The end is nigh - impending doom - Moss out etc thread

[Big Al]

Even Barisha would find it hard to score if he played for us. No attacking setup. He would have nailed what Duke couldn't.

We need a play maker just as much as a striker.

 

[nearlyyellow]

This is what we're up against with all our limited budgets:

Perth Glory made Nebojsa Marinkovic and Michael Thwaite marquee players to avoid salary cap breach
Date December 15, 2014 - 10:00PM

• 
  Joe Gorman and Dominic Bossi
  
  
  
  Marquee man: Glory skipper MIchael Thwaite. Photo: Getty Images
  
  Perth Glory played the first two games of their FFA Cup campaign with a squad that would have exceeded the A-League salary cap by 20 per cent had it remained unchanged for the remainder of the season.
  
  Going into Tuesday night's FFA Cup final between Perth Glory and Adelaide United, Fairfax Media can reveal Perth Glory were exceeding the forecasted annual salary cap by approximately $500,000 for their first two rounds of the FFA Cup. Perth defeated Newcastle Jets and St Albans Saints in the first two rounds on their run to the inaugural final of the competition.
  
  Glory also played the opening two games of the A-League season over their annual salary cap forecast of $2.55 million, the limit imposed on all 10 A-League clubs. They won their first two games of the season at the expense of Wellington Phoenix and Brisbane Roar and now lead the ladder.
  
  
  
  
  Import: Serbian midfielder Nebojsa Marinkovic has impressed since his arrival from Hapoel Haifa. Photo: Getty Images
  
  Sources involved with the club say Glory management was warned internally that its pre-season recruitment would take the club well over the annual salary cap as a result of a shopping spree that brought the likes of Mitch Nichols, Youssouf Hersi, Andy Keogh, Richard Garcia, Diogo Ferreira and Ruben Zadkovich to Perth.
  
  The club subsequently brought its books into line with A-League requirements by shifting two of its highest earners into marquee positions. Defender Michael Thwaite and midfielder Nebojsa Marinkovic were on October 22 approved by the FFA as marquee players exempted from the salary cap.
  
  The two players were moved outside of the cap with no fanfare in a move that contrasted with the club's declaration on May 28 that it had no intention of signing marquee players and was prepared only to operate within the salary cap due to financial reasons. It is understood Perth are now operating at approximately $50,000 under the A-League salary cap for this season.
  
  Head of the A-League Damien De Bohun said he had no concerns that what could be seen as an administrative error might have threatened Perth's season. De Bohun said each club's salary cap was only assessed annually and that the FFA monitored player wages quarterly. The FFA was first notified of the Perth's financial position in early October before Marinkovic and Thwaite were moved outside of the cap to rectify the club's salary cap problem.
  
  "It's obviously a few months into the contract system but the bottom line is that payments are worked over a 12-month period, we do payment reviews quarterly," De Bohun said.
  
  He said he was not concerned with the specific dates of the salary reportage as long as Perth's books were in line with the stringent A-League salary cap requirements by June 30, 2015.
  
  "Dates, in terms of when contracts are lodged with us, the reality is that it's a dynamic environment," he said. "Different players are signed up before the season starts, some contracts carry over and in the january transfer window, some players go and new players come in."
  
  Perth Glory chief executive Jason Brewer said the players were shifted over in order to give the club flexibility to recruit other players. He says the club lodged the applications on the eve of the start of the A-League season but not before the FFA Cup began.
  
  "We are completely compliant with A-League salary cap regulations," Brewer said. "The inclusion of players such as Michael Thwaite and Nebojsa Marinkovic as international marquees and domestic marquees is entirely consistent with regulations."

http://www.smh.com.au/sport/soccer/...-avoid-salary-cap-breach-20141215-127oj9.html

 

[Capt. Awesome]

There needs to be tighter rules around what you can call a marque. Perth may be technically within the rules but not within the spirit of the rules.

 

[VicMariner]

This is what we're up against with all our limited budgets:

Perth Glory made Nebojsa Marinkovic and Michael Thwaite marquee players to avoid salary cap breach

I have no problem. That is the right way to use the marquee spots IMO.

Wish we were doing accounting gymnastics to fit in top notch players......

 

[dibo]

So whilst I haven't seen the exact current number, past PFA docs showed the salary floor is 85% of the cap. The cap is $2,550,000.

If we're just scraping the floor (and frankly I'm happy to assume we are) and we have no marquees, it's not just the total spend that is less, but every player's deal is much cheaper than clubs that spend the cap and get marquees.

If you spend the cap and use all three available marquee spots, you can divvy up the $2,550,000m cap between 20 players. Average salary is then $127,500.

