Jump to content

Squad Development 2019/20 Part 1

mack

By mack
in Western Sydney Wanderers

Recommended Posts

Zelinsky

Zelinsky

Posted
Posted (edited)

There can't be any surprises that MB is tightening things at the back, he was quite clear about that in the presser after round 27. That's what is happening. 

It's a long way from the HAL to serious football. Birrighitti was in a fourth division team or something, and not playing much, yet he is seen as our saviour. In the meantime our new man managed to hold on to a contract for yonks in a reasonable European league. There is is message in this. 

The two Swiss guys plus ziegler will be a very different proposition when compared with JoD/GG/Mahazi, Hammer and Snake. That'll be 20 odd goals less conceded next season 

No more BS. No more mediocrity. And please, no more clown ball at wsw. Enough is enough. 

Edited by FCB
Link to comment
Beer

Beer

Posted
Posted

Yeah but just wait until Ziggy gets another long term injury and the new Swiss midfielder always seems to be “one or two weeks away” from hitting his straps. 

Blah blah blah, I know you’ll defend the German until the cows come home FCB, but I’ve hardly seen an ounce of promise from this team since THAT semi final against the Roar. And there’s been an entire new stadium built in that time...

Link to comment
THEWANDERERSPOST

THEWANDERERSPOST

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, ZachMercer said:

Agree, although I have a feeling we're after a big fish. Using a spot for a new goalie would preclude we're targeting the ffa marquee fund.

Does anyone know if the special ffa marquee counts towards your international's quota?

Thats what I thought, limiting spending on a decent international goalie to get a big name player. Everything points to Ribery tbh.

Link to comment
ZachMercer

ZachMercer

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Paul01 said:

Okazaki says no to Thailand and everyone except Europe

https://www.foxsportsasia.com/football/asian-football/1103270/outgoing-leicester-city-star-shinji-okazaki-responds-to-rumours-of-a-transfer-to-thai-league-club-buriram-united/

Thank god we are part of Europe given we're in the Eurovision song contest. Failing that, we could always change Austria to Australia on the final contract.

Link to comment
billybob

billybob

Posted
Posted (edited)

Are we the only “Big” club not front loading our marque player payments to enable us to have 3 or 4 marques at the same time?

Surely this is what Sydney must be doing to have Le Fonda, Ninkovic and now Barbarouses as marque? One of them must be dropping back under the cap next year.

 

Edited by billybob
Wrong ended...
Link to comment
billybob

billybob

Posted
Posted

Could this be done?

year 1, pay player A and B 90% of their 3 year contract

year 2, pay player C and D 90% of their 3 year contract, player A and B back under the cap but club now has 4 marquees.

year 3, pay player E and F 90% of their 3 year contract, players A, B, C and D back under cap but club now has 6 marquees in year 3.

is there any regulations that would stop this?

Link to comment
billybob

billybob

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, mack said:

FFA have to approve a marquee.

But as you can see they generally don't care.

If people want to frontload then they will let them.

I only thought FFA had to approve the marquee if the club wanted money from the FFA? Or if a third marquee slot was created for any player named “Tim”.

Link to comment
Upthehill

Upthehill

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, mack said:

FFA have to approve a marquee.

But as you can see they generally don't care.

If people want to frontload then they will let them.

That’s not true. The FFA only approve marquees when you want to access the pool of funding.

 

Billybob - you certainly could do that on paper but the reality is a bit different. Look at Cahill, he scuttled pretty fast when his wage dropped. How do you motivate a guy who knows he’s already been paid? I wouldn’t trust a player who feels like he’s working for free, despite the fact he was laid up front

Link to comment
billybob

billybob

Posted
Posted
24 minutes ago, Upthehill said:

That’s not true. The FFA only approve marquees when you want to access the pool of funding.

 

Billybob - you certainly could do that on paper but the reality is a bit different. Look at Cahill, he scuttled pretty fast when his wage dropped. How do you motivate a guy who knows he’s already been paid? I wouldn’t trust a player who feels like he’s working for free, despite the fact he was laid up front

Kind of like paying a builder upfront and expecting him to prioritise your job.

Agree that this appeared to be what Melb City did with Cahill, but I believe he did repay them a certain amount of money based on the fact that he did not fulfil all his commitments.

if you pay the player, but have penalties in the contract based on performance, training and fulfilling commitments, then I think it could work. Maybe not 3 year contracts, but even having 4 marquees with 2 years contracts would be very helpful in a salary capped league.

Link to comment
billybob

billybob

Posted
Posted
28 minutes ago, mack said:

If a club tried to frontload a contract by paying a guy a 6 month 'marquee' contract then another 3.5 years at 55k minimum they wouldn't approve.

But that’s not how you set it up. It would be a more like say a 3 year deal worth $4.5mil, or $1.5mil a year. But setup as $4mil as marquee for the first year and then $250k under the salary for the next two years.

Link to comment
Westiesarebesties

Westiesarebesties

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Upthehill said:

That’s not true. The FFA only approve marquees when you want to access the pool of funding.

 

Billybob - you certainly could do that on paper but the reality is a bit different. Look at Cahill, he scuttled pretty fast when his wage dropped. How do you motivate a guy who knows he’s already been paid? I wouldn’t trust a player who feels like he’s working for free, despite the fact he was laid up front

Cahill did pay back the club for his season he bailed on from memory though. Cahill bailed because he wasn't going to get played really. Surely if you are doing a contract in that style you would have some sort of clause to prevent them bailing after their big pay seasons.

 

Link to comment
Upthehill

Upthehill

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, mack said:

If a club tried to frontload a contract by paying a guy a 6 month 'marquee' contract then another 3.5 years at 55k minimum they wouldn't approve.

As long as it fills the prescriptions, the FFA has no right of refusal to register.

Link to comment
Upthehill

Upthehill

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Westiesarebesties said:

Cahill did pay back the club for his season he bailed on from memory though. Cahill bailed because he wasn't going to get played really. Surely if you are doing a contract in that style you would have some sort of clause to prevent them bailing after their big pay seasons.

 

There is already clauses to prevent them bailing, that’s what a contract is. The issue is players will half arse it or just completely check out. Players have been sued by their clubs for intentional poor performance or simply walking away

Link to comment
  • mack locked and unpinned this topic
  • mack unlocked this topic

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...