Live scores
Live Commentary
St Kilda : 1.1 (7)
GWS Giants : 1.3 (9)
| Q1 - 16:00

A warning to clubs shopping around

Michael Roar Rookie

By Michael, Michael is a Roar Rookie

 , ,

20 Have your say

    All clubs that are looking to splash big cash on Dusty Martin and Nat Fyfe need to first consider whether they are ready to create an imbalance in their squads.

    Three of the biggest signings in recent times are the Dangerfield, Tippet and Franklin trades. Sydney has been severely effected by those two signings. Geelong will most likely feel the same ramifications that the Swans have felt.

    Grand finals and minor premierships aside, success in AFL is measured in flags.

    Kurt Tippet came into a premiership-winning side that had a culture of performance above expectation. They had won the premiership with a 22-year-old relatively unknown Sam Reid as their key forward. Their side was young and full of promise, they have not won a premiership since.

    When Franklin came in it was surely going to be the cherry on top of an already impressive team. They haven’t won since. And find themselves 2-6.

    Geelong were in the middle of a pretty impressive rebuild. When Patrick Dangerfield signed with Geelong it was hailed as a game-changing signing. The press has never got over Dangerwood and probably never will.

    The huge amount of money that has gone towards signing the ‘superstars’ of the game could be used elsewhere. Geelong used to have a culture of players making personal monetary sacrifices to maintain a strong squad.

    Now it honours two men. This is obviously having a detrimental effect on the rest of the playing group. They do not seem motivated enough to tackle or challenge for the ball. We have seem similar things at the swans in the first six weeks.

    The Swans are most likely in a better position for the rest of this season. Their 0-6 start was a wake-up call, whereas a 5-3 start is just a mask that will offset problems.

    AFL is a team sport with anywhere between 38-44 players in a squad. Having one, let alone two of them getting paid over a million dollars a year is going to be detrimental to the moral and strategy of the team.

    Patrick Dangerfield Joel Selwood Geelong Cats AFL 2016

    (AAP Image/Julian Smith)

    Even a bad $500,000 signing like Tyrone Vickery can have negative effects. The salary cap is a socialist mechanism, based on equality. Big profile signings with seven figures will create a sense of inequality.

    The Swans and Geelong have had very obvious problems finding form this year. If a player is getting paid too much, how can a team strategy not revolve around or involve those players.

    Geelong’s dependence on Dangerfield is obvious and was most notably exposed in last year’s Preliminary final against the Swans.

    From 2005-2012 Sydney won two flags and Geelong won three. These two teams have had some success but no flags since. Time will tell whether they can get flags with these signings on their lists.

    The imbalance in player pay would suggest that it will be harder than before they chose to go down the superstar signing road.

    Have Your Say

    If not logged in, please enter your name and email before submitting your comment. Please review our comments policy before posting on the Roar.

    Oldest | Newest | Most Recent

    The Crowd Says (20)

    • May 16th 2017 @ 7:00am
      Slane said | May 16th 2017 @ 7:00am | ! Report

      Dangerfield wasn’t a monster signing in the same vein as Tippett or Buddy. He took significantly less money to play in Geelong then he was offered by a multitude of other clubs.

    • May 16th 2017 @ 8:16am
      Landgraft said | May 16th 2017 @ 8:16am | ! Report

      Geelong haven’t changed from the salary cap structure set in the dynasty years, its basically shared as evenly as you could hope and neither Joel nor Danger are eating up an unfair portion of the clubs TPP. We have a lot of problem, but an unbalanced payment structure isn’t one of them.

      • Roar Guru

        May 16th 2017 @ 8:20am
        Cat said | May 16th 2017 @ 8:20am | ! Report

        Exactly. Part of the reason we actually had to make a trade with Adelaide is because Dangerfield agreed to an undervalued contract. Adelaide could have matched it on dollar value easily.

    • Roar Guru

      May 16th 2017 @ 9:32am
      Paul D said | May 16th 2017 @ 9:32am | ! Report

      Shallow analysis. These players are on more money therefore they are envied and that’s why they’re not winning.

      • May 16th 2017 @ 3:21pm
        Gecko said | May 16th 2017 @ 3:21pm | ! Report

        Agreed this is a shallow analysis.

        I agree with Michael that the Swans have had a different club culture since the arrival of Buddy and Tippett (and relatively simultaneous departure of several club stalwarts), however the Swans got to a Grand Final last year so their new club culture can’t be too bad.

        As to Dangerfield and Selwood hogging Geelong’s salary cap, their team mates know that both players could have gotten more with another club. Michael should have looked for other possible reasons for Geelong’s brittle form. Player development at Geelong seems to be an issue, with zero players developing into A-graders in recent years.

    • Roar Guru

      May 16th 2017 @ 10:38am
      JamesH said | May 16th 2017 @ 10:38am | ! Report

      Sydney offered those contracts to Tippett and Buddy when they had the extra COLA cap space. Not sure they would have gone for both of them had they known the AFL would scrap it. Plus it’s not as if other stars in their squad like Hannebery, Parker or Kennedy are looking to flee the harbour city. Their two grand finals in three years says that they’ve still been an elite team.

      I agree in principle that offering massive contracts to buy players can have a detrimental effect but I’m not convinced by either of your examples. For me, Geelong’s biggest problem is that it traded itself out of the draft in recent seasons to bring in experienced players, which means it now hasn’t got enough obvious young talent coming through. Cockatoo is the only real example that stands out, with a couple of ‘potentials’ in Parfit and Parsons. And now they want to bring back Abblett for a season or two. SMH.

      • May 16th 2017 @ 11:02am
        Birdman said | May 16th 2017 @ 11:02am | ! Report

        JH, you make it sound like the the Swans deals had no consequences – they cost them key players in Mumford, Tom Mitchell and Malceski at a minimum with the biggest consequence being loss of COLA itself.

        The Dangerfield trade doesn’t deserve to be in this conversation IMO since it’s unders relative to the market.

        The Vickery deal looks a bust ATM but the context that’s missing from this story is that Roughead was still receiving treatment when it landed so it ended up being insurance only but def. a bit pricey. The fact that Hawthorn are prepared to play him in the magoos is reassuring to me.

        • May 16th 2017 @ 12:30pm
          Redgater said | May 16th 2017 @ 12:30pm | ! Report

          The lose of Malceski to swans whilst hurt was not that bad as he fizzled out…lose of mummy was a bug one mummy or tippet has to mummy every day of the week. Mitchell was a luxury at the swans with their midfield but a shame to lose quality young miss. You also forget fringe players like biggs nankervis medbury but you all good players lost due to the squeeze and allowing goodes to play on one year too many. Happens at all clubs. The swans were once the masters at swing the value in fringe players and giving them a shot and need to get back to that to recreate that team ethos that stood them so well…no one man (or two) should he bigger than the te

          • May 16th 2017 @ 1:18pm
            Birdman said | May 16th 2017 @ 1:18pm | ! Report

            Tom Mitchell’s 2017 stats at the Hawks makes a lie of the view that he was a fringe or luxury player at the Swans – in fact Jack and Hannebery might fit that description better.

            Glad to say, the Hawks have made out like bandits on that trade.

            Thx for also reminding me about Nankervis – can I also add Membrey?

            The deal that keeps giving (to other clubs)………….

      • May 16th 2017 @ 11:31am
        Aransan said | May 16th 2017 @ 11:31am | ! Report

        James, I agree that Geelong’s problem is especially due to it trading itself out of the draft.

    • May 16th 2017 @ 11:29am
      Aransan said | May 16th 2017 @ 11:29am | ! Report

      I was critical of the Bulldogs signing Tom Boyd at the time on the contract he was given but I don’t believe the Bulldogs would have won the 2016 premiership without him. There will be a number of players on million dollar contracts under the new salary cap, it will only make sense for a club to entice a player from elsewhere on this money if they fill a particular piece of a jigsaw puzzle for their own list. A club icon should be prepared to stay at a club for 80% of their market value. I believe Fyfe, Bontempelli and Martin would have market values of $1.25m under the new salary cap thus $1m should be enough for them to stay at their clubs on 5 year contracts. Players should be wary of clubs prepared to pay significantly over market value unless they are unconcerned about premiership success.

      • May 16th 2017 @ 1:22pm
        Birdman said | May 16th 2017 @ 1:22pm | ! Report

        Agree on Boyd – vital component of the 2016 flag but the issue for me is that value is harder to find after year one or two of these mega deals.

    • May 16th 2017 @ 12:18pm
      Moff said | May 16th 2017 @ 12:18pm | ! Report

      To bring a player into a side and not overpay…base it on a % of the CEO’s salary. Say 85% as we can not have the CEO’s underval;ued.

    , ,