Of course everybody is influenced by the cash, who isn’t.
But when it comes down to it, a well paid ten year best 22 player with no accolades will move off into another industry and probably be quite happy. The same way it has been for a long time. The same way it is for almost every other job (albeit different hours, and pay scale).
The difference is there are a select few that want more, they want the glory and fame. And to do that, to get paid the monster dollars you need more. The key to building a premiership team is having a large group of the 22 like that. Those desperate for more than an easy life after footy.
The game, players and motivations haven’t changed, just the number of 00s.
Nothing much has changed. Players always went after the money.
Remembering Barry Davis
Just as upset as any about BD but many people unaware that he played as an amateur for his first few years. Don’t know why but was told by Russell Blew that was a fact. John Rantall said on Coodabeens that he went from 30 quid a game to 20,000 pa at North.
Davis was still at High School in his first season and you could not play school sport and be a pro, so he didn’t get paid, and played school footy during the week. It was the same for many players early on. Not many kids at high school now playing though.
I found most of the footy players, the good ones, at my school didn't give a stuff about supporting teams and just wanted to play footy. It was the obsessive nerds such as myself that knew tim watsons mothers maiden name and wou have killed to don the sash. Just don't think barracked for as a kid is that prevalent anymore and it will be even less in years to come when jocks who don't know the pointy end of a pencil realize a footy career no matter what team he's drafted by is a means of getting themselves financially secure
your school did not have any good players.
Still touched up your mob. That doesn’t sound right does it
If I can leave my job for better pay or promotion, I don’t see why a footballer can’t. Someone said it elsewhere in these forums - supporters are more invested in clubs than players are. Supporters follow a club all their life. Do people still work for the same employer their whole life? It’s why I can’t bring myself to hate on Carlisle or Melksham for leaving. Sure I’m disappointed, but as long as we get just returns and they leave with an ounce of class (unlike Judas Ryder who left in the dirtiest manner possible) then I can’t be angry at them.
Presuming we get a fair deal, I’m ok with players leaving. It’s when we get screwed that I get angry, people say it’s like leaving any other job but I don’t really agree with that. The investment made in a player to get them to 100+ games is significant, you would hope any player who had had that investment made in them would feel enough loyalty to ensure the club they were leaving got fairly compensated for that. Crameri and Ryder both were happy to see us get screwed to get what they wanted. I hope the Jake’s are different.
Any player would realise that they have two to three years to prove themselves before either being delisted or go elsewhere. So in order for a player to succeed, they need to be played in their most suited position where their talents can be on show and the player is continually being developed.
This is where we’ve truly marked up big time since 2000.
Kepler Bradley was never a defender, but he was forced to be one.
Ted Richards was an adequate forward who wasn’t given much of an opportunity but a better defender elsewhere.
Joel Reynolds was a forward but was continually played down back.
Jobe Watson was a midfielder (and a very tall one at that), but was continually played in the forward line early in his career.
Bachar Houli was played as a forward for memory for us in the few games he played, but he left and became an instant best 22 hackman at Richmond.
Paddy Ryder was a ruck, but spent a lot of time in the backline, before shifting forward, then succeeding in the ruck.
David Myers was played off the backline yet he excelled when he was finally given a shot in the midfield.
Hurley was a defender his whole junior career and we pushed him into playing forward.
Colyer was stuck as our forward goal sneak in the few games he got. Finally, he was given midfield time and he excelled.
Hardingham was a forward. Yet was trialled far too often as a defender and he eventually failed.
Carlisle preferred defender and obviously hated playing forward.
Ambrose is a link up forward, yet we’ve forced him into the ruck.
Steinberg was drafted as a forward yet he’s been a defender all his career.
Even our B&F winner is a defender that is definitely a better hackman than a forward.
For whatever reason, our last fifteen years of developing players has meant we have midfielders who take a lot longer than the average midfielder across the league to become established midfielders, our defenders and forwards seem to be moved all over the place.
For a team that has had such little finals success in the last decade, it amazes me how often we try and make players into something they are not.
If a club plays a player in their best position where they get the most out of themselves and it also serves the club at the same time, then the player will show loyalty to the club as long as they are middle table at least and aren’t a basket case off the field. Ultimate success isn’t what makes players stay, it’s the journey to it.
In the mid 80’s a mate got picked up by Norf and I asked him what was the difference between VFA Footy (where he had been playing) and the then VFL. He replied that VFA was fun footy and VFL was a job.
Any player would realise that they have two to three years to prove themselves before either being delisted or go elsewhere. So in order for a player to succeed, they need to be played in their most suited position where their talents can be on show and the player is continually being developed.
This is where we’ve truly marked up big time since 2000.
Kepler Bradley was never a defender, but he was forced to be one.
Ted Richards was an adequate forward who wasn’t given much of an opportunity but a better defender elsewhere.
Joel Reynolds was a forward but was continually played down back.
Jobe Watson was a midfielder (and a very tall one at that), but was continually played in the forward line early in his career.
Bachar Houli was played as a forward for memory for us in the few games he played, but he left and became an instant best 22 hackman at Richmond.
Paddy Ryder was a ruck, but spent a lot of time in the backline, before shifting forward, then succeeding in the ruck.
David Myers was played off the backline yet he excelled when he was finally given a shot in the midfield.
Hurley was a defender his whole junior career and we pushed him into playing forward.
Colyer was stuck as our forward goal sneak in the few games he got. Finally, he was given midfield time and he excelled.
Hardingham was a forward. Yet was trialled far too often as a defender and he eventually failed.
Carlisle preferred defender and obviously hated playing forward.
Ambrose is a link up forward, yet we’ve forced him into the ruck.
Steinberg was drafted as a forward yet he’s been a defender all his career.
Even our B&F winner is a defender that is definitely a better hackman than a forward.
For whatever reason, our last fifteen years of developing players has meant we have midfielders who take a lot longer than the average midfielder across the league to become established midfielders, our defenders and forwards seem to be moved all over the place.
For a team that has had such little finals success in the last decade, it amazes me how often we try and make players into something they are not.
If a club plays a player in their best position where they get the most out of themselves and it also serves the club at the same time, then the player will show loyalty to the club as long as they are middle table at least and aren’t a basket case off the field. Ultimate success isn’t what makes players stay, it’s the journey to it.
All of those guys should have been played off halfback flank.