Usain Bolt!

[Forum Phoenix]

I understand the media attention this has brought us and it will no doubt help our club. But in exchange for this help we spit in the face of every NPL player, coach and official out there. Call me a football purist or stuffy or not understanding the need to drive engagement but we need to engage with our football family below the A-League and attempt to enlist them as long term fans. Doing this certainly won't achieve that, it will only push them further away. If Bolt is signed, as others on this forum have expressed a wish for, he will at the very, very pinnacle of his ability be a park level footballer playing in the professional leagues. It takes a tremendous amount of technique and skill to control the ball in professional circumstances, even Buhagiar and Appiah have tremendous technical skill that they fostered since childhood. If you watched Buhagiar or Appiah in their own age levels you would notice that they have technique far above the vast majority of their peers, and these players are considered extremely poor technically in the A-League. If this ends up as more than a trial it devalues our proud shirt and devalues the fight that players like Mile Jedinak had to get to this level. That we could hand a player a contract simply because of his brand, simply because of the money it will deliver to our owner. Every player that has worn our jersey has devoted their entire lives to making their professional footballing dreams a reality, we should not debase our club and our league by handing out contracts to celebrities to live out their own personal fantasies .

I'll write this because my eyes are hurting

Very harsh JP.

'Handing out' is a large and unfair assumption you are placing on the integrity of Mulvey, Monty and Shaun and it contradicts precisely what they said, that he would not be signed unless he proved he would be of genuine value on the field. His chance to prove that, would be the trial.

You're very likely right about not being good enough I suspect. Only playing consistently till 16 is most likely not enough and means he has left his run much too late. But a trial is just a trial, and it used to evaluate precisely this. But what if he was good enough? And Mulvey and Monty saw that? And you were wrong? How have they devalued the shirt? By giving someone who proved themselves good enough a trial? And if he's not good enough and so they say no. Isn't that integrity? Not devaluing our shirt?

If he's not good enough but they sign him for promotional reasons. Then and only then is it devaluing our shirt. But to assume that, assumes the worst of our coaches and CEO.

As to the gobfest... why can't a club who can proudly say it has done more for unknown players and youth than any other cub in the league and is actively looking and working to continue to do so, also trial one bloody sprinter without it being spitting in all these other people faces? They're not cancelling the trials of other NPL trialists because of Bolt.

I love your voice and posts on here, but on this your reasoning does not hold up without assuming very bad faith on the part of our coaching staff.

Agree with what Wombat said though, I do love your consistent championing of the NPL and young Australian players. But I don't think this issue, like so many other issues is as black and white GOOD vs EVIL as people are making it out. Media loves to frame EVERYTHING in these extremes because it works for clicks. But it's so often flawed and not a fair reflection to either side.

 

[marinermick]

In life .... anything that you give love & respect to, more often than not, gives back to you whatever it is that you need.

CCM has been quite a role model in our relationship to clubs below us in the Football Pyramid, the FFA needs to encourage more of it by expanding the top tier of it.
..... x2 teams is a start
... but it should've been x4

Now that would've been the 'sugar hit' the A-League needs right now !!
- instead we're 'whacking-up' a hit of Bolt.

Expansion should come in the form of a B-League.

There's your sugar hit and development of NPL players in one go.

 

[Ancient Mariner]

He's unsuccesfully 'contracting'
- whilst you're 'exacting'

I'm pretty sure the voice in Al's head is saying 'should've' ...... just misspelled or mispelt it (take your pick )
.... & he probably would've
... if he could've

Every forum "should have" a pedant and a grammar nazi.

I miss Dibo.

 

[Ancient Mariner]

Briefly on the circus v purist argument.

I love test cricket but hate 20/20 big bash. Purist v circus.

Which (world wide) is dragging in the crowds, sponsorships and money?

Just a thought.

 

[Ancient Mariner]

Professional sport stopped being sport a long time ago and became "entertainment" instead.

