|
Ds98
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.1K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xCan't see it happening in the Aleague, how else are the big clubs going to gouge the smaller clubs of their developed players. This will just add another road block to NPL players proceeding to the ALeague, if this exists, and the Aleagues don't come in to the fold, what is the incentive on teams like the Mariners? Pay a shit load of money to an NPL club, then have SFC take him for free once proven what a load of shit. Honestly so close to walking away. What are you talking about? This is one of the most positive things to have happened in football recently. This is about forming a stronger system in grassroots football overall. Offering teams an incentive to develop players.
If the mariners do pay a fee to an NPL Club it is their prerogative to offer what they think they are worth. And length of contract would be one of those factors. Even now the mariners can just offer player x a contract for what they think they are worth. That’s not Sydney’s fault. Clubs should be more pro-active in tying down their good/promising players. So let's say the Mariners find a decent player and then put them on a small contract after organising a transfer fee. The Mariners outlay the money, the mariners take 100% of the risk. Along comes, one of the big clubs and says they'll pay the Former NPL Player triple, one year in to a 2 year contract. The Mariner now have a choice, a disgruntled player if they restrict the movement, or they can get no reimbursement if they want to recoup the risk and money outlayed. And this is a good thing? I have nothing against NPL clubs attempting to ensure they make money from their contracted players I'm just saying that it's going to shaft the small Aleague clubs, and if it shafts them to much, expect a reduction in number of NPL Players being scouted.I want a DTS more than anyone but this will now squeeze the small clubs from both direction, it will be at the detriment of Australian Players, and Developmental Clubs. Do you think paying a transfer fee and offering a two year contract is a smart move? I don't think you see where I'm coming from. Ambitious, smart, clubs will succeed here, just like anywhere else in the world. The ones that have a set idea of how they are going to survive in that environment will figure it out. We have this tendency to make sure the whole thing doesn't just fall in a heap, but football is a brutal business, the ones that can find a way to survive will survive, those that need babying are always going to keep us behind. The Mariners are succeeding and will continue to do so off their current model. It does however mean avenues for players dry up, and development clubs like the Mariners will be restrained as they no longer are willing to take risks. If you can't sell the player on at a profit, how do you make money in a development league? You will be hard pressed getting more than a 2 year contract moving from the NPL, and as such the idea that someone would pay good money in a transfer, only to have the insecurity of another club nicking the player seems pretty stupid The other argument is what about the NPL club that has developed them, you think its fair they lose their player for nothing? The a-league clubs have been poaching players from the NPL for years and outside of sell on clauses the NPL make no money from letting players go to the a-league. The game needs to support each other not alienated themselves and not leave one to dry. Actually last year, the only player the Mariners "poached" from the NPL was Alou (and look where he is now). Like I said I'm not against transfers, but forcing the Mariners to pay a fee, and dicking them by no allowing them to sell there investment, you're essentially just moving the problem on to the smaller A-league Clubs, and if this happens I can guarantee that the number of NPL players will reduce. But they did sell Alou overseas? My point exactly. The system works. But only if the player goes overseas. My point is that the Mariners are stifled in their forms of revenue, if the FFA increase the outlays, without atleast giving them surety that they can sell the product on, then why would the Mariners risk it on an untested product if they have a similar if not marginally inferior product, or products from percieved superior league. the riskier product will be reduced. No more Koul, no more Jedinak, no more Rogic. Nah man, you need to look at the bigger picture. The Mariners play their part well in the australian eco-system as it is currently, But that system is so broken it isn't funny. they give players opportunities yes, but what they don't do is pay their fair share to other clubs who similarly would like to produce a Rogic for instance or a Jedinak or someone better for that matter. Did anyone ask Belconnen what they got in return for producing Rogic? or Sydney United for Jedinak? I'm sure they would've liked to have put some funds in to further improve their youth structures as well. If I was a Mariners fan I would be annoyed i get it. But this is the way it is and clubs will have to find a way to make it work. The way the rest of the world makes it work (mostly) So the bigger issue, isn't that Tommy rogic is a gun in the SPL, or that Mile single handedly got us to a WC with the game against Honduras, becuase they got in the shop front, it's the fact the NPL Clubs didn't get reimbursed 15 years earlier for these players, because the system is broke? Like I've said if the mariners continue to be dicked from both directions, then the NPL clubs will eventually lose a pathway, and then the "Big Picture" is Australian Football as a whole loses. Now read this carefully Ds because I've now said it multiple times, I want a "full DTS", but this is not a "full DTS", and because it's only half measure I don't support it. It means paths for development will become even more stifled for developing players. I understand that, trust me. But if you go to my original reply, you would see that I'm judging this literally for what it is. And from what I can see this is a move in the right direction for the grassroots (which is the foundations of the game) But your reasoning sounds like you don't see the DTS as a benefit, due to the mariners success of getting players for free which is why I may be getting confused. Is it? I'm a central coast fan, look at the other clubs rosters and the players histories, why the fuck would I not want a DTS? if we get 200k off Macauther for Lewis Miller, we invest that into getting more (NPL and CCM juniors), but we got nothing and so that will trickle down. I'm looking at this new initiative from the lens of an NPL1, 2, 3, 4 club. Couldn't care less about the A-League because in the report it didn't say it was coming into effect. Everything I've written relays to how this effects NPL clubs lol. NPL being the "Big Picture", not DTS, player progression or fairness in top tier trading. Advancement of football in this country is the "Big Picture", half measures don't cut it. When you shit on clubs like CCM, it doesn't help the league, it doesn't help the players, and believe it or not it will not help the NPL clubs Look man you've gotta start somewhere. I'll happily shit on CCM if it means the other thousand clubs around Australia, become included in the Australian football eco-system. I'm hopeful this will soon apply to AL clubs in due course, in which case that is the 'whole picture.' But we don't even know if this will even work yet, but its good to see something happen nonetheless.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Monoethnic Social Club
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 11K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xCan't see it happening in the Aleague, how else are the big clubs going to gouge the smaller clubs of their developed players. This will just add another road block to NPL players proceeding to the ALeague, if this exists, and the Aleagues don't come in to the fold, what is the incentive on teams like the Mariners? Pay a shit load of money to an NPL club, then have SFC take him for free once proven what a load of shit. Honestly so close to walking away. What are you talking about? This is one of the most positive things to have happened in football recently. This is about forming a stronger system in grassroots football overall. Offering teams an incentive to develop players.
If the mariners do pay a fee to an NPL Club it is their prerogative to offer what they think they are worth. And length of contract would be one of those factors. Even now the mariners can just offer player x a contract for what they think they are worth. That’s not Sydney’s fault. Clubs should be more pro-active in tying down their good/promising players. So let's say the Mariners find a decent player and then put them on a small contract after organising a transfer fee. The Mariners outlay the money, the mariners take 100% of the risk. Along comes, one of the big clubs and says they'll pay the Former NPL Player triple, one year in to a 2 year contract. The Mariner now have a choice, a disgruntled player if they restrict the movement, or they can get no reimbursement if they want to recoup the risk and money outlayed. And this is a good thing? I have nothing against NPL clubs attempting to ensure they make money from their contracted players I'm just saying that it's going to shaft the small Aleague clubs, and if it shafts them to much, expect a reduction in number of NPL Players being scouted.I want a DTS more than anyone but this will now squeeze the small clubs from both direction, it will be at the detriment of Australian Players, and Developmental Clubs. Do you think paying a transfer fee and offering a two year contract is a smart move? I don't think you see where I'm coming from. Ambitious, smart, clubs will succeed here, just like anywhere else in the world. The ones that have a set idea of how they are going to survive in that environment will figure it out. We have this tendency to make sure the whole thing doesn't just fall in a heap, but football is a brutal business, the ones that can find a way to survive will survive, those that need babying are always going to keep us behind. The Mariners are succeeding and will continue to do so off their current model. It does however mean avenues for players dry up, and development clubs like the Mariners will be restrained as they no longer are willing to take risks. If you can't sell the player on at a profit, how do you make money in a development league? You will be hard pressed getting more than a 2 year contract moving from the NPL, and as such the idea that someone would pay good money in a transfer, only to have the insecurity of another club nicking the player seems pretty stupid The other argument is what about the NPL club that has developed them, you think its fair they lose their player for nothing? The a-league clubs have been poaching players from the NPL for years and outside of sell on clauses the NPL make no money from letting players go to the a-league. The game needs to support each other not alienated themselves and not leave one to dry. Actually last year, the only player the Mariners "poached" from the NPL was Alou (and look where he is now). Like I said I'm not against transfers, but forcing the Mariners to pay a fee, and dicking them by no allowing them to sell there investment, you're essentially just moving the problem on to the smaller A-league Clubs, and if this happens I can guarantee that the number of NPL players will reduce. But they did sell Alou overseas? My point exactly. The system works. But only if the player goes overseas. My point is that the Mariners are stifled in their forms of revenue, if the FFA increase the outlays, without atleast giving them surety that they can sell the product on, then why would the Mariners risk it on an untested product if they have a similar if not marginally inferior product, or products from percieved superior league. the riskier product will be reduced. No more Koul, no more Jedinak, no more Rogic. Nah man, you need to look at the bigger picture. The Mariners play their part well in the australian eco-system as it is currently, But that system is so broken it isn't funny. they give players opportunities yes, but what they don't do is pay their fair share to other clubs who similarly would like to produce a Rogic for instance or a Jedinak or someone better for that matter. Did anyone ask Belconnen what they got in return for producing Rogic? or Sydney United for Jedinak? I'm sure they would've liked to have put some funds in to further improve their youth structures as well. If I was a Mariners fan I would be annoyed i get it. But this is the way it is and clubs will have to find a way to make it work. The way the rest of the world makes it work (mostly) So the bigger issue, isn't that Tommy rogic is a gun in the SPL, or that Mile single handedly got us to a WC with the game against Honduras, becuase they got in the shop front, it's the fact the NPL Clubs didn't get reimbursed 15 years earlier for these players, because the system is broke? Like I've said if the mariners continue to be dicked from both directions, then the NPL clubs will eventually lose a pathway, and then the "Big Picture" is Australian Football as a whole loses. Now read this carefully Ds because I've now said it multiple times, I want a "full DTS", but this is not a "full DTS", and because it's only half measure I don't support it. It means paths for development will become even more stifled for developing players. I understand that, trust me. But if you go to my original reply, you would see that I'm judging this literally for what it is. And from what I can see this is a move in the right direction for the grassroots (which is the foundations of the game) But your reasoning sounds like you don't see the DTS as a benefit, due to the mariners success of getting players for free which is why I may be getting confused. Is it? I'm a central coast fan, look at the other clubs rosters and the players histories, why the fuck would I not want a DTS? if we get 200k off Macauther for Lewis Miller, we invest that into getting more (NPL and CCM juniors), but we got nothing and so that will trickle down. I'm looking at this new initiative from the lens of an NPL1, 2, 3, 4 club. Couldn't care less about the A-League because in the report it didn't say it was coming into effect. Everything I've written relays to how this effects NPL clubs lol. NPL being the "Big Picture", not DTS, player progression or fairness in top tier trading. Advancement of football in this country is the "Big Picture", half measures don't cut it. When you shit on clubs like CCM, it doesn't help the league, it doesn't help the players, and believe it or not it will not help the NPL clubs Huddo, I see your point and I guess from the perspective of clubs like CCM and whoever else usually relies on the NPL to fill their rosters the answer is to change tack and rely on their own academies as a source of players instead. The double edged sword for the APL though is that this new found (and extremely welcome) source of funding injected into the player economy will create a stronger desire for players to stay the course within grassroots and clubland rather than end up at APL "farms" where they can be traded away for nothing. Watch NPL clubs start tying up promising U19s to 3 or 4 year contracts and offering other NPL players from around the traps 2-3 year contracts as well.... Especially if their is incentive to stay/play in a national division.... I predicted a possible arms race if the NSD ever got up and running, now with no cap on transfers I can almost guarantee it.
|
|
|
|
|
Monoethnic Social Club
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 11K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xCan't see it happening in the Aleague, how else are the big clubs going to gouge the smaller clubs of their developed players. This will just add another road block to NPL players proceeding to the ALeague, if this exists, and the Aleagues don't come in to the fold, what is the incentive on teams like the Mariners? Pay a shit load of money to an NPL club, then have SFC take him for free once proven what a load of shit. Honestly so close to walking away. What are you talking about? This is one of the most positive things to have happened in football recently. This is about forming a stronger system in grassroots football overall. Offering teams an incentive to develop players.