If you spend the floor only and use none of the three available marquee spots, you have to divvy up the $2,167,500 cap between 23 players. Average salary is then $94,239.10 and the club saves $382,500 plus whatever the marquees are being paid.

That means that not only are you not getting the top of the line players, but that your entire squad would be of a lower standard (if you assume that salary is linearly related to quality...).

The lower average is just 74% of the higher figure. That club's starters would be squaddies in the richer squad.

If one club looks to be groaning with talent and the other looks bare, rather than questioning how the other fits under the cap maybe reflect on the fact that the system as designed allows clubs to take a 'cheap' option, and that's what you're likely seeing.

Given the quality difference even this generates, you can see why removing the salary floor would be so dangerous.

EDIT - corrected an error; if no marquees, cap is split between 23 players, not 20 (marquee players are outside the cap). Other numbers are correct.

 

[nearlyyellow]

I have no problem. That is the right way to use the marquee spots IMO.

Wish we were doing accounting gymnastics to fit in top notch players......

It's not just a problem of accounting gymnastics, it's a case of they have a shedload of cash to spend more than us. As dibo says in his maths oriented comment above, they can afford the quality of players like the Hersi's and Keough's et al and we can't. Makes our job all the more bloody difficult.

 

[bikinigirl]

So whilst I haven't seen the exact current number, past PFA docs showed the salary floor is 85% of the cap. The cap is $2,550,000.

If we're just scraping the floor (and frankly I'm happy to assume we are) and we have no marquees, it's not just the total spend that is less, but every player's deal is much cheaper than clubs that spend the cap and get marquees.

If you spend the cap and use all three available marquee spots, you can divvy up the $2,550,000m cap between 20 players. Average salary is then $127,500.

If you spend the floor only and use none of the three available marquee spots, you have to divvy up the $2,167,500 cap between 23 players. Average salary is then $94,239.10 and the club saves $382,500 plus whatever the marquees are being paid.

That means that not only are you not getting the top of the line players, but that your entire squad would be of a lower standard (if you assume that salary is linearly related to quality...).

The lower average is just 74% of the higher figure. That club's starters would be squaddies in the richer squad.

If one club looks to be groaning with talent and the other looks bare, rather than questioning how the other fits under the cap maybe reflect on the fact that the system as designed allows clubs to take a 'cheap' option, and that's what you're likely seeing.

Given the quality difference even this generates, you can see why removing the salary floor would be so dangerous.

EDIT - corrected an error; if no marquees, cap is split between 23 players, not 20 (marquee players are outside the cap). Other numbers are correct.

. this is the issue that i have with the cap, floor and marquees ... and i have said it before

. for our league, a cap is the right thing, for our club a floor probably has some benefits ... but the marquee situation is a bit dodgy. the idea behind it is fine, but complete exclusion from the cap creates a significant inequality

. the inequality is fine if it is limited to the marquees (there is a reason and a purpose) but it isn't. based on dibo's numbers a team with three marquees can spend between 15 and 35% more on each and every one of their players when compared to a team with no marquees - that is a significant difference in purchasing power when it comes to non-marquee positions ... particularly for foreigners

. forget about what the extra money (per person) would allow us to 'invest' in for a minute and consider what it would mean for our opposition if they were forced to spend even 15% less across their squad

 

[Roy Law]

There needs to be tighter rules around what you can call a marque. Perth may be technically within the rules but not within the spirit of the rules.

Remember when John Aloisi was an injury replacement and not a marquee? Ah, those were the days, when we were the club with the shifty chancers in charge

 

[midfielder]

Gotta say in most clubs would have sacked him now in a salary capped league one lucky win.

 

[shipwreck]

He won't get sacked, it's against the Mariners way. We will finish last this season, but he will still be here, mark my words

 

[BrisRecky]

I keep seeing on twitter and what have you about Mark Rudan looking around the club/ coast......has this got any legs or is it wishful thinking?

 

[Capn Gus Bloodbeard]

He won't get sacked, it's against the Mariners way. We will finish last this season, but he will still be here, mark my words

The fans won't accept 2 seasons with this performance. If he's here next season and we're still performing like this, expect our average crowd to be around 3k.

There's just no reason to keep him on that I can see. Any other club would have dropped him long ago.

 

[shipwreck]

He is a yes man that the ceo wants.....enough said he will stay

 

[sydmariner]

He won't get sacked, it's against the Mariners way. We will finish last this season, but he will still be here, mark my words

 

[MagpieMariner]

I've always been annoyed when the coach gets shafted when the team struggles, because the coach can't get out on the paddock; maybe shaft some of the cattle before you get another coach. Allowance must also be made for the quality of the cattle available to the coach.
That said, when you see apparent deficiencies in the game plan and team selections & in-match substitutions, that falls solely into the lap of the coach. That's what needs to be looked at when you're thinking of replacing the coach; I'm starting to feel that it's time to move the head honcho and try someone else. For sure, we can't do much worse than we're doing now. I like Mossy, but I really think it's time to go.

