Robb_Stark wrote:i found it funny that Kilburn were even being considered for a curtain raiser game before the AFL......what sort of message would that send the club they get rewarded for spending 70k plus a year in player payments to buy up the ranks only to cut payments and lose there team get pumped by 50 plus goals a game and then be rewarded with exposure at a afl match
i wonder since the meeting also will we see a change in the rules/law of the saafl to give them greater power so a repeat of kilburn joke does not happen again in a higher div
Kilburns football director will openly tell you was it $90k Interesteing in todays paper was about a certain gentleman who is coming back to be Chairman and save the club Wasnt he the same individual who was Chairman who appointed previous Coach who then went out and spent this $90k on players
downspine wrote:Kilburns football director will openly tell you was it $90k Interesteing in todays paper was about a certain gentleman who is coming back to be Chairman and save the club Wasnt he the same individual who was Chairman who appointed previous Coach who then went out and spent this $90k on players
Please dont say it's Phil Martin?
Also it wasn't the coach who went out and spent up big, it was the footy director..
Phantom Gossiper wrote:Also 70k is closer to the mark than 90k
Whatever $$$......too much as it turns out.........
Let's get this right b4 bullshit takes over. The core group got looked after while they were. They werent chased or poached kilburn wanted to look after their own. While we did recruit a few, we still had points like the rest of them. Which we went 1 point over but thats a whole other story.these recruits were mates of mates at the club.. it was lower than 60k. Whether this was enough or not, this was affordable by the club at the time. The situation with them now has nothing to do with payments 2 o3 or 6 years ago. The are many underlying issues that have seen the a grade leave.
easy TIGA wrote:The situation with them now has nothing to do with payments 2 o3 or 6 years ago. There are many underlying issues that have seen the a grade leave.
Exactly, unfortunately this just doesn't seem to be sinking in to most people!
easy TIGA wrote:The situation with them now has nothing to do with payments 2 o3 or 6 years ago. There are many underlying issues that have seen the a grade leave.
Exactly, unfortunately this just doesn't seem to be sinking in to most people!
With all due respect it's hardly surprising that vague "underlying issues" are not sinking in when no one will particularise what they are.
jo172 wrote:With all due respect it's hardly surprising that vague "underlying issues" are not sinking in when no one will particularise what they are.
I'm sick of trying to explain to people what they are, too many people with nothing to do with the club ALL KNOW BETTER So i've given up
jo172 wrote:With all due respect it's hardly surprising that vague "underlying issues" are not sinking in when no one will particularise what they are.
I'm sick of trying to explain to people what they are, too many people with nothing to do with the club ALL KNOW BETTER So i've given up
My new Mantra - I am no longer available to things and people that make me feel like shit
Phantom Gossiper wrote:Also 70k is closer to the mark than 90k
Whatever $$$......too much as it turns out.........
Let's get this right b4 bullshit takes over. The core group got looked after while they were. They werent chased or poached kilburn wanted to look after their own. While we did recruit a few, we still had points like the rest of them. Which we went 1 point over but thats a whole other story.these recruits were mates of mates at the club.. it was lower than 60k. Whether this was enough or not, this was affordable by the club at the time. The situation with them now has nothing to do with payments 2 o3 or 6 years ago. The are many underlying issues that have seen the a grade leave.
With respect Tiga....my response to PG's post was in context and made in reference to a quote in Monday's Advertiser regarding Kilburn's plight and "unsustainable" payments. I didn't quote any figures........ unlike some others....
jo172 wrote:With all due respect it's hardly surprising that vague "underlying issues" are not sinking in when no one will particularise what they are.
I'm sick of trying to explain to people what they are, too many people with nothing to do with the club ALL KNOW BETTER So i've given up
First post ..."let the mass debate commence".... u set the beast in motion.........
downspine wrote:Kilburns football director will openly tell you was it $90k Interesteing in todays paper was about a certain gentleman who is coming back to be Chairman and save the club Wasnt he the same individual who was Chairman who appointed previous Coach who then went out and spent this $90k on players
I think Kilburn's plight was summed up in that article. They said "footballers cost more money these days" or something similar. No they don't, if you don't pay them.
easy TIGA wrote:The situation with them now has nothing to do with payments 2 o3 or 6 years ago. There are many underlying issues that have seen the a grade leave.
Exactly, unfortunately this just doesn't seem to be sinking in to most people!
With all due respect it's hardly surprising that vague "underlying issues" are not sinking in when no one will particularise what they are.
Playets probably didnt like the coach. If they came th for money then a disliked coach is a disaster in the making.
Read my reply. It is directed at you because you have double standards
Brama Lodge are the same. Lots of players left that were recruited and some for some good coin.
To say footballers cost more and thats the issue shows how bad the problem is. There is at least 50+ clus at the moment that arent on there knees in regards to the increased cost in footballers.
I mean come on you dont need to splash out huge $$$ to field a side. It comes down to having that core playing group that is topped up with recruits that compliment them, not provide the backbone of the side.
Sent from my GT-I9197 using Tapatalk
Read my reply. It is directed at you because you have double standards