Mariners Squad - HAL 12 - 2016 - 2017

[midfielder]

Hint .... nobody at this stage in any code wants to upset Rupert.... he is still seen as having lots and lots of influence ...

 

[midfielder]

Hint No 2 ... some quite detailed research indicated that a FTA channel that had both RL and Football would become over time the ratings winner... further it showed a FTA channel that had AFL and Football would win the ratings...

Football is no longer seen as Football its seen as part and parcel of the general market called sport..

Hint 3.... the ratio of pay TV ratings to FTA is 3.5 to 4.5 ... Fox see a decent FTA channel can also lift their ratings... many see lots of blue sky ... however it has been a long process to get this far ... as I said my understanding is the deal is largely done will be announced pre Christmas.

 

[Forum Phoenix]

If we`re only waiting on the money from the TV deal then I can`t see us moving up the ladder, as every other club will get the same increase plus what they are spending now. That still l still leaves us as the lowest spenders.

We're not though right? They're more actively pursuing other revenue streams than any other club in the HAL.
Love or loathe MC, there's nothing that indicates he's anything but very ambitious and does think big picture. Seem unlikely that he's thinking of anything but trying to become the most successful club both on and off the field - its just as fans we'd all understandably prefer that to be sooner rather than later.

Modern sport is almost purely about money, you don't own players you just rent them for a while and you can all but buy a premiership... that's all true, but that said I think we are viewing these TV dollars too simplistically if we're just thinking about the impact on squad spend. Things change drastically in business when you can shift your focus from just desperately trying to keep your doors open and turning the day to day wheels. If we can tick the stadium box and combine it with a decent increase from the TV deal then we will surely be on a very different footing that we can drive forward from. And i think it's reasonable to feel a bit optimistic about that.

 

[style_cafe]

We're not though right? They're more actively pursuing other revenue streams than any other club in the HAL.
Love or loathe MC, there's nothing that indicates he's anything but very ambitious and does think big picture. Seem unlikely that he's thinking of anything but trying to become the most successful club both on and off the field - its just as fans we'd all understandably prefer that to be sooner rather than later.

Modern sport is almost purely about money, you don't own players you just rent them for a while and you can all but by a premiership... that's all true, but that said I think we are viewing these TV dollars too simplistically if we're just thinking about the impact on squad spend. Things change drastically in business when you can shift your focus from just desperately trying to keep your doors open and turning the day to day wheels. If we can tick the stadium box and combine it with a decent increase from the TV deal then we will surely be on a very different footing that we can drive forward from. And i think it's reasonable to feel a bit optimistic about that.

I hope you`re right FP.
It depends on how the TV deal goes & how much we actually get.
In the big scheme, now that the idea of owning "Mariner`s Stadium" has been floated, it may be wiser to get the $$$ & pay the stadium (if all goes to plan) & prolong the agony .
I would guess that the council would be looking around the $50m mark as it is, with the stipulation that it gets used as a community facility.

 

[style_cafe]

Why don't we just pack up and go home then?

Sheesh. Way to suck the joy out of life.

Why don't we just pack up and go home then?

Sheesh. Way to suck the joy out of life.

"Some people are guaranteed to find the cloud in every silver lining" Dibo 19/10/16

What I`m saying is, if all the clubs get the same amount & increase their player spending by the same amount then we`re no better off.
We are so far behind the other clubs in our outlay for players we have to spend more & wiser to be better than them.

 

[nebakke]

"Some people are guaranteed to find the cloud in every silver lining" Dibo 19/10/16

What I`m saying is, if all the clubs get the same amount & increase their player spending by the same amount then we`re no better off.
We are so far behind the other clubs in our outlay for players we have to spend more & wiser to be better than them.

It depends though - doesn't it?

The salary cap is still a thing and the way the talk has been at least, i get the impression that whole it might be raised, it probably wouldn't be by the full extra amount that might come from an improved deal.
So if FFA for example started covering 110% of the cap, we might be able to say - spend at 95% vs 100% for the others - and so still be competitive.
It's not about spending the same money as much as it's about similar money after all.

 

[Coach]

A

Hasn't failed miserably. Hasn't had a chance. Silly post coach. He has quality - MV gets their pick of the crop - they only released him because the kid wants to play, I think he's a good signing for us - your point re experience is fair enough - but he is better than Neil imo. So is a step forward.

Stupid post! Hasn't had a chance? So 54 games is not a significant chance?. Stupidity is not checking your facts. He was not getting a game because he was poor and failed. Muscat gave him plenty of opportunity(54 games) but gave up 12 months ago when he got stood up half a dozen times in a semi. We don't need a 21 year old back, we need a centre back with class. Regardless I'm entitled to my opinion and at least I based it on fact.