If the mariners do pay a fee to an NPL Club it is their prerogative to offer what they think they are worth. And length of contract would be one of those factors. Even now the mariners can just offer player x a contract for what they think they are worth. That’s not Sydney’s fault. Clubs should be more pro-active in tying down their good/promising players. So let's say the Mariners find a decent player and then put them on a small contract after organising a transfer fee. The Mariners outlay the money, the mariners take 100% of the risk. Along comes, one of the big clubs and says they'll pay the Former NPL Player triple, one year in to a 2 year contract. The Mariner now have a choice, a disgruntled player if they restrict the movement, or they can get no reimbursement if they want to recoup the risk and money outlayed. And this is a good thing? I have nothing against NPL clubs attempting to ensure they make money from their contracted players I'm just saying that it's going to shaft the small Aleague clubs, and if it shafts them to much, expect a reduction in number of NPL Players being scouted.I want a DTS more than anyone but this will now squeeze the small clubs from both direction, it will be at the detriment of Australian Players, and Developmental Clubs. Do you think paying a transfer fee and offering a two year contract is a smart move? I don't think you see where I'm coming from. Ambitious, smart, clubs will succeed here, just like anywhere else in the world. The ones that have a set idea of how they are going to survive in that environment will figure it out. We have this tendency to make sure the whole thing doesn't just fall in a heap, but football is a brutal business, the ones that can find a way to survive will survive, those that need babying are always going to keep us behind. The Mariners are succeeding and will continue to do so off their current model. It does however mean avenues for players dry up, and development clubs like the Mariners will be restrained as they no longer are willing to take risks. If you can't sell the player on at a profit, how do you make money in a development league? You will be hard pressed getting more than a 2 year contract moving from the NPL, and as such the idea that someone would pay good money in a transfer, only to have the insecurity of another club nicking the player seems pretty stupid The other argument is what about the NPL club that has developed them, you think its fair they lose their player for nothing? The a-league clubs have been poaching players from the NPL for years and outside of sell on clauses the NPL make no money from letting players go to the a-league. The game needs to support each other not alienated themselves and not leave one to dry. Actually last year, the only player the Mariners "poached" from the NPL was Alou (and look where he is now). Like I said I'm not against transfers, but forcing the Mariners to pay a fee, and dicking them by no allowing them to sell there investment, you're essentially just moving the problem on to the smaller A-league Clubs, and if this happens I can guarantee that the number of NPL players will reduce. But they did sell Alou overseas? My point exactly. The system works. But only if the player goes overseas. My point is that the Mariners are stifled in their forms of revenue, if the FFA increase the outlays, without atleast giving them surety that they can sell the product on, then why would the Mariners risk it on an untested product if they have a similar if not marginally inferior product, or products from percieved superior league. the riskier product will be reduced. No more Koul, no more Jedinak, no more Rogic. Nah man, you need to look at the bigger picture. The Mariners play their part well in the australian eco-system as it is currently, But that system is so broken it isn't funny. they give players opportunities yes, but what they don't do is pay their fair share to other clubs who similarly would like to produce a Rogic for instance or a Jedinak or someone better for that matter. Did anyone ask Belconnen what they got in return for producing Rogic? or Sydney United for Jedinak? I'm sure they would've liked to have put some funds in to further improve their youth structures as well. If I was a Mariners fan I would be annoyed i get it. But this is the way it is and clubs will have to find a way to make it work. The way the rest of the world makes it work (mostly) So the bigger issue, isn't that Tommy rogic is a gun in the SPL, or that Mile single handedly got us to a WC with the game against Honduras, becuase they got in the shop front, it's the fact the NPL Clubs didn't get reimbursed 15 years earlier for these players, because the system is broke? Like I've said if the mariners continue to be dicked from both directions, then the NPL clubs will eventually lose a pathway, and then the "Big Picture" is Australian Football as a whole loses. Now read this carefully Ds because I've now said it multiple times, I want a "full DTS", but this is not a "full DTS", and because it's only half measure I don't support it. It means paths for development will become even more stifled for developing players. I understand that, trust me. But if you go to my original reply, you would see that I'm judging this literally for what it is. And from what I can see this is a move in the right direction for the grassroots (which is the foundations of the game) But your reasoning sounds like you don't see the DTS as a benefit, due to the mariners success of getting players for free which is why I may be getting confused. Is it? I'm a central coast fan, look at the other clubs rosters and the players histories, why the fuck would I not want a DTS? if we get 200k off Macauther for Lewis Miller, we invest that into getting more (NPL and CCM juniors), but we got nothing and so that will trickle down. I'm looking at this new initiative from the lens of an NPL1, 2, 3, 4 club. Couldn't care less about the A-League because in the report it didn't say it was coming into effect. Everything I've written relays to how this effects NPL clubs lol. NPL being the "Big Picture", not DTS, player progression or fairness in top tier trading. Advancement of football in this country is the "Big Picture", half measures don't cut it. When you shit on clubs like CCM, it doesn't help the league, it doesn't help the players, and believe it or not it will not help the NPL clubs To be fair don't blame Football Australia for implementing this, because they are doing this for the best interests for the whole sport not just for 11 a-league clubs. Agree it will hurt CCM/Adelaide etc whom rely on the NPL market but you should blame this on certain sections in the APL whom seemly don't want it and whom don't use the NPL system for talent. It really shows what is the true intentions for the APL is it to benefit themselves and milk everything from the game here or is to help the benefit for the sport? They if they say they want the sport to benefit then why are they reluctant to introduce this policy at a-league level if it means no salary cap? FFA were incharge of the sport, before the decoupling 18 months ago. FFA where in charge of the Aleague and barely even knew the "sport" outside of this even existed 18 months ago...... things seem to be changing for the better.
|
|
|
|
|
Ds98
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.1K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xCan't see it happening in the Aleague, how else are the big clubs going to gouge the smaller clubs of their developed players. This will just add another road block to NPL players proceeding to the ALeague, if this exists, and the Aleagues don't come in to the fold, what is the incentive on teams like the Mariners? Pay a shit load of money to an NPL club, then have SFC take him for free once proven what a load of shit. Honestly so close to walking away. What are you talking about? This is one of the most positive things to have happened in football recently. This is about forming a stronger system in grassroots football overall. Offering teams an incentive to develop players.
If the mariners do pay a fee to an NPL Club it is their prerogative to offer what they think they are worth. And length of contract would be one of those factors. Even now the mariners can just offer player x a contract for what they think they are worth. That’s not Sydney’s fault. Clubs should be more pro-active in tying down their good/promising players. So let's say the Mariners find a decent player and then put them on a small contract after organising a transfer fee. The Mariners outlay the money, the mariners take 100% of the risk. Along comes, one of the big clubs and says they'll pay the Former NPL Player triple, one year in to a 2 year contract. The Mariner now have a choice, a disgruntled player if they restrict the movement, or they can get no reimbursement if they want to recoup the risk and money outlayed. And this is a good thing? I have nothing against NPL clubs attempting to ensure they make money from their contracted players I'm just saying that it's going to shaft the small Aleague clubs, and if it shafts them to much, expect a reduction in number of NPL Players being scouted.I want a DTS more than anyone but this will now squeeze the small clubs from both direction, it will be at the detriment of Australian Players, and Developmental Clubs. Do you think paying a transfer fee and offering a two year contract is a smart move? I don't think you see where I'm coming from. Ambitious, smart, clubs will succeed here, just like anywhere else in the world. The ones that have a set idea of how they are going to survive in that environment will figure it out. We have this tendency to make sure the whole thing doesn't just fall in a heap, but football is a brutal business, the ones that can find a way to survive will survive, those that need babying are always going to keep us behind. The Mariners are succeeding and will continue to do so off their current model. It does however mean avenues for players dry up, and development clubs like the Mariners will be restrained as they no longer are willing to take risks. If you can't sell the player on at a profit, how do you make money in a development league? You will be hard pressed getting more than a 2 year contract moving from the NPL, and as such the idea that someone would pay good money in a transfer, only to have the insecurity of another club nicking the player seems pretty stupid The other argument is what about the NPL club that has developed them, you think its fair they lose their player for nothing? The a-league clubs have been poaching players from the NPL for years and outside of sell on clauses the NPL make no money from letting players go to the a-league. The game needs to support each other not alienated themselves and not leave one to dry. Actually last year, the only player the Mariners "poached" from the NPL was Alou (and look where he is now). Like I said I'm not against transfers, but forcing the Mariners to pay a fee, and dicking them by no allowing them to sell there investment, you're essentially just moving the problem on to the smaller A-league Clubs, and if this happens I can guarantee that the number of NPL players will reduce. But they did sell Alou overseas? My point exactly. The system works. But only if the player goes overseas. My point is that the Mariners are stifled in their forms of revenue, if the FFA increase the outlays, without atleast giving them surety that they can sell the product on, then why would the Mariners risk it on an untested product if they have a similar if not marginally inferior product, or products from percieved superior league. the riskier product will be reduced. No more Koul, no more Jedinak, no more Rogic. Nah man, you need to look at the bigger picture. The Mariners play their part well in the australian eco-system as it is currently, But that system is so broken it isn't funny. they give players opportunities yes, but what they don't do is pay their fair share to other clubs who similarly would like to produce a Rogic for instance or a Jedinak or someone better for that matter. Did anyone ask Belconnen what they got in return for producing Rogic? or Sydney United for Jedinak? I'm sure they would've liked to have put some funds in to further improve their youth structures as well. If I was a Mariners fan I would be annoyed i get it. But this is the way it is and clubs will have to find a way to make it work. The way the rest of the world makes it work (mostly) So the bigger issue, isn't that Tommy rogic is a gun in the SPL, or that Mile single handedly got us to a WC with the game against Honduras, becuase they got in the shop front, it's the fact the NPL Clubs didn't get reimbursed 15 years earlier for these players, because the system is broke? Like I've said if the mariners continue to be dicked from both directions, then the NPL clubs will eventually lose a pathway, and then the "Big Picture" is Australian Football as a whole loses. Now read this carefully Ds because I've now said it multiple times, I want a "full DTS", but this is not a "full DTS", and because it's only half measure I don't support it. It means paths for development will become even more stifled for developing players. I understand that, trust me. But if you go to my original reply, you would see that I'm judging this literally for what it is. And from what I can see this is a move in the right direction for the grassroots (which is the foundations of the game) But your reasoning sounds like you don't see the DTS as a benefit, due to the mariners success of getting players for free which is why I may be getting confused. Is it? I'm a central coast fan, look at the other clubs rosters and the players histories, why the fuck would I not want a DTS? if we get 200k off Macauther for Lewis Miller, we invest that into getting more (NPL and CCM juniors), but we got nothing and so that will trickle down. I'm looking at this new initiative from the lens of an NPL1, 2, 3, 4 club. Couldn't care less about the A-League because in the report it didn't say it was coming into effect. Everything I've written relays to how this effects NPL clubs lol. NPL being the "Big Picture", not DTS, player progression or fairness in top tier trading. Advancement of football in this country is the "Big Picture", half measures don't cut it. When you shit on clubs like CCM, it doesn't help the league, it doesn't help the players, and believe it or not it will not help the NPL clubs Huddo, I see your point and I guess from the perspective of clubs like CCM and whoever else usually relies on the NPL to fill their rosters the answer is to change tack and rely on their own academies as a source of players instead. The double edged sword for the APL though is that this new found (and extremely welcome) source of funding injected into the player economy will create a stronger desire for players to stay the course within grassroots and clubland rather than end up at APL "farms" where they can be traded away for nothing. Watch NPL clubs start tying up promising U19s to 3 or 4 year contracts and offering other NPL players from around the traps 2-3 year contracts as well.... Especially if their is incentive to stay/play in a national division.... I predicted a possible arms race if the NSD ever got up and running, now with no cap on transfers I can almost guarantee it. This hypothetically then improves the standard of play, which in turn closes the gap between AL and NPL and increases the likelihood of an expanded top division and second division.
|
|
|
|
|
Barca4Life
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 13K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xCan't see it happening in the Aleague, how else are the big clubs going to gouge the smaller clubs of their developed players. This will just add another road block to NPL players proceeding to the ALeague, if this exists, and the Aleagues don't come in to the fold, what is the incentive on teams like the Mariners? Pay a shit load of money to an NPL club, then have SFC take him for free once proven what a load of shit. Honestly so close to walking away. What are you talking about? This is one of the most positive things to have happened in football recently. This is about forming a stronger system in grassroots football overall. Offering teams an incentive to develop players.
If the mariners do pay a fee to an NPL Club it is their prerogative to offer what they think they are worth. And length of contract would be one of those factors. Even now the mariners can just offer player x a contract for what they think they are worth. That’s not Sydney’s fault. Clubs should be more pro-active in tying down their good/promising players. So let's say the Mariners find a decent player and then put them on a small contract after organising a transfer fee. The Mariners outlay the money, the mariners take 100% of the risk. Along comes, one of the big clubs and says they'll pay the Former NPL Player triple, one year in to a 2 year contract. The Mariner now have a choice, a disgruntled player if they restrict the movement, or they can get no reimbursement if they want to recoup the risk and money outlayed. And this is a good thing? I have nothing against NPL clubs attempting to ensure they make money from their contracted players I'm just saying that it's going to shaft the small Aleague clubs, and if it shafts them to much, expect a reduction in number of NPL Players being scouted.I want a DTS more than anyone but this will now squeeze the small clubs from both direction, it will be at the detriment of Australian Players, and Developmental Clubs. Do you think paying a transfer fee and offering a two year contract is a smart move? I don't think you see where I'm coming from. Ambitious, smart, clubs will succeed here, just like anywhere else in the world. The ones that have a set idea of how they are going to survive in that environment will figure it out. We have this tendency to make sure the whole thing doesn't just fall in a heap, but football is a brutal business, the ones that can find a way to survive will survive, those that need babying are always going to keep us behind. The Mariners are succeeding and will continue to do so off their current model. It does however mean avenues for players dry up, and development clubs like the Mariners will be restrained as they no longer are willing to take risks. If you can't sell the player on at a profit, how do you make money in a development league? You will be hard pressed getting more than a 2 year contract moving from the NPL, and as such the idea that someone would pay good money in a transfer, only to have the insecurity of another club nicking the player seems pretty stupid The other argument is what about the NPL club that has developed them, you think its fair they lose their player for nothing? The a-league clubs have been poaching players from the NPL for years and outside of sell on clauses the NPL make no money from letting players go to the a-league. The game needs to support each other not alienated themselves and not leave one to dry. Actually last year, the only player the Mariners "poached" from the NPL was Alou (and look where he is now). Like I said I'm not against transfers, but forcing the Mariners to pay a fee, and dicking them by no allowing them to sell there investment, you're essentially just moving the problem on to the smaller A-league Clubs, and if this happens I can guarantee that the number of NPL players will reduce. But they did sell Alou overseas? My point exactly. The system works. But only if the player goes overseas. My point is that the Mariners are stifled in their forms of revenue, if the FFA increase the outlays, without atleast giving them surety that they can sell the product on, then why would the Mariners risk it on an untested product if they have a similar if not marginally inferior product, or products from percieved superior league. the riskier product will be reduced. No more Koul, no more Jedinak, no more Rogic. Nah man, you need to look at the bigger picture. The Mariners play their part well in the australian eco-system as it is currently, But that system is so broken it isn't funny. they give players opportunities yes, but what they don't do is pay their fair share to other clubs who similarly would like to produce a Rogic for instance or a Jedinak or someone better for that matter. Did anyone ask Belconnen what they got in return for producing Rogic? or Sydney United for Jedinak? I'm sure they would've liked to have put some funds in to further improve their youth structures as well. If I was a Mariners fan I would be annoyed i get it. But this is the way it is and clubs will have to find a way to make it work. The way the rest of the world makes it work (mostly) So the bigger issue, isn't that Tommy rogic is a gun in the SPL, or that Mile single handedly got us to a WC with the game against Honduras, becuase they got in the shop front, it's the fact the NPL Clubs didn't get reimbursed 15 years earlier for these players, because the system is broke? Like I've said if the mariners continue to be dicked from both directions, then the NPL clubs will eventually lose a pathway, and then the "Big Picture" is Australian Football as a whole loses. Now read this carefully Ds because I've now said it multiple times, I want a "full DTS", but this is not a "full DTS", and because it's only half measure I don't support it. It means paths for development will become even more stifled for developing players. I understand that, trust me. But if you go to my original reply, you would see that I'm judging this literally for what it is. And from what I can see this is a move in the right direction for the grassroots (which is the foundations of the game) But your reasoning sounds like you don't see the DTS as a benefit, due to the mariners success of getting players for free which is why I may be getting confused. Is it? I'm a central coast fan, look at the other clubs rosters and the players histories, why the fuck would I not want a DTS? if we get 200k off Macauther for Lewis Miller, we invest that into getting more (NPL and CCM juniors), but we got nothing and so that will trickle down. I'm looking at this new initiative from the lens of an NPL1, 2, 3, 4 club. Couldn't care less about the A-League because in the report it didn't say it was coming into effect. Everything I've written relays to how this effects NPL clubs lol. NPL being the "Big Picture", not DTS, player progression or fairness in top tier trading. Advancement of football in this country is the "Big Picture", half measures don't cut it. When you shit on clubs like CCM, it doesn't help the league, it doesn't help the players, and believe it or not it will not help the NPL clubs To be fair don't blame Football Australia for implementing this, because they are doing this for the best interests for the whole sport not just for 11 a-league clubs. Agree it will hurt CCM/Adelaide etc whom rely on the NPL market but you should blame this on certain sections in the APL whom seemly don't want it and whom don't use the NPL system for talent. It really shows what is the true intentions for the APL is it to benefit themselves and milk everything from the game here or is to help the benefit for the sport? They if they say they want the sport to benefit then why are they reluctant to introduce this policy at a-league level if it means no salary cap? FFA were incharge of the sport, before the decoupling 18 months ago. That makes no difference whatsoever considering we have been in a pandemic for the past 2 years…
|
|
|
|
|
Monoethnic Social Club
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 11K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xCan't see it happening in the Aleague, how else are the big clubs going to gouge the smaller clubs of their developed players. This will just add another road block to NPL players proceeding to the ALeague, if this exists, and the Aleagues don't come in to the fold, what is the incentive on teams like the Mariners? Pay a shit load of money to an NPL club, then have SFC take him for free once proven what a load of shit. Honestly so close to walking away. What are you talking about? This is one of the most positive things to have happened in football recently. This is about forming a stronger system in grassroots football overall. Offering teams an incentive to develop players.