 

[BrisRecky]

I'm with Magpie, I'm not a fan of sacking a coach when a team can't find the back of the net...but Mossy has proven himself to be questionable in his purchases, tactics and blatant lying at press conferences

 

[midfielder]

Rumour and I double stress rumour is Mark Rudan of Fox and Sydney United coach is being closely looked at ...

 

[Big Al]

I've always been annoyed when the coach gets shafted when the team struggles, because the coach can't get out on the paddock; maybe shaft some of the cattle before you get another coach. Allowance must also be made for the quality of the cattle available to the coach.
That said, when you see apparent deficiencies in the game plan and team selections & in-match substitutions, that falls solely into the lap of the coach. That's what needs to be looked at when you're thinking of replacing the coach; I'm starting to feel that it's time to move the head honcho and try someone else. For sure, we can't do much worse than we're doing now. I like Mossy, but I really think it's time to go.

I like mossy but I believe he has made a meal of it this year. I am now officially in the time to go camp when I was very much a supporter of his.
I agree he doesn't kick the ball be he comes up with the plan and there really appears to be a lack of a plan when it comes getting us goals. Our structure falls apart in the final third and its Mossys job to sort that out and 11 games in looks no closer.
He has also had a chance to put say half the squad together which not all coaches get and the players left behind where of good standard and part of a successful team.
I think he got recruitment wrong. I know he has a limited budget but that just means working smarter. Sim and tricky from state league have been good squadies but they won't take us where we need to go. Kim maybe could with better conditioning and coaching as well as toughening up. Vernes is no better than what we got.
It's the choping and changing that worries me the most. Our squad is so even across the board he doesn't stick with the same guys when they have a bad game. I know you have to rotate sometimes due to amount of games in a week etc but the defensive pairings are a real worry. We would be lucky to have gone two weeks in a row with the same back four. We should have learnt from last year how important it is to settle on a back four.
If ando and Eddie don't like each other tough you play for the team (maybe it helps them get over it) otherwise ones got to go all together. Rose is a great player but its pushing your luck to have him at LCB. It's either him or Neil at LB. either have the guts to drop him or stick with him. You might get away with a week or two with him in the middle but not a season and especially an early season change (he hasn't had preseason to learn the new position).

The tactics were good last year but this year they are all over the place. The loss of Bernies pace and dribbling skill has affected the ability to break from the back. We are slow to build up and the defence is well set by the time we get to the final third.

The subs have also been all over the place. Either late or questionable changes and use of position. E.g. Duke on wing and sim where ever he feels like putting him.

Some of the crap dished up by Mossy in post game interviews don't make him look good either. He'd be better saying we playing bad and we will fix it not some of the blind dribble dished out.

I also think MC won't make a change and usually that would be a good thing but why won't he make a change? Is it cheaper to keep Mossy and not make a change. It's time for MC to stand up and say results and style do matter.

I hope Mossy works it out and real quick and ill be first in que to praise him and eat some pie but its not looking likely

 

[Capn Gus Bloodbeard]

I've always been annoyed when the coach gets shafted when the team struggles, because the coach can't get out on the paddock; maybe shaft some of the cattle before you get another coach. Allowance must also be made for the quality of the cattle available to the coach.
That said, when you see apparent deficiencies in the game plan and team selections & in-match substitutions, that falls solely into the lap of the coach. That's what needs to be looked at when you're thinking of replacing the coach; I'm starting to feel that it's time to move the head honcho and try someone else. For sure, we can't do much worse than we're doing now. I like Mossy, but I really think it's time to go.

Good post, and I do agree.

But I'll also disagree on one point; if the cattle aren't performing, isn't it the job of the coach to get them to perform or get rid of them (or bring others in)?
In the same way that if a low-level manager isn't getting results, mid-level management will question him. If he says that the staff aren't performing, then the question is - what are you doing about it? And after a period of time, if there's no change, it can only fall back on management.

 

[shipwreck]

Good post, and I do agree.

But I'll also disagree on one point; if the cattle aren't performing, isn't it the job of the coach to get them to perform or get rid of them (or bring others in)?
In the same way that if a low-level manager isn't getting results, mid-level management will question him. If he says that the staff aren't performing, then the question is - what are you doing about it? And after a period of time, if there's no change, it can only fall back on management.

So sully is the problem??