 

[Coach]

Reality is we can't go out and spend alot of money and get instant success like SFC, MC,MV, Perth etc. What we have to be best at is developing young players, and although we don't get instant success it will be fruitful ( both financially and on the field) over time. What we have to have is the right balance of youth and experience which obviously we didn't have last year.

Yes agree. A good post. I would rather sign a CB though, however Galloway could play there.

 

[dibo]

A

Stupid post! Hasn't had a chance? So 54 games is not a significant chance?. Stupidity is not checking your facts. He was not getting a game because he was poor and failed. Muscat gave him plenty of opportunity(54 games) but gave up 12 months ago when he got stood up half a dozen times in a semi. We don't need a 21 year old back, we need a centre back with class. Regardless I'm entitled to my opinion and at least I based it on fact.

You're willing to call a 21 year old done? Good thing Lawrie didn't do that with Mile Jedinak.

And on signing a CB, I suppose we should've just gone to the queue of classy CBs well within our budget. I hear it stretches around the block now...

 

[Coach]

You're willing to call a 21 year old done? Good thing Lawrie didn't do that with Mile Jedinak.

And on signing a CB, I suppose we should've just gone to the queue of classy CBs well within our budget. I hear it stretches around the block now...

Suppose your right but makes much more sense to pick from the long quueue of failed fb's

 

[dibo]

So you're willing to call a 21yo a failure because he couldn't get a game in front of an older player who's in and out of the Socceroos.

Did you divorce your wife when she lost the Victoria's Secret contract?

 

[Wombat]

A

Stupid post! Hasn't had a chance? So 54 games is not a significant chance?. Stupidity is not checking your facts. He was not getting a game because he was poor and failed. Muscat gave him plenty of opportunity(54 games) but gave up 12 months ago when he got stood up half a dozen times in a semi. We don't need a 21 year old back, we need a centre back with class. Regardless I'm entitled to my opinion and at least I based it on fact.

Geria had a dead set shocker against City. I can't remember seeing Galloway but I'm hopeful if he has played 54 games he must be half decent.

 

[Luca Brasi]

Assuming the mail is right, this is a solid signing for us, from what I have seen Galloway is better than Neill, McGing and McDonald. Not making it into the starting 11 at MV when you consider their squad is not a failure imo. I was surprised MV released him, they only have 5 backs + Broxham for their back 4, must have a lot of faith in their youth being able to step in if required. They have Deng on loan in Holland, released Murnane earlier this year who is now in Norway and Gallifuoco who is playing 5th tier English league.

 

[localpom]

Yes agree. A good post. I would rather sign a CB though, however Galloway could play there.

I think we still will sign a CB at some stage. The opportunity arose to get him and we would have been crazy not to pick him up. I'm thinking this is more a replacement for Rosey with a CB still to come.

 

[style_cafe]

It depends though - doesn't it?

The salary cap is still a thing and the way the talk has been at least, i get the impression that whole it might be raised, it probably wouldn't be by the full extra amount that might come from an improved deal.
So if FFA for example started covering 110% of the cap, we might be able to say - spend at 95% vs 100% for the others - and so still be competitive.
It's not about spending the same money as much as it's about similar money after all.

So therefore, we have to increase our spending to "get close" to the other clubs in the League?

If you look at the top clubs MC,MV,SFC,BR.
The salary cap is $2.6m + 3 Marquees say (conservatively) $2m, then add home grown player allowance of $150k, then add loyalty allowance (5yr of more service) another $200k per player say 2 per team = $5.15m budget
CCM salary cap is $2.6m. we spend the floor rate of $2.275m (reportedly)
Therefore, we spend $2.875m less than the others at present.

If the clubs are given, say $10m each from the TV deal, & each spend an additional $5m on players then we`re still $2.875 m less than the others.

Which means that even though we`ll have better quality players the top teams will have still be above us in quality.

It doesn`t matter where the money comes from ie. other revenue streams. FFA etc. to consistently compete we have to be spending a similar amount to the top teams.

So, (as I said before) to rise up the ladder, we need to increase our spending...

 

[dibo]

So therefore, we have to increase our spending to "get close" to the other clubs in the League?

We're currently using some of the cap money to minimise operating losses. We can probably chalk them up as being maybe $1m a year, based on the various very vague signals that have been given off over recent years. That means we're putting sustainability over success.

