02-08-2018, 11:56 AM
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.
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.
Goals for 2017
=============
Play the most anti-social football in the AFL
![[Image: blueline.jpg]](http://www.carltonblues.net/images/blueline.jpg)
=============
Play the most anti-social football in the AFL