If the mariners do pay a fee to an NPL Club it is their prerogative to offer what they think they are worth. And length of contract would be one of those factors. Even now the mariners can just offer player x a contract for what they think they are worth. That’s not Sydney’s fault. Clubs should be more pro-active in tying down their good/promising players. So let's say the Mariners find a decent player and then put them on a small contract after organising a transfer fee. The Mariners outlay the money, the mariners take 100% of the risk. Along comes, one of the big clubs and says they'll pay the Former NPL Player triple, one year in to a 2 year contract. The Mariner now have a choice, a disgruntled player if they restrict the movement, or they can get no reimbursement if they want to recoup the risk and money outlayed. And this is a good thing? I have nothing against NPL clubs attempting to ensure they make money from their contracted players I'm just saying that it's going to shaft the small Aleague clubs, and if it shafts them to much, expect a reduction in number of NPL Players being scouted.I want a DTS more than anyone but this will now squeeze the small clubs from both direction, it will be at the detriment of Australian Players, and Developmental Clubs. Do you think paying a transfer fee and offering a two year contract is a smart move? I don't think you see where I'm coming from. Ambitious, smart, clubs will succeed here, just like anywhere else in the world. The ones that have a set idea of how they are going to survive in that environment will figure it out. We have this tendency to make sure the whole thing doesn't just fall in a heap, but football is a brutal business, the ones that can find a way to survive will survive, those that need babying are always going to keep us behind. The Mariners are succeeding and will continue to do so off their current model. It does however mean avenues for players dry up, and development clubs like the Mariners will be restrained as they no longer are willing to take risks. If you can't sell the player on at a profit, how do you make money in a development league? You will be hard pressed getting more than a 2 year contract moving from the NPL, and as such the idea that someone would pay good money in a transfer, only to have the insecurity of another club nicking the player seems pretty stupid The other argument is what about the NPL club that has developed them, you think its fair they lose their player for nothing? The a-league clubs have been poaching players from the NPL for years and outside of sell on clauses the NPL make no money from letting players go to the a-league. The game needs to support each other not alienated themselves and not leave one to dry. Actually last year, the only player the Mariners "poached" from the NPL was Alou (and look where he is now). Like I said I'm not against transfers, but forcing the Mariners to pay a fee, and dicking them by no allowing them to sell there investment, you're essentially just moving the problem on to the smaller A-league Clubs, and if this happens I can guarantee that the number of NPL players will reduce. But they did sell Alou overseas? My point exactly. The system works. But only if the player goes overseas. My point is that the Mariners are stifled in their forms of revenue, if the FFA increase the outlays, without atleast giving them surety that they can sell the product on, then why would the Mariners risk it on an untested product if they have a similar if not marginally inferior product, or products from percieved superior league. the riskier product will be reduced. No more Koul, no more Jedinak, no more Rogic. Nah man, you need to look at the bigger picture. The Mariners play their part well in the australian eco-system as it is currently, But that system is so broken it isn't funny. they give players opportunities yes, but what they don't do is pay their fair share to other clubs who similarly would like to produce a Rogic for instance or a Jedinak or someone better for that matter. Did anyone ask Belconnen what they got in return for producing Rogic? or Sydney United for Jedinak? I'm sure they would've liked to have put some funds in to further improve their youth structures as well. If I was a Mariners fan I would be annoyed i get it. But this is the way it is and clubs will have to find a way to make it work. The way the rest of the world makes it work (mostly) So the bigger issue, isn't that Tommy rogic is a gun in the SPL, or that Mile single handedly got us to a WC with the game against Honduras, becuase they got in the shop front, it's the fact the NPL Clubs didn't get reimbursed 15 years earlier for these players, because the system is broke? Like I've said if the mariners continue to be dicked from both directions, then the NPL clubs will eventually lose a pathway, and then the "Big Picture" is Australian Football as a whole loses. Now read this carefully Ds because I've now said it multiple times, I want a "full DTS", but this is not a "full DTS", and because it's only half measure I don't support it. It means paths for development will become even more stifled for developing players. I understand that, trust me. But if you go to my original reply, you would see that I'm judging this literally for what it is. And from what I can see this is a move in the right direction for the grassroots (which is the foundations of the game) But your reasoning sounds like you don't see the DTS as a benefit, due to the mariners success of getting players for free which is why I may be getting confused. Is it? I'm a central coast fan, look at the other clubs rosters and the players histories, why the fuck would I not want a DTS? if we get 200k off Macauther for Lewis Miller, we invest that into getting more (NPL and CCM juniors), but we got nothing and so that will trickle down. I'm looking at this new initiative from the lens of an NPL1, 2, 3, 4 club. Couldn't care less about the A-League because in the report it didn't say it was coming into effect. Everything I've written relays to how this effects NPL clubs lol. NPL being the "Big Picture", not DTS, player progression or fairness in top tier trading. Advancement of football in this country is the "Big Picture", half measures don't cut it. When you shit on clubs like CCM, it doesn't help the league, it doesn't help the players, and believe it or not it will not help the NPL clubs Huddo, I see your point and I guess from the perspective of clubs like CCM and whoever else usually relies on the NPL to fill their rosters the answer is to change tack and rely on their own academies as a source of players instead. The double edged sword for the APL though is that this new found (and extremely welcome) source of funding injected into the player economy will create a stronger desire for players to stay the course within grassroots and clubland rather than end up at APL "farms" where they can be traded away for nothing. Watch NPL clubs start tying up promising U19s to 3 or 4 year contracts and offering other NPL players from around the traps 2-3 year contracts as well.... Especially if their is incentive to stay/play in a national division.... I predicted a possible arms race if the NSD ever got up and running, now with no cap on transfers I can almost guarantee it. This hypothetically then improves the standard of play, which in turn closes the gap between AL and NPL and increases the likelihood of an expanded top division and second division. Aha!!!!!!!!! :)
|
|
|
|
|
Footyball
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3.8K,
Visits: 0
|
Need the DTS asap. The only fear is the A League clubs that are at the bottom end of the spectrum having to outlay for NPL players.
Mariners have been able to aquire the services of Urenia, Cummins, Bozanic, Birrighitti and Koul among others lately so they can pay for NPL players as well.
The football ecosystem needs to go to the next level. Also, either get rid of the Salary Crap or raise it so it is insignificant to about $8 mil.
Football being continuously hamstrung is a pain in the ass. If any NSD teams over run any of the A League teams, so be it.
I'd like to watch South Melbourne take on Western Melbourne Utd at their initial homeground in Tarneit, 5k capacity, very curious.
|
|
|
|
|
huddo
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.6K,
Visits: 0
|
+xNeed the DTS asap. The only fear is the A League clubs that are at the bottom end of the spectrum having to outlay for NPL players. Mariners have been able to aquire the services of Urenia, Cummins, Bozanic, Birrighitti and Koul among others lately so they can pay for NPL players as well.The football ecosystem needs to go to the next level. Also, either get rid of the Salary Crap or raise it so it is insignificant to about $8 mil. Football being continuously hamstrung is a pain in the ass. If any NSD teams over run any of the A League teams, so be it. I'd like to watch South Melbourne take on Western Melbourne Utd at their initial homeground in Tarneit, 5k capacity, very curious. Urena - Free Transfer Cummings - Dirt Cheap Bozanic - Free Agent Birighitti - Free Transfer Koul - under the previous NPL rules. The Mariners don't have money. Make em pay, see what happens to the NPLs promising players. The FFA, and APL is basically shitting on football in this country.
|
|
|
|
|
huddo
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.6K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xCan't see it happening in the Aleague, how else are the big clubs going to gouge the smaller clubs of their developed players. This will just add another road block to NPL players proceeding to the ALeague, if this exists, and the Aleagues don't come in to the fold, what is the incentive on teams like the Mariners? Pay a shit load of money to an NPL club, then have SFC take him for free once proven what a load of shit. Honestly so close to walking away. What are you talking about? This is one of the most positive things to have happened in football recently. This is about forming a stronger system in grassroots football overall. Offering teams an incentive to develop players.
If the mariners do pay a fee to an NPL Club it is their prerogative to offer what they think they are worth. And length of contract would be one of those factors. Even now the mariners can just offer player x a contract for what they think they are worth. That’s not Sydney’s fault. Clubs should be more pro-active in tying down their good/promising players. So let's say the Mariners find a decent player and then put them on a small contract after organising a transfer fee. The Mariners outlay the money, the mariners take 100% of the risk. Along comes, one of the big clubs and says they'll pay the Former NPL Player triple, one year in to a 2 year contract. The Mariner now have a choice, a disgruntled player if they restrict the movement, or they can get no reimbursement if they want to recoup the risk and money outlayed. And this is a good thing? I have nothing against NPL clubs attempting to ensure they make money from their contracted players I'm just saying that it's going to shaft the small Aleague clubs, and if it shafts them to much, expect a reduction in number of NPL Players being scouted.I want a DTS more than anyone but this will now squeeze the small clubs from both direction, it will be at the detriment of Australian Players, and Developmental Clubs. Do you think paying a transfer fee and offering a two year contract is a smart move? I don't think you see where I'm coming from. Ambitious, smart, clubs will succeed here, just like anywhere else in the world. The ones that have a set idea of how they are going to survive in that environment will figure it out. We have this tendency to make sure the whole thing doesn't just fall in a heap, but football is a brutal business, the ones that can find a way to survive will survive, those that need babying are always going to keep us behind. The Mariners are succeeding and will continue to do so off their current model. It does however mean avenues for players dry up, and development clubs like the Mariners will be restrained as they no longer are willing to take risks. If you can't sell the player on at a profit, how do you make money in a development league? You will be hard pressed getting more than a 2 year contract moving from the NPL, and as such the idea that someone would pay good money in a transfer, only to have the insecurity of another club nicking the player seems pretty stupid The other argument is what about the NPL club that has developed them, you think its fair they lose their player for nothing? The a-league clubs have been poaching players from the NPL for years and outside of sell on clauses the NPL make no money from letting players go to the a-league. The game needs to support each other not alienated themselves and not leave one to dry. Actually last year, the only player the Mariners "poached" from the NPL was Alou (and look where he is now). Like I said I'm not against transfers, but forcing the Mariners to pay a fee, and dicking them by no allowing them to sell there investment, you're essentially just moving the problem on to the smaller A-league Clubs, and if this happens I can guarantee that the number of NPL players will reduce. But they did sell Alou overseas? My point exactly. The system works. But only if the player goes overseas. My point is that the Mariners are stifled in their forms of revenue, if the FFA increase the outlays, without atleast giving them surety that they can sell the product on, then why would the Mariners risk it on an untested product if they have a similar if not marginally inferior product, or products from percieved superior league. the riskier product will be reduced. No more Koul, no more Jedinak, no more Rogic. Nah man, you need to look at the bigger picture. The Mariners play their part well in the australian eco-system as it is currently, But that system is so broken it isn't funny. they give players opportunities yes, but what they don't do is pay their fair share to other clubs who similarly would like to produce a Rogic for instance or a Jedinak or someone better for that matter. Did anyone ask Belconnen what they got in return for producing Rogic? or Sydney United for Jedinak? I'm sure they would've liked to have put some funds in to further improve their youth structures as well. If I was a Mariners fan I would be annoyed i get it. But this is the way it is and clubs will have to find a way to make it work. The way the rest of the world makes it work (mostly) So the bigger issue, isn't that Tommy rogic is a gun in the SPL, or that Mile single handedly got us to a WC with the game against Honduras, becuase they got in the shop front, it's the fact the NPL Clubs didn't get reimbursed 15 years earlier for these players, because the system is broke? Like I've said if the mariners continue to be dicked from both directions, then the NPL clubs will eventually lose a pathway, and then the "Big Picture" is Australian Football as a whole loses. Now read this carefully Ds because I've now said it multiple times, I want a "full DTS", but this is not a "full DTS", and because it's only half measure I don't support it. It means paths for development will become even more stifled for developing players. I understand that, trust me. But if you go to my original reply, you would see that I'm judging this literally for what it is. And from what I can see this is a move in the right direction for the grassroots (which is the foundations of the game) But your reasoning sounds like you don't see the DTS as a benefit, due to the mariners success of getting players for free which is why I may be getting confused. Is it? I'm a central coast fan, look at the other clubs rosters and the players histories, why the fuck would I not want a DTS? if we get 200k off Macauther for Lewis Miller, we invest that into getting more (NPL and CCM juniors), but we got nothing and so that will trickle down. I'm looking at this new initiative from the lens of an NPL1, 2, 3, 4 club. Couldn't care less about the A-League because in the report it didn't say it was coming into effect. Everything I've written relays to how this effects NPL clubs lol. NPL being the "Big Picture", not DTS, player progression or fairness in top tier trading. Advancement of football in this country is the "Big Picture", half measures don't cut it. When you shit on clubs like CCM, it doesn't help the league, it doesn't help the players, and believe it or not it will not help the NPL clubs To be fair don't blame Football Australia for implementing this, because they are doing this for the best interests for the whole sport not just for 11 a-league clubs. Agree it will hurt CCM/Adelaide etc whom rely on the NPL market but you should blame this on certain sections in the APL whom seemly don't want it and whom don't use the NPL system for talent. It really shows what is the true intentions for the APL is it to benefit themselves and milk everything from the game here or is to help the benefit for the sport? They if they say they want the sport to benefit then why are they reluctant to introduce this policy at a-league level if it means no salary cap? FFA were incharge of the sport, before the decoupling 18 months ago. That makes no difference whatsoever considering we have been in a pandemic for the past 2 years… They were in charge of the ALeague for 15 years.