It's frustrating, but I'm completely OK with that given that

1. we still have a club and look likely to do so for the long term, and;
2. we're now signing kids with potential who might grow to be something pretty handy but who are cheap because it's a gamble rather than ex-State League players who are known quantities and cheap because other people don't want them.

Given that the talk from the clubs in recent weeks was that the increase in the TV distribution will be greater than the increase in the cap (and possibly substantially greater), given that we're not making *big* losses as it is it will probably make a bigger difference to us than most others.

The New Media Deal thread has more on this, but clubs are agreeing to a 30% increase in the cap, and they're chasing $6m/season (a $3.4m increase).

I don't reckon they will get that, but if they suddenly get $2m more, we're likely to be able to spend the whole cap and be in the black. If we get more than that, we start looking at bigger ticket items.

Other clubs might spend up on marquees so their 2-3 best players might be better than our 2-3 best, but they won't have the competitive advantage that they currently have of their entire squad being on average better than ours.

 

[Coach]

So you're willing to call a 21yo a failure because he couldn't get a game in front of an older player who's in and out of the Socceroos.

Did you divorce your wife when she lost the Victoria's Secret contract?

I assume you are refering to Geria as the 'older player in and out of the socceroos'? Firstly Geria is 1 year older than Galloway and secondly Geria wasn't keeping him out of the squad he was behind the 28year old Georgievski (played for that powerhouse Macedonia). Research boys research!

 

[dibo]

I see @style_cafe's amended post and agree with most of it.

I assume you are refering to Geria as the 'older player in and out of the socceroos'? Firstly Geria is 1 year older than Galloway and secondly Geria wasn't keeping him out of the squad he was behind the 28year old Georgievski (played for that powerhouse Macedonia). Research boys research!

A bit of both, actually. And if you're being kept out of the side by a player in his prime *and* a sometime Socceroo, then doesn't that strengthen my argument?

He is *only* 21!

 

[style_cafe]

We're currently using some of the cap money to minimise operating losses. We can probably chalk them up as being maybe $1m a year, based on the various very vague signals that have been given off over recent years. That means we're putting sustainability over success.

It's frustrating, but I'm completely OK with that given that

1. we still have a club and look likely to do so for the long term, and;
2. we're now signing kids with potential who might grow to be something pretty handy but who are cheap because it's a gamble rather than ex-State League players who are known quantities and cheap because other people don't want them.

Given that the talk from the clubs in recent weeks was that the increase in the TV distribution will be greater than the increase in the cap (and possibly substantially greater), given that we're not making *big* losses as it is it will probably make a bigger difference to us than most others.

The New Media Deal thread has more on this, but clubs are agreeing to a 30% increase in the cap, and they're chasing $6m/season (a $3.4m increase).

I don't reckon they will get that, but if they suddenly get $2m more, we're likely to be able to spend the whole cap and be in the black. If we get more than that, we start looking at bigger ticket items.

Other clubs might spend up on marquees so their 2-3 best players might be better than our 2-3 best, but they won't have the competitive advantage that they currently have of their entire squad being on average better than ours.

I agree that sustainability is more important than success.
That`s why the different revenue streams are important, as is sponsorship & wise player recruitment /sales etc.
MC has done well in recognising this & diversifying so far.
However, we have to realise that the salary cap is just one component of the player budget.
Other clubs can spend double what we are spending on players & still be under the cap, that's why its difficult to compete at present.

 

[nebakke]

So therefore, we have to increase our spending to "get close" to the other clubs in the League?

If you look at the top clubs MC,MV,SFC,BR.
The salary cap is $2.6m + 3 Marquees say (conservatively) $2m, then add home grown player allowance of $150k, then add loyalty allowance (5yr of more service) another $200k per player say 2 per team = $5.15m budget
CCM salary cap is $2.6m. we spend the floor rate of $2.275m (reportedly)
Therefore, we spend $2.875m less than the others at present.

If the clubs are given, say $10m each from the TV deal, & each spend an additional $5m on players then we`re still $2.875 m less than the others.

Which means that even though we`ll have better quality players the top teams will have still be above us in quality.

It doesn`t matter where the money comes from ie. other revenue streams. FFA etc. to consistently compete we have to be spending a similar amount to the top teams.

So, (as I said before) to rise up the ladder, we need to increase our spending...

But the cap matters - that's my point, and Dibo's...
If the new cap is - say 5 mill - and we're spending the full cap, any spending that other clubs do beyond ours is going to be on marquees and they don't often become the one thing that makes a team unbeatable. Especially not over a season
Our current problem is arguably with the quality of the more "cattle class" type players that fill the squad. While the cap exists no club will out spend us by 5 mill on them.