Tom Hickey 'managed'

Remove this Banner Ad

StCicatriz said:
Come from another club? What are you on about?
Click to expand...

I'm on about the fact being nearly every player who comes from another club gets a set contract with no match payments. Even most of the players we drafted would be paid like that after 2 or 3 contracts. Match payments are for younger players.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
plugger66 said:
I'm on about the fact being nearly every player who comes from another club gets a set contract with no match payments. Even most of the players we drafted would be paid like that after 2 or 3 contracts. Match payments are for younger players.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Might wanna have a gander at the CBA old mate

Another example of you talking shit.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

sonnywalters said:
Longer is a joke.
Cleans up Selwood 100m from the play.
When he has a chance to actually do something and spoil Selwood and prevent a goal he completely misses the ball and the man..
Pretty much sums him up.
Click to expand...
My take on him is that sometimes he plays to his size but most times he plays smaller than he is around the ground. We had the same issue with Hickey for a while there. I think he'll grow out of it
 
StCicatriz said:
Might wanna have a gander at the CBA old mate

Another example of you talking shit.
Click to expand...

What another arrogant response. What has the cba got to do with what I said? Nothing at all. More players than not are on set contracts. Hockey certainly would be one. Anyway I know this conversation will end like they all do with you. When proven wrong you just either don't respond or turn into bitter and take the soft ignore option. Luckily I think you must be young and like most younger people todaycant stomach being incorrect. It's simple hickey would not be getting match payments. Next thing you will be telling me is Fyfe would get match payments if he came to us


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
plugger66 said:
What another arrogant response. What has the cba got to do with what I said? Nothing at all. More players than not are on set contracts. Hockey certainly would be one. Anyway I know this conversation will end like they all do with you. When proven wrong you just either don't respond or turn into bitter and take the soft ignore option. Luckily I think you must be young and like most younger people todaycant stomach being incorrect. It's simple hickey would not be getting match payments. Next thing you will be telling me is Fyfe would get match payments if he came to us


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
It's player by player. There's going to be a % of his contract put into base, bonus and match day payments. Some will have a low base but higher match day payments or bonus. The elite players will have a high base with bonus. To say this is how it is for pretty much everyone on our list is unlikely.

You don't think there's going to be trigger points for a bonus with Hickey? Those trigger points will rely on games played. Similar to match day payments. As per the CBA if he is injured/managed he still gets that game. That is why the wording of the team change is important here. Especially early on when there's a greater chance of pinching some cap

I'm not too sure why you're arguing this other than the fact you like to argue with literally everyone to give you this sense that you're some how superior to everyone else on here. The irony is that it does the opposite to people's perception of you
 
StCicatriz said:
It's player by player. There's going to be a % of his contract put into base, bonus and match day payments. Some will have a low base but higher match day payments or bonus. The elite players will have a high base with bonus. To say this is how it is for pretty much everyone on our list is unlikely.

You don't think there's going to be trigger points for a bonus with Hickey? Those trigger points will rely on games played. Similar to match day payments. As per the CBA if he is injured/managed he still gets that game. That is why the wording of the team change is important here. Especially early on when there's a greater chance of pinching some cap

I'm not too sure why you're arguing this other than the fact you like to argue with literally everyone to give you this sense that you're some how superior to everyone else on here. The irony is that it does the opposite to people's perception of you
Click to expand...


Firstly never said its nearly everyone on the list. All the first and second year players have to be on match payments even Boyd when he went to WB in his first year there. Hickey would be on a set figure with bonus for likely best and fairest placings. Very unlikely he would have any bonus for games played. Lenny Hayes had only bonus for where he finished in the B&F and he told me most of the players are likely to have the same clause as its so much easier to manage the SC. And I'm discussing this because it is very unlikely what you said is right just like you telling me about the CBA proving what I said was bullshit. You obviously couldn't prove that so no idea why you mentioned it apart you wanting to literally argue with anyone so you seem somehow superior. The irony is it does the opposite to peoples perception.

