Article does say his management was doing it "without his knowledge"Originally Posted by S.S. Bleeder
Whether that's true or not?
I don't get the TM hatred on here. I can understand there's regret he left though.
Article does say his management was doing it "without his knowledge"
Whether that's true or not?
I don't get the TM hatred on here. I can understand there's regret he left though.
I'm with you..he's gone..he did us a lot of good and absolutely no harm...never bad mouthed us, despite opinions that he did (no evidence ever provided)..Says his management asked for $$$, as is their job...just move on, folks.
Err, it's not. They've apparently set a new precedent as no-one has ever done this before.
“I have never heard of that in all my born days.” Ross Stevenson said.
The AFL has also responded, saying they too have not heard of a winner requesting payment for interviews the day after the ceremony.
Weird, greedy management........
Gil just on SEN saying it's not happening.
My point was it's - allegedly - his management asking for money, not Tom. So whether good or bad, he's not responsible.
Fair point but I think it says a lot about his management and why they chased the money for Tom (and through commission, for themselves) which saw him arrive at Hawthorn......a chase Tom was happy to pursue, rightfully raising obvious questions from Swans fans regarding his 'loyalty' and his 'motivations'. Whatever way you look at this 'money for interviews' situation.....it's not a good look.
Last edited by stevoswan; 21st September 2018 at 01:26 PM.
Yes it's not a good look. And yes implies his agent is very mercenary too.
I agree it shows management greed, and that it's probably not been done before....but I bet it's been tried, just didn't make the press.
Regardless, I'd like my management to attempt to maximise my income...that's why he's there.
Sydney great Gerard Healy says trading Tom Mitchell has come back to bite the Swans: Category: | Herald Sun
There are some interesting / intriguing parts to the article:
Healy says Mitchell is not a slow player
The view held by many experts was the Swans were slow (as evidenced in the 2014 Grand Final loss to Hawthorn) and Mitchell’s inclusion in the top four didn’t make them any quicker.
Healy says there was still plenty of reason to keep him especially after his the 2016 Grand Final performance against the Western Bulldogs.
“I think they misread Tom’s strengths and focused on his downside but his upside was there for everyone to see when he played on the wing in the 2016 Grand Final,” Healy said.
“He didn’t look like a slow player then he looked like a very smart, sharp player. He was close to second best on the ground.”
Tom Harley won't say why Mitchell left the Swans
Tom Harley wouldn’t reveal the details of why Mitchell and the club couldn’t come to terms but with Lance Franklin in his third year at the club salary cap pressures would no doubt have played their part. He did say the club wished him all the best on Brownlow night and for his future.
“Tom is a father-son selection and he has some great mates at the club,” Harley said. “There was absolutely no ill feeling in the move. I can’t comment on why Tom wanted to explore the trade. We couldn’t come to terms on him staying at the Swans.
“It’s a mark of respect we sent George Hewett to him every time. We know he is a good player.”
Whether any of that is especially interesting comes down to personal taste.
But what's intriguing about it? Is there anything new or mysterious in there?
You are taking a highly pedantic line here Liz! If I had added the words "I think" to my post, would you be happier?
I think Healy's observation is interesting, given that Mitchell has usually been discussed as yet another slow, inside midfielder at the Swans. Have you seen that observation made anywhere else?
Harley's comment invites more questions, so I think that makes it intriguing. If the Swans didn't think he was worth what he was asking, why not say that (even if it's embarrassing in hindsight). Or does that mean that it wasn't really about money after all.
Are you uninterested / unintrigued by either of those pieces of information?
its neither particularly interesting nor intriguing.
he is a slowish inside midfielder but his ability to find space coming out of the contest is impressive. he links up well in chains of possessions. but what about heals comments is interesting ? all this was known in 2016. he was a part of our preferred midfield in 2016 whether he started off a wing or rotated got the centre square. so clearly he was best 22 and often one of absolutely preferred onballers.
the contract negotiations involved an offer and a rejection of the offer - did his management make a counter offer - we can assume they did. so we made a decision that he was worth x and wanted to be paid y and we couldn't justify y knowing we wanted to cement heeney and mills as well as our preferred midfielders.
and we got aspects of it wrong in hindsight. but we knew as a club things like this were inevitable once we signed buddy after tippett. having 2 players take up so much of the salary cap meant we had to make decisions on who we'd keep and we've let some go - and i regret mummy leaving more than mitchell tbh -
and do you really find harleys comments intriguing ? have you ever seen a list manager actually say what x and y are ? sure theres speculation but club people simply don't say it. you'd find agatha christie books spellbinding
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks