O'Keefe has signed a new contract

[BonBon]

SI!

Omigawd, omigawd, omigawd. Yes, yes, yes! GO RYANO!

Buy me a car!

[anne]

It said in today's(Saturday's) paper that he hasn't signed yet - but is close.

[woo]

Originally posted by anne
It said in today's(Saturday's) paper that he hasn't signed yet - but is close.

just read this as well....sign him swans, what is the hold up?

[ROK Lobster]

Originally posted by woo
just read this as well....sign him swans, what is the hold up?

I'd say O'Keefe wants more than the club thinks he is worth.

[BonBon]

Originally posted by BAM_BAM
yep and I celebrated with a fist pump to the sky and a little jig When the other bookend of the Ryan O'Keefe Appreciation Society text'd me the confirmation earlier today.

(thanks Bon )

Umm, T? We've jumped up and down and victory-danced too early.

Originally posted by anne
It said in today's(Saturday's) paper that he hasn't signed yet - but is close.

:frustrated:

[Charlie]

Originally posted by ROK Lobster
I'd say O'Keefe wants more than the club thinks he is worth.

We were already several hundred thousand dollars below the cap. Take Saddington, Maxfield, Schauble, Ball and Nicks out of the equation, and we have well over a million dollars to play around with.

Front-load his contract. Give him $600,000 this year for all I care. As long as he's not getting more than about $1.2million over three years, we're not paying him over the odds.

It would defy logic if we allowed him to go simply because of money. In that regard, we're the best placed premiers of the modern era.

[Snowy]

http://www.dailytelegraph.news.com.au/story/0,20281,16851114-5001023,00.html

Maybe it's because he's on holidays as reported above. But surely if he was going to leave he would have told the club to allow a trade to occur during the week.

[Xie Shan]

I liked this comment at the end of the article, ought to please some of Morrisey's critics - he's been bagged a fair bit on here:

SOME of The Daily Telegraph's best stories have been the result of a tip-off from our readers. If you know something we don't, click here to let us know and we'll see if we can chase it up.

Except it should have said "the result of a tip-off from our readers and RWO!"

Oh well, some acknowledgement is better than none, I guess

[woo]

Originally posted by Snowy
http://www.dailytelegraph.news.com.a...001023,00.html

Maybe it's because he's on holidays as reported above. But surely if he was going to leave he would have told the club to allow a trade to occur during the week.

ok...this makes me feel better....he'll sign when he gets back

[ROK Lobster]

Originally posted by Charlie
We were already several hundred thousand dollars below the cap. Take Saddington, Maxfield, Schauble, Ball and Nicks out of the equation, and we have well over a million dollars to play around with.

Front-load his contract. Give him $600,000 this year for all I care. As long as he's not getting more than about $1.2million over three years, we're not paying him over the odds.

It would defy logic if we allowed him to go simply because of money. In that regard, we're the best placed premiers of the modern era.

But what about the logic of the other fellows who are not getting over paid? There goes team harmony. And they would want to keep room for next year. We would hope that blokes like Maceski, Moore, Vogels et al will be demanding more money at the end of 2006. As valuable as ROK is he is not in a position to name his own price.

[Charlie]

Originally posted by ROK Lobster
But what about the logic of the other fellows who are not getting over paid? There goes team harmony.

Footballers aren't that stupid. $1.2million over three years (ROK is *possibly* worth that) is the same amount of money, whether it's mostly in the first year or spread evenly across the three.

And they would want to keep room for next year.

Hence the logic of front-loading the contract, so that we can service the majority of the contract whilst we have heaps of salary cap room.

We would hope that blokes like Maceski, Moore, Vogels et al will be demanding more money at the end of 2006. As valuable as ROK is he is not in a position to name his own price. [/B]

Of course he isn't. But he is a top ten player at the club. $1.2million is at the high end of what he could feasibly ask for. But the average salary for a top ten player is a little over $300,000.

[asher]

ROK is overrated.
How is he in the top 10?

[ROK Lobster]

Originally posted by Charlie
Footballers aren't that stupid. $1.2million over three years (ROK is *possibly* worth that) is the same amount of money, whether it's mostly in the first year or spread evenly across the three...
Of course he isn't. But he is a top ten player at the club. $1.2million is at the high end of what he could feasibly ask for. But the average salary for a top ten player is a little over $300,000.

But as I said to start with, he is probably asking for more than what the club is willing to pay. You have made up a figure and said it is reasonable but we have no idea what sort of money and what sort of terms he is seeking.

[Tuesday]

Originally posted by sydfan83
I liked this comment at the end of the article, ought to please some of Morrisey's critics - he's been bagged a fair bit on here:

I'm disagree, SF. That was certainly not acknowledgement in any way, shape or form. Bless his little heart and all that malarkey, but he's a useless hack who sucked at basketball and now continues his mediocrity by lifting comments/debates/everything straight from this site and sticking his by-line on it.

There are only a few players in the AFL I dislike, but this goes far beyond that. I have far greater contempt for this imposter posing as a sports journo. I know that my comments are not going to change a thing, but I am thankful that he's at the correct paper, at least.

[Xie Shan]

Fair enough, my comment was more tongue-in-cheek than serious. Although, the Tele's other AFL writer, Nikki Tugwell I think her name is, does a much better job writing about football IMO.