Luke McGuane [merged]

[Penelope]

Cameron is the general manager of football so his role is to manage all the various arms of the footy dept - coaches, recruiting, list management, rehab, strength and conditioning.

Most managers in organisations largely manage people.

If you think he solely makes these decisions;
1 what do you think the purpose of list management committee is?
2 do you really believe that any resignings would be made if the coach or recruiting tsaff did not want that person on the list?


Its not about defending Cameron personally, just believing that credit and critisism should be directed where its due.

He is also in charge of rehab strength and conditioning, yet no one would suggest he makes the decisions on what program each player undergoes?

[Coach]

Cameron is the general manager of football so his role is to manage all the various arms of the footy dept - coaches, recruiting, list management, rehab, strength and conditioning.

Most managers in organisations largely manage people.

If you think he solely makes these decisions;
1 what do you think the purpose of list management committee is?
2 do you really believe that any resignings would be made if the coach or recruiting tsaff did not want that person on the list?


Its not about defending Cameron personally, just believing that credit and critisism should be directed where its due.

Never said he makes decisions by himself. But obviously he's got no idea if he signs off on some of the decisions the club makes. Either he plays a big role in those decisions or he just goes along with what the members of the brains trust think. Shitman as oxx would say

He is also in charge of rehab strength and conditioning, yet no one would suggest he makes the decisions on what program each player undergoes?

Honestly, WGAF?

[tony_montana]

I suppose if he is earning 200k less next year then I could live with it. Being in our top 10 most paid players is disgusting. Craig Cameron, hang your head in shame.

With CC's track record,  i wont believe hes taken a significant paycut until i see proof. Another 2 years?

So you saw proof that he was actually on the amount that was reported in here a few years back by the one and only Mr Reliable - Jackstar?  Or are you just subscribing to the urban myth that surrounds it?

Do you have proof to suggest he isn't well paid? It's all well and good to shoot down posters for their negative views, but do u have proof to dispel these "urban myths"? Whats good for the goose....

I have heard from other sources that he has been very well paid, whether that was 450k a season like jackstar said I don't know, but I do know he was signed on the back of his best football to date, was young and we were struggling to get to min cap at the time, do the math...

[Smokey]

So you saw proof that he was actually on the amount that was reported in here a few years back by the one and only Mr Reliable - Jackstar?  Or are you just subscribing to the urban myth that surrounds it?

Do you have proof to suggest he isn't well paid? It's all well and good to shoot down posters for their negative views, but do u have proof to dispel these "urban myths"? Whats good for the goose....

I have heard from other sources that he has been very well paid, whether that was 450k a season like jackstar said I don't know, but I do know he was signed on the back of his best football to date, was young and we were struggling to get to min cap at the time, do the math...

No I don't have proof and that is exactly my point.  Unless the guy himself told me or it was reported in the free press as such then I won't believe it, pure and simple.  I can have an educated guess based on anything I like to accept as a likely truth but I can't say it is true or not without an actual fact.  In this case, that's something you or I don't have and without an actual fact I'm not going criticise Cameron for any decision based solely on my guess the urban myth is true.  I could make a statement like "IF it was true then Cameron was a party to a bad list decision" but that's a significant difference from assuming it and blaming Cameron regardless.  I wasn't having a go at you for having a negative view, it was for making an unsubstantiated statement about Cameron's decision by a.) assuming it was Cameron's decision alone, and b.) McGuane was signed for ~$450k per year.  In both cases I would guess that you don't know the truth or facts of either so the whack at Cameron in my mind is unfair.  You say that with Cameron's track record you won't believe McGuane has taken a significant paycut without the proof, yet you seem to need no proof to make allegations about Cameron.  What's good for the goose.......

[tony_montana]

So you saw proof that he was actually on the amount that was reported in here a few years back by the one and only Mr Reliable - Jackstar?  Or are you just subscribing to the urban myth that surrounds it?

Do you have proof to suggest he isn't well paid? It's all well and good to shoot down posters for their negative views, but do u have proof to dispel these "urban myths"? Whats good for the goose....

I have heard from other sources that he has been very well paid, whether that was 450k a season like jackstar said I don't know, but I do know he was signed on the back of his best football to date, was young and we were struggling to get to min cap at the time, do the math...

No I don't have proof and that is exactly my point.  Unless the guy himself told me or it was reported in the free press as such then I won't believe it, pure and simple.  I can have an educated guess based on anything I like to accept as a likely truth but I can't say it is true or not without an actual fact.  In this case, that's something you or I don't have and without an actual fact I'm not going criticise Cameron for any decision based solely on my guess the urban myth is true.  I could make a statement like "IF it was true then Cameron was a party to a bad list decision" but that's a significant difference from assuming it and blaming Cameron regardless.  I wasn't having a go at you for having a negative view, it was for making an unsubstantiated statement about Cameron's decision by a.) assuming it was Cameron's decision alone, and b.) McGuane was signed for ~$450k per year.  In both cases I would guess that you don't know the truth or facts of either so the whack at Cameron in my mind is unfair.  You say that with Cameron's track record you won't believe McGuane has taken a significant paycut without the proof, yet you seem to need no proof to make allegations about Cameron.  What's good for the goose.......