 

[Woollybutt]

I don't think football as entertainment is particularly new. I can't remember the exact quote, but Bill Shankly said something along the lines of footballers have a responsibility to entertain, to give fans their money's worth and let them forget about real life for ninety minutes on a Saturday afternoon. Football has always been about entertainment, it's just that it was always about working class entertainment. The pre-game and half time gimmicks, the ridiculous themed rounds, the handing out of 'number one' memberships to politicians or drink driving TV chefs, etc. (or in England things like the all-seater stadiums) are all part of the stripping away of football's working class identity to make it appeal to middle class audiences as a safe, family-friendly form of entertainment. There's no real point to these ramblings, just that I think there's more to it than football used to be sport and now it's entertainment.

 

[Capn Gus Bloodbeard]

E

I don't think football as entertainment is particularly new. I can't remember the exact quote, but Bill Shankly said something along the lines of footballers have a responsibility to entertain, to give fans their money's worth and let them forget about real life for ninety minutes on a Saturday afternoon. Football has always been about entertainment, it's just that it was always about working class entertainment. The pre-game and half time gimmicks, the ridiculous themed rounds, the handing out of 'number one' memberships to politicians or drink driving TV chefs, etc. (or in England things like the all-seater stadiums) are all part of the stripping away of football's working class identity to make it appeal to middle class audiences as a safe, family-friendly form of entertainment. There's no real point to these ramblings, just that I think there's more to it than football used to be sport and now it's entertainment.

Even the way the game is referees promotes entertainment over, y'know, the actual laws of the game. Especially overseas in bigger, more lucrative audiences.

 

[MagpieMariner]

I don't think football as entertainment is particularly new. I can't remember the exact quote, but Bill Shankly said something along the lines of footballers have a responsibility to entertain, to give fans their money's worth and let them forget about real life for ninety minutes on a Saturday afternoon. Football has always been about entertainment, it's just that it was always about working class entertainment. The pre-game and half time gimmicks, the ridiculous themed rounds, the handing out of 'number one' memberships to politicians or drink driving TV chefs, etc. (or in England things like the all-seater stadiums) are all part of the stripping away of football's working class identity to make it appeal to middle class audiences as a safe, family-friendly form of entertainment. There's no real point to these ramblings, just that I think there's more to it than football used to be sport and now it's entertainment.

In my aged view, sport stopped being sport when players started getting money to play.

 

[Timmah]

instead we're 'whacking-up' a hit of Bolt.

I keep seeing this "instead" rubbish from a lot of people like somehow negotiating with Bolt and other footballing priorities are somehow mutually exclusive.

One does not beget or prohibit the other.

 

[Gratis]

Rallis leaked the story to SMH to leverage his position. He's a smart operator and a total bastard.
The club had to react early. We've probably lost the Bolt trial from it unless talks we're very advanced.

 

[Gratis]

For some reason we need some reiteration of the obvious on here.

Bolt may trial (not sign). IF he is good enough he signs - WIN
IF not he doesn't sign be we still become one of the most famous teams in the WORLD for 6months+ ...WIN
It does not impact on our other recruitment as far as we can tell - WIN

Still not seeing any tangible arguments against that actually hold water beyond 'I don't like it'.

Maybe there'd be a clear argument against:
If we stopped all other recruiting because of it, or signed him as a starting player when he was not good enough and we lose endless games because of it...etc etc...but it's been made patently clear these things aren't options

 

[JoyfulPenguin]

I'll write this because my eyes are hurting

Very harsh JP.

'Handing out' is a large and unfair assumption you are placing on the integrity of Mulvey, Monty and Shaun and it contradicts precisely what they said, that he would not be signed unless he proved he would be of genuine value on the field. His chance to prove that, would be the trial.

You're very likely right about not being good enough I suspect. Only playing consistently till 16 is most likely not enough and means he has left his run much too late. But a trial is just a trial, and it used to evaluate precisely this. But what if he was good enough? And Mulvey and Monty saw that? And you were wrong? How have they devalued the shirt? By giving someone who proved themselves good enough a trial? And if he's not good enough and so they say no. Isn't that integrity? Not devaluing our shirt?

If he's not good enough but they sign him for promotional reasons. Then and only then is it devaluing our shirt. But to assume that, assumes the worst of our coaches and CEO.

