Leadership Group 2018

Topic: Leadership Group 2018 (Read 34329 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Leadership Group 2018

Reply #135 – February 08, 2018, 09:01:30 pm

That "he hasn't taken one it was given to him" is rubbish I am sorry.
He demanded a certain pay and as such knew the expectations and knew he would be judged by those expectations and so he should.

I use to hire a lot of people and the top people I was hiring were people whose salary topped 250k range. I would also hire people starting down in the 60-65k range so much like a football team, there was an really large discrepancy between my highest and lowest paid employees. Now it was my job to ensure that I was able to differentiate between what the people in the top bracket could do and what the people on the lower scale (and all those in between) could do.

If I made an error, I would have had to answer to those above me, but I can also tell you this.. If someone was hired on a top end salary they were told in absolutely clear terms the expectations that came with that salary and those expectations were (quite rightly) much higher than others, considering they were earning 4 times the salary, that is a simple reality and unfortunately there was an occasion in one of the teams I managed where a person (actually hired by my predecessor) represented they could do a much higher quality job than they were capable of doing and I had to unfortunately I had to terminate them. IF they had of been on 35-40% of their salary, they would have been on an appropriate wage for what they could deliver, but they weren't and so they had to go. The TEAM needed a very senior person they could rely on with top level skills to deliver in critical situations and that was what I was paying that sort of money for and I certainly did not have a budget that allowed me to just add another person at those sorts of wages. I was lucky, I was able to replace them with someone far more suitably skilled, something not easily done when you sign someone to a 4-5 year contract.

Now these salaries are high by normal standards, but not by footballers standards... but the point I am making is not about the actual figures (it could be the lower end staff on 30k and top end on 120k) as the relevance is that you have a situation where you have people in the same team earning 2/3/4x the salary of others (and in football clubs that can be 10-15x) they have to be judged on that, it is pure and simple and they absolutely know that when they sign the contract. You cannot possibly believe that Daisy did not understand the level of expectation that came with earning x% most of his colleague.

This has turned into a Daisy discussion, which I was hoping it wouldn't, but I can't let that sort of comment just go and say, well he is a good bloke, he works hard and his teammates like him. Or.. well SOS has kept him, so therefore his recruitment is justified..

The transfer of Daisy (again off the original topic of overall leadership) is one that cannot ever be justified in my opinion. We got it spectacularly wrong & should never have brought him to the club. His continued presence on the list isn't as big an issue to me now, because his reduced salary means the impact to our ability to attract and retain players is far less and is more at the level of other players.
If Daisy had come to the club on his 2018 salary, I agree this wouldn't be a discussion, but then he would have performed closer to the expectations of him at that wage.

Re: Leadership Group 2018

Reply #136 – February 08, 2018, 09:28:31 pm

There was a old adage that you get paid more for what you know than what you do...maybe Daisy got hired under that guise....
Daisy's main problem was he arrived injured or recovering from injury and it took a couple of years for him to be able to contribute anything as he couldnt kick 30m and was about as agile as an elephant on valium...

Re: Leadership Group 2018

Reply #137 – February 08, 2018, 10:12:20 pm

Quote from: mateinone on February 08, 2018, 09:01:30 pm

That "he hasn't taken one it was given to him" is rubbish I am sorry.
He demanded a certain pay and as such knew the expectations and knew he would be judged by those expectations and so he should.

The 'real world' and the football world are not comparable. By that logic, anyone above minimum wage not getting a game would be 'sacked' every year for delivering zero.

Think about it from a fantasy footy point of view. We have our team and no trades left until the end of the season.
If Daisy is scoring more points than a bloke half his wage, Daisy plays.
If they were on a par, you'd trade daisy out and use the money elsewhere....but you can't do that mid-season in AFL at this stage.
It doesn't matter how much more money he is on compared to the 23rd bloke, you play him to get the best result from your cattle.

Sure, you can kick yourself all year for spending the money on him and not on someone else, but that point is not relevent on a week to week basis. That is an off-season issue.

Bolts, SOS and everyone else at the club has had the chance to 'sell' in the off-season and decided not to.
Why? He is the only player on our list who has won a flag. He is 100% dedicated to the coaches, team and club.
That type of leadership means something to the club, even if it doesn't to your average joe supporter.

Re: Leadership Group 2018

Reply #138 – February 08, 2018, 10:56:21 pm

No they are completely comparable.
If a person is payed more in football it is because the club believes they offer more than others.
When the club agreed to pay Daisy what he and his management were seeking, there would have been a clear set of expectations on what he would deliver and there is no way he has come close to delivering on those.

Yeap credit for trying, credit for helping mentor the young players, credit for choosing not to force the club to have him mainly play reserves last year by getting rid of his clause, allowing us to pick him on merit.

I am not saying Daisy can't be picked in the 22, but that doesn't change that his recruitment was terrible.
There was little to no chance to 'sell' as you say in the off season as there would have been little to no interest.

