From the AFL trade blog this morning:
There has been some debate regarding Essendon's interest in Mason Cox over the past few days, with the Bombers adamant no inquiry ever occurred. However Cox's manager Adam Ramanauskas has confirmed the rumours. "They had conversations… at no stage did Collingwood ever put Cox on the table," Ramanauskas said.
https://www.afl.com.au/news/trade/trade-talk
There is also a link to the audio, if anyone cares.
#46 Mason Cox
Moderator: bbmods
That's your answer to everything, Adz. Sack him. Get rid of him. Sack them all.Adz wrote:If Cox is on 600k Grundy and JDG will demand 1.2 a season.
We overpay our players and always have. Get rid of him.
He ain't going anywhere apparently, at least for another year. Cox will be playing in the black and white next year.
This is probably true, but a solution to the problem is not so easy to find.Adz wrote:...
We overpay our players and always have. ...
Part of the problem is probably the supporters' attitude to this stuff.
This reminds me of the injury excuses. Like injuries, market forces should affect every team, at least over eight years. Our club shouldn't be the outlier for injuries or salary-cap destruction through market forces. (And our club has been the "market force" in amazing deals like the Wells one.)E wrote:...
c'mon, every contract is a factor of market forces. ...
Is there any reason to think that there’s “salary cap destruction” happening at Collingwood? I can’t remember when we last lost a player we wanted to keep, other than Beams. And I don’t think Beams left for money. It’s always a bit of a juggle, especially when there are requirements to pay your list a minimum total amount.
Ultimately, money talks even if the player isn't from a culture where it's all about the money. With free agency, etc., it's not just about keeping together a list. (How hard can that be when it's not a premiership-winning one?) They asked Nat F. after the Brownlow what it'd take to lure *** to Freo, and he just said "money".
-
Doug44
- Posts: 167
- Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2018 8:16 am
It's unsubstantiated media speculation. Everyone has bought the line that we are floating players to free up space.Pies4shaw wrote:Is there any reason to think that there’s “salary cap destruction” happening at Collingwood?
Grundy, Moore, De Goey and Stephenson will all be on more in 2021 than 2020, should we keep them.
If you assume we're virtually at the cap now, then something has to give.
But by all reports Reid and Varcoe are playing on in 2020 and you wouldn't have thought they would in 2021, so their salaries combined, even at reduced rates, would probably make up the difference between the 2020 and 2021 salaries of the previous four mentioned.
And Pendles will probably take a pay cut, not a huge one, but he's played 300 games, he's captain, he's set himself up for life after football, he has a great life, he'll take unders to keep those guys if he has to.
Steele will be in that boat as well. They'll both want another flag.
And I don't think we'd be at the cap anyway, not when you look at other clubs. Looking at our list, I think we have a great list of very good players at a consistent level. But apart from De Goey and Grundy, I don't see many being on HUGE money.
People are making a big deal of Cox and Elliott etc, they are better than average players making slightly better than average money.
But the point is, I know as much as the media do, and that is nothing.
It's true we don't know exact salaries. But the argument "Looking at our list..." is not a good one, because the claim is we overpay our players. If we look at our list, then we just see what we think is their fair price, not their overpaid price.Doug44 wrote:...
And I don't think we'd be at the cap anyway, not when you look at other clubs. Looking at our list, I think we have a great list of very good players at a consistent level. But apart from De Goey and Grundy, I don't see many being on HUGE money.
...
-
Doug44
- Posts: 167
- Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2018 8:16 am
I don't buy that. People have used Cox and Elliott as examples for this, like I said, they're above average players (at their best better than that), and $500kish is really not that much more than the average AFL salary.K wrote:because the claim is we overpay our players.
Moore and De-Goey both re-signed for much less than they'd have got elsewhere.
We'll need to re-sign them again for more than they're on, but assuming we keep them both they'll be on less they could get elsewhere again.
I can't think on an example where the opposite would be the case.
-
Doug44
- Posts: 167
- Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2018 8:16 am
Saying it's 20% makes it sound more than it actually is because the average is only just under 400,000.K wrote:Well, it's top 20%. Are the players on that at our club in the top 20% most valuable players in the league?
And that's listed players, not "best 22 players". So if the average salary of a player on the list is just under 400,000, $500,000 for a player who is always in the best 22 when fit is not that much.
Well, there are 38 senior-listed players. Are these guys in the top 8 at the club? Add in rookies. Are they in the top 9 at the club? They didn't finish in the top 10 in the Copeland. Probably not the Brownlow (among Pies players) either.Doug44 wrote:...
Saying it's 20% makes it sound more than it actually is ...
Another way of looking at it is to say that you’d expect them to be paid more than everybody at the Club except Grundy, Pendlebury, Sidebottom, Treloar, Adams, Beams, De Goey, Moore, Stephenson, Howe and Crisp. I think they probably are, except that Wells probably got more than them this year and they may - for timing reasons - be getting more than Stephenson until he gets his first real contract.