As to the gobfest... why can't a club who can proudly say it has done more for unknown players and youth than any other cub in the league and is actively looking and working to continue to do so, also trial one bloody sprinter without it being spitting in all these other people faces? They're not cancelling the trials of other NPL trialists because of Bolt.

I love your voice and posts on here, but on this your reasoning does not hold up without assuming very bad faith on the part of our coaching staff.

Agree with Wombat said though, I do love your consistent championing of the NPL and young Australian players. But I don't think this issue, like so many other issues is as black and white GOOD vs EVIL as people are making it out. Media loves to frame EVERYTHING in these extremes because it works for clicks. But it's so often flawed and not fair reflection to either side.

From a purely commercial point of view, I congratulate Shaun on his ability to find new and innovative ways to drive engagement and provide free advertising for our cash strapped club, but from the footballing side of our club, the part of the club that I believe should be most important this is a mistake.

I think it's fundamental to our club, and football clubs around the world that there is minimal intervention and dictation from the business side of our club. While living within our means is fundamental to the existence and future of our club who we trial should not be dictated to us by business interests within the club. Especially when our previously cash strapped owner has been willing to pony up to 70% of this trial and another $900,000 is needed from the FFA, so Charlesworth is at least willing to pay part of a $2,100000 trial fee and I doubt our sponsors are willing pay all of that for just a trial. For the vast majority of trials of other players we do not pay them, we do not even provide them with accommodation and these are players who are among the most vulnerable in our league, most likely working to make ends meet and devoting any and all free time to football. We are providing Bolt with substantially more than we offer other trialists he is not being treated like "any other trialist" he is being given a huge amount of money simply to trial. There have been no quotes, that I am aware of, from Mulvey, Monty, Junna or others in the footballing department that they supported this idea, that this was their idea. If it was, if they believed he could potentially be of a standard worthy of a visa player in the A-League then sure it could potentially be okay, if it was costing us nothing, considering all the trialing opportunities they have provided so far this pre-season.

For a view of how our most talented NPL players our most talented see this look no further:
We are a prime example of how recruiting from the NPL can work, can be successful and can deliver success. Sure it has had limited success in recent times but that is due to the incompetence of a few managers. Do not forgot that Tony Popovic won the A-League with a squad who had mostly been on the fringes of A-League sides the season before or was in the NPL. Or that the current Socceroos captain striker, Mile Jedinak, was once one such player or that Massimo Luongo, Bailey Wright, Alex Wilkinson, Dimi Petratos all played for NPL clubs during their careers. We should not isolate ourselves from the players that we will have to rely on most in the future. We should not down play their ability by saying a sprinter, with no previous experience at NPL level is worthy of consideration at this level, he looked average against 50 year old unfit pros. We need to stay true to the foundations that have brought this club success in the past, and not search for quick and easy solutions past down from on high with no considerations of the effect on our football department.

 

[JoyfulPenguin]

I keep seeing this "instead" rubbish from a lot of people like somehow negotiating with Bolt and other footballing priorities are somehow mutually exclusive.

One does not beget or prohibit the other.

For a club with our limited resources, it is. We simply do not have the man power to negotiate on multiple fronts , Shaun said as much in his interview, saying he has been kept busy for months regarding this. That takes attention and supervision away from our membership drive, attention away from the recruitment of key players that are capable of playing at this level, attention away from the need to maintain ties with the local footballing community, attention away from organizing pre-season games before our first competitive game under our new regime.

 

[Big Al]

For some reason we need some reiteration of the obvious on here.

Bolt may trial (not sign). IF he is good enough he signs - WIN
IF not he doesn't sign be we still become one of the most famous teams in the WORLD for 6months+ ...WIN
It does not impact on our other recruitment as far as we can tell - WIN

Still not seeing any tangible arguments against that actually hold water beyond 'I don't like it'.

Maybe there'd be a clear argument against:
If we stopped all other recruiting because of it, or signed him as a starting player when he was not good enough and we lose endless games because of it...etc etc...but it's been made patently clear these things aren't options

In two weeks ask anyone if they know who the south coast Mariners are.

