Kurt would not have been even close to who i personally would have sent to the rookie list
Not that its really a huge issue as we will still "theoretically" retain him at the club
Lucky your not the coach then hey.
I reckon the club might just have a little bit more of a clue than you.
What's your reasoning exactly? "Just coz"
Reality is he isn't best 22 yet. The club clearly has set him areas to improve. If he isn't on our primary list at the start of the season, it's not a big deal really is it? If he improves he has the opportunity to be elevated mid season.
I believe this was a great move by the club and I actually trust they know a lot more about the players than you and I.
are people still using this reasoning after our last 10 years, let alone 2 ??????
we've had a coaching panel and board who were past it, and focussing on the wrong things, that we were driven into the ground both on and off the field.
Sheedy was moved on 3 years at a minimum too late, and replaced with a guy who lasted 3 years after getting an extension into yr 2 based on 10 and a half wins (albeit a finals birth for that year), who we had to payout said contract.
We then get a 2 time premiership coach telling us our facilities are the worst in the ******* comp, fast forward to the **** heap the last 2 years has been.
And you serious want to ******* run with, the club has "more of a clue" ?
The club, the people involved with it are not infallable, and again if you haven't learnt esp in the last 2 years that every decision they make isn't always a good one, you shoulnd't be judging others ability on how they do or don't interpret things involved with the club.
Have you considered running for the board? Clearly they need someone with your vision and expertise.
I can’t believe people think Aylett is on the rookie list because he is the furthest from “making it” of the guys who were on the senior list.
It seems clear they stuffed up their list management given they announced our list was finalised prior to the draft and everyone was contracted.
Once they realised that they (still) couldn’t count they had to delist someone who they thought was safe not to be pinched, but who also was the sort of character who would understand and could hack it for the team.
12 months ago no one wanted Aylett, so he was the safest to risk. He also seems a genuinely good character, given he works hard in games and on the track and was absolutely elated when we won the game he played in. Seems like the sort who would take one for the team and not sulk.
So after all consideration he was the best delist/rookie option. In this case that is not the same as the “last player on the list”.
Maybe not so much couldn’t count, but were certainly leaving the decision late, to allow for the Chappy and Winders situation to play out. Perhaps they assumed Winders would stay retired. The Winders to Richmond thing probably sent things off on a different path.
Also possibly different communication from Hird to from Thompson. The whole place seemed in chaos for a while there, so things becoming a little loose at that time doesn’t surprise.
There was a big gap between the trade period and the final list lodgement. By then we knew the senior players on the list. It was being called out here that someone needed to be cut for about a week or so before the final list lodgement. There was definitely a stuff up, but whether it was with counting or the communication who knows.
I can't believe people think Aylett is on the rookie list because he is the furthest from "making it" of the guys who were on the senior list.
It seems clear they stuffed up their list management given they announced our list was finalised prior to the draft and everyone was contracted.
Once they realised that they (still) couldn't count they had to delist someone who they thought was safe not to be pinched, but who also was the sort of character who would understand and could hack it for the team.
12 months ago no one wanted Aylett, so he was the safest to risk. He also seems a genuinely good character, given he works hard in games and on the track and was absolutely elated when we won the game he played in. Seems like the sort who would take one for the team and not sulk.
So after all consideration he was the best delist/rookie option. In this case that is not the same as the "last player on the list".
I can't believe people think Aylett is on the rookie list because he is the furthest from "making it" of the guys who were on the senior list.
It seems clear they stuffed up their list management given they announced our list was finalised prior to the draft and everyone was contracted.
Once they realised that they (still) couldn't count they had to delist someone who they thought was safe not to be pinched, but who also was the sort of character who would understand and could hack it for the team.
12 months ago no one wanted Aylett, so he was the safest to risk. He also seems a genuinely good character, given he works hard in games and on the track and was absolutely elated when we won the game he played in. Seems like the sort who would take one for the team and not sulk.
So after all consideration he was the best delist/rookie option. In this case that is not the same as the "last player on the list".
Nope
Don't rookies get paid around 60k year and senior listed players >150k? Can someone confirm this?
IMO "Taking one for the team" means a lot of things, but unless your Kobe or Beckham, a 90k pay cut isn't one of them.
I can't believe people think Aylett is on the rookie list because he is the furthest from "making it" of the guys who were on the senior list.
It seems clear they stuffed up their list management given they announced our list was finalised prior to the draft and everyone was contracted.
Once they realised that they (still) couldn't count they had to delist someone who they thought was safe not to be pinched, but who also was the sort of character who would understand and could hack it for the team.
12 months ago no one wanted Aylett, so he was the safest to risk. He also seems a genuinely good character, given he works hard in games and on the track and was absolutely elated when we won the game he played in. Seems like the sort who would take one for the team and not sulk.
So after all consideration he was the best delist/rookie option. In this case that is not the same as the "last player on the list".
Nope
Don't rookies get paid around 60k year and senior listed players >150k? Can someone confirm this?
IMO "Taking one for the team" means a lot of things, but unless your Kobe or Beckham, a 90k pay cut isn't one of them.
The club can pay a rookie more than the base wage to cover the difference between their contracted salary and the standard rookie salary. The extra $$$ comes out of the salary cap.
Base Payment 2014 for a first year player is $69k (1st round), $63k (2nd round), $59k (3rd or later) plus $3100 per senior match, plus bonuses if they play a lot of senior games.
1st year rookies get $53k plus bonuses if they get elevated and play senior matches.
As Benny40 says, if he's already got a contract beyond his first signing (which he does), those clauses override the minimums. So really, the major financial difference is only really the available opportunity to play senior games.
So little Zachy Merrett got in excess of $112k this year. Not bad for your first full time job!
Plus super. *****
He was the pick #26. I wonder how much the 26th best 19yr old cricketer got last year? He'd probably still be playing district cricket. No ■■■■■■ wonder cricket can't get any talent!
So little Zachy Merrett got in excess of $112k this year. Not bad for your first full time job!
Plus super. *****
He was the pick #26. I wonder how much the 26th best 19yr old cricketer got last year? He'd probably still be playing district cricket. No ■■■■■■ wonder cricket can't get any talent!
I went to school with & still talk at times to one Darren Berry.
Remember being impressed with what can be made playing cricket at a state level.
You'd think the 26th best young cricketer in the land would have a state contract.
I'm guessing, but likely up on 100k to start by now, I'd think, based on what it was when Bez was at it.
Zerrett was picked #26 in the draft - he was rated the 26th best 18yr old. Not 26th best Australian footballer, hell not even 26th best Victorian footballer. I would suspect a youngster just starting district cricket would earn a lot less than Berry who would have been on a central contract and captained the Bushrangers. And whoever is the 26th highest paid AFL player they will be #1 or #2 at their club, and be earning a lot more than Zerrett!
There’s like 30 odd state contracts including one dayers. If you get a state contract and a T20 gig you’re laughing but OTOH not many 19 year olds are on a state contract.
Base state contracts are at least a living wage now. Didn’t used to be the case, definitely not when Berry started. (Footy was barely full time at that point)