click to expand...

I have no problem with Priddis being in the 22, but only if he isn't our primary and most relied upon midfielder. I want Priddis starting on the bench and playing a lesser role, like in 2006/07.
Priddis has some qualities that are definitely useful, but our club won't move beyond mediocrity if he's steering our midfield in the coming years.

I also believe that one of Spangher or Wilkes needs to be retained for depth. Spangher apparently wants out, so that makes the choice a rather easy one, if he walks. Given the choice though, I'd prefer Spangher to stay on over Wilkes.
I won't be unhappy if Wilkes is retained for depth though, he's big enough to play on the gorilla forwards. That's handy.
 
tesseract said:
I have no problem with Priddis being in the 22, but only if he isn't our primary and most relied upon midfielder.
Click to expand...

Hopefully next year he won't be. I agree though - any side with him as the best midfielder is in big trouble (as we are).

However we would hope that he is comfortably surpassed by Kerr, Shuey, Stevens, Masten etc etc.
 
So it seems like we have to make a heap of space on the list for promoted rookies and new draftees. Its all good and well to say trade McKinley, Spangher etc but that isnt going to make any room because your getting another player/pick in to replace them. Unless you trade them with a pick as a package deal. A few have to be delisted.

Top uncontracted(i think) candidates:
Wilkes
McGinnity
Jones

Top contracted candidates:
Nicoski
Hansen
 
larrikin said:
When did Nicoski have a line put through his name? You may well disagree, but the club consistently play him when he is fit.

As for the rest of the names you listed, most of those blokes have contracts, so good luck with that.
Click to expand...

I didn't say that it's what the club will do, i said it is what i will do. The contract issue is another sign of bad management at the club and a bit of an obstacle, but no unsurmountable. I would ask players we are keeping to accept alterations to their contracts that drastically back ends them so we can sack these blokes, pay them out under the cap and move on. Some of them might be tradeable aswell. Who knows, maybe somewhere there is a moron working in the footy department of another AFL club who thinks that there is a shred of ability somewhere inside Selwood, Rosa or Lynch to be harnessed and therefore we could trade them to somebody and therefore the money in the cap wouldn't be an issue.

And before you raise the issue, if they day they don't want to go then you sit them down in teh coachs office and tell them firmly that the texta has been put through their names, that we don't think they are good enough and won't play them again and if they want to keep playing AFL footy they need to go to a club who does think they have something to offer.

But rest assured they don't have the balls to chop any of these blokes. It shows what a moron Worsfold is. Nobody is buying his youth excuse now and it is wearing very, very thin with most supporters. But if he chopped those older blokes suddenly his favourite excuse has some legitimacy. And it's not like they are doing anything at the moment that helps us win games that we would be missing out on. It's a winner in the short and long term and would buy him breathing space. But he is so arrogant he thinks he won't need it.
 
Sorry to pull you up GM but you did say Nicko had a line put through his name by the club...

"And it's clear that Hansen and Nicoski have had the black texta put through their name by the club hierarchy already. "

Sorry I dont know how to quote 1 line so I copied and pasted from your post.
 
mightyeagles123 said:
lol come on, we gotta be ruthless here..

Matthew Priddis (useless + slow) best 22
Ben McKinley (forward who cant kick a goal anymore) needs to be played naturally, he is not cyril rioli. keep him!
Beau Wilkes (last line of depth at best!) cant get rid of everyone! ok backup at best. wont ever be best 22

We wont be in premiership contention with Priddus extracting to give to the opposition or to put a player directly into trouble.
I cant see a place for McKinley going forward (Unless he ups his game many fold in all areas)
Wilkes... I mean come on, I cant see him being a depth player in a team in premiership contention.
Click to expand...

priddis, even having missed the last few games has the same amount of contested possession as gary ablett. that cannot be taught, and even harder to be replaced. the guy cops a tag every week at the moment and is having to do more than just extract the ball which is stretching him.

mckinley has not played any different since 2008, when he kicked around 50 goals. there was no huge defensive pressure or hustle from him.
it was THE CLUB that chose to mess with his playing style.
just kick him the ball and let him kick goals.

people also need to understand if a player isnt best 22 you just cant afford to dump them. wilkes would be on a very low salary, there is no reason that he cant come in to fill a few games when we have injuries.
people expect our squad to have 22 players if you're not in that, you're out. doesnt work like that
 
We do understand that a club needs more than 22 players, but the question was posed to Geoff Miles to name 10 players who are less deserving to be on the list than Strijk.

In my opinion I would have Strijk on the list over any one of them and as I have said I rate him above 15 players we have on the list.

If we dont sign him and he leaves, yet we keep the same old tried and tested turn over merchants.... Ill spew up!
 
mightyeagles123 said:
Sorry to pull you up GM but you did say Nicko had a line put through his name by the club...

"And it's clear that Hansen and Nicoski have had the black texta put through their name by the club hierarchy already. "

Sorry I dont know how to quote 1 line so I copied and pasted from your post.
Click to expand...

I reckon he has. The club was very reluctant to give him another contract last year and they ended up just giving him a year deal on minimal money. He shopped himself around because he wanted better and no other clubs were interested in him. And now he has had another year with lots of injuries and no onfield contribution. When you get to the stage where the club is only giving you one year deals on base money you are on thin ice. It's perform or perish. And he hasn't performed. I am pretty certain he will get delisted. Duffield and Langdon reckon he is a certainty to get delisted aswell and what they say is usually based on what they are hearing coming out of the club.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Marlin01 said:
Yeah, it's hard to fathom how Nicoski and Hansen can have another 12 months on their contracts and we're umming and ahhing about a player that has actually produced.
Click to expand...
exactly my thoughts.The question shouldnt be should he get elevated to the senior list, it should be how much do we now pay him?
 
It makes me sick but I have to agree with Larri, before Nicko got injured it seemed that the club had every intention of playing him as much as possible.

I really wish you were right GM, I cant come to terms with how the worst decision maker outside under 10s can keep getting selected at the elite level.

But then again, woosh will probably play Hansen and the rest of the spud brigade in 2011 as he did when given the chance this season. Its not without precedent. :(
 
Geoffe_Miles said:
I reckon he has. The club was very reluctant to give him another contract last year and they ended up just giving him a year deal on minimal money. He shopped himself around because he wanted better and no other clubs were interested in him. And now he has had another year with lots of injuries and no onfield contribution. When you get to the stage where the club is only giving you one year deals on base money you are on thin ice. It's perform or perish. And he hasn't performed. I am pretty certain he will get delisted. Duffield and Langdon reckon he is a certainty to get delisted aswell and what they say is usually based on what they are hearing coming out of the club.
Click to expand...
He got a 2 year contract, and the club actually had to pay him ok as he had other options
 
larrikin said:
He got a 2 year contract, and the club actually had to pay him ok as he had other options
Click to expand...

Really? It's hard to know exactly what happens because the eagles don't report contract lengths etc with players. But my memory of it at the end of last year was that it was initially reported in the media that he had been chopped and told he wasn't getting another contract. So he went sniffing around other clubs but couldn't garner any interest and then very late in the process got offered a one year deal as it turned out we had enough spots on the list in the end. What are you basing the 2 year deal thing on? Where did you see/hear/read that?

If they gave a a second tier player of Nicoski's age with 3 -4 years worth of horrible injuries and poor form in the periods where he could play an unconditional 2 year deal they need to be shot. What are they thinking down there. It should be club policy not to do that. Whoever does list management and contracts has to be moved on. All older players angle for multi year deals. Strong well run clubs don't do it as it usually back fires on you. Thats one of the changes you can see at Freo that signifies that are well run now. They don't back down. Hasleby and Farmer, who are both far more decorated playes than Nicoski, argued for multi year deals and threatenned to leave if they didn't get it and the club stood firm. If thats true then it is another big red flag that shows that a deline in the professionalism of our admin is linked into our on field malaise.
 
mightyeagles123 said:
It makes me sick but I have to agree with Larri, before Nicko got injured it seemed that the club had every intention of playing him as much as possible.

I really wish you were right GM, I cant come to terms with how the worst decision maker outside under 10s can keep getting selected at the elite level.

But then again, woosh will probably play Hansen and the rest of the spud brigade in 2011 as he did when given the chance this season. Its not without precedent. :(
Click to expand...

I think Worsfold is nuts. If he chopped all of the old crabs he might well save himself in the end. If he got rid of all over 24's except the 3 AA players then people might swallow it and accept his youth excuse if we only won 5-6 games next year as we would be clearly and demonstrably younger than everyone else, not just at the young end of the spectrum but still in the same ball park as many other clubs that are playing far better than us. It would also make him look more like a man of action and like he has some ideas about how to move forward.

On the other hand, if he keeps the likes of Embley, Rosa, Nicoski etc the air in the tires of the youth excuse will be well and truly gone by the second half of next year. Carrying on about and exaggerating the youth factor won't save him if he wins less than 8 games. If i was Worsfold i would feel more confidant about saving my job by getting 5 wins after chopping the old spuds as opposed to 8 plus wins by keeping them.
 
Geoffe_Miles said:
Really? It's hard to know exactly what happens because the eagles don't report contract lengths etc with players. But my memory of it at the end of last year was that it was initially reported in the media that he had been chopped and told he wasn't getting another contract. So he went sniffing around other clubs but couldn't garner any interest and then very late in the process got offered a one year deal as it turned out we had enough spots on the list in the end. What are you basing the 2 year deal thing on? Where did you see/hear/read that?

If they gave a a second tier player of Nicoski's age with 3 -4 years worth of horrible injuries and poor form in the periods where he could play an unconditional 2 year deal they need to be shot. What are they thinking down there. It should be club policy not to do that. Whoever does list management and contracts has to be moved on. All older players angle for multi year deals. Strong well run clubs don't do it as it usually back fires on you. Thats one of the changes you can see at Freo that signifies that are well run now. They don't back down. Hasleby and Farmer, who are both far more decorated playes than Nicoski, argued for multi year deals and threatenned to leave if they didn't get it and the club stood firm. If thats true then it is another big red flag that shows that a deline in the professionalism of our admin is linked into our on field malaise.
Click to expand...
The 2 year deal was widely reported (and debated here) at the time. Jimmy's Contracts thread in the "Birds of Prey" sub-board conforms this - citing Channel 9 as a source
 
larrikin said:
The 2 year deal was widely reported (and debated here) at the time. Jimmy's Contracts thread in the "Birds of Prey" sub-board conforms this - citing Channel 9 as a source
Click to expand...

The other murky part of it is are there any caveats in the fine print of the contract, i.e. you only get the option of the second year if you play 12 games or more in year 1 etc, or we only have to pay you out half of your slary for year 2 if you don't play 12 games in year 1 etc. It may not be a straight 2 years.
 
Geoffe Miles, you are quite clearly a s%t-stirrer, and a Freo-supporter in disguise. Presumably as part of your thin disguise you took on the name of an ex-eagle. Next time you might want to spell his name correctly.

It's quite clear you hate the Eagles, and have absolutely nothing positive to say about them in any of your posts. Don't you have anything better to do than to troll the Eagles board trying to stir stuff up? Do you really get satisfaction by continually denigrating the Eagles and trying to stir up their fans?

And if by chance, I've completely missed the mark and you are in fact an Eagles fan, then I believe Worsfold was referring to you a couple of weeks ago, when he told the few rotten apple supporters to f*&k off, and barrack for someone else.
 
silver eagles said:
Geoffe Miles, you are quite clearly a s%t-stirrer, and a Freo-supporter in disguise. Presumably as part of your thin disguise you took on the name of an ex-eagle. Next time you might want to spell his name correctly.

It's quite clear you hate the Eagles, and have absolutely nothing positive to say about them in any of your posts. Don't you have anything better to do than to troll the Eagles board trying to stir stuff up? Do you really get satisfaction by continually denigrating the Eagles and trying to stir up their fans?

And if by chance, I've completely missed the mark and you are in fact an Eagles fan, then I believe Worsfold was referring to you a couple of weeks ago, when he told the few rotten apple supporters to f*&k off, and barrack for someone else.
Click to expand...


I have been a member of the club since 1989, mate. I bet that beats the longevity and strength of your supportership of the club. I bet your not a member at all. In fact, i bet you have never been a member. Thats usually the way with loony tunes posters who think they can prove that they are the clubs biggest supporters by turning up on footy forums and blowing sunshine up the asses of all the players and staff with cheap words and vitriolic attacks on other posters with a more balanced and well considered opinions that are not as positive.

And as a 20 year member let me clue you in on something that a person of obviously limited intelligence such as yourself doesn't get. Being a member of the footy club does mean being a member of the John Worsfold fan club. You might think that you have to be a member of one to be a member of the other or even that they are the same club, because you are such a nuff nuff. Let me assure you they are not. The footy club is the footy club and people like Worsfold and the players are just employees and individual persons within the club. They are not the club itself. They are two seperate entities. You can distinguish between them and support the club but disagree with the actions of individual persons within it. The club will still be there in 20 or 50 years, those peple will be gone.

If you have rage attacks when somebody on a football forum posts an opinion that disagrees with yours maybe you need to, at a minimum, get a life and maybe even seek professional help. The test of supportership is do you support the club with your time, money and energy over a long period of time. Not who can put their tongue the furthest up Worsfold's backside with cheap words on a footy forum. And i bet you you are nowhere near even being in the ballpark of ground floor members like me when it comes to supportership.

Go and get a life, you mentally unbalanced loser.
 
  • Unlike
  • Koby Stevens get ur hand off it ur the one who knocked back a contract cause they werent giving u enough ..SUPERSTAR22 hours ago · LikeUnlike
  • Koby Stevens ring me kaity il come see ya i dont have ur number
    22 hours ago · LikeUnlike
  • Ash Smith hmmm wasnt that some strike kid?22 hours ago · LikeUnlike
  • Koby Stevens orrr yehhh dont say tht too loud styke wil flipp ..hahaha ..u packing the ps3 for geelong nuts22 hours ago · Like
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Strijk contract problems

Similar threads

Keys
List Mgmt. Contract, Trade and Draft Discussions - 2024 Post Season
151 152 153 154 155
Replies
4K
Views
191K
eaglevision
eaglevision
eaglevision
  • Locked
  • Poll
List Mgmt. Contract, Trade and Draft Discussions - 2024 Edition
841 842 843 844 845
Replies
21K
Views
968K
maverick001
maverick001

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top