Media and people’s attention move so fast in today’s society

 

[Timmah]

For a club with our limited resources, it is. We simply do not have the man power to negotiate on multiple fronts , Shaun said as much in his interview, saying he has been kept busy for months regarding this. That takes attention and supervision away from our membership drive, attention away from the recruitment of key players that are capable of playing at this level, attention away from the need to maintain ties with the local footballing community, attention away from organizing pre-season games before our first competitive game under our new regime.

It has been made clear repeatedly that this is not the case.

I appreciate your passion for your position but you seem *very* blinkered on this.

Negotiating with Bolt and continuing pre-season preparation, continuing negotiations with other players etc are not mutually exclusive.

You've made a huge raft of assumptions in your post that simply are not proven as fact.

 

[Michael]

From a purely commercial point of view, I congratulate Shaun on his ability to find new and innovative ways to drive engagement and provide free advertising for our cash strapped club, but from the footballing side of our club, the part of the club that I believe should be most important this is a mistake.

I think it's fundamental to our club, and football clubs around the world that there is minimal intervention and dictation from the business side of our club. While living within our means is fundamental to the existence and future of our club who we trial should not be dictated to us by business interests within the club. Especially when our previously cash strapped owner has been willing to pony up to 70% of this trial and another $900,000 is needed from the FFA, so Charlesworth is at least willing to pay part of a $2,100000 trial fee and I doubt our sponsors are willing pay all of that for just a trial. For the vast majority of trials of other players we do not pay them, we do not even provide them with accommodation and these are players who are among the most vulnerable in our league, most likely working to make ends meet and devoting any and all free time to football. We are providing Bolt with substantially more than we offer other trialists he is not being treated like "any other trialist" he is being given a huge amount of money simply to trial. There have been no quotes, that I am aware of, from Mulvey, Monty, Junna or others in the footballing department that they supported this idea, that this was their idea. If it was, if they believed he could potentially be of a standard worthy of a visa player in the A-League then sure it could potentially be okay, if it was costing us nothing, considering all the trialing opportunities they have provided so far this pre-season.

For a view of how our most talented NPL players our most talented see this look no further:
We are a prime example of how recruiting from the NPL can work, can be successful and can deliver success. Sure it has had limited success in recent times but that is due to the incompetence of a few managers. Do not forgot that Tony Popovic won the A-League with a squad who had mostly been on the fringes of A-League sides the season before or was in the NPL. Or that the current Socceroos captain striker, Mile Jedinak, was once one such player or that Massimo Luongo, Bailey Wright, Alex Wilkinson, Dimi Petratos all played for NPL clubs during their careers. We should not isolate ourselves from the players that we will have to rely on most in the future. We should not down play their ability by saying a sprinter, with no previous experience at NPL level is worthy of consideration at this level, he looked average against 50 year old unfit pros. We need to stay true to the foundations that have brought this club success in the past, and not search for quick and easy solutions past down from on high with no considerations of the effect on our football department.

This is brilliant.
Boland’s comments are also the biggest reason why there are so many aleague snobs in this country and why most NPL players hate the aleague and literally laugh at how they go about certain things. EG: Bolts potential trial.
But he’s 1000% right.
Those people are the educated fans our league and especially our club need more of.
And if everyone is so passionate about a 2nd division happening ASAP or more expansion clubs ASAP, but don’t rate 90% of NPL players as full timers, who do you think is going to fill out those teams?

 

[JoyfulPenguin]

It has been made clear repeatedly that this is not the case.

I appreciate your passion for your position but you seem *very* blinkered on this.

Negotiating with Bolt and continuing pre-season preparation, continuing negotiations with other players etc are not mutually exclusive.

You've made a huge raft of assumptions in your post that simply are not proven as fact.

