In talks re trades quite often the emotional bond between the player and fan,almost all of which is the fans imagination takes over from the brain.
After watching and cheering for a player all year and loving his every good move and really getting up him for his bad ones, a percieved ownership of the player takes place in the fans mind.After all they are wearing black and white and we would all bleed for them and expect them to do the same week in and week out.Some female fans really have a crush on player,would they feel the same if he wore blue?
Its easy from our point as we all have jobs or in my case used to have one and just adore all that is black and white.and just expect things to happen and go crook if they dont,we all have ideas re this and that and tell each other the way it should be.
All this doesnt do much for the player, he has a manager that has no bond with us or the club and his only goal is to get a bigger percentage from the player by getting him the best deal in the meat market of modern day football.
In days gone by players would have to front up to the board and nervously ask for a few bob to help out and had to go up to the pay office each week to get the money even after a bad game and would suffer comments of derision as to the merits of this weeks earnings etc.Actually have to put the hand out each week for the money!
Not so now,in the age of eftpos and direct debits and credits.The players dont have to go up to the president and say do i deserve this weeks pay or not,it is guaranteed win lose or even get $25000 for a game at willi even if you dont get a kick.
So why would we object if one of our loved sons is traded?,we will get over it and as long as we dont get shafted in the deal we can have a new loved one next year,husbands and wives often do that in this modern day.Money is something i have little of and no respect for which is probably why i havent any but I have the same wife i had 25 years ago which may make me a misfit in todays society,and a rarity and the footballer that stays at one club is also a rarity.
I do hope Rocca and Taz and Bucks stay with us,but the point of all this is that we love them more than they love us and the club, and if they go,so what,the club will survive.
We will support the new team as we always do,and so on.
But GOD forbid if we do anymore dud deals to make our charge up the ladder longer than it should be.The dealers will suffer.!!!
Im just a bit pissed off with the money players earn for doing nothing these days and loyalty is not part of the deal in modern life/football.
maybe i have got too much time on my hands lately but i am becoming very cynical about modern day life.and my life is black and white.
The real truth about trades..Am i wrong? tell me why?
Moderator: bbmods
-
AlfAndrews
Actually, Ed, I think in your day it was more like this:
When a player played a real good game, Mr.Wren would call him into his office and give him a five pound note and a tip for the races, which was great because it meant that the player's kids would actually eat that week.
Ah, the good old days of loyalty to The Club.
Seriously, though. Excellent post, Ed. And very, very true.
One of the big problems, I think, is the salary cap. It means, in effect, that one player's pay rise is another player's pay cut. So, when these player managers go into bat for their clients, they are actually working for the player AGAINST the interests of the Club. And AGAINST the interests of the other players at the Club. It has really perverted the very notion of a player's loyalty to his Club.
And, of course, the other big obscenity is the draft, which has killed the old local loyalty, which so much of footy's tradition was built on.
Once upon a time, Collingwood had it's own metropolitan recruiting zone. And there was a very high percentage of Collingwood supporters living in the zone. So, a young footballer could grow up in the Collingwood zone, barracking for Collingwood, and knowing that if he was ever good enough to play league football, there was a strong chance that it would be with Collingwood. All the other clubs, of course, had their recruiting zones too. From 1968, the country areas were also divided up and zoned to particular clubs.
The big money recruiting of the 60s and 70s killed a lot of that localism, but the draft in the late 80s really stuffed it up altogether.
Here's my prediction for footy by the middle of the twenty-first century:
Not only will the players be drafted ... but the supporters will be drafted too.
To take out a club membership you will need to enter a ballot. All footy fans will apply to the A.F.L. for club membership. The A.F.L. will then allot memberships of the particular clubs at random, making sure that each club has an equal number of members. Membership will only entitle you to go to the home matches of whichever club you draw in the ballot. The Kangaroos will be absolutely stoked with the new system because it will mean they'll have the same number of members as Collingwood.
**floreat pica**
When a player played a real good game, Mr.Wren would call him into his office and give him a five pound note and a tip for the races, which was great because it meant that the player's kids would actually eat that week.
Ah, the good old days of loyalty to The Club.
Seriously, though. Excellent post, Ed. And very, very true.
One of the big problems, I think, is the salary cap. It means, in effect, that one player's pay rise is another player's pay cut. So, when these player managers go into bat for their clients, they are actually working for the player AGAINST the interests of the Club. And AGAINST the interests of the other players at the Club. It has really perverted the very notion of a player's loyalty to his Club.
And, of course, the other big obscenity is the draft, which has killed the old local loyalty, which so much of footy's tradition was built on.
Once upon a time, Collingwood had it's own metropolitan recruiting zone. And there was a very high percentage of Collingwood supporters living in the zone. So, a young footballer could grow up in the Collingwood zone, barracking for Collingwood, and knowing that if he was ever good enough to play league football, there was a strong chance that it would be with Collingwood. All the other clubs, of course, had their recruiting zones too. From 1968, the country areas were also divided up and zoned to particular clubs.
The big money recruiting of the 60s and 70s killed a lot of that localism, but the draft in the late 80s really stuffed it up altogether.
Here's my prediction for footy by the middle of the twenty-first century:
Not only will the players be drafted ... but the supporters will be drafted too.
To take out a club membership you will need to enter a ballot. All footy fans will apply to the A.F.L. for club membership. The A.F.L. will then allot memberships of the particular clubs at random, making sure that each club has an equal number of members. Membership will only entitle you to go to the home matches of whichever club you draw in the ballot. The Kangaroos will be absolutely stoked with the new system because it will mean they'll have the same number of members as Collingwood.
**floreat pica**
-
MarkT
- Posts: 1350
- Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2001 6:01 pm
- Location: Melb
All valid point and accurate sentiments to a large extent.
I would like to make 1 point though.
The players get good money for playing football. However, with a few exceptions, they have 10 years to earn a living. They have a skill which can see them break out of thei previous life circumstances, regardless of education etc. It is the players that make the game and the supporters who pay for it. I would rather see my money go to Bucks and Lonnie than Ch. 7 and the AFL. I don't begrudge players what they earn but I do expect them to be accountable for performance like I am in my job.
We get attached to players because we have loyalty. Otherwise we wouldn't support a club in the first place. We want those we are loyal to to return the loyalty and when they put themselves first we get upset or angry. It won't stop me next time but I know I don't have the right. How many of us would change jobs if we could increase our pay 75%?
Unfortunately it is business now and will never go backward for here.
I would like to make 1 point though.
The players get good money for playing football. However, with a few exceptions, they have 10 years to earn a living. They have a skill which can see them break out of thei previous life circumstances, regardless of education etc. It is the players that make the game and the supporters who pay for it. I would rather see my money go to Bucks and Lonnie than Ch. 7 and the AFL. I don't begrudge players what they earn but I do expect them to be accountable for performance like I am in my job.
We get attached to players because we have loyalty. Otherwise we wouldn't support a club in the first place. We want those we are loyal to to return the loyalty and when they put themselves first we get upset or angry. It won't stop me next time but I know I don't have the right. How many of us would change jobs if we could increase our pay 75%?
Unfortunately it is business now and will never go backward for here.
-
Leonin5=star
- Posts: 218
- Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2001 6:01 pm
- Location: melbourne