Jump to content
Melbourne Football

Transfer Talk, Rumours and Speculation


jw1739

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, nah brah said:

news yesterday was that we offered that guy $500 k over 2 seasons.  you would think they were trying to squeeze him under the cap with only $250k per year.

Haha more than likely that was just poor journalism, especially likely if you are referring to theworldgame article. It would have been 500k a season for 2 years.

Edited by bt50
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Afif Adam said:

source

 

 

1 minute ago, bt50 said:

Haha more than likely that was just poor journalism. It would have been 500k a season for 2 years.

"a two-year contract worth around $500,000 over two seasons"

http://theworldgame.sbs.com.au/article/2017/08/17/melbourne-citys-bid-croatian-star-derailed

i dont think he was going to be a marquee.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Embee said:

Cahill was easily one of our most effective players last season and without him I doubt our team would lifted the FFA Cup. The narrative put forward by some that he's basically here as a publicist and negotiation piece with the FFA is bullshit. He scored 11 goals, many of which were at a vital point in the games he scored them in (equalizers, winners, opening goals). Any team in the A-League would've loved to have had Cahill in their squad last season on purely based on his skill and talent.

highest scoring midfielder in the league wasnt he?

also there is no other player on the planet that would have got the press he did for the money.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, nah brah said:

 

"a two-year contract worth around $500,000 over two seasons"

http://theworldgame.sbs.com.au/article/2017/08/17/melbourne-citys-bid-croatian-star-derailed

i dont think he was going to be a marquee.

That doesnt even make sense. We have one visa spot left and Palic is a CAM, the spot we are needing to fill. Id say it's pretty obvious that he was intended to be marquee. Otherwise you are trying keep your marquee spot for an Australian, which I can't really think of anyone thats good enough to be marquee who is available. 

Not to mention TheWorldGame is notoriously unreliable compared to most Aus media sources, and a few other articles mention a 1.1m deal over two seasons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, nah brah said:

highest scoring midfielder in the league wasnt he?

also there is no other player on the planet that would have got the press he did for the money.  

Off the top of my head I'm unsure but it likely that was the case.

Of course, the guy is easily the most recognizable Australian athlete nationwide and is (in my opinion anyway) the best footballer this country has ever produced, the publicity side of it was well worth the money. But what too many often overlook is that even if you didn't get the publicity that Cahill's personality brings, his on field contributions were better than all but MAYBE 1 or 2 players in the side.
 

Just now, bt50 said:

That doesnt even make sense. We have one visa spot left and Palic is a CAM, the spot we are needing to fill. Id say it's pretty obvious that he was intended to be marquee. Otherwise you are trying keep your marquee spot for an Australian, which I can't really think of anyone thats good enough to be marquee who is available. 

Not to mention TheWorldGame is notoriously unreliable compared to most Aus media sources, and a few other articles mention a 1.1m deal over two seasons.

Yeah, I get the feeling that was meant to be 'per season'.

 

Edited by Embee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Embee said:

Cahill was easily one of our most effective players last season and without him I doubt our team would lifted the FFA Cup. The narrative put forward by some that he's basically here as a publicist and negotiation piece with the FFA is bullshit. He scored 11 goals, many of which were at a vital point in the games he scored them in (equalizers, winners, opening goals). Any team in the A-League would've loved to have had Cahill in their squad last season on purely based on his skill and talent.

100%, his publicity and 'marquee' status was a key part, but imo he was still signed from a football perspective primarily because number one he's a proven star and number two, it was essentially an extra marquee spot.

That's not to say we didnt leverage his signing to get a few other things, like FFA to chip in some of the cash and the sky blue thing, but i strongly belive they were peripheral in the signing of Cahill overall. Steak Knives you could say.

Edited by bt50
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, bt50 said:

That doesnt even make sense. We have one visa spot left and Palic is a CAM, the spot we are needing to fill. Id say it's pretty obvious that he was intended to be marquee. Otherwise you are trying keep your marquee spot for an Australian, which I can't really think of anyone thats good enough to be marquee who is available. 

Not to mention TheWorldGame is notoriously unreliable compared to most Aus media sources, and a few other articles mention a 1.1m deal over two seasons.

you would think so but that is not what the article says.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, nah brah said:

news yesterday was that we offered that guy $500 k over 2 seasons.  you would think they were trying to squeeze him under the cap with only $250k per year.

Yeah I've read that too but assumed that was a typo, should be $500k per season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, nah brah said:

have you got links to the hun or smh articles?

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/football/melbourne-city-on-the-verge-of-bulking-up-its-foreign-quota-with-european-stars/news-story/f48b34d28cc14d171053d5a7684d5c7e

"But a no-frills marquee in the mould of Nicolas Colazo — and on a budget of approximately $600,000 a season — is seen as likely for City less than two months from the start of the season."

I remember reading an article the other day that has the 1.2 Million 2 year figure it in but can't find. Might have been removed once it was clear Palic wasn't coming.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, bt50 said:

100%, his publicity and 'marquee' status was a key part, but imo he was still signed from a football perspective primarily because number one he's a proven star and number two, it was essentially an extra marquee spot.

That's not to say we didnt leverage his signing to get a few other things, like FFA to chip in some of the cash and the sky blue thing, but i strongly belive they were peripheral in the signing of Cahill overall. Steak Knives you could say.

Hahahaha Tim Cahill can't even setup a one two with a team mate last season, most of the forward line got frustrated with the him on the field. I couldn't care less about his publicity, the Samsung fridge or the cup win. Besides saving our asses with a couple headers he hasn't contributed in fluent attacking play but provided the opposite, that's how I judge him. Just give me sexy football please.

Yes TC is a legend and we need to respect what he has done for Australian football. Totti was also a legend on and off the field but in recent year's he wasn't the highest paid squad member, and the Serie A doesn't even have salary cap.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Mr MO said:

Hahahaha Tim Cahill can't even setup a one two with a team mate last season, most of the forward line got frustrated with the him on the field. I couldn't care less about his publicity, the Samsung fridge or the cup win. Besides saving our asses with a couple headers he hasn't contributed in fluent attacking play but provided the opposite, that's how I judge him. Just give me sexy football please.

Yes TC is a legend and we need to respect what he has done for Australian football. Totti was also a legend on and off the field but in recent year's he wasn't the highest paid squad member, and the Serie A doesn't even have salary cap.

:droy::droy::droy::droy::droy::droy::droy::droy::droy::droy:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, jw1739 said:

I agree that this looks about it.

With respect to Cahill, I think his remuneration is a factor in CFG's thinking, but despite my personal feelings about his worth as a player, I think that if we're being limited on what we can spend on a decent marquee because of what TC was paid last season then that's pretty unfair on Melbourne City, our players and coaches (including Timmy himself), and Melbourne City fans. TC was only signed by us because of the insistence of CFG on us playing in sky blue. We didn't have to do it. Manchester City have loaned out four players to Girona already - and I wonder if Girona will change their red-and-white to sky blue in return? - I doubt it. In summary I'm finding it a bit difficult to understand CFG's attitude to Melbourne City at the present time. CFG could do exactly the same for us as they are doing for PEC Zwolle, who they don't even own FFS.

You are 100% right JW about Girona and looking at our previous spending, after all we are a business and you can only spend your money once.

TC as a trade off only for playing in sky blue seems far off but no doubts this has played part in it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Mr MO said:

Lol at the Talking City boys & friends at their Tim Cahill obsession, you've all changed ever since going on air!

There's no obsession, although i wont deny i rate Tim as a big game player. At no point in that post did i say anything on his performances for us, just that i believe he was signed primarily for football purposes, secondarily for publicity purposes and very much peripherally for the change to sky blue. The actual output was your conclusion and statement, not mine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, bt50 said:

There's no obsession, although i wont deny i rate Tim as a big game player. At no point in that post did i say anything on his performances for us, just that i believe he was signed primarily for football purposes, secondarily for publicity purposes and very much peripherally for the change to sky blue. The actual output was your conclusion and statement, not mine.

Yeah I agree, I responded on the wrong post. Some people on here seem to swap your purposes around by saying they valued the publicity more over good football. I'm just looking at a 100% football perspective and I'm still bitter about our play up front last year. Plus I'm getting nervous thinking having to play with the same 3 or 4 for another season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Mr MO said:

Lol at the Talking City boys & friends at their Tim Cahill obsession, you've all changed ever since going on air!

Part of the initiation before being allowed on the podcast is having your forehead paddled until raw and then dressing up as a corner flag and being beaten into submission. It was a testing period, but it was worth it. ALL HAIL TIM CAHILL OUR LORD AND SAVIOR

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Mr MO said:

Yeah I agree, I responded on the wrong post. Some people on here seem to swap your purposes around by saying they valued the publicity more over good football. I'm just looking at a 100% football perspective and I'm still bitter about our play up front last year. Plus I'm getting nervous thinking having to play with the same 3 or 4 for another season.

No doubt. I think Cahill was clutch for us in big moments last year, but there's no doubt playing him in midfield affected our build up play at times. At the end of the day i put that down to coaching more than anything tbh.

I suspect he'll play more of a super sub role this year in preparation for Russia (assuming we make it), coming on in the last half hour or so. The interesting part will be as to whether he does that as a second striker or more of an AM/CF role per last year.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Mr MO said:

Yeah I agree, I responded on the wrong post. Some people on here seem to swap your purposes around by saying they valued the publicity more over good football. I'm just looking at a 100% football perspective and I'm still bitter about our play up front last year. Plus I'm getting nervous thinking having to play with the same 3 or 4 for another season.

Pretty football and play is pointless without end result.

Complain about Cahill all you like, he scored more goals from open play than any other City player. I'll take balls in the net over boring, side to side possession every day.

Edited by Embee
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Embee said:

Pretty football and play is pointless without end result.

Complain about Cahill all you like, he scored more goals from open play than any other City player. I'll take balls in the next over boring, side to side possession every day.

With his head yes! That's where he needs to be up front.

How much more exciting to watch was the season with Bruno, Mooy and Harry? 

Don't you remember seeing the frustration on Bruno and TC faces when they refused to pass the ball to each other? People complain about the side to side passing, but that is what you have to do if you don't play with a competent Nr. 10.

A 10 who can be played in and keep the ball with him to setup play. I remember seeing Brattan deliberately holding off on forward play looking up, there were games where TC's or Bruno's first touch were awful but then again both shouldn't be used in that role.

Edited by Mr MO
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Mr MO said:

With his head yes! That's where he needs to be up front.

How much more exciting to watch was the season with Bruno, Mooy and Harry? 

Don't you remember seeing the frustration on Bruno and TC faces when they refused to pass the ball to each other? People complain about the side to side passing, but that is what you have to do if you don't play with a competent Nr. 10.

A 10 who can be played in and keep the ball with him to setup play. I remember seeing Brattan deliberately holding off on forward play looking up, there were games where TC's or Bruno's first touch were awful but then again both shouldn't be used in that role.

tbf, I think you're misinterpreting my argument.

I'm not advocating Tim Cahill playing in the #10 role this season, in fact I've been very vocal about our need for a marquee #10 and feel that we will get one, I don't think Tim is at all suited to that role and that we require a playmaker there instead. My only point is that without Tim Cahill last season we would've been considerably worse, especially seeing as we wouldn't have been able to sign any kind of replacement under the "Tim Cahill rule". He was well worth the money and contributed greatly on-field.

As far as side to side play and excitement, I don't care how exciting we are really, I just want us to be successful. Plenty of people said Sydney were boring/defensive etc last season yet they won the double and had arguably the greatest single season ever in the history of the A-League.

Edited by Embee
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Embee said:

tbf, I think you're misinterpreting my argument.

I'm not advocating Tim Cahill playing in the #10 role this season, in fact I've been very vocal about our need for a marquee #10 and feel that we will get one, I don't think Tim is at all suited to that role and that we require a playmaker there instead. My only point is that without Tim Cahill last season we would've been considerably worse, especially seeing as we wouldn't have been able to sign any kind of replacement under the "Tim Cahill rule". He was well worth the money and contributed greatly on-field.

As far as side to side play and excitement, I don't care how exciting we are really, I just want us to be successful. Plenty of people said Sydney were boring/defensive etc last season yet they won the double and had arguably the greatest single season ever in the history of the A-League.

No I understand your argument, and I've already written this on here multiple times - he saved our ass last year with his headers! I just have to disagree a little with his on field performance a little, looking a combination football - but each for his own.

Okay now look at like this, hear me out. So you would still think it's money well spend knowing that his high in cap wages are contributing to this years salary cap struggles and his front loaded contract are restricting us in signing a bomb marquee over $600k a year? CFG clearly indicate there are budgets and investment returns expected.

Edited by Mr MO
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Embee said:

tbf, I think you're misinterpreting my argument.

I'm not advocating Tim Cahill playing in the #10 role this season, in fact I've been very vocal about our need for a marquee #10 and feel that we will get one, I don't think Tim is at all suited to that role and that we require a playmaker there instead. My only point is that without Tim Cahill last season we would've been considerably worse, especially seeing as we wouldn't have been able to sign any kind of replacement under the "Tim Cahill rule". He was well worth the money and contributed greatly on-field.

As far as side to side play and excitement, I don't care how exciting we are really, I just want us to be successful. Plenty of people said Sydney were boring/defensive etc last season yet they won the double and had arguably the greatest single season ever in the history of the A-League.

So, where do you think he should be playing in 2017-18? He is AFAIK our highest-paid player inside the cap.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Mr MO said:

No I understand your argument, and I've already written this on here multiple times - he saved our ass last year with his headers! I just have to disagree a little with his on field performance a little, looking a combination football - but each for his own.

Okay now look at like this, hear me out. So you would still think it's money well spend knowing that his high in cap wages are contributing to this years salary cap struggles and his front loaded contract are restricting us in signing a bomb marquee over $600k a year? CFG clearly indicate there are budgets and investment returns expected.

There's no proof behind that theory though, Colazo was on about 600k last season, so we're effectively offering as much as we did then.

Of course there are budgets, but we don't know what they are or what influences them. If we didn't have Cahill last season I'm confident we wouldn't have won the FFA Cup so even if that was the case I'd take the tradeoff

1 minute ago, jw1739 said:

So, where do you think he should be playing in 2017-18? He is AFAIK our highest-paid player inside the cap.

Either as a second striker in a 4-4-2/3-5-2 or coming off the bench.

Yeah, he would be, but I don't want to see him inserted into the lineup simply because of that, and I don't think Warren will tbh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Mr MO said:

No I understand your argument, and I've already written this on here multiple times - he saved our ass last year with his headers!

Okay now look at like this, hear me out. So you would still think it's money well spend knowing that his high in cap wages are contributing to this years salary cap struggles and his front loaded contract are restricting us in signing a bomb marquee over $600k a year? CFG clearly indicate there are budgets and investment returns expected.

I'm trying to understand your whole point. Do you mean 'our' salary cap struggles? Considering Tim is under the cap I think we've put together a pretty damn good squad with very very few holes in it. So I'm not sure what struggles your speaking of. With your second comment about signing a marquee how do you know CFG even want to spend more than that, irrespective of Tim or not? You've just used that assumption to fuel your argument about Tims worth even though it's completely baseless. And your last comment seems to contradict your argument completely. CFG have budgets, as I mentioned above perhaps they don't want to spend more than 600k. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, n i k o said:

I'm trying to understand your whole point. Do you mean 'our' salary cap struggles? Considering Tim is under the cap I think we've put together a pretty damn good squad with very very few holes in it. So I'm not sure what struggles your speaking of. With your second comment about signing a marquee how do you know CFG even want to spend more than that, irrespective of Tim or not? You've just used that assumption to fuel your argument about Tims worth even though it's completely baseless. And your last comment seems to contradict your argument completely. CFG have budgets, as I mentioned above perhaps they don't want to spend more than 600k. 

I'm not contradicting myself.

With salary cap struggles, I'm hinting to a single player which cost 12 to 15% of your salary - that isn't balanced.

CFG have budgets, we have spend millions of dollars on TC - they will spread this investment out over several years this can result in a lower budget on out of cap spending, pretty simple in my mind.

CFG have budgets, as I mentioned above perhaps they don't want to spend more than 600k. My point too, as the return on investment isn't here yet. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Embee said:

There's no proof behind that theory though, Colazo was on about 600k last season, so we're effectively offering as much as we did then.

Of course there are budgets, but we don't know what they are or what influences them. If we didn't have Cahill last season I'm confident we wouldn't have won the FFA Cup so even if that was the case I'd take the tradeoff

Either as a second striker in a 4-4-2/3-5-2 or coming off the bench.

Yeah, he would be, but I don't want to see him inserted into the lineup simply because of that, and I don't think Warren will tbh.

Well you are closer to the fire than us, get some one of importance in your studio and ask for transparency! But then again, we have nothing left annoy each other on this forum about, fuck it I'll come up with something else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Cahill deal was done last year and it extends for 2 more seasons. So regardless of whatever the breakdown of wages Cahill deal is done. 

1 point that gets missed is Bruno. The bloke hasn't missed many games (maybe 1 or 2 because of cards) but for a striker that gets some much hacking it's remarkable. If,  and I sincerely hope not he gets injured Cahill can slot straight in.

Now I understand some may screech at this but good squads are 15 to 16 not 11 even in a capped League.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • jw1739 pinned this topic

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...