Wait, what? You’d prefer to show Mozzie the door?
I must have read that wrong. Surely.
3 Likes
Why would anyone give someone with an ACL who was going to spend a year rehabbing only 1, it makes no sense.
1 Like
The club has openly been saying they are driving higher standards and making the players more accountable for performance so I don’t see the issue here. If he gets through his rehab well then he will be rewarded.
We have a long history of giving players and coaches contract not inline with performance so making the squad hungry is a good thing.
2 Likes
yeah so they drafted taller people, problem?
1 Like
It’s rehab. We’re not expecting him to play until 2022.
But yeah, drive higher standards.just so he pushes harder to get back in Rd 21 in a season that the majority here think we’re semi-tanking.
What could possibly go wrong?
So you don’t think being professional in your rehab is a valid goal?
You don’t think getting a couple of games of VFL at the tail end of the season is an advantage?
The luxury that the best sides have is that the depth players work a lot harder because the reward is that you may get to play in a premiership. We have to create that type of professionalism and standard so that in 3-5 years we are ready both physically and mentally to take our chance.
The risk of two years is that he backs off because he feels he has a buffer.
Two years would be nice but but I don’t have an issue with one.
1 Like
Of course working hard at rehab is a valid goal, but there is also value in understanding your body and listening to what it’s telling you, rather than feeling pressure to get back.
He did the knee in September. It is unlikely that he achieves the level of fitness and strength in his knee even if he works super hard. And if he eases it off slightly he might be a bit out of shape at the start of pre season.
I think the one year contract is just the wrong tool to try and get him to work on his rehab, when he’s a 20yo kid that we rate and are I treated in as a long term prospect.
I’m not suggesting he has to overwork or do something that may set his rehab back, all I’m saying is he has to stick to his program.
When he debuted he said that he had to do a mini preseason, one in which Heppell trained with him, to give himself the best possible chance of making his debut. The carrot was an opportunity to debut in Darwin for the dreamtime game.
Some players may need that pressure to get the most out of themselves and I’m hopeful that Mo22ie and the club mutually agreed that was the way to go.
2 Likes
I’d have given Mozzie 2.
But 1 year is not a big deal, depending on the communication/expectations. If it simply, do your rehab, present yourself professionally and you get an extension. All good. There’s a lot of information the club bases contracts upon, and it is not just onfield. Onfield is all we have to base an opinion conversely.
Not sure how this thread has so many legs tbh, so this will be my only comment.
Pretty sure there was another efc player to get a 1 year deal following an acl in the last 10-15 years too, can’t remember who.
1 Like
Debuted as a 14 year old??? New record holder.
1 Like
So tall people can’t driver higher standards?
its really odd that people cannot see why he got 1 year. its plain as day to understand
5 Likes
Yeah, nah. There are likely many factors, none are “plain as day” without knowing the nuances of our list management plan. The “plain as day” view makes a lot of assumptions without having been part of the negotiations. The assu.ption that is being pushed around here that if he isn’t 110% on rehab then he’s gone I think is unlikely to be an accurate assumption.
I think it’s more like that there was mutual agreements about the next contract with goals to meet, and then particular positives for that contract being dependent on AFL list management rules that are subject to change.
Who knows. But since none of us were part of the contract discussions, the assumptions that a few have made are just that.
Fixed, 1999 not 1993.
Exactly.
Well said.
He’s far from established. Why would he be treated like he is.
1 Like
for mine, the issue is giving gleeson, clarke 2 years, zaka 4 or 5, hurley 4.
1 Like
When the longer contracts were handed out there wasn’t the current combination of new coach and Covid chaos.
The new coach wants to reshape the list. Therefore shorter contracts provide the maximum opportunities to make decisions on players. When Woosha was the long term coach, there was an existing direction to align long term contracts with.
Covid messing with the salary cap has created major issues. Combine this with the upcoming unknown impacts of the EBA negotiations. We just don’t know for sure what the salary cap will be in 2022 or 2023. We could easily do a Collingwood and lock ourselves into a nightmare salary cap position. By favouring short contracts, we can ensure we aren’t impacted by salary cap changes.
Currently about 2/3 of the list are only contracted for 2021. In previous years, this would be a nightmare situation for list management. In the current environment it’s an advantage.
Of those contracts beyond 2021, the majority are draftees (compulsory 2 year contract), traded in (incentive to come to the club) or contracted before the Covid / coaching upheaval.
The world has changed. It doesn’t make much sense to look at historical contracts. Of the listed players, Stewart,Ridley and McGrath got longer term contracts extensions this year. We are focusing extensions on critical talents, those with the strongest bargaining positions.
7 Likes
1 fringe player, 2 perennially injured over the last 3 years and an over the peak player.
Hurley and Zaka contracts weren’t given out while they were always injured. Hurley was at the end of the suspension so there may have been a bit of extra sympathy added to it, zaka’s was in 2017.
1 Like
Not sympathy. All of the players that seemingly got 1yr too long had other clubs trying to poach them on big $ long term contracts. Hooker - Freo. Hurley - Dogs/Pies IIRC. Zaka - GC. Myers -Saints/Dees
1 Like