|
|
|
|
|
huddo
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.6K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xCan't see it happening in the Aleague, how else are the big clubs going to gouge the smaller clubs of their developed players. This will just add another road block to NPL players proceeding to the ALeague, if this exists, and the Aleagues don't come in to the fold, what is the incentive on teams like the Mariners? Pay a shit load of money to an NPL club, then have SFC take him for free once proven what a load of shit. Honestly so close to walking away. What are you talking about? This is one of the most positive things to have happened in football recently. This is about forming a stronger system in grassroots football overall. Offering teams an incentive to develop players.
If the mariners do pay a fee to an NPL Club it is their prerogative to offer what they think they are worth. And length of contract would be one of those factors. Even now the mariners can just offer player x a contract for what they think they are worth. That’s not Sydney’s fault. Clubs should be more pro-active in tying down their good/promising players. So let's say the Mariners find a decent player and then put them on a small contract after organising a transfer fee. The Mariners outlay the money, the mariners take 100% of the risk. Along comes, one of the big clubs and says they'll pay the Former NPL Player triple, one year in to a 2 year contract. The Mariner now have a choice, a disgruntled player if they restrict the movement, or they can get no reimbursement if they want to recoup the risk and money outlayed. And this is a good thing? I have nothing against NPL clubs attempting to ensure they make money from their contracted players I'm just saying that it's going to shaft the small Aleague clubs, and if it shafts them to much, expect a reduction in number of NPL Players being scouted.I want a DTS more than anyone but this will now squeeze the small clubs from both direction, it will be at the detriment of Australian Players, and Developmental Clubs. Do you think paying a transfer fee and offering a two year contract is a smart move? I don't think you see where I'm coming from. Ambitious, smart, clubs will succeed here, just like anywhere else in the world. The ones that have a set idea of how they are going to survive in that environment will figure it out. We have this tendency to make sure the whole thing doesn't just fall in a heap, but football is a brutal business, the ones that can find a way to survive will survive, those that need babying are always going to keep us behind. The Mariners are succeeding and will continue to do so off their current model. It does however mean avenues for players dry up, and development clubs like the Mariners will be restrained as they no longer are willing to take risks. If you can't sell the player on at a profit, how do you make money in a development league? You will be hard pressed getting more than a 2 year contract moving from the NPL, and as such the idea that someone would pay good money in a transfer, only to have the insecurity of another club nicking the player seems pretty stupid The other argument is what about the NPL club that has developed them, you think its fair they lose their player for nothing? The a-league clubs have been poaching players from the NPL for years and outside of sell on clauses the NPL make no money from letting players go to the a-league. The game needs to support each other not alienated themselves and not leave one to dry. Actually last year, the only player the Mariners "poached" from the NPL was Alou (and look where he is now). Like I said I'm not against transfers, but forcing the Mariners to pay a fee, and dicking them by no allowing them to sell there investment, you're essentially just moving the problem on to the smaller A-league Clubs, and if this happens I can guarantee that the number of NPL players will reduce. But they did sell Alou overseas? My point exactly. The system works. But only if the player goes overseas. My point is that the Mariners are stifled in their forms of revenue, if the FFA increase the outlays, without atleast giving them surety that they can sell the product on, then why would the Mariners risk it on an untested product if they have a similar if not marginally inferior product, or products from percieved superior league. the riskier product will be reduced. No more Koul, no more Jedinak, no more Rogic. Nah man, you need to look at the bigger picture. The Mariners play their part well in the australian eco-system as it is currently, But that system is so broken it isn't funny. they give players opportunities yes, but what they don't do is pay their fair share to other clubs who similarly would like to produce a Rogic for instance or a Jedinak or someone better for that matter. Did anyone ask Belconnen what they got in return for producing Rogic? or Sydney United for Jedinak? I'm sure they would've liked to have put some funds in to further improve their youth structures as well. If I was a Mariners fan I would be annoyed i get it. But this is the way it is and clubs will have to find a way to make it work. The way the rest of the world makes it work (mostly) So the bigger issue, isn't that Tommy rogic is a gun in the SPL, or that Mile single handedly got us to a WC with the game against Honduras, becuase they got in the shop front, it's the fact the NPL Clubs didn't get reimbursed 15 years earlier for these players, because the system is broke? Like I've said if the mariners continue to be dicked from both directions, then the NPL clubs will eventually lose a pathway, and then the "Big Picture" is Australian Football as a whole loses. Now read this carefully Ds because I've now said it multiple times, I want a "full DTS", but this is not a "full DTS", and because it's only half measure I don't support it. It means paths for development will become even more stifled for developing players. I understand that, trust me. But if you go to my original reply, you would see that I'm judging this literally for what it is. And from what I can see this is a move in the right direction for the grassroots (which is the foundations of the game) But your reasoning sounds like you don't see the DTS as a benefit, due to the mariners success of getting players for free which is why I may be getting confused. Is it? I'm a central coast fan, look at the other clubs rosters and the players histories, why the fuck would I not want a DTS? if we get 200k off Macauther for Lewis Miller, we invest that into getting more (NPL and CCM juniors), but we got nothing and so that will trickle down. I'm looking at this new initiative from the lens of an NPL1, 2, 3, 4 club. Couldn't care less about the A-League because in the report it didn't say it was coming into effect. Everything I've written relays to how this effects NPL clubs lol. NPL being the "Big Picture", not DTS, player progression or fairness in top tier trading. Advancement of football in this country is the "Big Picture", half measures don't cut it. When you shit on clubs like CCM, it doesn't help the league, it doesn't help the players, and believe it or not it will not help the NPL clubs Huddo, I see your point and I guess from the perspective of clubs like CCM and whoever else usually relies on the NPL to fill their rosters the answer is to change tack and rely on their own academies as a source of players instead. The double edged sword for the APL though is that this new found (and extremely welcome) source of funding injected into the player economy will create a stronger desire for players to stay the course within grassroots and clubland rather than end up at APL "farms" where they can be traded away for nothing. Watch NPL clubs start tying up promising U19s to 3 or 4 year contracts and offering other NPL players from around the traps 2-3 year contracts as well.... Especially if their is incentive to stay/play in a national division.... I predicted a possible arms race if the NSD ever got up and running, now with no cap on transfers I can almost guarantee it. Central coast doesn't rely on NPL to fill our roster we don't have a current NPL Player in the side, we do now rely on our own academies. But you watch how many NPL Players end up moving to the ALeague Now.
|
|
|
|
|
Ds98
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.1K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xCan't see it happening in the Aleague, how else are the big clubs going to gouge the smaller clubs of their developed players. This will just add another road block to NPL players proceeding to the ALeague, if this exists, and the Aleagues don't come in to the fold, what is the incentive on teams like the Mariners? Pay a shit load of money to an NPL club, then have SFC take him for free once proven what a load of shit. Honestly so close to walking away. What are you talking about? This is one of the most positive things to have happened in football recently. This is about forming a stronger system in grassroots football overall. Offering teams an incentive to develop players.
If the mariners do pay a fee to an NPL Club it is their prerogative to offer what they think they are worth. And length of contract would be one of those factors. Even now the mariners can just offer player x a contract for what they think they are worth. That’s not Sydney’s fault. Clubs should be more pro-active in tying down their good/promising players. So let's say the Mariners find a decent player and then put them on a small contract after organising a transfer fee. The Mariners outlay the money, the mariners take 100% of the risk. Along comes, one of the big clubs and says they'll pay the Former NPL Player triple, one year in to a 2 year contract. The Mariner now have a choice, a disgruntled player if they restrict the movement, or they can get no reimbursement if they want to recoup the risk and money outlayed. And this is a good thing? I have nothing against NPL clubs attempting to ensure they make money from their contracted players I'm just saying that it's going to shaft the small Aleague clubs, and if it shafts them to much, expect a reduction in number of NPL Players being scouted.I want a DTS more than anyone but this will now squeeze the small clubs from both direction, it will be at the detriment of Australian Players, and Developmental Clubs. Do you think paying a transfer fee and offering a two year contract is a smart move? I don't think you see where I'm coming from. Ambitious, smart, clubs will succeed here, just like anywhere else in the world. The ones that have a set idea of how they are going to survive in that environment will figure it out. We have this tendency to make sure the whole thing doesn't just fall in a heap, but football is a brutal business, the ones that can find a way to survive will survive, those that need babying are always going to keep us behind. The Mariners are succeeding and will continue to do so off their current model. It does however mean avenues for players dry up, and development clubs like the Mariners will be restrained as they no longer are willing to take risks. If you can't sell the player on at a profit, how do you make money in a development league? You will be hard pressed getting more than a 2 year contract moving from the NPL, and as such the idea that someone would pay good money in a transfer, only to have the insecurity of another club nicking the player seems pretty stupid The other argument is what about the NPL club that has developed them, you think its fair they lose their player for nothing? The a-league clubs have been poaching players from the NPL for years and outside of sell on clauses the NPL make no money from letting players go to the a-league. The game needs to support each other not alienated themselves and not leave one to dry. Actually last year, the only player the Mariners "poached" from the NPL was Alou (and look where he is now). Like I said I'm not against transfers, but forcing the Mariners to pay a fee, and dicking them by no allowing them to sell there investment, you're essentially just moving the problem on to the smaller A-league Clubs, and if this happens I can guarantee that the number of NPL players will reduce. But they did sell Alou overseas? My point exactly. The system works. But only if the player goes overseas. My point is that the Mariners are stifled in their forms of revenue, if the FFA increase the outlays, without atleast giving them surety that they can sell the product on, then why would the Mariners risk it on an untested product if they have a similar if not marginally inferior product, or products from percieved superior league. the riskier product will be reduced. No more Koul, no more Jedinak, no more Rogic. Nah man, you need to look at the bigger picture. The Mariners play their part well in the australian eco-system as it is currently, But that system is so broken it isn't funny. they give players opportunities yes, but what they don't do is pay their fair share to other clubs who similarly would like to produce a Rogic for instance or a Jedinak or someone better for that matter. Did anyone ask Belconnen what they got in return for producing Rogic? or Sydney United for Jedinak? I'm sure they would've liked to have put some funds in to further improve their youth structures as well. If I was a Mariners fan I would be annoyed i get it. But this is the way it is and clubs will have to find a way to make it work. The way the rest of the world makes it work (mostly) So the bigger issue, isn't that Tommy rogic is a gun in the SPL, or that Mile single handedly got us to a WC with the game against Honduras, becuase they got in the shop front, it's the fact the NPL Clubs didn't get reimbursed 15 years earlier for these players, because the system is broke? Like I've said if the mariners continue to be dicked from both directions, then the NPL clubs will eventually lose a pathway, and then the "Big Picture" is Australian Football as a whole loses. Now read this carefully Ds because I've now said it multiple times, I want a "full DTS", but this is not a "full DTS", and because it's only half measure I don't support it. It means paths for development will become even more stifled for developing players. I understand that, trust me. But if you go to my original reply, you would see that I'm judging this literally for what it is. And from what I can see this is a move in the right direction for the grassroots (which is the foundations of the game) But your reasoning sounds like you don't see the DTS as a benefit, due to the mariners success of getting players for free which is why I may be getting confused. Is it? I'm a central coast fan, look at the other clubs rosters and the players histories, why the fuck would I not want a DTS? if we get 200k off Macauther for Lewis Miller, we invest that into getting more (NPL and CCM juniors), but we got nothing and so that will trickle down. I'm looking at this new initiative from the lens of an NPL1, 2, 3, 4 club. Couldn't care less about the A-League because in the report it didn't say it was coming into effect. Everything I've written relays to how this effects NPL clubs lol. NPL being the "Big Picture", not DTS, player progression or fairness in top tier trading. Advancement of football in this country is the "Big Picture", half measures don't cut it. When you shit on clubs like CCM, it doesn't help the league, it doesn't help the players, and believe it or not it will not help the NPL clubs Huddo, I see your point and I guess from the perspective of clubs like CCM and whoever else usually relies on the NPL to fill their rosters the answer is to change tack and rely on their own academies as a source of players instead. The double edged sword for the APL though is that this new found (and extremely welcome) source of funding injected into the player economy will create a stronger desire for players to stay the course within grassroots and clubland rather than end up at APL "farms" where they can be traded away for nothing. Watch NPL clubs start tying up promising U19s to 3 or 4 year contracts and offering other NPL players from around the traps 2-3 year contracts as well.... Especially if their is incentive to stay/play in a national division.... I predicted a possible arms race if the NSD ever got up and running, now with no cap on transfers I can almost guarantee it. Central coast doesn't rely on NPL to fill our roster we don't have a current NPL Player in the side, we do now rely on our own academies. But you watch how many NPL Players end up moving to the ALeague Now. Half the CCM first team squad in FL2 is made up of poached NPL players. Lol.
|
|
|
|
|
huddo
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.6K,
Visits: 0
|
Lachlan Bayliss - Mariner since 16
Patrick Beach - From Glenmore Park, Mariner since 18
Lawrence Caruso - Mariner since 16
Jakob Cresnar - an Edgeworth eagle, signed last year aged 22
Josh Hong - Mariner sInce 17
Dor Jok - Mariner since 21, last year played 260 minutes with Melbourne Knights after coming from the west can't really claim that one.
Maksin Kasalovic - Mariner sInce 17
Michael Katsoulis - Mariner sInce 17
Jackson Khoury - Mariner since 17
Sasha Kuzevski - Mariner SInce 14
Dean Larson - Mariner Since 15
Harry McCarthy - Mariner sInce 18, came from Sydney FC
Ricardo Rizzo - Mariner since 20, signed as a free agent from a uragyan club
Harry Talbot - Mariner SInce 18, from Brisbane Roar
Bradley Tapp - Mariner SInce 18, Believe he's a junior can't confirm.
Cameron Windust - CC Junior
Zac Zoricich - Mariner SInce 19, came from NZ.
8 came onboard as 18+, of them:
2 came from overseas.
2 came from other aleague Academies
1- Beach - Signed at 18 from Glenmore(But may have been earlier). So is unlikely to have been on a senior contract.
1- Jok - played 260 minutes for his last club in 6 games, but they didn't develop him he came from west, which tells me a academy contract was the plan all along.
1- Cresner - came from NNPL Egdeworth Eagles.
1- unknown- couldn't source Junior history.
Not really the 50% "Poached" NPL Players described.
|
|
|
|
|
Ds98
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.1K,
Visits: 0
|
+xLachlan Bayliss - Mariner since 16 Patrick Beach - From Glenmore Park, Mariner since 18Lawrence Caruso - Mariner since 16 Jakob Cresnar - an Edgeworth eagle, signed last year aged 22Josh Hong - Mariner sInce 17 Dor Jok - Mariner since 21, last year played 260 minutes with Melbourne Knights after coming from the west can't really claim that one.Maksin Kasalovic - Mariner sInce 17 Michael Katsoulis - Mariner sInce 17 Jackson Khoury - Mariner since 17 Sasha Kuzevski - Mariner SInce 14 Dean Larson - Mariner Since 15 Harry McCarthy - Mariner sInce 18, came from Sydney FC
Ricardo Rizzo - Mariner since 20, signed as a free agent from a uragyan club
Harry Talbot - Mariner SInce 18, from Brisbane Roar
Bradley Tapp - Mariner SInce 18, Believe he's a junior can't confirm. Cameron Windust - CC Junior Zac Zoricich - Mariner SInce 19, came from NZ.8 came onboard as 18+, of them: 2 came from overseas. 2 came from other aleague Academies 1- Beach - Signed at 18 from Glenmore(But may have been earlier). So is unlikely to have been on a senior contract. 1- Jok - played 260 minutes for his last club in 6 games, but they didn't develop him he came from west, which tells me a academy contract was the plan all along. 1- Cresner - came from NNPL Egdeworth Eagles. 1- unknown- couldn't source Junior history. Not really the 50% "Poached" NPL Players described. Jordan Segreto - Manly United Teng Kuol - GVS Garang Kuol GVS Jackson Khoury - Sydney United Damian Tsekenis - Marconi Stallions Dor Jok - Cockburn/Knights Aidan Milicevic - Marconi Stallions Lawrence Caruso - Dandenong City Jakob Cresnar - Edgeworth Mikey Katsoulis - Gungahlin United Harry Talbot - Sunshine Coast Wanderers Plus Nikola Skataric - Sydney FC Ricardo Rizzo - Uruguay All players above were at some stage involved with their respective teams senior sides. This is a good thing, but for the sake of this argument it isn't
|
|
|
|
|
huddo
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.6K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xLachlan Bayliss - Mariner since 16 Patrick Beach - From Glenmore Park, Mariner since 18Lawrence Caruso - Mariner since 16 Jakob Cresnar - an Edgeworth eagle, signed last year aged 22Josh Hong - Mariner sInce 17 Dor Jok - Mariner since 21, last year played 260 minutes with Melbourne Knights after coming from the west can't really claim that one.Maksin Kasalovic - Mariner sInce 17 Michael Katsoulis - Mariner sInce 17 Jackson Khoury - Mariner since 17 Sasha Kuzevski - Mariner SInce 14 Dean Larson - Mariner Since 15 Harry McCarthy - Mariner sInce 18, came from Sydney FC
Ricardo Rizzo - Mariner since 20, signed as a free agent from a uragyan club
Harry Talbot - Mariner SInce 18, from Brisbane Roar
Bradley Tapp - Mariner SInce 18, Believe he's a junior can't confirm. Cameron Windust - CC Junior Zac Zoricich - Mariner SInce 19, came from NZ.8 came onboard as 18+, of them: 2 came from overseas. 2 came from other aleague Academies 1- Beach - Signed at 18 from Glenmore(But may have been earlier). So is unlikely to have been on a senior contract. 1- Jok - played 260 minutes for his last club in 6 games, but they didn't develop him he came from west, which tells me a academy contract was the plan all along. 1- Cresner - came from NNPL Egdeworth Eagles. 1- unknown- couldn't source Junior history. Not really the 50% "Poached" NPL Players described. Jordan Segreto - Manly United Teng Kuol - GVS Garang Kuol GVS Jackson Khoury - Sydney United Damian Tsekenis - Marconi Stallions Dor Jok - Cockburn/Knights Aidan Milicevic - Marconi Stallions Lawrence Caruso - Dandenong City Jakob Cresnar - Edgeworth Mikey Katsoulis - Gungahlin United Harry Talbot - Sunshine Coast Wanderers Plus Nikola Skataric - Sydney FC Ricardo Rizzo - Uruguay All players above were at some stage involved with their respective teams senior sides. This is a good thing, but for the sake of this argument it isn't So you're saying that a club should be reimbursing another club because they were trained at the original club as a child. Matt Hatch was a Umina eagle in the U7s where's their reimbursement. Besides most can't and haven't signed senior contracts, so now your talking about what? Reimbursement for players that chose to leave former junior clubs to advance there careers?
|
|
|
|
|
huddo
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.6K,
Visits: 0
|
Perfect example, The Kuol brothers left GVS at 15 and 16 years old. Do you think a senior contract is enforceable if even legal on a 15 yo?
|
|
|
|
|
Ds98
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.1K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xLachlan Bayliss - Mariner since 16 Patrick Beach - From Glenmore Park, Mariner since 18Lawrence Caruso - Mariner since 16 Jakob Cresnar - an Edgeworth eagle, signed last year aged 22Josh Hong - Mariner sInce 17 Dor Jok - Mariner since 21, last year played 260 minutes with Melbourne Knights after coming from the west can't really claim that one.Maksin Kasalovic - Mariner sInce 17 Michael Katsoulis - Mariner sInce 17 Jackson Khoury - Mariner since 17 Sasha Kuzevski - Mariner SInce 14 Dean Larson - Mariner Since 15 Harry McCarthy - Mariner sInce 18, came from Sydney FC
Ricardo Rizzo - Mariner since 20, signed as a free agent from a uragyan club
Harry Talbot - Mariner SInce 18, from Brisbane Roar
Bradley Tapp - Mariner SInce 18, Believe he's a junior can't confirm. Cameron Windust - CC Junior Zac Zoricich - Mariner SInce 19, came from NZ.8 came onboard as 18+, of them: 2 came from overseas. 2 came from other aleague Academies 1- Beach - Signed at 18 from Glenmore(But may have been earlier). So is unlikely to have been on a senior contract. 1- Jok - played 260 minutes for his last club in 6 games, but they didn't develop him he came from west, which tells me a academy contract was the plan all along. 1- Cresner - came from NNPL Egdeworth Eagles. 1- unknown- couldn't source Junior history. Not really the 50% "Poached" NPL Players described. Jordan Segreto - Manly United Teng Kuol - GVS Garang Kuol GVS Jackson Khoury - Sydney United Damian Tsekenis - Marconi Stallions Dor Jok - Cockburn/Knights Aidan Milicevic - Marconi Stallions Lawrence Caruso - Dandenong City Jakob Cresnar - Edgeworth Mikey Katsoulis - Gungahlin United Harry Talbot - Sunshine Coast Wanderers Plus Nikola Skataric - Sydney FC Ricardo Rizzo - Uruguay All players above were at some stage involved with their respective teams senior sides. This is a good thing, but for the sake of this argument it isn't So you're saying that a club should be reimbursing another club because they were trained at the original club as a child.
Matt Hatch was a Umina eagle in the U7s where's their reimbursement. Besides most can't and haven't signed senior contracts, so now your talking about what? Reimbursement for players that chose to leave former junior clubs to advance there careers? Yes. That may also be the team they were playing seniors at before joining an AL team. The whole point of this conversation is to bring in to the spotlight how this new rule will allow NPL clubs or State League clubs who have the resources, the freedom to offer contracts to players 18 and over who are keen to stay, so that AL teams can't just come in and take players away with little to no reimbursement other than a thanks. If players under 18 want to leave thats fine, but giving them an option to stay and letting the player make a decision would be a better thing for football here. I feel as though we are arguing for the same thing, but I'm just seeing this from the perspective of the grassroots, and you're seeing it from the eyes of the elite.
|
|
|
|
|
Gyfox
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 13K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xLachlan Bayliss - Mariner since 16 Patrick Beach - From Glenmore Park, Mariner since 18Lawrence Caruso - Mariner since 16 Jakob Cresnar - an Edgeworth eagle, signed last year aged 22Josh Hong - Mariner sInce 17 Dor Jok - Mariner since 21, last year played 260 minutes with Melbourne Knights after coming from the west can't really claim that one.Maksin Kasalovic - Mariner sInce 17 Michael Katsoulis - Mariner sInce 17 Jackson Khoury - Mariner since 17 Sasha Kuzevski - Mariner SInce 14 Dean Larson - Mariner Since 15 Harry McCarthy - Mariner sInce 18, came from Sydney FC
Ricardo Rizzo - Mariner since 20, signed as a free agent from a uragyan club
Harry Talbot - Mariner SInce 18, from Brisbane Roar
Bradley Tapp - Mariner SInce 18, Believe he's a junior can't confirm. Cameron Windust - CC Junior Zac Zoricich - Mariner SInce 19, came from NZ.8 came onboard as 18+, of them: 2 came from overseas. 2 came from other aleague Academies 1- Beach - Signed at 18 from Glenmore(But may have been earlier). So is unlikely to have been on a senior contract. 1- Jok - played 260 minutes for his last club in 6 games, but they didn't develop him he came from west, which tells me a academy contract was the plan all along. 1- Cresner - came from NNPL Egdeworth Eagles. 1- unknown- couldn't source Junior history. Not really the 50% "Poached" NPL Players described. Jordan Segreto - Manly United Teng Kuol - GVS Garang Kuol GVS Jackson Khoury - Sydney United Damian Tsekenis - Marconi Stallions Dor Jok - Cockburn/Knights Aidan Milicevic - Marconi Stallions Lawrence Caruso - Dandenong City Jakob Cresnar - Edgeworth Mikey Katsoulis - Gungahlin United Harry Talbot - Sunshine Coast Wanderers Plus Nikola Skataric - Sydney FC Ricardo Rizzo - Uruguay All players above were at some stage involved with their respective teams senior sides. This is a good thing, but for the sake of this argument it isn't So you're saying that a club should be reimbursing another club because they were trained at the original club as a child. Matt Hatch was a Umina eagle in the U7s where's their reimbursement. Besides most can't and haven't signed senior contracts, so now your talking about what? Reimbursement for players that chose to leave former junior clubs to advance there careers? When a player signs his first professional contract a training fee is supposed to be paid and divided between all the clubs that the player paid for previously.
|
|
|
|
|
Ds98
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.1K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+xLachlan Bayliss - Mariner since 16 Patrick Beach - From Glenmore Park, Mariner since 18Lawrence Caruso - Mariner since 16 Jakob Cresnar - an Edgeworth eagle, signed last year aged 22Josh Hong - Mariner sInce 17 Dor Jok - Mariner since 21, last year played 260 minutes with Melbourne Knights after coming from the west can't really claim that one.Maksin Kasalovic - Mariner sInce 17 Michael Katsoulis - Mariner sInce 17 Jackson Khoury - Mariner since 17 Sasha Kuzevski - Mariner SInce 14 Dean Larson - Mariner Since 15 Harry McCarthy - Mariner sInce 18, came from Sydney FC
Ricardo Rizzo - Mariner since 20, signed as a free agent from a uragyan club
Harry Talbot - Mariner SInce 18, from Brisbane Roar
Bradley Tapp - Mariner SInce 18, Believe he's a junior can't confirm. Cameron Windust - CC Junior Zac Zoricich - Mariner SInce 19, came from NZ.8 came onboard as 18+, of them: 2 came from overseas. 2 came from other aleague Academies 1- Beach - Signed at 18 from Glenmore(But may have been earlier). So is unlikely to have been on a senior contract. 1- Jok - played 260 minutes for his last club in 6 games, but they didn't develop him he came from west, which tells me a academy contract was the plan all along. 1- Cresner - came from NNPL Egdeworth Eagles. 1- unknown- couldn't source Junior history. Not really the 50% "Poached" NPL Players described. Jordan Segreto - Manly United Teng Kuol - GVS Garang Kuol GVS Jackson Khoury - Sydney United Damian Tsekenis - Marconi Stallions Dor Jok - Cockburn/Knights Aidan Milicevic - Marconi Stallions Lawrence Caruso - Dandenong City Jakob Cresnar - Edgeworth Mikey Katsoulis - Gungahlin United Harry Talbot - Sunshine Coast Wanderers Plus Nikola Skataric - Sydney FC Ricardo Rizzo - Uruguay All players above were at some stage involved with their respective teams senior sides. This is a good thing, but for the sake of this argument it isn't So you're saying that a club should be reimbursing another club because they were trained at the original club as a child. Matt Hatch was a Umina eagle in the U7s where's their reimbursement. Besides most can't and haven't signed senior contracts, so now your talking about what? Reimbursement for players that chose to leave former junior clubs to advance there careers? When a player signs his first professional contract a training fee is supposed to be paid and divided between all the clubs that the player paid for previously. Yeah, But not sure how strictly it has been enforced in Australia.
|
|
|
|
|
huddo
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.6K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+xLachlan Bayliss - Mariner since 16 Patrick Beach - From Glenmore Park, Mariner since 18Lawrence Caruso - Mariner since 16 Jakob Cresnar - an Edgeworth eagle, signed last year aged 22Josh Hong - Mariner sInce 17 Dor Jok - Mariner since 21, last year played 260 minutes with Melbourne Knights after coming from the west can't really claim that one.Maksin Kasalovic - Mariner sInce 17 Michael Katsoulis - Mariner sInce 17 Jackson Khoury - Mariner since 17 Sasha Kuzevski - Mariner SInce 14 Dean Larson - Mariner Since 15 Harry McCarthy - Mariner sInce 18, came from Sydney FC
Ricardo Rizzo - Mariner since 20, signed as a free agent from a uragyan club
Harry Talbot - Mariner SInce 18, from Brisbane Roar
Bradley Tapp - Mariner SInce 18, Believe he's a junior can't confirm. Cameron Windust - CC Junior Zac Zoricich - Mariner SInce 19, came from NZ.8 came onboard as 18+, of them: 2 came from overseas. 2 came from other aleague Academies 1- Beach - Signed at 18 from Glenmore(But may have been earlier). So is unlikely to have been on a senior contract. 1- Jok - played 260 minutes for his last club in 6 games, but they didn't develop him he came from west, which tells me a academy contract was the plan all along. 1- Cresner - came from NNPL Egdeworth Eagles. 1- unknown- couldn't source Junior history. Not really the 50% "Poached" NPL Players described. Jordan Segreto - Manly United Teng Kuol - GVS Garang Kuol GVS Jackson Khoury - Sydney United Damian Tsekenis - Marconi Stallions Dor Jok - Cockburn/Knights Aidan Milicevic - Marconi Stallions Lawrence Caruso - Dandenong City Jakob Cresnar - Edgeworth Mikey Katsoulis - Gungahlin United Harry Talbot - Sunshine Coast Wanderers Plus Nikola Skataric - Sydney FC Ricardo Rizzo - Uruguay All players above were at some stage involved with their respective teams senior sides. This is a good thing, but for the sake of this argument it isn't So you're saying that a club should be reimbursing another club because they were trained at the original club as a child. Matt Hatch was a Umina eagle in the U7s where's their reimbursement. Besides most can't and haven't signed senior contracts, so now your talking about what? Reimbursement for players that chose to leave former junior clubs to advance there careers? When a player signs his first professional contract a training fee is supposed to be paid and divided between all the clubs that the player paid for previously. Yeah, But not sure how strictly it has been enforced in Australia. It's enforced but it's pennies.
|
|
|
|
|
Heart_fan
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8K,
Visits: 0
|
Hoping that we do hear about a NSD soon. I am looking forward to it.
|
|
|
|
|
Gyfox
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 13K,
Visits: 0
|
I'm late in on this discussion but in my view a DTS right across the semi-professional and professional parts of the ecosystem and each club developing a good scouting system are the two things that will do more to improve football here than anything else. Funds moving down through the system allowing clubs to improve their player development will see better players moving up through the system resulting eventually in a higher quality A-League and that should mean more/better transfer fees for players moving overseas. The benefits of this can be diminished if excessive artificial systems are allowed to inflate player values.
|
|
|
|
|
huddo
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.6K,
Visits: 0
|
+xI'm late in on this discussion but in my view a DTS right across the semi-professional and professional parts of the ecosystem and each club developing a good scouting system are the two things that will do more to improve football here than anything else. Funds moving down through the system allowing clubs to improve their player development will see better players moving up through the system resulting eventually in a higher quality A-League and that should mean more/better transfer fees for players moving overseas. The benefits of this can be diminished if excessive artificial systems are allowed to inflate player values. I'm with you as a supposed "elite" team supporter it's the only way my team will make money out of someone like Steele, or Ballard.
|
|
|
|
|
Monoethnic Social Club
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 11K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xCan't see it happening in the Aleague, how else are the big clubs going to gouge the smaller clubs of their developed players. This will just add another road block to NPL players proceeding to the ALeague, if this exists, and the Aleagues don't come in to the fold, what is the incentive on teams like the Mariners? Pay a shit load of money to an NPL club, then have SFC take him for free once proven what a load of shit. Honestly so close to walking away. What are you talking about? This is one of the most positive things to have happened in football recently. This is about forming a stronger system in grassroots football overall. Offering teams an incentive to develop players.
If the mariners do pay a fee to an NPL Club it is their prerogative to offer what they think they are worth. And length of contract would be one of those factors. Even now the mariners can just offer player x a contract for what they think they are worth. That’s not Sydney’s fault. Clubs should be more pro-active in tying down their good/promising players. So let's say the Mariners find a decent player and then put them on a small contract after organising a transfer fee. The Mariners outlay the money, the mariners take 100% of the risk. Along comes, one of the big clubs and says they'll pay the Former NPL Player triple, one year in to a 2 year contract. The Mariner now have a choice, a disgruntled player if they restrict the movement, or they can get no reimbursement if they want to recoup the risk and money outlayed. And this is a good thing? I have nothing against NPL clubs attempting to ensure they make money from their contracted players I'm just saying that it's going to shaft the small Aleague clubs, and if it shafts them to much, expect a reduction in number of NPL Players being scouted.I want a DTS more than anyone but this will now squeeze the small clubs from both direction, it will be at the detriment of Australian Players, and Developmental Clubs. Do you think paying a transfer fee and offering a two year contract is a smart move? I don't think you see where I'm coming from. Ambitious, smart, clubs will succeed here, just like anywhere else in the world. The ones that have a set idea of how they are going to survive in that environment will figure it out. We have this tendency to make sure the whole thing doesn't just fall in a heap, but football is a brutal business, the ones that can find a way to survive will survive, those that need babying are always going to keep us behind. The Mariners are succeeding and will continue to do so off their current model. It does however mean avenues for players dry up, and development clubs like the Mariners will be restrained as they no longer are willing to take risks. If you can't sell the player on at a profit, how do you make money in a development league? You will be hard pressed getting more than a 2 year contract moving from the NPL, and as such the idea that someone would pay good money in a transfer, only to have the insecurity of another club nicking the player seems pretty stupid The other argument is what about the NPL club that has developed them, you think its fair they lose their player for nothing? The a-league clubs have been poaching players from the NPL for years and outside of sell on clauses the NPL make no money from letting players go to the a-league. The game needs to support each other not alienated themselves and not leave one to dry. Actually last year, the only player the Mariners "poached" from the NPL was Alou (and look where he is now). Like I said I'm not against transfers, but forcing the Mariners to pay a fee, and dicking them by no allowing them to sell there investment, you're essentially just moving the problem on to the smaller A-league Clubs, and if this happens I can guarantee that the number of NPL players will reduce. But they did sell Alou overseas? My point exactly. The system works. But only if the player goes overseas. My point is that the Mariners are stifled in their forms of revenue, if the FFA increase the outlays, without atleast giving them surety that they can sell the product on, then why would the Mariners risk it on an untested product if they have a similar if not marginally inferior product, or products from percieved superior league. the riskier product will be reduced. No more Koul, no more Jedinak, no more Rogic. Nah man, you need to look at the bigger picture. The Mariners play their part well in the australian eco-system as it is currently, But that system is so broken it isn't funny. they give players opportunities yes, but what they don't do is pay their fair share to other clubs who similarly would like to produce a Rogic for instance or a Jedinak or someone better for that matter. Did anyone ask Belconnen what they got in return for producing Rogic? or Sydney United for Jedinak? I'm sure they would've liked to have put some funds in to further improve their youth structures as well. If I was a Mariners fan I would be annoyed i get it. But this is the way it is and clubs will have to find a way to make it work. The way the rest of the world makes it work (mostly) So the bigger issue, isn't that Tommy rogic is a gun in the SPL, or that Mile single handedly got us to a WC with the game against Honduras, becuase they got in the shop front, it's the fact the NPL Clubs didn't get reimbursed 15 years earlier for these players, because the system is broke? Like I've said if the mariners continue to be dicked from both directions, then the NPL clubs will eventually lose a pathway, and then the "Big Picture" is Australian Football as a whole loses. Now read this carefully Ds because I've now said it multiple times, I want a "full DTS", but this is not a "full DTS", and because it's only half measure I don't support it. It means paths for development will become even more stifled for developing players. I understand that, trust me. But if you go to my original reply, you would see that I'm judging this literally for what it is. And from what I can see this is a move in the right direction for the grassroots (which is the foundations of the game) But your reasoning sounds like you don't see the DTS as a benefit, due to the mariners success of getting players for free which is why I may be getting confused. Is it? I'm a central coast fan, look at the other clubs rosters and the players histories, why the fuck would I not want a DTS? if we get 200k off Macauther for Lewis Miller, we invest that into getting more (NPL and CCM juniors), but we got nothing and so that will trickle down. I'm looking at this new initiative from the lens of an NPL1, 2, 3, 4 club. Couldn't care less about the A-League because in the report it didn't say it was coming into effect. Everything I've written relays to how this effects NPL clubs lol. NPL being the "Big Picture", not DTS, player progression or fairness in top tier trading. Advancement of football in this country is the "Big Picture", half measures don't cut it. When you shit on clubs like CCM, it doesn't help the league, it doesn't help the players, and believe it or not it will not help the NPL clubs Huddo, I see your point and I guess from the perspective of clubs like CCM and whoever else usually relies on the NPL to fill their rosters the answer is to change tack and rely on their own academies as a source of players instead. The double edged sword for the APL though is that this new found (and extremely welcome) source of funding injected into the player economy will create a stronger desire for players to stay the course within grassroots and clubland rather than end up at APL "farms" where they can be traded away for nothing. Watch NPL clubs start tying up promising U19s to 3 or 4 year contracts and offering other NPL players from around the traps 2-3 year contracts as well.... Especially if their is incentive to stay/play in a national division.... I predicted a possible arms race if the NSD ever got up and running, now with no cap on transfers I can almost guarantee it. Central coast doesn't rely on NPL to fill our roster we don't have a current NPL Player in the side, we do now rely on our own academies. But you watch how many NPL Players end up moving to the ALeague Now. Sure mate, wasn't picking on your club, dont honestly know which Aleague clubs do what..... these players in your academy though will have a decision to make next year ...... do they stay at the "academy" and hope they get a call up to the Aleague and at best get a smallish salary and a free transfer to another Aleague club or do they go "down" to the NPL and prove themselves and either get transferred to a stronger interstate NPL, overseas league or 3ven Aleague ALL with the added bonus of a transfer fee both for them and the club they are at?....... Like you say, great for more and more players, great for the clubs developing and onselling those players bad for the Aleague if they don't also jump,on board.
|
|
|
|
|
bettega
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xCan't see it happening in the Aleague, how else are the big clubs going to gouge the smaller clubs of their developed players. This will just add another road block to NPL players proceeding to the ALeague, if this exists, and the Aleagues don't come in to the fold, what is the incentive on teams like the Mariners? Pay a shit load of money to an NPL club, then have SFC take him for free once proven what a load of shit. Honestly so close to walking away. What are you talking about? This is one of the most positive things to have happened in football recently. This is about forming a stronger system in grassroots football overall. Offering teams an incentive to develop players.
If the mariners do pay a fee to an NPL Club it is their prerogative to offer what they think they are worth. And length of contract would be one of those factors. Even now the mariners can just offer player x a contract for what they think they are worth. That’s not Sydney’s fault. Clubs should be more pro-active in tying down their good/promising players. So let's say the Mariners find a decent player and then put them on a small contract after organising a transfer fee. The Mariners outlay the money, the mariners take 100% of the risk. Along comes, one of the big clubs and says they'll pay the Former NPL Player triple, one year in to a 2 year contract. The Mariner now have a choice, a disgruntled player if they restrict the movement, or they can get no reimbursement if they want to recoup the risk and money outlayed. And this is a good thing? I have nothing against NPL clubs attempting to ensure they make money from their contracted players I'm just saying that it's going to shaft the small Aleague clubs, and if it shafts them to much, expect a reduction in number of NPL Players being scouted.I want a DTS more than anyone but this will now squeeze the small clubs from both direction, it will be at the detriment of Australian Players, and Developmental Clubs. Do you think paying a transfer fee and offering a two year contract is a smart move? I don't think you see where I'm coming from. Ambitious, smart, clubs will succeed here, just like anywhere else in the world. The ones that have a set idea of how they are going to survive in that environment will figure it out. We have this tendency to make sure the whole thing doesn't just fall in a heap, but football is a brutal business, the ones that can find a way to survive will survive, those that need babying are always going to keep us behind. The Mariners are succeeding and will continue to do so off their current model. It does however mean avenues for players dry up, and development clubs like the Mariners will be restrained as they no longer are willing to take risks. If you can't sell the player on at a profit, how do you make money in a development league? You will be hard pressed getting more than a 2 year contract moving from the NPL, and as such the idea that someone would pay good money in a transfer, only to have the insecurity of another club nicking the player seems pretty stupid The other argument is what about the NPL club that has developed them, you think its fair they lose their player for nothing? The a-league clubs have been poaching players from the NPL for years and outside of sell on clauses the NPL make no money from letting players go to the a-league. The game needs to support each other not alienated themselves and not leave one to dry. Actually last year, the only player the Mariners "poached" from the NPL was Alou (and look where he is now). Like I said I'm not against transfers, but forcing the Mariners to pay a fee, and dicking them by no allowing them to sell there investment, you're essentially just moving the problem on to the smaller A-league Clubs, and if this happens I can guarantee that the number of NPL players will reduce. But they did sell Alou overseas? My point exactly. The system works. But only if the player goes overseas. My point is that the Mariners are stifled in their forms of revenue, if the FFA increase the outlays, without atleast giving them surety that they can sell the product on, then why would the Mariners risk it on an untested product if they have a similar if not marginally inferior product, or products from percieved superior league. the riskier product will be reduced. No more Koul, no more Jedinak, no more Rogic. Nah man, you need to look at the bigger picture. The Mariners play their part well in the australian eco-system as it is currently, But that system is so broken it isn't funny. they give players opportunities yes, but what they don't do is pay their fair share to other clubs who similarly would like to produce a Rogic for instance or a Jedinak or someone better for that matter. Did anyone ask Belconnen what they got in return for producing Rogic? or Sydney United for Jedinak? I'm sure they would've liked to have put some funds in to further improve their youth structures as well. If I was a Mariners fan I would be annoyed i get it. But this is the way it is and clubs will have to find a way to make it work. The way the rest of the world makes it work (mostly) So the bigger issue, isn't that Tommy rogic is a gun in the SPL, or that Mile single handedly got us to a WC with the game against Honduras, becuase they got in the shop front, it's the fact the NPL Clubs didn't get reimbursed 15 years earlier for these players, because the system is broke? Like I've said if the mariners continue to be dicked from both directions, then the NPL clubs will eventually lose a pathway, and then the "Big Picture" is Australian Football as a whole loses. Now read this carefully Ds because I've now said it multiple times, I want a "full DTS", but this is not a "full DTS", and because it's only half measure I don't support it. It means paths for development will become even more stifled for developing players. I understand that, trust me. But if you go to my original reply, you would see that I'm judging this literally for what it is. And from what I can see this is a move in the right direction for the grassroots (which is the foundations of the game) But your reasoning sounds like you don't see the DTS as a benefit, due to the mariners success of getting players for free which is why I may be getting confused. Is it? I'm a central coast fan, look at the other clubs rosters and the players histories, why the fuck would I not want a DTS? if we get 200k off Macauther for Lewis Miller, we invest that into getting more (NPL and CCM juniors), but we got nothing and so that will trickle down. I'm looking at this new initiative from the lens of an NPL1, 2, 3, 4 club. Couldn't care less about the A-League because in the report it didn't say it was coming into effect. Everything I've written relays to how this effects NPL clubs lol. NPL being the "Big Picture", not DTS, player progression or fairness in top tier trading. Advancement of football in this country is the "Big Picture", half measures don't cut it. When you shit on clubs like CCM, it doesn't help the league, it doesn't help the players, and believe it or not it will not help the NPL clubs Huddo, I see your point and I guess from the perspective of clubs like CCM and whoever else usually relies on the NPL to fill their rosters the answer is to change tack and rely on their own academies as a source of players instead. The double edged sword for the APL though is that this new found (and extremely welcome) source of funding injected into the player economy will create a stronger desire for players to stay the course within grassroots and clubland rather than end up at APL "farms" where they can be traded away for nothing. Watch NPL clubs start tying up promising U19s to 3 or 4 year contracts and offering other NPL players from around the traps 2-3 year contracts as well.... Especially if their is incentive to stay/play in a national division.... I predicted a possible arms race if the NSD ever got up and running, now with no cap on transfers I can almost guarantee it. Central coast doesn't rely on NPL to fill our roster we don't have a current NPL Player in the side, we do now rely on our own academies. But you watch how many NPL Players end up moving to the ALeague Now. Sure mate, wasn't picking on your club, dont honestly know which Aleague clubs do what..... these players in your academy though will have a decision to make next year ...... do they stay at the "academy" and hope they get a call up to the Aleague and at best get a smallish salary and a free transfer to another Aleague club or do they go "down" to the NPL and prove themselves and either get transferred to a stronger interstate NPL, overseas league or 3ven Aleague ALL with the added bonus of a transfer fee both for them and the club they are at?....... Like you say, great for more and more players, great for the clubs developing and onselling those players bad for the Aleague if they don't also jump,on board. This is a good point. 16 year old kid sitting in some A-League's academy. He can stay there, and eventually the A-League club might decide to sign him up professionally, and do so for free. But if the kid already has an agent, he might be thinking: bugger that. You might be able to start earning some pocket money with an NPL club AND I might be able to get a sell-on clause in your contract, so that if, for example, an A-League club buys you for $200,000, you get to pocket 10% of it, or whatever the amount is (and of course the agent makes more in this scenario than what he would if an A-League club just takes him for free).
|
|
|
|
|
Stenson
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 215,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xCan't see it happening in the Aleague, how else are the big clubs going to gouge the smaller clubs of their developed players. This will just add another road block to NPL players proceeding to the ALeague, if this exists, and the Aleagues don't come in to the fold, what is the incentive on teams like the Mariners? Pay a shit load of money to an NPL club, then have SFC take him for free once proven what a load of shit. Honestly so close to walking away. What are you talking about? This is one of the most positive things to have happened in football recently. This is about forming a stronger system in grassroots football overall. Offering teams an incentive to develop players.
If the mariners do pay a fee to an NPL Club it is their prerogative to offer what they think they are worth. And length of contract would be one of those factors. Even now the mariners can just offer player x a contract for what they think they are worth. That’s not Sydney’s fault. Clubs should be more pro-active in tying down their good/promising players. So let's say the Mariners find a decent player and then put them on a small contract after organising a transfer fee. The Mariners outlay the money, the mariners take 100% of the risk. Along comes, one of the big clubs and says they'll pay the Former NPL Player triple, one year in to a 2 year contract. The Mariner now have a choice, a disgruntled player if they restrict the movement, or they can get no reimbursement if they want to recoup the risk and money outlayed. And this is a good thing? I have nothing against NPL clubs attempting to ensure they make money from their contracted players I'm just saying that it's going to shaft the small Aleague clubs, and if it shafts them to much, expect a reduction in number of NPL Players being scouted.I want a DTS more than anyone but this will now squeeze the small clubs from both direction, it will be at the detriment of Australian Players, and Developmental Clubs. Do you think paying a transfer fee and offering a two year contract is a smart move? I don't think you see where I'm coming from. Ambitious, smart, clubs will succeed here, just like anywhere else in the world. The ones that have a set idea of how they are going to survive in that environment will figure it out. We have this tendency to make sure the whole thing doesn't just fall in a heap, but football is a brutal business, the ones that can find a way to survive will survive, those that need babying are always going to keep us behind. The Mariners are succeeding and will continue to do so off their current model. It does however mean avenues for players dry up, and development clubs like the Mariners will be restrained as they no longer are willing to take risks. If you can't sell the player on at a profit, how do you make money in a development league? You will be hard pressed getting more than a 2 year contract moving from the NPL, and as such the idea that someone would pay good money in a transfer, only to have the insecurity of another club nicking the player seems pretty stupid The other argument is what about the NPL club that has developed them, you think its fair they lose their player for nothing? The a-league clubs have been poaching players from the NPL for years and outside of sell on clauses the NPL make no money from letting players go to the a-league. The game needs to support each other not alienated themselves and not leave one to dry. Actually last year, the only player the Mariners "poached" from the NPL was Alou (and look where he is now). Like I said I'm not against transfers, but forcing the Mariners to pay a fee, and dicking them by no allowing them to sell there investment, you're essentially just moving the problem on to the smaller A-league Clubs, and if this happens I can guarantee that the number of NPL players will reduce. But they did sell Alou overseas? My point exactly. The system works. But only if the player goes overseas. My point is that the Mariners are stifled in their forms of revenue, if the FFA increase the outlays, without atleast giving them surety that they can sell the product on, then why would the Mariners risk it on an untested product if they have a similar if not marginally inferior product, or products from percieved superior league. the riskier product will be reduced. No more Koul, no more Jedinak, no more Rogic. Nah man, you need to look at the bigger picture. The Mariners play their part well in the australian eco-system as it is currently, But that system is so broken it isn't funny. they give players opportunities yes, but what they don't do is pay their fair share to other clubs who similarly would like to produce a Rogic for instance or a Jedinak or someone better for that matter. Did anyone ask Belconnen what they got in return for producing Rogic? or Sydney United for Jedinak? I'm sure they would've liked to have put some funds in to further improve their youth structures as well. If I was a Mariners fan I would be annoyed i get it. But this is the way it is and clubs will have to find a way to make it work. The way the rest of the world makes it work (mostly) So the bigger issue, isn't that Tommy rogic is a gun in the SPL, or that Mile single handedly got us to a WC with the game against Honduras, becuase they got in the shop front, it's the fact the NPL Clubs didn't get reimbursed 15 years earlier for these players, because the system is broke? Like I've said if the mariners continue to be dicked from both directions, then the NPL clubs will eventually lose a pathway, and then the "Big Picture" is Australian Football as a whole loses. Now read this carefully Ds because I've now said it multiple times, I want a "full DTS", but this is not a "full DTS", and because it's only half measure I don't support it. It means paths for development will become even more stifled for developing players. I understand that, trust me. But if you go to my original reply, you would see that I'm judging this literally for what it is. And from what I can see this is a move in the right direction for the grassroots (which is the foundations of the game) But your reasoning sounds like you don't see the DTS as a benefit, due to the mariners success of getting players for free which is why I may be getting confused. Is it? I'm a central coast fan, look at the other clubs rosters and the players histories, why the fuck would I not want a DTS? if we get 200k off Macauther for Lewis Miller, we invest that into getting more (NPL and CCM juniors), but we got nothing and so that will trickle down. I'm looking at this new initiative from the lens of an NPL1, 2, 3, 4 club. Couldn't care less about the A-League because in the report it didn't say it was coming into effect. Everything I've written relays to how this effects NPL clubs lol. NPL being the "Big Picture", not DTS, player progression or fairness in top tier trading. Advancement of football in this country is the "Big Picture", half measures don't cut it. When you shit on clubs like CCM, it doesn't help the league, it doesn't help the players, and believe it or not it will not help the NPL clubs Huddo, I see your point and I guess from the perspective of clubs like CCM and whoever else usually relies on the NPL to fill their rosters the answer is to change tack and rely on their own academies as a source of players instead. The double edged sword for the APL though is that this new found (and extremely welcome) source of funding injected into the player economy will create a stronger desire for players to stay the course within grassroots and clubland rather than end up at APL "farms" where they can be traded away for nothing. Watch NPL clubs start tying up promising U19s to 3 or 4 year contracts and offering other NPL players from around the traps 2-3 year contracts as well.... Especially if their is incentive to stay/play in a national division.... I predicted a possible arms race if the NSD ever got up and running, now with no cap on transfers I can almost guarantee it. Central coast doesn't rely on NPL to fill our roster we don't have a current NPL Player in the side, we do now rely on our own academies. But you watch how many NPL Players end up moving to the ALeague Now. Sure mate, wasn't picking on your club, dont honestly know which Aleague clubs do what..... these players in your academy though will have a decision to make next year ...... do they stay at the "academy" and hope they get a call up to the Aleague and at best get a smallish salary and a free transfer to another Aleague club or do they go "down" to the NPL and prove themselves and either get transferred to a stronger interstate NPL, overseas league or 3ven Aleague ALL with the added bonus of a transfer fee both for them and the club they are at?....... Like you say, great for more and more players, great for the clubs developing and onselling those players bad for the Aleague if they don't also jump,on board. This is a good point. 16 year old kid sitting in some A-League's academy. He can stay there, and eventually the A-League club might decide to sign him up professionally, and do so for free. But if the kid already has an agent, he might be thinking: bugger that. You might be able to start earning some pocket money with an NPL club AND I might be able to get a sell-on clause in your contract, so that if, for example, an A-League club buys you for $200,000, you get to pocket 10% of it, or whatever the amount is (and of course the agent m.kes more in this scenario than what he would if an A-League club just takes him for free). Economics, it's just the way it goes.
|
|
|
|
|
kaufusi
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.6K,
Visits: 0
|
I'm sorry but there's just no argument against a DTS that stacks up. It's the way football works the world over, every single country has a DTS except Australia.
Take an example, If the Mariners pay 30k+ 20% of future fee for a youngster, then after a couple of season the players gets poached to another Australian club for 150k+ 25% future fee, then after another couple of seasons an O/S club purchases said player for 800k.
The NPL club ends up with 60k going back into its kitty, the mariners get 350k and the final AL club gets 600k+ whatever future fee that play might accrue.
This scenario of course requires aleague transfer fees, which is mandatory, big clubs can not be allowed to rob poorer ones any longer.
If the player went straight overseas from the mariners for 500k rather than joining another aleague club, the NPL club would earn $130k, the Mariners 370k+ whatever future fee. Everyone's still smiling.
Yes some transfers will end up as money poured down the sink, that's football. The aim is to earn more in transfer fees received than you spend on transfers. If clubs start paying more domestically and establishing a certain value flow this will help raise the value of all aleague transfers. currently nearly all aleague transfers are appallingly weighted towards the buying club, we get robbed blind. Look at the McGree > Charlotte transfer scenario.
And yes aleague clubs can afford it. If the Mariners invested their $ from Kuol's departure in another 6 players and they hope at least 1 of these new players generates a similar fee and the process keeps rolling. Half the league are owned by millionaires, this is just a new playground for them to flex - the new objective of Australian football, which club can set the records for highest transfer fee received.
If clubs don't want ot pay for NPL players they use their own academies and develop internally like other clubs in development leagues do.
|
|
|
|
|
bettega
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xCan't see it happening in the Aleague, how else are the big clubs going to gouge the smaller clubs of their developed players. This will just add another road block to NPL players proceeding to the ALeague, if this exists, and the Aleagues don't come in to the fold, what is the incentive on teams like the Mariners? Pay a shit load of money to an NPL club, then have SFC take him for free once proven what a load of shit. Honestly so close to walking away. What are you talking about? This is one of the most positive things to have happened in football recently. This is about forming a stronger system in grassroots football overall. Offering teams an incentive to develop players.
If the mariners do pay a fee to an NPL Club it is their prerogative to offer what they think they are worth. And length of contract would be one of those factors. Even now the mariners can just offer player x a contract for what they think they are worth. That’s not Sydney’s fault. Clubs should be more pro-active in tying down their good/promising players. So let's say the Mariners find a decent player and then put them on a small contract after organising a transfer fee. The Mariners outlay the money, the mariners take 100% of the risk. Along comes, one of the big clubs and says they'll pay the Former NPL Player triple, one year in to a 2 year contract. The Mariner now have a choice, a disgruntled player if they restrict the movement, or they can get no reimbursement if they want to recoup the risk and money outlayed. And this is a good thing? I have nothing against NPL clubs attempting to ensure they make money from their contracted players I'm just saying that it's going to shaft the small Aleague clubs, and if it shafts them to much, expect a reduction in number of NPL Players being scouted.I want a DTS more than anyone but this will now squeeze the small clubs from both direction, it will be at the detriment of Australian Players, and Developmental Clubs. Do you think paying a transfer fee and offering a two year contract is a smart move? I don't think you see where I'm coming from. Ambitious, smart, clubs will succeed here, just like anywhere else in the world. The ones that have a set idea of how they are going to survive in that environment will figure it out. We have this tendency to make sure the whole thing doesn't just fall in a heap, but football is a brutal business, the ones that can find a way to survive will survive, those that need babying are always going to keep us behind. The Mariners are succeeding and will continue to do so off their current model. It does however mean avenues for players dry up, and development clubs like the Mariners will be restrained as they no longer are willing to take risks. If you can't sell the player on at a profit, how do you make money in a development league? You will be hard pressed getting more than a 2 year contract moving from the NPL, and as such the idea that someone would pay good money in a transfer, only to have the insecurity of another club nicking the player seems pretty stupid The other argument is what about the NPL club that has developed them, you think its fair they lose their player for nothing? The a-league clubs have been poaching players from the NPL for years and outside of sell on clauses the NPL make no money from letting players go to the a-league. The game needs to support each other not alienated themselves and not leave one to dry. Actually last year, the only player the Mariners "poached" from the NPL was Alou (and look where he is now). Like I said I'm not against transfers, but forcing the Mariners to pay a fee, and dicking them by no allowing them to sell there investment, you're essentially just moving the problem on to the smaller A-league Clubs, and if this happens I can guarantee that the number of NPL players will reduce. But they did sell Alou overseas? My point exactly. The system works. But only if the player goes overseas. My point is that the Mariners are stifled in their forms of revenue, if the FFA increase the outlays, without atleast giving them surety that they can sell the product on, then why would the Mariners risk it on an untested product if they have a similar if not marginally inferior product, or products from percieved superior league. the riskier product will be reduced. No more Koul, no more Jedinak, no more Rogic. Nah man, you need to look at the bigger picture. The Mariners play their part well in the australian eco-system as it is currently, But that system is so broken it isn't funny. they give players opportunities yes, but what they don't do is pay their fair share to other clubs who similarly would like to produce a Rogic for instance or a Jedinak or someone better for that matter. Did anyone ask Belconnen what they got in return for producing Rogic? or Sydney United for Jedinak? I'm sure they would've liked to have put some funds in to further improve their youth structures as well. If I was a Mariners fan I would be annoyed i get it. But this is the way it is and clubs will have to find a way to make it work. The way the rest of the world makes it work (mostly) So the bigger issue, isn't that Tommy rogic is a gun in the SPL, or that Mile single handedly got us to a WC with the game against Honduras, becuase they got in the shop front, it's the fact the NPL Clubs didn't get reimbursed 15 years earlier for these players, because the system is broke? Like I've said if the mariners continue to be dicked from both directions, then the NPL clubs will eventually lose a pathway, and then the "Big Picture" is Australian Football as a whole loses. Now read this carefully Ds because I've now said it multiple times, I want a "full DTS", but this is not a "full DTS", and because it's only half measure I don't support it. It means paths for development will become even more stifled for developing players. I understand that, trust me. But if you go to my original reply, you would see that I'm judging this literally for what it is. And from what I can see this is a move in the right direction for the grassroots (which is the foundations of the game) But your reasoning sounds like you don't see the DTS as a benefit, due to the mariners success of getting players for free which is why I may be getting confused. Is it? I'm a central coast fan, look at the other clubs rosters and the players histories, why the fuck would I not want a DTS? if we get 200k off Macauther for Lewis Miller, we invest that into getting more (NPL and CCM juniors), but we got nothing and so that will trickle down. I'm looking at this new initiative from the lens of an NPL1, 2, 3, 4 club. Couldn't care less about the A-League because in the report it didn't say it was coming into effect. Everything I've written relays to how this effects NPL clubs lol. NPL being the "Big Picture", not DTS, player progression or fairness in top tier trading. Advancement of football in this country is the "Big Picture", half measures don't cut it. When you shit on clubs like CCM, it doesn't help the league, it doesn't help the players, and believe it or not it will not help the NPL clubs Huddo, I see your point and I guess from the perspective of clubs like CCM and whoever else usually relies on the NPL to fill their rosters the answer is to change tack and rely on their own academies as a source of players instead. The double edged sword for the APL though is that this new found (and extremely welcome) source of funding injected into the player economy will create a stronger desire for players to stay the course within grassroots and clubland rather than end up at APL "farms" where they can be traded away for nothing. Watch NPL clubs start tying up promising U19s to 3 or 4 year contracts and offering other NPL players from around the traps 2-3 year contracts as well.... Especially if their is incentive to stay/play in a national division.... I predicted a possible arms race if the NSD ever got up and running, now with no cap on transfers I can almost guarantee it. Central coast doesn't rely on NPL to fill our roster we don't have a current NPL Player in the side, we do now rely on our own academies. But you watch how many NPL Players end up moving to the ALeague Now. Sure mate, wasn't picking on your club, dont honestly know which Aleague clubs do what..... these players in your academy though will have a decision to make next year ...... do they stay at the "academy" and hope they get a call up to the Aleague and at best get a smallish salary and a free transfer to another Aleague club or do they go "down" to the NPL and prove themselves and either get transferred to a stronger interstate NPL, overseas league or 3ven Aleague ALL with the added bonus of a transfer fee both for them and the club they are at?....... Like you say, great for more and more players, great for the clubs developing and onselling those players bad for the Aleague if they don't also jump,on board. This is a good point. 16 year old kid sitting in some A-League's academy. He can stay there, and eventually the A-League club might decide to sign him up professionally, and do so for free. But if the kid already has an agent, he might be thinking: bugger that. You might be able to start earning some pocket money with an NPL club AND I might be able to get a sell-on clause in your contract, so that if, for example, an A-League club buys you for $200,000, you get to pocket 10% of it, or whatever the amount is (and of course the agent m.kes more in this scenario than what he would if an A-League club just takes him for free). Economics, it's just the way it goes. Actually, it's a form of market failure, because the whole industry is not playing under the same market rules. Invariably, that's likely to mean inefficient market outcomes.
|
|
|
|
|
patjennings
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 6.7K,
Visits: 0
|
+xI'm sorry but there's just no argument against a DTS that stacks up. It's the way football works the world over, every single country has a DTS except Australia. Take an example, If the Mariners pay 30k+ 20% of future fee for a youngster, then after a couple of season the players gets poached to another Australian club for 150k+ 25% future fee, then after another couple of seasons an O/S club purchases said player for 800k. The NPL club ends up with 60k going back into its kitty, the mariners get 350k and the final AL club gets 600k+ whatever future fee that play might accrue. This scenario of course requires aleague transfer fees, which is mandatory, big clubs can not be allowed to rob poorer ones any longer. If the player went straight overseas from the mariners for 500k rather than joining another aleague club, the NPL club would earn $130k, the Mariners 370k+ whatever future fee. Everyone's still smiling. Yes some transfers will end up as money poured down the sink, that's football. The aim is to earn more in transfer fees received than you spend on transfers. If clubs start paying more domestically and establishing a certain value flow this will help raise the value of all aleague transfers. currently nearly all aleague transfers are appallingly weighted towards the buying club, we get robbed blind. Look at the McGree > Charlotte transfer scenario. And yes aleague clubs can afford it. If the Mariners invested their $ from Kuol's departure in another 6 players and they hope at least 1 of these new players generates a similar fee and the process keeps rolling. Half the league are owned by millionaires, this is just a new playground for them to flex - the new objective of Australian football, which club can set the records for highest transfer fee received. If clubs don't want ot pay for NPL players they use their own academies and develop internally like other clubs in development leagues do. Agree with the premise - just not the example in the case of the Mariners. I think that the Mariners are cherry-picking youngsters before they sign a professional contract. In this case the NPL and other clubs would get training compensation. I believe that was the case for Alou Kuol from talking to his coach at the time and would certainly be true of Garang and Teng.
|
|
|
|
|
Gyfox
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 13K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xI'm sorry but there's just no argument against a DTS that stacks up. It's the way football works the world over, every single country has a DTS except Australia. Take an example, If the Mariners pay 30k+ 20% of future fee for a youngster, then after a couple of season the players gets poached to another Australian club for 150k+ 25% future fee, then after another couple of seasons an O/S club purchases said player for 800k. The NPL club ends up with 60k going back into its kitty, the mariners get 350k and the final AL club gets 600k+ whatever future fee that play might accrue. This scenario of course requires aleague transfer fees, which is mandatory, big clubs can not be allowed to rob poorer ones any longer. If the player went straight overseas from the mariners for 500k rather than joining another aleague club, the NPL club would earn $130k, the Mariners 370k+ whatever future fee. Everyone's still smiling. Yes some transfers will end up as money poured down the sink, that's football. The aim is to earn more in transfer fees received than you spend on transfers. If clubs start paying more domestically and establishing a certain value flow this will help raise the value of all aleague transfers. currently nearly all aleague transfers are appallingly weighted towards the buying club, we get robbed blind. Look at the McGree > Charlotte transfer scenario. And yes aleague clubs can afford it. If the Mariners invested their $ from Kuol's departure in another 6 players and they hope at least 1 of these new players generates a similar fee and the process keeps rolling. Half the league are owned by millionaires, this is just a new playground for them to flex - the new objective of Australian football, which club can set the records for highest transfer fee received. If clubs don't want ot pay for NPL players they use their own academies and develop internally like other clubs in development leagues do. Agree with the premise - just not the example in the case of the Mariners. I think that the Mariners are cherry-picking youngsters before they sign a professional contract. In this case the NPL and other clubs would get training compensation. I believe that was the case for Alou Kuol from talking to his coach at the time and would certainly be true of Garang and Teng. With the NSD and NPL clubs also heavily scouting for players to develop because there is money in it Mariners might find it hard to work that way in future.
|
|
|
|
|
patjennings
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 6.7K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xI'm sorry but there's just no argument against a DTS that stacks up. It's the way football works the world over, every single country has a DTS except Australia. Take an example, If the Mariners pay 30k+ 20% of future fee for a youngster, then after a couple of season the players gets poached to another Australian club for 150k+ 25% future fee, then after another couple of seasons an O/S club purchases said player for 800k. The NPL club ends up with 60k going back into its kitty, the mariners get 350k and the final AL club gets 600k+ whatever future fee that play might accrue. This scenario of course requires aleague transfer fees, which is mandatory, big clubs can not be allowed to rob poorer ones any longer. If the player went straight overseas from the mariners for 500k rather than joining another aleague club, the NPL club would earn $130k, the Mariners 370k+ whatever future fee. Everyone's still smiling. Yes some transfers will end up as money poured down the sink, that's football. The aim is to earn more in transfer fees received than you spend on transfers. If clubs start paying more domestically and establishing a certain value flow this will help raise the value of all aleague transfers. currently nearly all aleague transfers are appallingly weighted towards the buying club, we get robbed blind. Look at the McGree > Charlotte transfer scenario. And yes aleague clubs can afford it. If the Mariners invested their $ from Kuol's departure in another 6 players and they hope at least 1 of these new players generates a similar fee and the process keeps rolling. Half the league are owned by millionaires, this is just a new playground for them to flex - the new objective of Australian football, which club can set the records for highest transfer fee received. If clubs don't want ot pay for NPL players they use their own academies and develop internally like other clubs in development leagues do. Agree with the premise - just not the example in the case of the Mariners. I think that the Mariners are cherry-picking youngsters before they sign a professional contract. In this case the NPL and other clubs would get training compensation. I believe that was the case for Alou Kuol from talking to his coach at the time and would certainly be true of Garang and Teng. With the NSD and NPL clubs also heavily scouting for players to develop because there is money in it Mariners might find it hard to work that way in future. Maybe - but if does it means younger players are getting paid as professionals. Good for them!! If not the Mariners have a history of promoting young players and will still remain attractive.
|
|
|
|