You are jumping to a lot of conclusions as to why the club retained him. Bolts has set he sets a good example, but then so did Armfield. You conclude we kept him because he is the only player with a flag, but I haven't seen that either. I think they kept him because they see him as in our best 22 or best 25 players and it wasn't going to be easy to find another ready to go player better than him for nothing and he is accepting a salary closer to his worth.

Do you think if he had made similar salary demands to last time he would be there? Of course not. I suspect he stayed because he is on the right salary for what he is capable of delivering and that is a lot less than he has been paid.

The point about how much you pay Daisy is relevant whilst you are paying him that salary. It doesn't mean you can't play him (though for quite a while I don't think he was even playing well enough to deserve selection in most sides), but you can constantly expect more from him.

You have said over and over his salary doesn't matter and I have said over and over it does. I am sure it also matters to at least come of his workmates as much as it matters to others in any industry if they think a person is overpaid for their output. That is true across all sports where players are putting in clauses to make sure they are the highest paid at the club or that their salary also goes up if another player starts to earn more etc and I don't see that it would be any different in the AFL where the players threaten industrial action every time that the CBA is up for renegotiation.

Re: Leadership Group 2018

Reply #139 – February 09, 2018, 08:16:40 am

Quote from: mateinone on February 08, 2018, 10:56:21 pm

I am not saying Daisy can't be picked in the 22, but that doesn't change that his recruitment was terrible.
There was little to no chance to 'sell' as you say in the off season as there would have been little to no interest.

His recruitment wasn't terrible, his remuneration was!

Connecting the two is unrealistic, it's not Daisy's fault, the anger should be directed elsewhere.

Overall he is well above being the worst in the 22, in fact when fans are able to divorce their evaluation of his performance from his remuneration he sits comfortably in the top half of the squad in just about any terms they choose to measure except value for money. Which is in itself an indictment on our list and our recent history. But again, the performance of those around him isn't his problem.

Re: Leadership Group 2018

Reply #140 – February 09, 2018, 08:51:27 am

Quote from: LP on February 09, 2018, 08:16:40 am

His recruitment wasn't terrible, his remuneration was!

Connecting the two is unrealistic, it's not Daisy's fault, the anger should be directed elsewhere.

Overall he is well above being the worst in the 22, in fact when fans are able to divorce their evaluation of his performance from his remuneration he sits comfortably in the top half of the squad in just about any terms they choose to measure except value for money. Which is in itself an indictment on our list and our recent history. But again, the performance of those around him isn't his problem.

Given the points I made in my reply #129, it's not just the money, the whole idea of getting him to the club was wrong.

He's finished in B+F top 10 once in his time with us (in 2014, when he finished 10th).

IMO, the attraction for Bolts is that Daisy is a very smart, natural footballer, and Bolts knows that he can rely on Daisy to reinforce the coach's voice on match day, and that's really his value IMO - as the coach's voice in-game. His actual match day work (tackles, goals, running etc) is limited.

Re: Leadership Group 2018

Reply #141 – February 09, 2018, 09:58:04 am

Quote from: LP on February 09, 2018, 08:16:40 am

His recruitment wasn't terrible, his remuneration was!

Connecting the two is unrealistic, it's not Daisy's fault, the anger should be directed elsewhere.

Are you serious?
Of course the two are connected. It was Daisy that was demanding the salary that was to be paid.
The recruitment of him absolutely is tied to his remuneration. An integral part of the recruitment of any person to any organization is their salary.

His recruitment was terrible because there is no way he was coming on half the money which is still more (bu much closer to the mark) than the value he has given the club over the course of that 1st contract.

I am flabbergasted as to how anyone could consider the recruitment of Daisy wasn't a disaster. I would be far more stunned if there was any list manager in the competition who would consider it anything but.

When you bring a player in on top 3 wages to a club and they sit somewhere around 18-25 on the list for effectiveness that is a disaster.
Perhaps (despite the public comments to the contrary) we keep Betts if we don't pay that sort of money for Daisy and perhaps we try and throw that sort of money at an Ollie Wines or some other player (remember this was huge coin).

Anyway it is obvious that as clear as it is to me that Dasiy was a recruiting disaster, to others it is just as clear it wasn't and nothing said is making any difference on changing opinions.
So I am going to actually not reply to the Daisy stuff here, except in direct relationship to the leadership group, because despite saying I wouldn't only a few posts back.. I have really helped get this topic way off track.

Re: Leadership Group 2018

Reply #142 – February 09, 2018, 10:25:57 am

Spot on MIO.

Re: Leadership Group 2018

Reply #143 – February 09, 2018, 12:35:54 pm

Cost us Betts compensation as well. As others said, if it wasn't a disaster it was a very costly mistake.

Re: Leadership Group 2018

Reply #144 – February 09, 2018, 12:47:57 pm

Agendas aside, we paid far too much for Daisy but we are making the best of it and trying to extract the best possible value from him that we can. Daisy, for his part, is trying to give the best value that he can, including not pressing his contractual claims for his final year. Yes, the club made a big error up front, and some errors need time to correct or to minimise their effects, ending up being costly ones. I don't lose any sleep about Daisy now tbh - we can't go back and change it. Onward and upward!!

