Player Watch Tom Jok

[nahnah]

Sorry, I don't live in a world where a total cost for 1 year of likely something like $400k is a small investment so I just can't understand your view.

Forgive me if I don’t explain this well as I have tried wording it a few ways but here is where I am coming from with my view. Almost everything is budgeted. For example the food spenditure is budgeted. Whether Jok is there or not they will have a certain budget that will likely include food wastage.. whether he consumes the food or not doesn’t really impact etc
So you can really overthink it and break it down to what amount of cost 1/44 of the list is costing the club but they’re going to spend it or close to anyways as part of their budgeting.. he is a small investment due to being a rookie, basically the cheapest possible player on the list who takes up almost no salary cap room

 

[sr36]

Sorry, I don't live in a world where a total cost for 1 year of likely something like $400k is a small investment so I just can't understand your view.

It is an investment, but it's a compulsory one. The rules force you to make an investment, becasue you have to have 44 on the list. Essendon invested in Jok. The question is whether it is better to continue to invest in Jok rather than switching to some other bloke. They've obviously decided to switch it to another bloke, becasue they feel it will be more likely to pay dividends.

 

[sideswipe]

Sorry, I don't live in a world where a total cost for 1 year of likely something like $400k is a small investment so I just can't understand your view.

Neither do you live in a world where a 1 game rookie would cost a club $400k. Leaving aside vfl match payments, Jok would have earned $85k last year, and only $5k of that would have gone to the TPP. Getting to a $400k “investment” - that is a pretty big leap when just about every cost is already sunk.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[jackcass]

Neither do you live in a world where a 1 game rookie would cost a club $400k. Leaving aside vfl match payments, Jok would have earned $85k last year, and only $5k of that would have gone to the TPP. Getting to a $400k “investment” - that is a pretty big leap when just about every cost is already sunk.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

Not really. Add his match payment, factor in 1/44th of the footy department expenditure and you add another $200K+, factor in uniforms, factor in media payments which are over and above TPP, factor in any medical costs. Not that hard to get to $400k in terms of total cost.

 

[jackcass]

Forgive me if I don’t explain this well as I have tried wording it a few ways but here is where I am coming from with my view. Almost everything is budgeted. For example the food spenditure is budgeted. Whether Jok is there or not they will have a certain budget that will likely include food wastage.. whether he consumes the food or not doesn’t really impact etc
So you can really overthink it and break it down to what amount of cost 1/44 of the list is costing the club but they’re going to spend it or close to anyways as part of their budgeting.. he is a small investment due to being a rookie, basically the cheapest possible player on the list who takes up almost no salary cap room

I'm not disputing that he'd be cheap relative to other players on the list, or that it wouldn't have been spent on someone else. I'm disputing the assertion that it is hardly an investment. Every club invests heavily in every draftee, financially and emotionally.

 

[sideswipe]

Not really. Add his match payment, factor in 1/44th of the footy department expenditure and you add another $200K+, factor in uniforms, factor in media payments which are over and above TPP, factor in any medical costs. Not that hard to get to $400k in terms of total cost.

This is a dumb discussion, but sorry - the above is rubbish. You are conflating some kind of concept of amortizing the sunk costs of a footy club on a player by player basis with the concept of the cost of "investing in an individual player". If Jok never existed and Essendon ran one player short on their list, the likely only cost savings would have been the $85k paid to Jok plus any additional costs that he alone "generated". This wouldn't be physio costs (on staff), it wouldnt be uniforms (AFAIK, whoever supplies uniforms doesn't charge per SKU), not sure Jok would have done much, if at all any, additional services work. So no, not $400k.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Another pathetic semantics argument .

“ Investment” doesn’t have to just mean monetary cost.

 

[jackcass]

This is a dumb discussion, but sorry - the above is rubbish. You are conflating some kind of concept of amortizing the sunk costs of a footy club on a player by player basis with the concept of the cost of "investing in an individual player". If Jok never existed and Essendon ran one player short on their list, the likely only cost savings would have been the $85k paid to Jok plus any additional costs that he alone "generated". This wouldn't be physio costs (on staff), it wouldnt be uniforms (AFAIK, whoever supplies uniforms doesn't charge per SKU), not sure Jok would have done much, if at all any, additional services work. So no, not $400k.

You've come to the discussion late and as I've said, I guestimate that total monetary cost of any new draftee would be approximately $400k or even more. You're more than entitled to whatever view you like to push but Jok does exist and he was on Essendon's list. Neither he nor the costs evaporate to suit your argument. I'll leave it there.