Club loyalty or driven by the Dollar?

[LostDoggy]

Brown moved on because, after winning AA selection, we offered a contract which was lower than his existing one. If I had just increased my performance at work & was told to take a pay cut, I'd move too.

I find that very hard to believe. I don't believe that version of the story.

Anyway if the place you love was in a crisis where money was an issue and everyone was taking pay cuts then its not unreasonable to be offered less money.
Increased work load? What go out and do schools circuit when you have nothing to do anyway.

[LostDoggy]

Loyalty Factor

Nathan Eagleton was offered big $ by Richmond 3 years ago - Wallace wanted him there. Eagleton declined and said he loved the Bulldogs too much to leave.

Now if that was the case we should have traded him there and then.
He is no where near as good as 3 years back.

[Sockeye Salmon]

Increased work load? What go out and do schools circuit when you have nothing to do anyway.

One of the issues we had with him was his refusal to do community work.

[GVGjr]

One of the issues we had with him was his refusal to do community work.

Yes he was regarded as being able to pick which events he showed up to. And even if he committed to an event he was able to no show without making any calls and still nothing got said.

[LostDoggy]

One of the reassuring things when a player wants to come to the Dogs, is that they clearly can't be in it for the money. Unfortunately that means we can't always keep the ones that want more, but we're better off without them anyway. I love hearing stories about the players that stuck around, it earns them respect instead of some extra money, but I guess some choose the latter.

[The Underdog]

One of the reassuring things when a player wants to come to the Dogs, is that they clearly can't be in it for the money. Unfortunately that means we can't always keep the ones that want more, but we're better off without them anyway. I love hearing stories about the players that stuck around, it earns them respect instead of some extra money, but I guess some choose the latter.

No we don't have the money to compete with some teams monetarily on a yearly contract basis, however what we did this year was offer players longer contracts than were available to them, so we were offering them more guaranteed money in the long run. I don't think Welsh would be with us if Adelaide had offered him 2 guaranteed years, although I could be wrong. Fortunately the salary cap is in place to stop the rich teams from plundering teams like ourselves and rendering us totally incapable of competing.
There will always be players who leave clubs for various reasons, often money, I'm not sure these players should be demonised, after all the clubs are often far more ruthless in who they trade/cut. The club is happy to do what's best for the club, so why shouldn't players do what's best for them? Don't get me wrong, I love players who buy into the team ethos & history and like Chris Grant are prepared to take less money for a place they love, but I think it's hypocritical to belt Nathan Brown for leaving then call Ben Hudson a top bloke for leaving Adelaide to come here. However if you want to belt Nathan because he's a knob of a human being then that's ok by me...

[Sockeye Salmon]

No we don't have the money to compete with some teams monetarily on a yearly contract basis, however what we did this year was offer players longer contracts than were available to them, so we were offering them more guaranteed money in the long run. I don't think Welsh would be with us if Adelaide had offered him 2 guaranteed years, although I could be wrong. Fortunately the salary cap is in place to stop the rich teams from plundering teams like ourselves and rendering us totally incapable of competing.
There will always be players who leave clubs for various reasons, often money, I'm not sure these players should be demonised, after all the clubs are often far more ruthless in who they trade/cut. The club is happy to do what's best for the club, so why shouldn't players do what's best for them? Don't get me wrong, I love players who buy into the team ethos & history and like Chris Grant are prepared to take less money for a place they love, but I think it's hypocritical to belt Nathan Brown for leaving then call Ben Hudson a top bloke for leaving Adelaide to come here. However if you want to belt Nathan because he's a knob of a human being then that's ok by me...

Hudson and Welsh both came for longer contracts but there was a bit more to both of their stories than just that.

Hudson was from Hoppers originally, so there was some go-home factor, but also from the abusive texts he got I'd say there was some issues with certain individuals as well.

With Welsh it was clear Adelaide intended to dump him at the end of 2008 as per their 30yo and off you go policy. He was saving his career. If he has two good years with us there would be no reason we wouldn't sign him for another 1-2 years. Would we have picked him up at the end of 2008 when he was a year older?

[mjp]

Yes he was regarded as being able to pick which events he showed up to. And even if he committed to an event he was able to no show without making any calls and still nothing got said.

More general problem...AFL Vic guys will tell you that when it comes to player appearances, the Bulldogs are one of the hardest to get to do anything, whereas the Bombers (right next door) are possibly the easiest...

[LostDoggy]

More general problem...AFL Vic guys will tell you that when it comes to player appearances, the Bulldogs are one of the hardest to get to do anything, whereas the Bombers (right next door) are possibly the easiest...

Interesting point. I know th Dogs toured some schools a couple of years back and a few of the yougsters switched to them but it has been followed through. Another golden opportunity missed.
We have lng been known as a club full of ideas but short on delivery when it comes time to roll up the sleeves.

[The Underdog]

Hudson and Welsh both came for longer contracts but there was a bit more to both of their stories than just that.

Hudson was from Hoppers originally, so there was some go-home factor, but also from the abusive texts he got I'd say there was some issues with certain individuals as well.

With Welsh it was clear Adelaide intended to dump him at the end of 2008 as per their 30yo and off you go policy. He was saving his career. If he has two good years with us there would be no reason we wouldn't sign him for another 1-2 years. Would we have picked him up at the end of 2008 when he was a year older?

I agree that there were mitigating factors rather than just money with both these guys, but the money and better opportunities with us definitely came into it, as they do with all players. It's rare that players swap clubs purely for monetary reasons, which again is due to the salary cap keeping it as a fairly level playing field.

[hujsh]

More general problem...AFL Vic guys will tell you that when it comes to player appearances, the Bulldogs are one of the hardest to get to do anything, whereas the Bombers (right next door) are possibly the easiest...

In the last 3 years we have had Dogs players at my school 3 times. The second time was only for the year nine's while the year eights (me) only got Bob Hawke. I wanted Acka

[westdog54]

Pretty much any player who's half decent is going to get offers from other clubs every second year.

Very few actually go and it's either for heaps more $$$ or there's another underlying reason.

I agree, although my thinking is that with the Salary cap and the 92% rule, I'm not sure that most of the trades that occur nowadays would involve massive discrepencies with money, and that there would be other reasons for the trade.

Somehow I doubt that money was a massive factor in the Judd trade.