Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: Retaining veterans?

  1. #1

    Retaining veterans?

    With the mass retirements this year (both with us and at other clubs) it’s sad to see such a wealth of experience depart. Driven by cap and list pressure & the need to offload a number of players to participate in the draft, it is necessary to offload legends of the club. Our veterans are retiring. Hawthorn have released club greats to other clubs for a final year or two (the players feeling they still have more to offer). Boomer Harvey was shown the door at North despite solid form at the end and being the games record holder

    What i’d love to see it 1-2 veteran retention spots. Positions for long serving players of a club who wish to remain at their club as a player but perhaps at a reduced capacity: eg they know that they might have limited senior appearances (and sign on significantly reduced pay accordingly) & also know that they will play significant reserves time to impart their wisdom & skills to younger players (adding depth to club lists).

    This would be to reward long serving players who still have something to offer. To qualify perhaps 10+ seasons or 200+ games at a club, to ensure that a player can depart on their terms, even if it is in marginal decline, but supporting the next generation of players coming though.

    There is already capacity to rookie list a veteran but having 1-2 spots on a list specifically for retaining a loyal servant of a club help cultivate a club’s culture, history and loyalty.

    Just the ramblings of a supporter lamenting the departure of Reg, Smooch, Macca & maybe Kizza

  2. #2
    Quote Originally Posted by 09183305 View Post
    With the mass retirements this year (both with us and at other clubs) it’s sad to see such a wealth of experience depart. Driven by cap and list pressure & the need to offload a number of players to participate in the draft, it is necessary to offload legends of the club. Our veterans are retiring. Hawthorn have released club greats to other clubs for a final year or two (the players feeling they still have more to offer). Boomer Harvey was shown the door at North despite solid form at the end and being the games record holder

    What i’d love to see it 1-2 veteran retention spots. Positions for long serving players of a club who wish to remain at their club as a player but perhaps at a reduced capacity: eg they know that they might have limited senior appearances (and sign on significantly reduced pay accordingly) & also know that they will play significant reserves time to impart their wisdom & skills to younger players (adding depth to club lists).

    This would be to reward long serving players who still have something to offer. To qualify perhaps 10+ seasons or 200+ games at a club, to ensure that a player can depart on their terms, even if it is in marginal decline, but supporting the next generation of players coming though.

    There is already capacity to rookie list a veteran but having 1-2 spots on a list specifically for retaining a loyal servant of a club help cultivate a club’s culture, history and loyalty.

    Just the ramblings of a supporter lamenting the departure of Reg, Smooch, Macca & maybe Kizza
    Not ramblings. Thoughtful suggestion that would be both valuable and a reward for loyalty. Sort of like player/coach. Describes Kieren Jack's role this year I guess.

  3. #3
    Go Swannies! Site Admin Meg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    In the Brewongle
    Posts
    3,666
    You mean like the old veterans list that allowed Geelong to have 9 players and $1million outside the salary cap?

    The Swans did well out of it as well - one of the several things that at the time gave us the cap space to recruit Buddy.

  4. #4
    I like the idea, but as Meg says, its open to rorting like Geelong did.

    Usually the end comes fast for players at the end of their career, so a normal contract is fine.

  5. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by Meg View Post
    You mean like the old veterans list that allowed Geelong to have 9 players and $1million outside the salary cap?

    The Swans did well out of it as well - one of the several things that at the time gave us the cap space to recruit Buddy.
    Obviously NOT like the Geelong situation since I said 1-2 players on greatly reduced salary, thus averting rorting the system

  6. #6
    Veterans List wolftone57's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Lilyfield
    Posts
    4,616
    Quote Originally Posted by 09183305 View Post
    With the mass retirements this year (both with us and at other clubs) it’s sad to see such a wealth of experience depart. Driven by cap and list pressure & the need to offload a number of players to participate in the draft, it is necessary to offload legends of the club. Our veterans are retiring. Hawthorn have released club greats to other clubs for a final year or two (the players feeling they still have more to offer). Boomer Harvey was shown the door at North despite solid form at the end and being the games record holder

    What i’d love to see it 1-2 veteran retention spots. Positions for long serving players of a club who wish to remain at their club as a player but perhaps at a reduced capacity: eg they know that they might have limited senior appearances (and sign on significantly reduced pay accordingly) & also know that they will play significant reserves time to impart their wisdom & skills to younger players (adding depth to club lists).

    This would be to reward long serving players who still have something to offer. To qualify perhaps 10+ seasons or 200+ games at a club, to ensure that a player can depart on their terms, even if it is in marginal decline, but supporting the next generation of players coming though.

    There is already capacity to rookie list a veteran but having 1-2 spots on a list specifically for retaining a loyal servant of a club help cultivate a club’s culture, history and loyalty.