Apparently you think the same about me but unlike you I don't care. I don't change my name and tell everyone I'm leaving the forum. I leave that for certain other butter followers.
 
plugger66 said:
Firstly never said its nearly everyone on the list. All the first and second year players have to be on match payments even Boyd when he went to WB in his first year there. Hickey would be on a set figure with bonus for likely best and fairest placings. Very unlikely he would have any bonus for games played. Lenny Hayes had only bonus for where he finished in the B&F and he told me most of the players are likely to have the same clause as its so much easier to manage the SC. And I'm discussing this because it is very unlikely what you said is right just like you telling me about the CBA proving what I said was bullshit. You obviously couldn't prove that so no idea why you mentioned it apart you wanting to literally argue with anyone so you seem somehow superior. The irony is it does the opposite to peoples perception.

Apparently you think the same about me but unlike you I don't care. I don't change my name and tell everyone I'm leaving the forum. I leave that for certain other butter followers.
Click to expand...
Sorry plugger you're right. I'll make sure to remember that next time

P.s. Lenny Hayes is a bit different to a ruck who has competition for spots. Also care to reiterate the state on bonuses during Lenny's time. Might wanna read Ameets statement on that. It was anything but simple. The B&F plus compounding nature of that scheme meant they couldn't forecast the cap accurately enough. Hence why we were forecast to be significantly over in 2011
 
StCicatriz said:
Sorry plugger you're right. I'll make sure to remember that next time

P.s. Lenny Hayes is a bit different to a ruck who has competition for spots. Also care to reiterate the state on bonuses during Lenny's time. Might wanna read Ameets statement on that. It was anything but simple. The B&F plus compounding nature of that scheme meant they couldn't forecast the cap accurately enough. Hence why we were forecast to be significantly over in 2011
Click to expand...


I agree Lenny is different. He had won one or two B&F at that stage. Give you that but he did explain that more and more players are being put on set payments so they can manage the SC. And when I was talking about Lenny it was before 2011. Well before. Even a guy like Minchington maybe on a set wage. He may take a smaller set wage knowing he may not play 22 games and the club maybe happier to give him that set wage just in case he plays 22 games. I have no doubt Hickey would be on a set wage as he had at least 2 contracts with our club. Could even be 3. Billings as an example would have taken a set wage when we extended his contract in his second year of footy.
 
plugger66 said:
I agree Lenny is different. He had won one or two B&F at that stage. Give you that but he did explain that more and more players are being put on set payments so they can manage the SC. And when I was talking about Lenny it was before 2011. Well before. Even a guy like Minchington maybe on a set wage. He may take a smaller set wage knowing he may not play 22 games and the club maybe happier to give him that set wage just in case he plays 22 games. I have no doubt Hickey would be on a set wage as he had at least 2 contracts with our club. Could even be 3. Billings as an example would have taken a set wage when we extended his contract in his second year of footy.
Click to expand...
I'm not arguing the set wage... theres no way of knowing the break down. My argument is the wording of the ommission which is obviously very deliberate. You only do that when you want to make sure your player isn't impacted financially from missing match day payments or qualifying for trigger points/bonuses as per the ****ing CBA. You get that right.

The club has literally nothing to gain outside of that from changing the wording.
 
StCicatriz said:
I'm not arguing the set wage... theres no way of knowing the break down. My argument is the wording of the ommission which is obviously very deliberate. You only do that when you want to make sure your player isn't impacted financially from missing match day payments or qualifying for trigger points/bonuses as per the ******* CBA. You get that right.

The club has literally nothing to gain outside of that from changing the wording.
Click to expand...


But managed could also mean he misses both the firsts and seconds which he actually did. If he plays this week in the seniors I would actually think managed is the right wording. If he was dropped that means you play in the lower competition. And I get what you are saying. I'm saying he wouldn't get match payments and I'm saying I don't think he would get bonus from games played. Makes it to difficult to manage the SC. We will never know. Only Hickey and about 4 or 5 others will know.
 
When Richo was talking about Paddy being managed, it was about the ability to play at your top level, even though you may be fit enough to play. I guess in Richo gobbledegook, that mean either you're fit, but could be easily injured if you push too hard to your maximum level.
I'm more realising that Richo's game plan is all about manic work-rate moving the ball around above all else, such as skills etc. no wonder half the team has run out of puff by 3/4 time! a dumb way to play I reckon.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Tom Curren would out ruck them all!!!
 
We find ourselves in a pretty big predicament here... the major problem is that Bruce can not ruck and it seems we don't think anyone else on the list can either. So basically, we either have to play Longer and Hickey together in the same team, or bring in Marshall to go with one of them (even if he's not ready), or try one of our other rucks (Pierce or Holmes) either solo or in tandem. Otherwise we are just going to get killed whenever Bruce is in the ruck for us.

I'm really not sure what the best option is but it's a pretty serious situation.
 
At the moment McCartin has been dropped back into the Zebs and this allows him to take charge of a forward line that includes Marshall. They appear to be working well together. Marshall has already proved his potential as a ruckman last year. That got him recruited. Now he is developing as a forward with the key forward he will play with long term (if he makes the grade - and so far that appears likely). I think we will see him trialed as a forward soon for St Kilda and eventually as a ruck forward. We are in a lucky predicament where we currently have 4 ruckmen who have already represented St Kilda, all of which are already better than some of the other club's ruck contingents (see Melbourne). Marshall hasn't proven himself yet but I hope he will get a chance to soon.

I am in the Hickey camp - he has good hands and is a good tap ruckman - he might not get as many hitouts as his opponent, but when he does tap it down it is usually to our advantage. He also offers a lot more around the ground than the other ruckmen we have and he tackles and uses his body well.

Longer is also a good tap ruckman, he appears stronger in the ruck contest and he does win more than Hickey usually does, but he doesn't match Hickey in all the other things around the ground.

Let's not forget Holmes and Pierce who have limited experience but have exhibited some excellent qualities we can use as a club, and we all want to see Marshall in action.
 
Why not just forfeit the ruck contest altogether when Hickey/longer are on the bench? It's obvious that Bruce is completely ineffectual in the ruck and on top of this, it seems as though itcompletely negates his performance as a forward. What's wrong with letting Gilbert contest the minority of stoppages that hickey/longer aren't at and basically roving to the opposition ruck? Geelong did this well
 
About 2-3 ago our ruck stocks looked bright. For unknown reasons Hickey and Longer haven't been able to take a substantial next step, and the two promising prospects in LewisP and JasonH haven't advanced either. Aside from Hickey none have any currency anymore.
If there was/is a Seaford academy, it isn't flash in developing ruck stocks.
 
OK here's how I see it...

Bruce can't ruck.

Longer is stronger at stoppages and shit in contests around the ground.

Hickey is better around the ground but no good at stoppages due to the 3rd man up rule.

Marshall will solve our problems and be inducted into the hall of fame before he debuts.

Hickey was managed to be dropped or dropped to be managed depending on his contract terms.

Have I missed anything?
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Tom Hickey 'managed'

Similar threads

g_TRAIN
List Mgmt. 2024 List management Discussion
29 30 31 32 33
Replies
800
Views
53K
L_W_P
L_W_P
S
Tom Morris reporter, or fantasy author
2
Replies
44
Views
2K
longtimesaint
L
The Jack
Discussion Saints part ways with recruiting manager after restructure
17 18 19 20 21
Replies
511
Views
33K
Tyrian Lonestar
Tyrian Lonestar
George
Saints News Saints appoint list management team
3 4 5 6 7
Replies
165
Views
8K
bergholt
bergholt

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top