Jump to content
Melbourne Football

Transfer Talk, Rumours and Speculation


jw1739

Recommended Posts

11 minutes ago, NewConvert said:

I would have kept Antonis as a super sub. I think that he is a better player than Ugarcovic. If Fernandez is gone, then I presume that they would have a replacement left back?

I am assuming Aziz is returning to us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that they are clearing out everyone whose contract it up, except Leckie and Nabbout so far.

I expect to see Young and Reis go soon. If Young stays then I want to see him as no. 2 otherwise the young lads will go elsewhere.

Uncertain about Tilio. Wouldn't surprise me if he stays.

It's still a dog's breakfast IMO. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, jw1739 said:

I think that they are clearing out everyone whose contract it up, except Leckie and Nabbout so far.

I expect to see Young and Reis go soon. If Young stays then I want to see him as no. 2 otherwise the young lads will go elsewhere.

Uncertain about Tilio. Wouldn't surprise me if he stays.

It's still a dog's breakfast IMO. 

We don't know the terms for players that were on loan (Jakolis, Fernandez, Natel) and there may not have been a clause for them to continue. Fernandez being a young player who has had a series of injuries needed game time to gain fitness and confidence. He may still be a required player for his parent club. Same with Tilio with the difference that we know he was on the outer at Celtic. If he has to return to Celtic, then the club may try and trade him. Certainly I think that Young ought to be the second keeper and he more than Leckie or Nabbout is likely to be a decent coach.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again all has to be seen in the light of reduced funding for clubs. We're all going to be running a lot lighter next season. Of those gone, only Antonis really bothers me. I liked him and I thought he offered something different. Think he'll find a gig elsewhere in the ALM. Jakolis was patchy and finished the season poorly, Natel frustrated me and slowed play, Hall failed to develop, and Fernandez was a short term cover.

Edited by fensaddler
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, NewConvert said:

I would have kept Antonis as a super sub. I think that he is a better player than Ugarcovic. If Fernandez is gone, then I presume that they would have a replacement left back?

My feeling is that Terry was always considered to be not quite right body wise. Even when he was playing well he didn’t start and often in games when he seemed needed he either didn’t play or came on late. The low usage of him clearly wasn’t football related, as he played well when given the chance. 
It looked to me like we were nursing him through the season.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, fensaddler said:

Again all has to be seen in the light of reduced funding for clubs. We're all going to be running a lot lighter next season. Of those gone, only Antonis really bothers me. I liked him and I thought he offered something different. Think he'll find a gig elsewhere in the ALM. Jakolis was patchy and finished the season poorly, Natel frustrated me and slowed play, Hall failed to develop, and Fernandez was a short term cover.

Can you explain "reduced funding for clubs"? What's that about?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MHFC-FAN said:

City wouldn't touch him with a 10 foot pole if the allegations are true...

Kearyn Bacchus also arrested and another two unamed at this stage. Ones meant to be 27 yo but there's a number of Macarthur players at that age including De Silva and Millar. Apparently to do with betting on Yellow cards being issued in matches.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Le Hack said:

Kearyn Bacchus also arrested and another two unamed at this stage. Ones meant to be 27 yo but there's a number of Macarthur players at that age including De Silva and Millar. Apparently to do with betting on Yellow cards being issued in matches.

Yes. Betting in South America on the issue of yellow cards at certain minutes in a game. The player controlling it here was paying $10,000 to the players who took the bait.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, cremorne said:

Can you explain "reduced funding for clubs"? What's that about?

Due to the APL squandering the $140M given by SIlver Lake and that the ratings have not been so strong, Paramount is reducing the money payed to the APL. This means that all clubs get a reduced cut of other income.

Edited by jw1739
FTFY
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, NewConvert said:

Due to the APL squandering the $140M given by SIlver Lake and that the ratings have not been so strong, Paramount is reducing the money payed to the APL. This means that all clubs get a reduced cut of other income.

Yes, ratings and Paramount subscriptions did not meet targets so payments to clubs reduced. Will make a big hole in player budgets. We may be relatively less affected but we will still be spending less.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, fensaddler said:

Yes, ratings and Paramount subscriptions did not meet targets so payments to clubs reduced. Will make a big hole in player budgets. We may be relatively less affected but we will still be spending less.

I'm a little puzzled by this - isn't the cap maintained at $2.6m - the same as 2023-24, with a minimum spent of $2.25m? The reduction in income to clubs will affect other aspects of club business, such as marquee and designated players, and staff, but the core of playing groups won't be affected.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, jw1739 said:

I'm a little puzzled by this - isn't the cap maintained at $2.6m - the same as 2023-24, with a minimum spent of $2.25m? The reduction in income to clubs will affect other aspects of club business, such as marquee and designated players, and staff, but the core of playing groups won't be affected.

Well if there is no rule that says that the club has to pay 100% of the allocation to players then you are more likely to hire younger players and ease the strain on the overall budget. Visa players may well be on a fixed contract as well as marquees but once those contracts expire then they are likely to be replaced by lower fee players.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, NewConvert said:

Well if there is no rule that says that the club has to pay 100% of the allocation to players then you are more likely to hire younger players and ease the strain on the overall budget. Visa players may well be on a fixed contract as well as marquees but once those contracts expire then they are likely to be replaced by lower fee players.

TBH I don't know how a reduction in the cap affects existing contracts. However, my understanding is that visa players are subject to the cap unless they are a marquee or designated player.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, jw1739 said:

TBH I don't know how a reduction in the cap affects existing contracts. However, my understanding is that visa players are subject to the cap unless they are a marquee or designated player.

