BK has re-signed until the end of 16/17.
BK has re-signed until the end of 16/17.
OK
lols, npl struggle to beat jets youthOriginally Posted by mother theresa
Not saying it won't happen but where in the article does it say this?
What it does say.....
As Borat says....agent games with Tinks coming to town he sees more money for himself and his client.The Newcastle Herald, though, understands Hoole is likely to choose Sydney this week after receiving similar two-year deals from the two clubs.
read the media yeet?
That's just bordering on ****ing stupid that.
Leaving the whole Birraz V BK who is the better keeper aside cause it is a separate issue I find it ****ing astoundingly short sighted and stupid to be signing our No 1 and No 2 Keepers in Birraz and BK (order them how you see fit) to deals where the pair of them are defo on 6 figure plus contracts.
Every ****ing week we are having a hefty piece of our salary cap training every day to sit on the ****ing bench game day. Considering how the FFA allow immediate transfers in of a keeper any time of the year it would make sense we sign the best keeper we can get whether that is BK Birraz or another bloke and then assign the No2 to the Yoof Keeper and pay him 55k a year or whatever the minimum is to sit on the bench.
If your first choice goes down injured/suspended then you either soldier on with the Yoof bloke or you bring bloke in on an injury waiver like we did the other year with Nashy when Brockie smashed Birrazs face up.
Only in Newy would we waste such a large part of the salary cap on a reserve keeper. Money that could be better spent elsewhere on our shit house side.
Considering also that Birraz is under contract already I find the decision to extend BK's for 2 years ****ing absurd and incredibly short sighted when a case could be argued that we are not certain to return to lofty heights in the HAL with either of these blokes in goal.
We have basically signed two Keepers up one who has talent but has some issues that need resolving ASAP and another one who has probably reached his potential and plateaued out yet neither of them are currently in the top couple of keepers in the League
+1
I do this on FIFA 15 all the time. Saves me heeeaappss
Yup too little too late. Gutted.
SFC will announce the signing tomorrow
Don't worry member. Birraz will also be gone soon. Problem solved.
The Championship Chronicles - The Jetstream's review of the 2007/08 season. www.newcastlefootball.net/chronicles
50k is the minumum wage. It was 48k before the recent CBA was agreed.
OK
You make some decent points mfks, there's way to exploit the injury replacement rule.
Massive assumption that bk is on 6 figures though.
Is it such a massive assumption?
Minimum wage in the HAL has been roughly 40-50k since inception. The dude has been here 9 years. Marko Jesic was on 140k with us.
I don't see it being that unrealistic tbh.
OK
Jesic is hardly a current example.
Which is even further potential evidence that BK would have been upgraded wage since then.
Wage increaese are common in the world with inflation and all that stuff. I assume most or all players would have also received an initial boost in salary when Tinkler first arrived. And players talk - if one player is on one thing, they compare it to themselves and want that too. That's how we lost Brockie. And particularly after the TV deal came in to cover the salary cap, there seems no reason why players would have to take a pay cut unless to fit other players in the cap (which we seemingly, judging by our squad over the last 6 years, should never have had to worry about).
IMO 100k is a very reasonable assumption of BK's wage.
Last edited by pv4; 20-01-2015 at 08:55 AM.
OK
But not so much when you have a salary cap and a player probably not fielding offers form other clubs, and happy to stay.
The points made also assume all other clubs are paying unders for their 2nd keeper
But like I said, we've probably never used the salary cap. And since the TV deal has come in, there is no advantage or disadvantage not to use the full cap because it is fully funded by the FFA. So it would have been a good chance to reward your long-term players with a better contract.
Something we must remember is BK has been our number 1 keeper several times in our history. Like the 2011/12 season (which, coincidentally, was his 5 year anniversary - perhaps a milestone worthy of a pay-rise) - he was wearing the number 1 shirt, and his competition was Matt Nash.
I'm not sure I understand your point about all other clubs paying unders. I didn't reference (or intend to reference) any other club in my points raised, and I don't think I'm following where you've headed there.
OK
There is disadvantage in using the full cap. It drives up wage demands in future negotiations.
My "other clubs" reference was back to the point MFKS was making about paying two keepers 6figures each. Others might be doing it too negating the point that we are loosing an advantage by not doing it.
The bigger picture and the reality of the situation is, quality players have left or are about to and our only signing is Mad Dog Kennedy. Further to that, Tinks is backing Stubbins because he thinks he is a decent bloke. You couldn't invent a bigger misguided shambles than what is happening at this club.
IMO the increased wage demands is a result of the nature of the league, rather than the amount of cap each team uses.
A full cap would mean a club says "we can't give you anymore, either be happy or find a new club" whereas a non-full cap means players know they can technically afford the extra 10-20-whatever thousand onto their contracts. So if anything, a player within the setup would feel better about negotiating a bigger contract if the cap wasn't full - I think.
OK
Would he not just negotiate with another club that offers more... I might agree with your assumption where (all the the offers) is marginally better ie the 10k -20k that you talk about. But what happens when another club offers way way more??
When another club offers way way more, that's when his loyalty is tested but also when he weighs up price-matching with the club (in a sense, holding them to ransom). Some players are happy to find greener pastures, others not. Maybe they don't want to move district, or don't want to play under another coach, or whatever .
Rubez was offered far more money at WSW but weighed up that he would stay for a slight pay increase, plus the captaincy, at the Jerks. That's why GVE let Jobe go - because he saw retaining Rubez as more important.
NTS was offered way more money by Sydney FC when he was here, and spoke to the club and they made the judgement call to put him on 250k. The problem we had there though, was Ljubo had left by then so NTS was beyond aids for us after that.
OK
Posting Permissions
