Jump to content
Melbourne Football

Tim Cahill


Murfy1
 Share

Recommended Posts

Regardless of the precise figures for each individual, the list and total just shows up why a player such as Franjic is a dead weight on the club if he isn't on the pitch every week, and also why a player such as Melling might have been told he can leave.

TBH I would have thought that Brandan, Kilkenny, Brattan and Caceres between them might eat up $1m, meaning a number of the others must be on or close to the minimum wage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, jw1739 said:

Regardless of the precise figures for each individual, the list and total just shows up why a player such as Franjic is a dead weight on the club if he isn't on the pitch every week, and also why a player such as Melling might have been told he can leave.

TBH I would have thought that Brandan, Kilkenny, Brattan and Caceres between them might eat up $1m, meaning a number of the others must be on or close to the minimum wage.

Absolutely agree.

I do think the circumnavigation to do with Brattan and Caceras signing with City is a way of cheating within the rules though. There will be certain things that the loan rules are unable to capture that means we can suppress their salary cap figures to a degree by having them as loan players. They might be realistically on 250-350k each, but will come through as 100k players for salary cap intents and purposes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't know how this signing will work, we've got the best striker in the league in Bruno and now we're going to have to throw him out wide or in behind Cahill because there is extremely minimal chance we will play 2 up top.

I don't like this signing at all, Cahill hasn't played regularly in a decent league for 4 years, don't know how he could command those wages. Del pierro was coming from juve, playing semi regularly, Cahill from some shitty Chinese team, and before that another shitty Chinese team, and before that he was in the very average MLS which is of similar standard to the A League.

And please don't point to his goal scoring exploits for Australia, as far as I'm concerned it's irrelevant as majority of the countries oz play against are horrible.

Should be building/complementing the team around Bruno and not trying to put a square into a round hole. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, jeffplz said:

Still think they fucked up the announcement, why would they use that selfie? lol

It's smarter than I originally thought. All the players in it have reposted the photo on their social media accounts and all of a sudden millions around the world know Melbourne city have just signed Cahill 

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, GreenSeater said:

Well this is the big test for all of the people on this forum repeatedly saying that we need a big name player to kick off our supporter base properly. We've just signed the biggest name in Australian football and one of the biggest in Australian sport. Lets hope it works out!

I think it's a bigger test for headquaters, hope they don't balls it up like last time with Villa.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, n i k o said:

Just quickly on Brandon, remember Bruno was on 180k over season so it's more than likely that he won't be worth any more than that. Quite possible less. 

Would actually think he is on more than Bruno was TBH.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The absolute butt hurt from mainly victory supporters is hilarious 

Very excited by this signing,  this takes us from a team who should do well to a team that has to do well. It's pressure and I like it

 

Oh Melbourne victory

This is what it feels to be small

You signed troisi

While we got Timmy cahill, Timmy cahill 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, illeatyourheart said:

So is he a guest? Marquee? Under the cap?

The a leauge facebook page said he is has signed "under the ffa's new full season guest marquee player regulations". Which i interpret as the "we will make up rules as we go of it gets us what we want rule"

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, playmaker said:

Can't compare the 2. Don't know where you are drawing the similarities.

Both massive names and super quality players and Villa played less than half what everyone was led to believe.

Just saying alot is on the line for Cahill and the Club.

If it works out then we will have a great period but if it doesn't. .....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, KSK_47 said:

The a leauge facebook page said he is has signed "under the ffa's new full season guest marquee player regulations". Which i interpret as the "we will make up rules as we go of it gets us what we want rule"

I wonder whether any other Federation in the world has made three rules to specifically address issues with just one club? First it was "Lampard", then "Caceres" and now we have "Cahill."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, jw1739 said:

I wonder whether any other Federation in the world has made three rules to specifically address issues with just one club? First it was "Lampard", then "Caceres" and now we have "Cahill."

Reckon these guys have done it before with Sydney, but no one knows about them...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, rass said:

Reckon these guys have done it before with Sydney, but no one knows about them...

Haha the Cahill rule sits alongside the Sydney rules, the Lampard/Caceres rules were kneejerk reactions to a team playing (cunningly) within the rules.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, jw1739 said:

I wonder whether any other Federation in the world has made three rules to specifically address issues with just one club? First it was "Lampard", then "Caceres" and now we have "Cahill."

Goes to show the FFA have no idea what so ever and should all resign for the good of the game. Gallop the muppet said it was only a year guest marquee option now all of a sudden we've signed Cahill for 3 years 😐

It now looks like it's CFG running the FFA lol 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, AntiScum said:

Goes to show the FFA have no idea what so ever and should all resign for the good of the game. Gallop the muppet said it was only a year guest marquee option now all of a sudden we've signed Cahill for 3 years 😐

It now looks like it's CFG running the FFA lol 

If this was Victory, you'd all be up in arms. I hope no one is proud of this?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, AntiScum said:

Goes to show the FFA have no idea what so ever and should all resign for the good of the game. Gallop the muppet said it was only a year guest marquee option now all of a sudden we've signed Cahill for 3 years 😐

It now looks like it's CFG running the FFA lol 

Not really. His 1st year will be as a guest. 2nd and 3rd will be manipulated to CFG's discretion depending on what circumstances are available at the time. There's certainly a case to be made for the guest slot to be around again next season, but i suspect everyone will want to see what happens this year first.
A League players arent signed to a certain slot re salary cap/guest roles but rather allocated to that position by their club once all the chess pieces are in play. Hence why David Williams was classified as an Australian marquee that season; he just happened to be the highest paid player so it opened up a little more space inside the cap. He certainly wasnt signed on the basis of being our Australian marquee.

Edited by bt50
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, morphine said:

If this was Victory, you'd all be up in arms. I hope no one is proud of this?

If it was Victory or Sydney we'd be used to it.
One rule in 'our' favour after FFA has previously changed its rules specifically against us "Lampard rule"  and "Caceres rule", I'm okay with that.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, morphine said:

If this was Victory, you'd all be up in arms. I hope no one is proud of this?

Well no one is stopping Victory or any other club from going down the path city have. In fact i hope all other clubs do follow suit it could only be healthy for the standard of the game and also help it grow. Bigger clubs, better players, more interest, packed stadiums and hopefully expansion!

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

17 minutes ago, Deeming said:

If it was Victory or Sydney we'd be used to it.
One rule in 'our' favour after FFA has previously changed its rules specifically against us "Lampard rule"  and "Caceres rule", I'm okay with that.

What about the "archie rule" gave a player another season for no real reason.

Also the Rogic Troisi loan deals.

Edited by Jovan
  • Like 2
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...