    Just the ramblings of a supporter lamenting the departure of Reg, Smooch, Macca & maybe Kizza
    Look the veterans have retired for a variety of reasons. Smithy, Macca and Reg due to injury issues. Kizza due to him not being able to play out games. It's time. Macca is being retained on the coaching staff.

    There comes a time in every player's career when it is time and it was time for all of these guys for the reasons stated. Nobody plays forever and next year it might be Joey and Buddy.

    They have been wonderful players but the time has come. Some players can't see they are finished. But these guys are not that sort of player. They are selfless. So they know when it is time to go.

    Sent from my ANE-LX2J using Tapatalk

  7. #7
    Go Swannies! Site Admin Meg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    In the Brewongle
    Posts
    3,666
    Quote Originally Posted by barry View Post
    I like the idea, but as Meg says, its open to rorting like Geelong did.

    Usually the end comes fast for players at the end of their career, so a normal contract is fine.
    I don’t think Geelong were ‘rorting’. They were legitimately able to use the veterans list the way they did under the then existing rule. As I said, Swans were very much assisted by the rule as well.

    My (obscure) point was that such a rule leads to unequal salary caps dependent on circumstance (that is, whether a club has eligible players) and not on merit.

    As well, under the old rule the club had to fund the list, unlike the salary cap which was funded by the AFL. I recall at least one club had players who could have been listed as veterans but were not as the club couldn’t afford to pay them themselves.

    I can’t see the AFL returning to anything that once again distorts the salary cap. Their objection to a retention allowance for GCS (which I believe has a lot of merit) reflects this.

    I do agree though that retaining some veteran retirees within the club either in a coaching or mentoring role is really worthwhile. And the Swans seem to be doing that.

  8. #8
    Revisor of revisionisms Ruck'n'Roll's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Hornsby - The Bushland Shire
    Posts
    2,221
    I think a limited veterans list as suggested by 09183305 is a nice idea.

    I often wonder about players retirements. Presumably they love the game, so why is it that so few these days (injuries notwithstanding) seem to continue playing in a lower grade?

    I think it'd be great if we saw more ex AFL players being utilised in the the NEAFL or the local Sydney league - if the AFL were serious about developing the game perhaps they could provide a little financial assistance to see this happen.
    I certainly remember being thrilled to bits playing against North Shore which had at least 5 or 6 ex Swans. I mean, I got creamed obviously, but it was a great experience.
    "Buddy Goggles" are a bit like "Beer Goggles"
    They distort peoples view of reality, cause people to say silly things and are often followed by a nasty hangover.

  9. #9
    Veterans List
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    9,316
    I am in Thailand at the moment and caught up with Ludwig for a few days. We got on to the subject of JK and how he has slowed down this year and the fact he appears to be tagged each week, and doesn't get in the clear very often. He is constantly held and tackled as soon as he gets his hands on the footy, and I wondered if there is a stat that shows how many times a player gets tackled, as against how many tackles a player applies per game, as this must eventually impact on their longevity. Even though Parker is younger I can't help think that this is starting to be a factor.

    My thinking is you can't have too many players running through the midfield to offset this. I am sure JK has spent a very high % of time on the ball in his career.

  10. #10
    Travelling Swannie!! mcs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Canberra
    Posts
    5,237
    Quote Originally Posted by Nico View Post
    I am in Thailand at the moment and caught up with Ludwig for a few days. We got on to the subject of JK and how he has slowed down this year and the fact he appears to be tagged each week, and doesn't get in the clear very often. He is constantly held and tackled as soon as he gets his hands on the footy, and I wondered if there is a stat that shows how many times a player gets tackled, as against how many tackles a player applies per game, as this must eventually impact on their longevity. Even though Parker is younger I can't help think that this is starting to be a factor.

    My thinking is you can't have too many players running through the midfield to offset this. I am sure JK has spent a very high % of time on the ball in his career.
    Nico and Ludwig together - an entertaining duo

    The future role for JK is an interesting one - I really feel he has slowed down a lot this season (or the game is going past him speed wise) and he seems to have lost that ability the best players have to 'find an extra second or two'. Perhaps however, his effectiveness will improve again if we can sort out some of the other issues in the midfield, so there isn't so much pressure on him.

    While I feel Parker can be like Jude Bolton and have a change in his role going forward to extend his longevity, I'm not so sure about JK in his final years.
    "You get the feeling that like Monty Python's Black Knight, the Swans would regard amputation as merely a flesh wound."

  11. #11
    JK is a decent mark and kick for goal. Combined with his ball winning ability, strong tackling, leadership etc I have no doubt we will have a role for him for at least the duration of his contract. The end is coming closer but we're not there yet.

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