Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 37 to 46 of 46

Thread: Masters of List Management

  1. #37
    I was just looking at Joel Tippetts details. He has been on the rookie list for the last 7 years (3 clubs) wonder if that is record. I realise he got promoted to seniors list on 2 occasions.

  2. #38
    Can you feel it? Site Admin ugg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Chucked into the ruck
    Posts
    15,929
    There was a break in between Gold Coast and North Melbourne where he was playing in the SANFL.

  3. #39
    a fair few KPP backs have had similar pathways
    "be tough, only when it gets tough"


  4. #40
    when you type in "how to get invited to the afl draft combine" in google i can only find that players are invited by clubs in general ??

    is that true ?
    "be tough, only when it gets tough"


  5. #41
    Veterans List aardvark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Down South
    Posts
    5,676
    Quote Originally Posted by Auntie.Gerald View Post
    when you type in "how to get invited to the afl draft combine" in google i can only find that players are invited by clubs in general ??

    is that true ?
    This sorta helps AG....
    UPDATED: 2013 National Draft Combine Invites Announced + Important Draft Dates – SuperCoach Paige

  6. #42
    I have a feeling Ted may keep going for a while. Hopefully long enough for a smooth transition.

  7. #43
    Cheers Aardvark !
    "be tough, only when it gets tough"


  8. #44
    Salt future's rising SimonH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Gala Mill
    Posts
    1,647
    This is a solid article, without the hysteria, about the likely replacement for COLA. And it touches on Swans' list management generally.

    One thing it mentions is that if Goodes plays on in 2015, we can't afford to pay him his current salary. That's no surprise. The fact is that the departure of ROK (and LRT) at the end of this year, plus Goodes' retirement (whether at the end of 2014 or 2015) will be valuable in freeing up precious cap space. We will need all we can get. The list of other players likely to retire before the 2016 season isn't long, and they're not at the 'stratospheric pay' level anyway. (Apart from those 3, the next 2 oldest players on our list are Rhyce Shaw and Ted Richards.)

    While I still believe that the Franklin decision is likely to be regarded by Swans fans in 2019-2022 as 'selling off the future to pay for the present', it's occurred to me that what the Swans have done is put the house on the continuing financial success, and resultant expansion, of the AFL as a competition.

    The theory is that as the comp continues to grow and revenues increase, player payments (and so salary caps) will continue to increase at above CPI. So what now looks like an outrageous deal of agreeing to pay someone over $1 million to play for a year (given the proportion that represents of a team's salary cap), will be standard practice for a team's #1 player by the time 2020 rolls around?because it'll be a lower proportion of a significantly increased cap. (Where the theory falls down, is when you consider the likelihood that Franklin will still be our #1 player then.)

    The AFL's financial health is closely linked to TV rights?and the idea of large broadcasting corporations paying large fees for the rights to broadcast sport through TV sets, is under pressure from new technologies and likely to become more so over the next decade. It's too simplistic to say, 'As the TV rights become less valuable and the online rights more valuable, one will cancel the other out so the AFL will keep doing at least as well as before'. As Fairfax has found regarding the collapse of its 'rivers of gold' classified ad business, the expectations of the online market are different and so you typically will earn less than a dollar online for every dollar of 'old technology' revenue that you've lost. So the underlying theory isn't bulletproof. But the AFL's juggernaut-like expansion in revenues over the last 15 years (not slowed in any very significant way by the GFC) tells us that it's probably a fair bet to believe that more expansion is on the way. For the sake of the Swans' list, let's hope so.

  9. #45
    Travelling Swannie!! mcs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Canberra
    Posts
    7,800
    Quote Originally Posted by SimonH View Post
    This is a solid article, without the hysteria, about the likely replacement for COLA. And it touches on Swans' list management generally.

    One thing it mentions is that if Goodes plays on in 2015, we can't afford to pay him his current salary. That's no surprise. The fact is that the departure of ROK (and LRT) at the end of this year, plus Goodes' retirement (whether at the end of 2014 or 2015) will be valuable in freeing up precious cap space. We will need all we can get. The list of other players likely to retire before the 2016 season isn't long, and they're not at the 'stratospheric pay' level anyway. (Apart from those 3, the next 2 oldest players on our list are Rhyce Shaw and Ted Richards.)

    While I still believe that the Franklin decision is likely to be regarded by Swans fans in 2019-2022 as 'selling off the future to pay for the present', it's occurred to me that what the Swans have done is put the house on the continuing financial success, and resultant expansion, of the AFL as a competition.

    The theory is that as the comp continues to grow and revenues increase, player payments (and so salary caps) will continue to increase at above CPI. So what now looks like an outrageous deal of agreeing to pay someone over $1 million to play for a year (given the proportion that represents of a team's salary cap), will be standard practice for a team's #1 player by the time 2020 rolls around?because it'll be a lower proportion of a significantly increased cap. (Where the theory falls down, is when you consider the likelihood that Franklin will still be our #1 player then.)

    The AFL's financial health is closely linked to TV rights?and the idea of large broadcasting corporations paying large fees for the rights to broadcast sport through TV sets, is under pressure from new technologies and likely to become more so over the next decade. It's too simplistic to say, 'As the TV rights become less valuable and the online rights more valuable, one will cancel the other out so the AFL will keep doing at least as well as before'. As Fairfax has found regarding the collapse of its 'rivers of gold' classified ad business, the expectations of the online market are different and so you typically will earn less than a dollar online for every dollar of 'old technology' revenue that you've lost. So the underlying theory isn't bulletproof. But the AFL's juggernaut-like expansion in revenues over the last 15 years (not slowed in any very significant way by the GFC) tells us that it's probably a fair bet to believe that more expansion is on the way. For the sake of the Swans' list, let's hope so.
    Some good points there SimonH. My guess as to how the AFL might counter this is that they will very closely look at an option to not sell tv rights themselves, but basically become a quasi-broadcaster, especially online. They've already moved to a proper inhouse media setup for their website. More control over the content leads to greater ability to leach money out of everyone.

    We have clearly taken a gamble on the salary cap continuing to increase and that leading to Buddy's salary becoming more reasonable. To me its a decent gamble - if things fall right we might win another couple, maybe even 3 flags with Buddy in the team. For a team that has won 2 flags in the last 81 years, that seems a reasonable risk to take. I think that the club is also thinking about how a good few years now could make a huge difference to our ongoing viability during the 'less successful' times - its easy to get people to jump on the bandwagon, harder to keep them on it when its broken down at a mid-station!
    "You get the feeling that like Monty Python's Black Knight, the Swans would regard amputation as merely a flesh wound."

  10. #46
    Veterans List
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    5,676
    I can't remember where I heard the figure that the Swans will have paid off the full value of the Buddy contract by the end of 2015 - and in shorter time if we win a Premiership this year or next. It's a figure I've quoted widely. So the $$$ isn't relevant except insofar as it impacts on what we can pay our players. If we win the 2014 GF there will be a lot of pressure on our salary cap and we may lose a few. But the competition is so even that I don't think we could have won a Premiership with "only" Kurt, Goodes and Sam up front without Buddy - or Goodes, Sam and Jesse if Tippett hadn't been bought, too.

    So we've given ourselves a chance to win that we would not otherwise have had - how many other teams would have done the same? I'd say all of them.

    So it will only seem like a poor deal if we don't win a Premiership soon. But we have had H&A wins that we may not otherwise have had so you can say that the gamble has already paid off.

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO