Jump to content
Melbourne Football

2019 FFA Cup - Quarter Final - Western Sydney Wanderers @ AAMI Park


mattyh001
 Share

Recommended Posts

Day after we survived the forum proclaimed Doom day match.  Actually, WSW are nowhere near us. Comments regarding Florin go into the same basket.  He was good. He played more to the right, opposite to side where we played and penetrated the most via Noone. Metcalfe played on that side but couldn't link and make more impact despite being closer to Noone. Maybe he should play more development games together with Ramy. Brillante was brilliant as usual, but he's not the match winner. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, n i k o said:

It's all dependant on what expectations are placed on him. For sure he had a solid game. Nothing special but did most of the simple stuff right.

What expectation should be placed on a number 10 visa player?

I expect a number 10 visa player to be better than average. He was average.

I expect a marquee player to be better than a standard visa player, he was average. Not bad. not good. he did some good things with the ball, but, as usual, his final pass is poor and rarely creates opportunities

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, jw1739 said:

My point about Florin Berenguer is that he is - according to @Bob Latchford - one of our two marquees. I don't expect him to be flawless, but  I expect him, as a marquee no. 10, to stand out above the other City players, be the creative mainspring of our attacks, able to hit decisive precision passes, and at least have the confidence to have a shot on goal when the opportunity arises, not just be another player on the field. I just don't think he demonstrates enough of those qualities. I don't blame the guy either. We offered him a contract, he signed it. But I don't think we should keep looking for excuses if we don't get our recruiting right. Last night I don't think he did enough to justify 83 minutes on the field.

He's marquee for accounting purposes. He wasn't last year but was promoted to that spot as he is now the second highest earner with a few of the bigger earners departing. 

I understand the viewpoint that a "marquee" should be someone that dazzles, but Noone is not listed as marquee and is performing well. If they swapped, would anyone care? Would it suddenly be okay, even though all that's changed is how much they're being paid? Just some food for thought.

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Bob Latchford said:

He's marquee for accounting purposes. He wasn't last year but was promoted to that spot as he is now the second highest earner with a few of the bigger earners departing. 

I understand the viewpoint that a "marquee" should be someone that dazzles, but Noone is not listed as marquee and is performing well. If they swapped, would anyone care? Would it suddenly be okay, even though all that's changed is how much they're being paid? Just some food for thought.

100%.

To be even clearer, he hasnt been 'promoted' to that spot per se, but rather allocated to that spot as the second highest earner, which is a carry over from a HEAVILY backended deal.

Edited by bt50
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Tomi said:

Why the fck dont you go and support Victory?

Go. You will fit right in with the rest of the foul mouthed dead shits.

2 hours ago, belaguttman said:

his final pass is poor and rarely creates opportunities

He created 2 clear opportunities on goal.

One, Najjarine should have scored blindfolded, another Metcalfe missed completely from inside the box with a clear net.

Both being substandard players.

 

I really don't get why people are generally so content. It's like we give our club a free pass on not selecting the best team.

As I have said from 6 weeks ago, we need to start with Noone, Jamie, Cabrera and Luna as our attackers, and Brilliante and Florin/Griffiths in the middle. Play them for 7 weeks and then assess the situation.

Starting youth in the first 7 games will be unacceptable if those 7 players are fit.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Bob Latchford said:

He's marquee for accounting purposes. He wasn't last year but was promoted to that spot as he is now the second highest earner with a few of the bigger earners departing. 

I understand the viewpoint that a "marquee" should be someone that dazzles, but Noone is not listed as marquee and is performing well. If they swapped, would anyone care? Would it suddenly be okay, even though all that's changed is how much they're being paid? Just some food for thought.

I completely disagree with "just for accounting purposes" excuse. I don't pay the guy, but it's bad business to pay an average player marquee wages. You backend or frontend these deals to get better players than average. You don't buy an expensive vacuum cleaner but only expect average quality.

I'm not talking about Melbourne City's (sorry, that third goal was scored by "Manchester City" according to the ground announcer - hope everyone picked that up!) or CFG's accounting, I'm talking about a fan's expectation that his club will have a marquee footballer, not a book-keeping entry.

This is about a club keeping faith with its fans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bob Latchford said:

He's marquee for accounting purposes. He wasn't last year but was promoted to that spot as he is now the second highest earner with a few of the bigger earners departing. 

I understand the viewpoint that a "marquee" should be someone that dazzles, but Noone is not listed as marquee and is performing well. If they swapped, would anyone care? Would it suddenly be okay, even though all that's changed is how much they're being paid? Just some food for thought.

If he's the second highest earner, then I expect him to stand out on the field, marquee or not

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The money nor the marquee status doesn't worry me. Our best players ever have not been marquees. Hence why I didn't bring it up. The real issue is having a visa player that is bordering on not being a starter because of his average performances. 

Any criticism toward him being marquee, his wages or contract should be directed at the club. 

Edited by n i k o
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Bob Latchford said:

He's marquee for accounting purposes. He wasn't last year but was promoted to that spot as he is now the second highest earner with a few of the bigger earners departing. 

I understand the viewpoint that a "marquee" should be someone that dazzles, but Noone is not listed as marquee and is performing well. If they swapped, would anyone care? Would it suddenly be okay, even though all that's changed is how much they're being paid? Just some food for thought.

I complete agree Bob and it makes all sense from an accounting perspective.

But what are you are also admitting to is that we are filling in the marquee spots on a shoestring budget. This is not what the marquee ruling is meant for, its to bring above average footballers to the league.

Most fans have issues with this approach as it shows lack of intend to be successfull on the field.

