+- Carlton Supporters Club (http://new.carltonsc.com)
+-- Forum: Princes Park (http://new.carltonsc.com/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: Robert Heatley Stand (http://new.carltonsc.com/forum-14.html)
+--- Thread: Leadership Group 2018 (/thread-3596.html)
Re: Leadership Group 2018 - kruddler - 02-08-2018
(02-08-2018, 08:05 AM)PaulP link Wrote:The club bent over far too easily in their rush to get new messiahs. Daisy was coming off a 5 game season in 2013. He had surgery in November 2012, then again in May 2013, then returns to the VFL and injures the ankle again in Aug 2013. The club ignored the medical advice of it own doctor, who said no to Daisy.........
With the benefit of hindsight, it beggars belief the club spent more than 30 seconds even thinking about his recruitment.
And no, Daisy hasn't done anything wrong per se, but he is the main character in a lousy tale of woe, so he will be forever associated with the whole debacle.
I didn't dislike Daisy as a Pie, and I don't dislike him as a Blue, but his recruitment was still a lame ar$se decision.
Oh well - one can only hope the club has learned its lesson.
http://www.afl.com.au/news/2013-08-19/doc-doubting-thomas
Again, your beef is with the club. Take it out on them.
Blame SOS for signing daisy up for another year if you want.
Re: Leadership Group 2018 - PaulP - 02-08-2018
(02-08-2018, 08:27 AM)kruddler link Wrote:Again, your beef is with the club. Take it out on them.
Blame SOS for signing daisy up for another year if you want.
My beef has always been with the club, especially regarding the 2012-2015 era, as you of all people would know.
Re: Leadership Group 2018 - mateinone - 02-08-2018
(02-08-2018, 07:00 AM)kruddler link Wrote:Again, all the criticisms of Daisy have come down to his pay packet. That is NOT his problem. It has become a huge problem for him for the extra pressure it has led him to receive.
The only mentions of Daisy on this thread that do NOT involve his pay packet are overwhelmingly positive...
Yeap, if Daisy had been on nothing over these years he would be talked about in a similar tone to Armfield, perhaps a little better.
But his salary was a HUGE problem for the club and when he signed on to it, he signed on as a marquee player.
Sure he can take his cash and pocket it and I don't begrudge him the 'right' to that.
But then supporters have a right to ask whether his impact is commensurate with his impact on our Salary Cap and our ability to spent that money on a an actual top player.
If Daisy had been on a standard salary the expectations would be different, there is no denying that, but he hasn't been.
You can turn as much of a blind eye and say it isn't his fault and all that and in fact that is fine...
BUT... AGAIN.... He has taken one of the top marquee spots at the club and he has not performed anywhere near a marquee player.
BTW I was quick to praise him myself when he asked the club to drop the clause and I had no issue when they resigned him on a salary that better reflected his worth to the team, but was his recruitment a success or a failure? It is absolutely 100% clear it was a failure, he hasn't done what he was paid to do.
Re: Leadership Group 2018 - kruddler - 02-08-2018
(02-08-2018, 08:46 AM)mateinone link Wrote:Yeap, if Daisy had been on nothing over these years he would be talked about in a similar tone to Armfield, perhaps a little better.
But his salary was a HUGE problem for the club and when he signed on to it, he signed on as a marquee player.
Sure he can take his cash and pocket it and I don't begrudge him the 'right' to that.
But then supporters have a right to ask whether his impact is commensurate with his impact on our Salary Cap and our ability to spent that money on a an actual top player.
If Daisy had been on a standard salary the expectations would be different, there is no denying that, but he hasn't been.
You can turn as much of a blind eye and say it isn't his fault and all that and in fact that is fine...
BUT... AGAIN.... He has taken one of the top marquee spots at the club and he has not performed anywhere near a marquee player.
BTW I was quick to praise him myself when he asked the club to drop the clause and I had no issue when they resigned him on a salary that better reflected his worth to the team, but was his recruitment a success or a failure? It is absolutely 100% clear it was a failure, he hasn't done what he was paid to do.
He hasn't 'taken' one of the marquee spots, it was given to him.
Don't get me wrong. The club is to blame and i doubt they'd do it again. However, daisy has given everything and done everything he possibly could. Whether that is good enough for a spot on the list, a starting 22, his salary or whatever is up for debate, but he has never died wondering. You cannot fault his preparation and dedication to the club.
Too many players are content with plodding along and counting the cash.
Daisy could have easily been one of them, but refused to. Kudos to him for that.
Re: Leadership Group 2018 - flyboy77 - 02-08-2018
Kudos for taking crazy money and delivering diddly...
Yeah, right. :-X :-X
Re: Leadership Group 2018 - mateinone - 02-08-2018
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 - ElwoodBlues1 - 02-08-2018
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 - kruddler - 02-08-2018
(02-08-2018, 10:01 AM)mateinone link Wrote: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 - mateinone - 02-08-2018
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 - LP - 02-08-2018
(02-08-2018, 11:56 AM)mateinone link Wrote: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.