I think Shaun is a fantastic CEO and has done a magnificent job in trying circumstances with limited resources. It just fundamentally concerns me that we are spending time and resources that both Charlesworth and Shaun have repeatedly stated are extremely limited on this. I truly adore this club, and the supporters around it, but if we want to be successful with the limited means we have then everyone at the club needs to be pulling in one direction. With the circumstances the club faces in the future we simply cannot afford a year of failure, a year of more fans disappearing. I am concerned that we are not focusing, that this is a distraction to the real and desperately needed work that will be needed to be done to drag us if not to the top of the A-League to at very least into the finals. That Bolt is not a fix to the problems that have been plaguing this club since Moss took over, and that he will only exacerbate them by taking away time, energy and money. That we are returning to the dogma that has brought us so little success. The short termism that brought us Luis Garcia because we needed a distraction from one of the worst A-League sides in history and so our crowds wern't too low. Okon because his salary was partially paid for by the FFA and not because he was the best candidate, not looking beyond the end of the week and how we can save money let alone what we will do at the end of the season or in the next five years. I am scared that our club will not exist once promotion and relegation comes in, that we will simply not have any of the resources required to remain in the league and if we are relegated we will have no way to come back.

 

[Offsider]

I'll write this because my eyes are hurting

Very harsh JP.

'Handing out' is a large and unfair assumption you are placing on the integrity of Mulvey, Monty and Shaun and it contradicts precisely what they said, that he would not be signed unless he proved he would be of genuine value on the field. His chance to prove that, would be the trial.

You're very likely right about not being good enough I suspect. Only playing consistently till 16 is most likely not enough and means he has left his run much too late. But a trial is just a trial, and it used to evaluate precisely this. But what if he was good enough? And Mulvey and Monty saw that? And you were wrong? How have they devalued the shirt? By giving someone who proved themselves good enough a trial? And if he's not good enough and so they say no. Isn't that integrity? Not devaluing our shirt?

If he's not good enough but they sign him for promotional reasons. Then and only then is it devaluing our shirt. But to assume that, assumes the worst of our coaches and CEO.

As to the gobfest... why can't a club who can proudly say it has done more for unknown players and youth than any other cub in the league and is actively looking and working to continue to do so, also trial one bloody sprinter without it being spitting in all these other people faces? They're not cancelling the trials of other NPL trialists because of Bolt.

I love your voice and posts on here, but on this your reasoning does not hold up without assuming very bad faith on the part of our coaching staff.

Agree with what Wombat said though, I do love your consistent championing of the NPL and young Australian players. But I don't think this issue, like so many other issues is as black and white GOOD vs EVIL as people are making it out. Media loves to frame EVERYTHING in these extremes because it works for clicks. But it's so often flawed and not a fair reflection to either side.

My problem with your comments are how you direct away the decision making from charlesworth and put the onus on the coaches, and trade off their committment to the team. The decision will be made by mc and phelan. It will have nothing to do with mm or monty.
Everybody that has followed the team is caught up in the splintered club that charlesworth has manufactured. everybody knows that his dream is the coe and everything else is second.
Whether bolt is good enough to be offered a contract to be decided by mm is pure bullshit. Charlesworth has installed phelan between himself and mm and the decision will be whether or not the monetary advantage is worth it. Mm is the coach of the team but phelan is over him and the manager of the coe. Look at the squad to date and you have to say he is not trying to win the league. The only news since being promised a high profile goal scorer is bolt ????........... from two weeks ago. I can’t imagine phelan would want the bolt circus to go past the trial, as the team results would surely negate any advantage gained from the pr exercise.

This owner does not get credit from past owners as to track record of producing players. He only inherited that statistic. Do not forget that he has tried to take the team away from central coast and failed in his woeful coaching appointments to date with two spoons his only credit.
Remember how it was going to be so fantastic to have the team being prepared in the coe ............ but now we find they are training at pluim park.

One thing that needs to be put in perspective................ everything discussed except for the football, gets sucked into a threeway conversation between reality, club loyalists ( god bless them ) and club history which everybody is desperately trying to hang onto. Nothing can be said against mc without club loyalists protecting him and using history of the club blah blah blah.

There is a huge difference between the player pathway of yesterday and today. Today it is to get a very cheap a-league squad whereas yesterday was to promote promising juniors into the youth setup. Reality.

Let me put this scenario:
You buy a car. You choose a holden commodore. It turns out to be a lemon.
So you get rid of it by trading it in on a new commodore. It also turns out to be a lemon. You sell it.
What car do you look to buy now ????.

Football clubs are not cars you can just get rid of by selling............... but mc can.

