:lol:
How would they know a player's value then you imbecile? By asking his manager?!? :lol:
How would they know how much of the cap to allocate to each position within the squad without knowing the way the team intended to play? :lol:
Now that I have destroyed the foundation of your argument the rest of your post is moot. Just like you, you dirty big hairy moot.
And that's Ken Edwards' job. After the coach has told him the player he wants and the absolute maximum he is worth to our team, Edwards can handle all of that non-football crap. You can go discuss it in the accounting forum.
Who said anything about an 'average individual'? Is this your first attempt at a strawman? Needs more direct quotes. B-
Like I said, that's for Ken Edwards to worry about, after the footballing staff tell him the upper limit on that player's value to the team.
I'll give you a D on this strawman. I never even mentioned Anthony Watmough. As far as we know he has never even displayed an interest in coaching or recruitment, let alone having experience in the area.
:lol:
Ultimately the coach has to decide the players he wants at the club, and he has to weigh up the opportunity cost of having one player here over another (i.e. the amount of salary cap the player is worth).
It starts and finishes with the coach.
You are such an idiot and a troll that I really shouldn't bother replying, but eh, why not?
You start by misquoting me and taking my comment out of context. Footballing knowledge does not solely determine the valuation of a player. Let's use football as an example. Cristiano Ronaldo was signed for over 100 million dollars by Real Madrid. Is he worth that as a player? No. Is he worth that as a
marketing tool? Yes. Hence, a person that doesn't even watch football will be able to provide a suitably good estimate of their value to the club. Ditto for rugby league.
Look at Ken Edwards. Let's say he doesn't watch football, though he reads about it, but he is informed by Ricky as to what player the team needs - being Benji Marshall in this example. Now, Ken only has to look at the amount of stories that are published about Benji, the number of interviews and television appearances he gives, as well as the general fan reaction to him to give a semi-accurate summation of his value. This is when the coach steps in and says "he is a very good player".
You are only touching the base of the subject, you are that blind. The club needs to weigh up the value of the player not just for what they do on the field but for what they do
off the field. Take Anthony Watmough for instance. He has a well documented history of public incidents. Now, a coach that ignores that aspect will value him at say, 350K, because he is a great player. However, the CEO will look at his age and his off-field behaviour and rate his value significantly lower. The fact is, player value is not determined simply by on-field performance. In addition, the factors of age and health are very much relevant.
Hence, you are an absolute idiot for attempting to blow me off on one out-of-context quote. Simply put, why I continue to bother with you is beyond me.
And to answer your question; they know from the valuation of the coach and/or scouts, such as Peter Nolan. But Nolan can only give one side of the value - the administration needs to weigh up
all of the factors, not just how 'good' a player is.
You didn't destroy the basis of my argument. You exposed yourself as a ludicrous fool that is endemic of the sporting masses, i.e. you represent the small percentage of society's individuals others refer to as "scum".
This is hilarious given you just made a whole rah-rah about how a person cannot know a player's value without watching them play. Didn't you just say, essentially, that the only way to judge them is their on-field status? Read your post again, think about the meaning of the word 'hypocrisy' and try to re-think your argument.
That is not just Ken Edwards' job. It concerns the administration of the Eels, not just one person. Similarly, scouting is not solely done by Peter Nolan, it also involves other individuals, as well as the coaching staff. And this is what you fail to understand. You can go and re-write what you posted earlier but it won't change the fact that you said it. You essentially stated that it was solely the job of people like Nolan or the coach, not the administration, and I pointed out how wrong you were. Now that you are back-tracking and trying to deflect and change your previous stance, your lack of logic is apparent to everyone.
Well I'm sorry, you are the one that said the only attribute necessary to recruitment was 'footballing experience' or words to that effect. What did I say before? Learn the meaning of the word 'hypocrisy'? Actually no, I have a better one. 'Logic'.
And you suitably miss the point. Maybe you should quote posts fully and not try and attack individual points that are intended to be a part of a cohesive whole. The Anthony Watmough example ties into the previous paragraph about how you cannot just throw an ex-footballer into a recruitment role and expect them to do the job well.
Yes it is funny. The forum laughs at your insignificance. Have fun clutching at straws whilst I eat pizza and simultaneously watch Inception while feeding a dog. :sarcasm:
No, it does not. A club has to weigh up whether signing a player is a worthwhile investment in terms of attracting interest to the club. It depends on the player though. The valuation of a player has to come from more than the coach, as I explained previously. However, it doesn't matter what the valuation of the player is if they have an exaggerated opinion of themselves. Hence, 'desperation' comes into play. A club that is desperate to make a big-name signing to both attract interest and give fans a reason to renew their season tickets/be excited is more likely to bow to a player's demands. Notice something here? The coach is only principally involved in saying how much they want the player. He does not decide whether the economic downturn is worth the risk. Those running the club do.
They also have to weigh up whether it is a star player performing well that is nearing the end of their career. Businesses are all about profit, even sporting clubs. Hence, clubs are always trying to get the best return on investments. Johnathon Thurston at 27 looks a good player in his prime, but even if he is performing well at age 32, the club's valuation of him, and their willingness to purchase him, would be significantly reduced. What if the player had underlying heart or related medical issues as a result of genetic disorders that had not yet manifested? The player's on field status can become almost secondary here. Hence why a club recruiting John Mannah takes a risk, even if he would only be paid the minimum salary. But for a player that is performing very well? It will no doubt create a big gap between the coach and administration.
Long story short - you are a moron. Cheers.
