Nick's Collingwood Bulletin Board

I would have thought we have as much or more salary cap space as other sides who have been regular finalists over the last 5 years or so with the amount of turnover to our list and players like Shaw, Thomas, Maxwell, Jolly, Ball and Didak no longer part of our side and with a player like Swan close to the end.

Geek wrote:

themonk wrote:

Flashman wrote:Not going to happen.

I think you're right but this is real talent, a midfield of Pendlbury, Broomhead, Swan, Adams & Dangerfield would be amazing.

Agreed. Couldn't even find room for Beams in there

resting him in the pocket

swoop42 wrote:I would have thought we have as much or more salary cap space as other sides who have been regular finalists over the last 5 years or so with the amount of turnover to our list and players like Shaw, Thomas, Maxwell, Jolly, Ball and Didak no longer part of our side and with a player like Swan close to the end.

Perhaps, but the Club's public position has been that there isn't much salary cap room at the moment (yes, I know that may not be an entirely forthright position) - and your speculation doesn't take account of any of the salary increases that have had to be committed to retain other players (Broomy, Kenno, Reid etc etc) and to get new ones (Adams, Young, White, Karnezis etc). I have no idea what the position is but don't think it is helpful to proceed by simply presumingthat there must be plenty of salary cap space. Certainly, if the Club did that, I'd be wanting to remove the Board.

I'm certainly not saying I know better than you but I don't think it's helpful just to define the salary cap problem out of existence.

I don't think we'd be into the guy who white anted Buck's best mate out of a job. I'd also be reluctant to pick up any player that thinks it's ok for them to run the show.

As good as he is, acts like this can send a footy club downhill fast. They'd better make the right call on the new appointment.

I thought Roo was behind the sacking?

Pies4shaw wrote:I thought Roo was behind the sacking?

Reported to be a push from the 'leadership group'. Although with Goodwin going to the Dees (Great call to apprentice under Roos) and Bomber saying "If that's how you deal with the coach, then no fkn way" then I'm not sure what they've got left.

Ratten? Dew? Burns?

Hardly top line talent. Sando seemed to do a fine job there considering the shit list (1 or 2 stars + a lot of spuds).

Wokko wrote:I don't think we'd be into the guy who white anted Buck's best mate out of a job. I'd also be reluctant to pick up any player that thinks it's ok for them to run the show.

As good as he is, acts like this can send a footy club downhill fast. They'd better make the right call on the new appointment.

You have no way of knowing that is correct at this stage.

I've read the opposite with Dangerfield being a supporter of Sanderson.

Pies4shaw wrote:

swoop42 wrote:I would have thought we have as much or more salary cap space as other sides who have been regular finalists over the last 5 years or so with the amount of turnover to our list and players like Shaw, Thomas, Maxwell, Jolly, Ball and Didak no longer part of our side and with a player like Swan close to the end.

Perhaps, but the Club's public position has been that there isn't much salary cap room at the moment (yes, I know that may not be an entirely forthright position) - and your speculation doesn't take account of any of the salary increases that have had to be committed to retain other players (Broomy, Kenno, Reid etc etc) and to get new ones (Adams, Young, White, Karnezis etc). I have no idea what the position is but don't think it is helpful to proceed by simply presumingthat there must be plenty of salary cap space. Certainly, if the Club did that, I'd be wanting to remove the Board.

I'm certainly not saying I know better than you but I don't think it's helpful just to define the salary cap problem out of existence.

We keep getting told we have one of the youngest lists in the comp.

With that it's natural to assume we should also have more cap space to make a play for someone.

If not then someone is not doing there job properly.

Wokko wrote:

Pies4shaw wrote:I thought Roo was behind the sacking?

Reported to be a push from the 'leadership group'. Although with Goodwin going to the Dees (Great call to apprentice under Roos) and Bomber saying "If that's how you deal with the coach, then no fkn way" then I'm not sure what they've got left.

Ratten? Dew? Burns?