You can dance around the semantics of it if you wish smokey, but common sense suggests he would have been on a fair whack this contract and likely closer to the mark than way off for the reasons I mentioned earlier. If you dismiss this as incorrect that's you prerogative and no skin off my nose....
This is my opinion - I'm not claiming it as fact just an educated guess and I'm well within my rights to voice it on a footy forum, you don't agree? That's perfectly fine with me

[Coach]

well a few of us on this forum do know it (mcgs contract) to be fact.

McG isn't much good and neither is Cameron. Hopefully we can all agree on that

[Penelope]

allright, just this once. But lets not turn it into a circle jerk. If i want that I will sneak into the St Kilda change rooms

[Coach]

You are just the legend arent you

[Penelope]

 

[Smokey]

So you saw proof that he was actually on the amount that was reported in here a few years back by the one and only Mr Reliable - Jackstar?  Or are you just subscribing to the urban myth that surrounds it?

Do you have proof to suggest he isn't well paid? It's all well and good to shoot down posters for their negative views, but do u have proof to dispel these "urban myths"? Whats good for the goose....

I have heard from other sources that he has been very well paid, whether that was 450k a season like jackstar said I don't know, but I do know he was signed on the back of his best football to date, was young and we were struggling to get to min cap at the time, do the math...

No I don't have proof and that is exactly my point.  Unless the guy himself told me or it was reported in the free press as such then I won't believe it, pure and simple.  I can have an educated guess based on anything I like to accept as a likely truth but I can't say it is true or not without an actual fact.  In this case, that's something you or I don't have and without an actual fact I'm not going criticise Cameron for any decision based solely on my guess the urban myth is true.  I could make a statement like "IF it was true then Cameron was a party to a bad list decision" but that's a significant difference from assuming it and blaming Cameron regardless.  I wasn't having a go at you for having a negative view, it was for making an unsubstantiated statement about Cameron's decision by a.) assuming it was Cameron's decision alone, and b.) McGuane was signed for ~$450k per year.  In both cases I would guess that you don't know the truth or facts of either so the whack at Cameron in my mind is unfair.  You say that with Cameron's track record you won't believe McGuane has taken a significant paycut without the proof, yet you seem to need no proof to make allegations about Cameron.  What's good for the goose.......

You can dance around the semantics of it if you wish smokey, but common sense suggests he would have been on a fair whack this contract and likely closer to the mark than way off for the reasons I mentioned earlier. If you dismiss this as incorrect that's you prerogative and no skin off my nose....
This is my opinion - I'm not claiming it as fact just an educated guess and I'm well within my rights to voice it on a footy forum, you don't agree? That's perfectly fine with me

All good TM, it's what we all come here for.   

FWIW I agree that IF McGuane was on $450k-ish then those responsible should hang their collective heads in shame - he was never worth that and never will be.  I would also never have signed him up for 4 years at the time, regardless of the amount of his contract.  If however it turned out that he was signed at the time for around $300-$350 per year then I would accept that based on his age/size/potential at the time.  The fact that we can view his failure to fully develop or produce the goods in hindsight makes it easy to judge but at the time a figure around that would have been reasonable in my opinion and I reckon that a figure of $350 might still (just) place him in the top 25% of our current list.

[Phil Mrakov]

In another coup for the Richmond Football Club, they have beaten off the free agency threat and retained Luke Mcguane. 

RICHMOND utility Luke McGuane is believed to be close to an agreement to re-sign with the Tigers, having improved his stocks at Punt Road with a strong finish to the season.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/147739/default.aspx

Get it done, Tiges

[Smokey]

well a few of us on this forum do know it (mcgs contract) to be fact.

McG isn't much good and neither is Cameron. Hopefully we can all agree on that

I'll agree on the McG part but still reserve my judgment on Cameron - I think his job is thankless and an easy target for unfair criticism, founded or not, and I don't think there have been enough (any) proofs yet that say to me is bad or been a failure at his job.  Drafting/trading/list  management is far from an exact science and outcomes are open to too many opinionated viewpoints that we can really only measure the success or failure of an incumbent in retrospect and that's pretty much when I'll do it re: Cameron.

[Coach]

I wish I could tell you blokes the things Cameron has done. However, I have been sworn to secrecy.

[Smokey]

I wish I could tell you blokes the things Cameron has done. However, I have been sworn to secrecy.

If the French can manage to take and publish topless shots of Kate Middleton then surely you should be open to a little scuttlebutting?

 

[Coach]

What is said at Club 80 will stay at Club 80