 

[Insertnamehere]

Wow this thread is still going. Had moved back to the squad thread.

 

[pjennings]

The problem is there

This is brilliant.
Boland’s comments are also the biggest reason why there are so many aleague snobs in this country and why most NPL players hate the aleague and literally laugh at how they go about certain things. EG: Bolts potential trial.
But he’s 1000% right.
Those people are the educated fans our league and especially our club need more of.
And if everyone is so passionate about a 2nd division happening ASAP or more expansion clubs ASAP, but don’t rate 90% of NPL players as full timers, who do you think is going to fill out those teams?

The problem with the NPL is that there are too many teams with the quality spread across them. A second division would draw the best of the NPL from around the country to those 8 -12 clubs. Those players then would have to perform against more consistent and higher level competition. It is that competition that will raise the standard of the NPL players. At the moment there is just too much of gap between the HAL and the state based NPL teams.

Our recent lack of success with NPL players has shown this. A fairly recent NSW NPL Grand Final had around 8 ex Mariners on the field. i.e. While they didn't command a HAL gig long term they were at the top of the NSW NPL. Lewis, Nikas, Trifiro and Major were some of the ex CCM players involved.

If a second division national second division was instituted that gap would diminish.

 

[pjennings]

From a purely commercial point of view, I congratulate Shaun on his ability to find new and innovative ways to drive engagement and provide free advertising for our cash strapped club, but from the footballing side of our club, the part of the club that I believe should be most important this is a mistake.

I think it's fundamental to our club, and football clubs around the world that there is minimal intervention and dictation from the business side of our club. While living within our means is fundamental to the existence and future of our club who we trial should not be dictated to us by business interests within the club. Especially when our previously cash strapped owner has been willing to pony up to 70% of this trial and another $900,000 is needed from the FFA, so Charlesworth is at least willing to pay part of a $2,100000 trial fee and I doubt our sponsors are willing pay all of that for just a trial. For the vast majority of trials of other players we do not pay them, we do not even provide them with accommodation and these are players who are among the most vulnerable in our league, most likely working to make ends meet and devoting any and all free time to football. We are providing Bolt with substantially more than we offer other trialists he is not being treated like "any other trialist" he is being given a huge amount of money simply to trial. There have been no quotes, that I am aware of, from Mulvey, Monty, Junna or others in the footballing department that they supported this idea, that this was their idea. If it was, if they believed he could potentially be of a standard worthy of a visa player in the A-League then sure it could potentially be okay, if it was costing us nothing, considering all the trialing opportunities they have provided so far this pre-season.
....

This is not the way I have read the deal. Richard Hind has put it out this way but most of the others haven't. My understanding is that it if a trial take place it is simply that a trial. No-one is paying him to trial. However, there may be offers of accommodation and transport from people other than the club.

At this stage Bolt may not trial, he may trial and fail, he may trial and get a contract. My understanding is that it looks like Bolt is after $3M for a season. MC is underwriting $2.1M of that cost (in other words he likely already has sponsors to that amount) and is looking at the FFA for $900,000. i.e. MC's expense may very will be zero.

I am not of the opinion that we can't negotiate with Bolt and his agents and continue with other recruitment.

However, the argument should be a three-way one.

1) Do we recruit as normal and hope that Mike Mulvey can improve us and we at least get to the finals. This will not bring back the crowds - too many have been burnt since GA left. Only repeated success - finals and better over repeated seasons will do this. I suspect if Bolt does not trial or doesn't get a contract this is the most likely scenario. Overall this is the most likely scenario.

2) Recruit as normal and hope that Mike Mulvey can improve us and we at least get to the finals. In addition Bolt is signed and we take a sugar from increased gate takings and next season we go back to scenario. This is the next likely scenario

3) Trial and sign Bolt, take the sugar hit from increased gate takings and use it to fund a stronger squad with a 'football' marquee. Give the hopefully increased crowds something to like so that they return the following season. This is the least likely scenario.

The signing of Bolt can be justified as long as he is at least as good as TBT, Austin or Appiah. However, unless we look at scenario three then by next season we will be exactly where we are now.