Taking a pay cut for this deal so we can land DUSTY
1 Like
Imagine if the Swans had Franklin, Tippett, SAM REID and Joe!
One or two would have to be out of there quick smart! There’s probably already arguments that they have one too many.
But it still cost the club dearly in terms of player disillusionment if rumours are to be believed.
And it cost Carlton bigtime when they thought they could pay imports way more than their loyal servants like Steve Silvagni.
No argument there.
Just saying calling Raines a mercenary is a little unfair.
In going to from Richmond to Collingwood, sure.
That was chasing the big dollars.
From Collingwood to Essendon, not so much.
I was more taking a ping at those who want to squeeze our players so you can offer imports the world.
These are always the ones who think money is the sole motivator in the world.
4 Likes
When you’re buying, the ‘worth’ is what someone is willing to pay.
Not really, that’s just the price. Worth implies that the price being asked reflects the value the buyer will receive (for example “Getting your money’s worth” implies that cost and worth are separate concerns, otherwise you would by definition be getting your money’s worth every time you bought something). Further, worth can vary by person even if the price stays the same; owning a car is worth more to someone who can drive, but someone who can’t drive would still have to pay the same amount.
The bulldogs pushed the price of Tom Boyd up because he was worth a lot to them. To the giants Boyd was worth significantly less because of their existing tall forward stocks, so they weren’t willing to pay the price set by the bulldogs.
Even if you do define worth to be price, all it means is instead of having overpaid, correctly paid, and underpaid players, you have a bunch of underpaid players and a few correctly paid players. It doesn’t materially change the discussion about how much a specific club should pay a specific player.
Disagree.
‘Worth’ is arbitrary, not absolute. What you are describing is ‘what is worth to you’
A commodity is priced by its demand. If you took currency out of the discussion, than a commodity is worth whatever it is worth to you. When currency is considered, than the value is determined by what others are willing to pay.
Again, disagree.
You cannot read the future, but only estimate what something will be worth (player). That player may never play a game for you. Their ‘worth’ though, was what you paid at time of ‘purchase’. Hindsight may determine that you paid too much or little, weighed up against other players of similarly considered value. [quote=“SplitRound, post:4584, topic:446”]
Further, worth can vary by person even if the price stays the same; owning a car is worth more to someone who can drive, but someone who can’t drive would still have to pay the same amount.
[/quote]
Disassembling, in my opinion.
That is a different kind of ‘worth’. We are talking about players. Teams all need players. Yes, a specific midfielder may be ‘worth’ more than a KPP to a specific team at a certain point in it’s development. But that midfielder is still valued (at time of ‘purchase’) by the market. [quote=“SplitRound, post:4584, topic:446”]
The bulldogs pushed the price of Tom Boyd up because he was worth a lot to them. To the giants Boyd was worth significantly less because of their existing tall forward stocks, so they weren’t willing to pay the price set by the bulldogs.
[/quote]
See above.[quote=“SplitRound, post:4584, topic:446”]
Even if you do define worth to be price, all it means is instead of having overpaid, correctly paid, and underpaid players, you have a bunch of underpaid players and a few correctly paid players. It doesn’t materially change the discussion about how much a specific club should pay a specific player.
[/quote]
I’m not defining anything - the language does.
There are many ways to look at ‘worth’ and ‘value’ - not just relatively, but also comparatively, in hindsight, complimentarily, and of course, when dealing with people - what the player wants themselves makes a difference to the ‘worth’.
All said - this isn’t, in my opinion, a point that was really worth arguing.
Disassembling, in my opinion.
That is a different kind of ‘worth’. We are talking about players. Teams all need players. Yes, a specific midfielder may be ‘worth’ more than a KPP to a specific team at a certain point in it’s development. But that midfielder is still valued (at time of ‘purchase’) by the market. [quote=“SplitRound, post:4584, topic:446”]
The bulldogs pushed the price of Tom Boyd up because he was worth a lot to them. To the giants Boyd was worth significantly less because of their existing tall forward stocks, so they weren’t willing to pay the price set by the bulldogs.
[/quote]
See above.[quote=“SplitRound, post:4584, topic:446”]
Even if you do define worth to be price, all it means is instead of having overpaid, correctly paid, and underpaid players, you have a bunch of underpaid players and a few correctly paid players. It doesn’t materially change the discussion about how much a specific club should pay a specific player.
[/quote]
I’m not defining anything - the language does.
There are many ways to look at ‘worth’ and ‘value’ - not just relatively, but also comparatively, in hindsight, complimentarily, and of course, when dealing with people - what the player wants themselves makes a difference to the ‘worth’.
All said - this isn’t, in my opinion, a point that was really worth arguing.
[/quote]
There you go again.
You and your ■■■■■■ opinions!
1 Like
Scott Lucas said last night on SEN.
If you want a gun player from another club, you need to pay an inflated price.
Daniher would alway get paid less at Essendon, than the offers he’ll currently be receiving from rival clubs.
3 Likes
They’re not going to leave for $100K a season more, as is often said, half that money is lost after tax is deducted. In the case of Dustin Martin, If Richmond offer $1 Million a season on a 5-6 year deal, you’d probably have to up that to the $1.5-1.6 Million a season mark, regardless of whether that has actually happened or not. Either that or add extra years to the contract. It’s a fact of life.
Joe’s going to kick double figures this week and it’s going to be great!
Plus Super ■■■■■
2 Likes
That’s because the other clubs are paying a premium for ‘cost of development’. They didn’t have to develop and spend hundreds of thousands of dollars over x amount of years to get that player where he is when they got him.
Just curious.
What makes one super?
2 Likes
Just being one makes it super
Why do our mids take an eternity to get it to this guy? Does my head in
Phil Davis is scragging arsehol.
IME, … It’s packaging. 
Not getting to as many forward marking contests in the forward 50 - Seems to have played as a higher forward and spent more time in the ruck.