Leadership Group 2018

[kruddler]

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.

So the club had expectations that Daisy has failed to reach. Is that
a) Daisy's fault for not putting in and doing his role to the best of his ability?
b) The clubs fault for expecting Daisy to be a player his body can no longer be?

I'd say b).

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.

So something he has control over, he gets the credit for.

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.

The recruitment may have been terrible, but that is NOT daisys fault.

If a club said we want you to come over to the enemy and leave a club you've won a flag at for a team which is struggling. We want you to mentor our players and set an example everyone can try to emulate and we want to pay you 700k a year to do so.
Are you going to say...thanks but no thanks. I'm not the player i used to be? I'll take less thanks.

Gimme a break.

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.

I'm not jumping to conclusions. I'm stating facts.
The club kept him after his initial contract was up.
He sets a good example.
He is the only player on our list with a flag.

I have an opinion that all of those would certainly be in the 'pro' column when the club evaluated his worth.
Yes, being a potential best 22 player would be another reason.
As for Army, different kettle of fish, but it appears his body (which is older) is not allowing him to do the things he (and the club) want him to be able to do. FWIW, i wouldn't be unhappy if he was retained.

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.

Again with the money.
Of course if he demanded 1mil, the club would tell him where to go.
If Crippa demanded 1 mil, they'd probably tell him the same.

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.

Value for money...AGAIN.  :
He is on the list. Is he giving you value for money? Probably not....but does that come into consideration when you are picking the team? It shouldn't. You pick the team that gives you the best chance to win.

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.

You are STILL getting the 2 confused.
Value for money, is a club issue. Club signs the contracts and pays the money. If they are unhappy with value for money they do something about it.
It goes back to the first point i made in this post....did the club expect too much from Daisy? Yes. Was it a mistake to pay him that much? Yes. Is there a lesson to be learned? Yes.
Has daisy done anything wrong in terms of effort, attitude and things in his control? No.