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

2 hours ago, jw1739 said:

I completely disagree with "just for accounting purposes" excuse. I don't pay the guy, but it's bad business to pay an average player marquee wages. 

JW, it just mean we aren’t really paying marquee wages, he is just the second highest team earner. Meaning we are not willing to fork out money for a real marquee. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Mr MO said:

JW, it just mean we aren’t really paying marquee wages, he is just the second highest team earner. Meaning we are not willing to fork out money for a real marquee. 

Sort of, what it means is we are paying the full cap of say 3 mil, then amount x for JMac and amount y for Florin.

Realistic figures might mean our net spend might be 3 mil + 800k + 500k, being a total of 4.3mil. Now you could def put out a good argument that our 2nd marquee should be in the 800k+ bracket as well if we are wanting to make a real difference, but then again its always easier to spend someones elses money too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Le Hack said:

We've got 20 on senior contracts, I think you can have up to 23? Can you replace your marquee in the January transfer window with another and have his wages outside the cap? That would be sensible strategic thinking if you can

If we let Florin go then yes we could do that i think. I think if we were to let another player go that opened up enough space under the cap to bring Florin under you could also do that as well, provided Florins wage stays consistent.
The only issue you would have re changing marquees would be say paying Florin 200k for the next two weeks and then paying 10k or something thereafter in an attempt to cheat the marquee rules.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, bt50 said:

If we let Florin go then yes we could do that i think. I think if we were to let another player go that opened up enough space under the cap to bring Florin under you could also do that as well, provided Florins wage stays consistent.
The only issue you would have re changing marquees would be say paying Florin 200k for the next two weeks and then paying 10k or something thereafter in an attempt to cheat the marquee rules.

I’m actually really surprised that players like Noone and Brillante are on less coin than French. We are talking about two well proven players here. Then again his contract is being backloaded.

Edited by Mr MO
Link to comment
Share on other sites

God I know why I haven’t bothered logging on in months! Get some joy in your lives boys!

ok. I was so impressed with that game- I cant recall in this clubs history a professional ruthless display like that. Above anything though we just looked “well coached”. The game was actually a complete mismatch and WSW never had a look in. 

On top of that we have the strikers in the semi- are a big chance for the cup and in good form before the league starts.

Happy Days.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Shahanga said:

God I know why I haven’t bothered logging on in months! Get some joy in your lives boys!

ok. I was so impressed with that game- I cant recall in this clubs history a professional ruthless display like that. Above anything though we just looked “well coached”. The game was actually a complete mismatch and WSW never had a look in. 

On top of that we have the strikers in the semi- are a big chance for the cup and in good form before the league starts.

Happy Days.

Take it easy Potsie, we will find a way to botch this.

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

FFA should vett all marquee contracts, it should only be for proven performers here or abroad. If a player isn't deemed to be of marquee worthiness his wage should be included in the cap. It would stop backloaded contracts and make clubs use the position for what it was intended for not just a method of creative accounting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, mus-28 said:

FFA should vett all marquee contracts, it should only be for proven performers here or abroad. If a player isn't deemed to be of marquee worthiness his wage should be included in the cap. It would stop backloaded contracts and make clubs use the position for what it was intended for not just a method of creative accounting.

 

Unknown.jpeg

  • Like 1
  • Haha 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, mus-28 said:

FFA should vett all marquee contracts, it should only be for proven performers here or abroad. If a player isn't deemed to be of marquee worthiness his wage should be included in the cap. It would stop backloaded contracts and make clubs use the position for what it was intended for not just a method of creative accounting.

That would require the FFA to have a clue what they're doing in the first place...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, mus-28 said:

FFA should vett all marquee contracts, it should only be for proven performers here or abroad. If a player isn't deemed to be of marquee worthiness his wage should be included in the cap. It would stop backloaded contracts and make clubs use the position for what it was intended for not just a method of creative accounting.

That was the original concept of the marquee. When the league started, marquees had to be approved by FFA. Over the seasons "marquee" has been diluted to mean "outside the cap," and what was originally the marquee player has morphed into the "guest" player. My understanding is that the latter still have to be approved by whoever is running the League.

Edited by jw1739
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, jw1739 said:

That was the original concept of the marquee. When the league started, marquees had to be approved by FFA. Over the seasons "marquee" has been diluted to mean "outside the cap," and what was originally the marquee player has morphed into the "guest" player. My understanding is that the latter still have to be approved by whoever is running the League.

Spot on. Interestingly virtually no-one uses the guest slot anymore for two reasons;

1) the league in its existing format has proved that the return on investment for those types of players is terrible; and
2) being a 14 game slot is fucking stupid. Most players of that calibre under 35 aren't going to sign for half a season with so many other options around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, bt50 said:

Spot on. Interestingly virtually no-one uses the guest slot anymore for two reasons;

1) the league in its existing format has proved that the return on investment for those types of players is terrible; and
2) being a 14 game slot is fucking stupid. Most players of that calibre under 35 aren't going to sign for half a season with so many other options around.

Didn’t Victory and Sydney use it last season?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, jw1739 said:

Honda played 20 matches for MV. He must have been a "full-season guest marquee" i.e. the same as Cahill.

Now that I think of it, Honda and Troisi were marquee. The FFA marquee fund can be used for endorsed marquee players and guest players. The one year guest player ruling was a one off I thought for Cahill.

Edited by Mr MO
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Mr MO said:

Now that I think of it, Honda and Troisi were marquee. The FFA marquee fund can be used for endorsed marquee players and guest players. The one year guest player ruling was a one off I thought for Cahill.

I can't remember TBH. There have been so many changes in League rules that probably no-one at FFA can remember who came under what rule either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...