Hardly top line talent. Sando seemed to do a fine job there considering the shit list (1 or 2 stars + a lot of spuds).

all the commentary now appears to be around this being archtiected by riciutto. the leadership group may have had a say but it'd be terribly disturbing if they orchestrated it. the prevailing sympathies are with sanderson.

After his comments on the Footy Show, would look silly if he did leave. But a certain D.Thomas also fell into this category.

swoop42 wrote:I'd rather wait to the end of 2015 and get him at no cost to our playing list.

Beams is a gun so all you'd be doing is robbing Peter to pay Paul.

Yep. And why risk alienating Beams. Deal doesn't go through and he's left feeling unloved, could end up with neither at the club in 2016.

Pies4shaw wrote:Well, certainly both would be preferable but, really, how are you going to pay Dangerfield what he's worth as a free agent if we don't make salary cap space by moving out a player on significant money? Don't we just get gazumped in the free agency race, as Flashman suggests? We might love to get him at no cost to our playing list but, if we do, where do we get the salary cap room?

You're giving way too much credence to the media reports on our salary cap. I think we've got lots of space that we're saving for just this type of coup.

Firstly I rate dangerfield highly heck any club would love to have him but this is how I see it.

1 At what cost do you make a play for him ?
Is it at the expense of a Beams or sidebottom ?
Do we risk losing them or other potential guns by paying huge overs ?

2 What was his involvement in the Sando sacking ?
Do you want a player no matter who it is undermining a club ?
If he had no involvement as he says then great but if he did have an involvement and then denies it pass for mine

3 Do we have the cap space to accommodate him ?

Well Pendles, Swanny and Cloke take a big chunk of the cap. Beams will be inline for a hefty increase on his reported $400k deal. We have several young players who recently re-signed and I'm guessing would have got some increase while individually it mightn't be a lot collectively would amount up. Goldy would have got some extra for sure. So unless we are paying big overs to some of our mid range players then I believe we must have cap space but is it enough to fit him in is the question. If Swanny indicates he won't be going on past 2016 then we will have the war chest to back end a deal for him.

I wouldn't be interested in trading any player like a Beams or Sidebottom for him I don't think it is worth it personally.

jackcass wrote:

Pies4shaw wrote:Well, certainly both would be preferable but, really, how are you going to pay Dangerfield what he's worth as a free agent if we don't make salary cap space by moving out a player on significant money? Don't we just get gazumped in the free agency race, as Flashman suggests? We might love to get him at no cost to our playing list but, if we do, where do we get the salary cap room?

You're giving way too much credence to the media reports on our salary cap. I think we've got lots of space that we're saving for just this type of coup.

Agreed, one would think (or hope) we are in for Dangerfield, Cameron or Walker

Pies4shaw wrote:

swoop42 wrote:I would have thought we have as much or more salary cap space as other sides who have been regular finalists over the last 5 years or so with the amount of turnover to our list and players like Shaw, Thomas, Maxwell, Jolly, Ball and Didak no longer part of our side and with a player like Swan close to the end.

Perhaps, but the Club's public position has been that there isn't much salary cap room at the moment (yes, I know that may not be an entirely forthright position) - and your speculation doesn't take account of any of the salary increases that have had to be committed to retain other players (Broomy, Kenno, Reid etc etc) and to get new ones (Adams, Young, White, Karnezis etc). I have no idea what the position is but don't think it is helpful to proceed by simply presumingthat there must be plenty of salary cap space. Certainly, if the Club did that, I'd be wanting to remove the Board.

I'm certainly not saying I know better than you but I don't think it's helpful just to define the salary cap problem out of existence.

The club is spitting out salary cap pressure for next year so that the public doesn't expect us to land a big fish because they are actually planning for 2016 onwards (but dont want to announce this, effectively wrigin off our 2015 chances). We will tread water this offseason with some affordable acquisitions, developing puir kids to find teh best team, before we make a genuine assault with our current mini rebuild in 2016.