Re: Leadership Group 2018

Reply #145 – February 09, 2018, 12:52:11 pm

Quote from: flyboy77 on January 30, 2018, 09:41:48 am

If Ollie Wines comes east next year is he a leadership type?

Rockliff went straight into Port's leadership group.

Given that Wines is Port's vice-captain, he would have to be considered for our leadership group if he was in navy blue in 2019. Of course, his approach to leadership would have to be consistent with what we now have.

Re: Leadership Group 2018

Reply #146 – February 09, 2018, 01:16:29 pm

There are two things at play.

Value for money is one.

Value is another.

What I see happening is people have seen no value for money, and then extrapolated that into no value.

Im a glass half full sort of person, and I can see the value that we have gotten for Daisy, and whilst it hasnt been fair value, we have paid a premium for the sort of leadership that our playing group has lacked for a long time.

People will question it, but I see it for what it is. Value:

1. Daisy was once the premier mid in the competition according to scribes. you can't buy that sort of respect readily in the market for an AFL footballer.

2. He plays footy in a way that sets an example for everyone. Cripps thanks Daisy in his B+F speech for giving him guidance when it came to rehab from injury.

3. He seems to have rubbed off on many of his teamates in the sort of avenues we have failed in as a group for a long time and is a unifying presence at the club.
Workrate. Role playing. Pressure. Vocal. Leadership. Rehab. Proffesionalism.

finally, have a look at what has happened at the place he departed. They havent had a good season since he left, irrespective of the fact that he wasnt a good contributer in his last couple of seasons. Thats partly to do with the way they changed things up at the club, but mostly to do with the fact that they have too many doing too few and leaving all the hard work to the usual suspects. They havent had a good kid come on since he left.

If our blokes get even half the selflessness, proffesionalism and workrate that Daisy gave, we will get much more from him than any acts he could perform on the field.

These are intangible things. ive played with some good players over the years, but there were very few that were revered for being good footballers and good workers at the same time, and Daisy is one of them. We havent had all that many over the journey either.

Re: Leadership Group 2018

Reply #147 – February 09, 2018, 01:51:34 pm

Quote from: Thryleon on February 09, 2018, 01:16:29 pm

What I see happening is people have seen no value for money, and then extrapolated that into no value.

There is no doubt this is the case, which is why I wrote my post.

A players worth has little to do with their role. A spud who can tag an Ablett Jnr, in some specific Premiership phase or moment, might be more valuable to a club than a player like Judd! It's all a matter of what you have and what you lack, who is available and what they will cost!

Re: Leadership Group 2018

Reply #148 – February 09, 2018, 02:00:36 pm

Quote from: Thryleon on February 09, 2018, 01:16:29 pm

There are two things at play.

Value for money is one.

Value is another.

What I see happening is people have seen no value for money, and then extrapolated that into no value.

Im a glass half full sort of person, and I can see the value that we have gotten for Daisy, and whilst it hasnt been fair value, we have paid a premium for the sort of leadership that our playing group has lacked for a long time.

People will question it, but I see it for what it is. Value:

1. Daisy was once the premier mid in the competition according to scribes. you can't buy that sort of respect readily in the market for an AFL footballer.

2. He plays footy in a way that sets an example for everyone. Cripps thanks Daisy in his B+F speech for giving him guidance when it came to rehab from injury.

3. He seems to have rubbed off on many of his teamates in the sort of avenues we have failed in as a group for a long time and is a unifying presence at the club.
Workrate. Role playing. Pressure. Vocal. Leadership. Rehab. Proffesionalism.

finally, have a look at what has happened at the place he departed. They havent had a good season since he left, irrespective of the fact that he wasnt a good contributer in his last couple of seasons. Thats partly to do with the way they changed things up at the club, but mostly to do with the fact that they have too many doing too few and leaving all the hard work to the usual suspects. They havent had a good kid come on since he left.

If our blokes get even half the selflessness, proffesionalism and workrate that Daisy gave, we will get much more from him than any acts he could perform on the field.

These are intangible things. ive played with some good players over the years, but there were very few that were revered for being good footballers and good workers at the same time, and Daisy is one of them. We havent had all that many over the journey either.

Well said Thry. More importantly than how scribes rated him is that Ross Lyon rated him the best player in the comp in 2011. In any case, not sure it was a terribly good decision, too late to look in the mirror.

Re: Leadership Group 2018

Reply #149 – February 09, 2018, 02:15:15 pm

Quote from: LP on February 09, 2018, 01:51:34 pm

There is no doubt this is the case, which is why I wrote my post.

A players worth has little to do with their role. A spud who can tag an Ablett Jnr, in some specific Premiership phase or moment, might be more valuable to a club than a player like Judd! It's all a matter of what you have and what you lack, who is available and what they will cost!

That's why lesser lights like Tom Bell and Kerridge can finish top 10 in the B+F, and why Daisy can't.

Daisy = Einstein's brain + Montgomery Burns' body.

It's a shame, because in his day he was a gun.