 

It can't affect existing contracts unless they are re-negotiated with good will. It will affect the new contracts. For example if a potential visa player is worth about $200k, the club may opt for one that would command $180k or alternatively they may reserve the visa and hire a local for $120k. Most clubs have about a 30% turn over, so the next set of contracts will be the ones affected. Yes, the back room will be reduced but there is a problem when the backroom consist of an Afghan living in  a cave and charging 80 cents/day (borrowed from The Onion circa 1998).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There shouldn’t be an excuse for us, there is a minimum cap spend anyway. We pride ourselves in investment in facilities and academy runnings. We can just outspend the league again just like during the COVID days, we can become the benchmark and Petrilo is our hero again!

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, NewConvert said:

Due to the APL squandering the $140M given by SIlver Lake and that the ratings have not been so strong, Paramount is reducing the money payed to the APL. This means that all clubs get a reduced cut of other income.

Quote

Australia’s top tier soccer competition is on the brink of financial disaster, with the A-League planning to slash its funding to clubs by 80 per cent.

The game’s owner, the Australian Professional Leagues (APL), is threatening to only give clubs $500,000 next season as it tries to plug a $100 million funding hole.

That would be $2 million short of what clubs were promised – almost equal to each men’s teams salary cap.

Only Melbourne Victory, Melbourne City, Sydney FC and Western Sydney Wanderers had secure futures, an insider said.

https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/why-the-aleague-is-on-the-brink-of-financial-disaster/news-story/6f79542963e6ba1facf6b57b40b2ba48

Might not need to worry about signings if there aren't any teams to pay.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, jw1739 said:

Thanks. I have thought for quite some time that the future may lie in an East Asia Super League.

For some reason the people who go into leadership roles with this sport in this country are a sandwich short of a lunchbox, the NSL started pretty well also and then stupid decisions and whatnot saw it's demise.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, moops said:

For some reason the people who go into leadership roles with this sport in this country are a sandwich short of a lunchbox, the NSL started pretty well also and then stupid decisions and whatnot saw it's demise.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

The biggest mistake they make IMO is that they point to junior registrations and then say that it's the most-played football in the country, the second biggest is to keep on the mantra that it's the "world game," and in doing so they continually overreach the actual support for the game at a senior level in terms of finance, government interest, and spectator interest.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, jw1739 said:

... biggest is to keep on the mantra that it's the "world game," and in doing so they continually overreach the actual support for the game at a senior level in terms of finance, government interest, and spectator interest.

And not using other countries as examples, take Iceland, they have just about the same money involved in the game as we do and handle it much better from top to bottom. That said they are a tiny country compared to us, so we do have certain issues not many other countries do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, moops said:

For some reason the people who go into leadership roles with this sport in this country are a sandwich short of a lunchbox, the NSL started pretty well also and then stupid decisions and whatnot saw it's demise.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

 

31 minutes ago, jw1739 said:

The biggest mistake they make IMO is that they point to junior registrations and then say that it's the most-played football in the country, the second biggest is to keep on the mantra that it's the "world game," and in doing so they continually overreach the actual support for the game at a senior level in terms of finance, government interest, and spectator interest.

I agree with both of you. And certainly the board of directors have a lot to answer for the current debacle. If they were a publicly traded company, the board would be facing serious challenges. I read somewhere is that they are trying to emulate the Basketball model which is starting from a small base and growing it to a certain size only. However, I think that too many people in power are of the belief that they just need to go big straight away. It's like they are running a nationwide glitzy campaign for ham and cheese sandwich using supermarket bread and selling it as gourmet.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, haz said:

Oskar Zawada is leaving Wellington. Would we take him? 

Zawada was absent a few times this season because of injury, but he is the sort of player becoming available that suggests to me that we have been too hasty to re-sign Leckie and Nabbout, especially for two further seasons.

I have just lost the confidence I had in Petrillo, and the club in general, to make sound decisions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, jw1739 said:

Zawada was absent a few times this season because of injury, but he is the sort of player becoming available that suggests to me that we have been too hasty to re-sign Leckie and Nabbout, especially for two further seasons.

I have just lost the confidence I had in Petrillo, and the club in general, to make sound decisions.

I am not fussed about Leckie. He was injured whilst with the Socceroos and I am not sure what the injury was. Nabbout, whom I like, had, at least for me, lost some of his edge. Last season he didn't kick many goals and his assists were not at the same level as had been in previous seasons.

As for Zawada, for me he was a bit one dimensional. Not the fastest player, average dribbling and lacking defensive nous. Which is why I suspect he was relegated to the bench. Caputo offers the same but with more mobility but lacking experience. I feel that with a fully fit Leckie providing leadership to Caputo, it would work.

I am more concerned with our back line. And just to re-iterate, I don't have much confidence that Ugarcovic or Jeggo are up to the task.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, NewConvert said:

I am more concerned with our back line. And just to re-iterate, I don't have much confidence that Ugarcovic or Jeggo are up to the task.

I don't think too many of us would differ from you there! Jeggo was in my mind just a panic signing, as IMO was Vidmar.

I'm looking at the squad list for 2024-25 and I don't like what I see at the moment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, jw1739 said:

Zawada was absent a few times this season because of injury, but he is the sort of player becoming available that suggests to me that we have been too hasty to re-sign Leckie and Nabbout, especially for two further seasons.

I have just lost the confidence I had in Petrillo, and the club in general, to make sound decisions.

This may also be a reflection on the reduced budgets that the clubs are facing.

  • Like 1
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.

×
×
  • Create New...