|
Post by pingchowchi on Aug 11, 2015 12:30:13 GMT
Incase its one of our defenders who picks up an injury (like Lee last year), then you would probably want a defender rather than forward as that last import slot (rather then moving a forward import to play Defence).
|
|
|
Post by Rob Scott on Aug 11, 2015 12:34:36 GMT
Incase its one of our defenders who picks up an injury (like Lee last year), then you would probably want a defender rather than forward as that last import slot (rather then moving a forward import to play Defence). Mosey?
|
|
Ian
Matt Myers
Posts: 1,702
|
Post by Ian on Aug 11, 2015 13:00:23 GMT
Our budget should be the biggest in the league, I don't care what Sheffield do. I'm also convinced it'd cover 13 imports and 9 Brits, as was Neil when he said that's what we were going to have. We had 15 at the end of last season. Since then we've had a record for season ticket sales and we've decided that actually we can't afford 13+9 after all. Not that people saying this is a good thing are bothered by the budget, because we're going to sign another import when Clarke gets injured again. Quite why this is better than having a guy in amongst it from the off I'm not sure. I suspect the reason for 12+9 is fairly obvious, both to the north and the south of Nottingham, but again I'm not bothered about either of them. You are probably right that with the size of our crowds and the operation we have our budget should be the biggest, and as such we should be able to sign a full complement and one or two spares. But for whatever reason, the budget has been set at a certain level. Whether that is too high, too low or about right is an issue that merits debate elsewhere, but to all intents and purposes the budget for this season is now a given. With that in mind, the conundrum is then how you allocate it. Some people think we should have full import numbers no matter what, while others (myself included) believe you need to create the most balanced team and if that means having one import less to fund the league's strongest British contingent then that is the way to go. I don't think anyone is claiming they would sooner, in a perfect world, have 12+9 than 13+9. Why would you? What people are saying is that within the constraints imposed (rightly or wrongly), 12+9 good Brits is better for our chances than 13+7 good Brits + 2 fillers (or however the numbers would work out).
|
|
|
Post by The Flying Shirt on Aug 11, 2015 13:04:07 GMT
We won't really be playing short handed will we. We will have 4 full lines. I'll ask the question if we were to have the full import quota with all the Brits we've got how do you keep everyone happy? A decent import isn't going to want to come over here to be a spare or warm the bench. Also we do have strong Brits and import doesn't necessarily mean better than Brit We had a bus load of imports last year who would have been happy to warm any bench possible.
|
|
|
Post by texpef on Aug 11, 2015 13:14:48 GMT
If as originally put out that this was to evaluate what is needed in the team once the season has started and see who may become available once the season has started then fair enough but if this is alleged due to financial restraints because we have signed x number of supposed quality brits then it plainly is wrong as we don't even see the likes of the very lowest wages clubs hampering themselves this way. You cant replace a brit with an import, if a brit gets crocked then you lose then for the season if an import gets injured they just get replaced with another import, simples.. Oh and Doom if Sheffield hadn't started the season with a full compliment of imports I am pretty sure their fanbase would have a lot to say about it.
|
|
Doom
Greg Hadden
Posts: 1,591
|
Post by Doom on Aug 11, 2015 13:16:08 GMT
But for whatever reason, the budget has been set at a certain level. Whether that is too high, too low or about right is an issue that merits debate elsewhere, but to all intents and purposes the budget for this season is now a given. With that in mind, the conundrum is then how you allocate it. Some people think we should have full import numbers no matter what, while others (myself included) believe you need to create the most balanced team and if that means having one import less to fund the league's strongest British contingent then that is the way to go. I don't think anyone is claiming they would sooner, in a perfect world, have 12+9 than 13+9. Why would you? What people are saying is that within the constraints imposed (rightly or wrongly), 12+9 good Brits is better for our chances than 13+7 good Brits + 2 fillers (or however the numbers would work out). That's how I see it. Your coach will have been given a budget that will make you competitive, possibly even the highest in the league. It's then up to him to distribute that budget anyway he sees fit. Initially he may have intended to spend £150k on the Brits and £300k on a full compliment of imports. What may have happened is that some of the Brits might not have liked the offers they were given and started looking elsewhere. The decision then becomes, do you offer them more to stay at Nottingham or let them go to a rival in the league? - If Corey decided to keep them, then the £150k may well have become £170k, meaning his amount to spend on imports is down to £280k. That may well have changed his thinking with regards to the imports and instead of watering down the quality of imports, he may have decided to go with better quality imports but one short, safe in the knowledge that he already has the depth with the Brits. It's easy to see how plans can change. I guess one of the things that needs to be considered is that going short on imports isn't going to improve the opposition, but letting Brits go to a rival will improve them. Obviously all the figures above are made up, but I'm sure you can understand the point I'm making. Regards Doom
|
|
Doom
Greg Hadden
Posts: 1,591
|
Post by Doom on Aug 11, 2015 13:18:11 GMT
If as originally put out that this was to evaluate what is needed in the team once the season has started and see who may become available once the season has started then fair enough but if this is alleged due to financial restraints because we have signed x number of supposed quality brits then it plainly is wrong as we don't even see the likes of the very lowest wages clubs hampering themselves this way. You cant replace a brit with an import, if a brit gets crocked then you lose then for the season if an import gets injured they just get replaced with another import, simples.. Oh and Doom if Sheffield hadn't started the season with a full compliment of imports I am pretty sure their fanbase would have a lot to say about it. That depends on the depth and quality of our Brits. Had we brought in a couple of top end British players but started the season an import short then I certainly wouldn't have complained. Regards Doom
|
|
|
Post by The Flying Shirt on Aug 11, 2015 13:21:48 GMT
But for whatever reason, the budget has been set at a certain level. Whether that is too high, too low or about right is an issue that merits debate elsewhere, but to all intents and purposes the budget for this season is now a given. With that in mind, the conundrum is then how you allocate it. Some people think we should have full import numbers no matter what, while others (myself included) believe you need to create the most balanced team and if that means having one import less to fund the league's strongest British contingent then that is the way to go. I don't think anyone is claiming they would sooner, in a perfect world, have 12+9 than 13+9. Why would you? What people are saying is that within the constraints imposed (rightly or wrongly), 12+9 good Brits is better for our chances than 13+7 good Brits + 2 fillers (or however the numbers would work out). That's how I see it. Your coach will have been given a budget that will make you competitive, possibly even the highest in the league. It's then up to him to distribute that budget anyway he sees fit. Initially he may have intended to spend £150k on the Brits and £300k on a full compliment of imports. What may have happened is that some of the Brits might not have liked the offers they were given and started looking elsewhere. The decision then becomes, do you offer them more to stay at Nottingham or let them go to a rival in the league? - If Corey decided to keep them, then the £150k may well have become £170k, meaning his amount to spend on imports is down to £280k. That may well have changed his thinking with regards to the imports and instead of watering down the quality of imports, he may have decided to go with better quality imports but one short, safe in the knowledge that he already has the depth with the Brits. It's easy to see how plans can change. I guess one of the things that needs to be considered is that going short on imports isn't going to improve the opposition, but letting Brits go to a rival will improve them. Obviously all the figures above are made up, but I'm sure you can understand the point I'm making. Regards Doom Just goes to show how stupid the import rule is and the excuse about Brit development is just BS as you can see from the development side in the lower leagues with a lot of teams.
|
|
iginla
Chick Zamick
Posts: 13,446
|
Post by iginla on Aug 11, 2015 13:27:25 GMT
With Panthers recent injury record,I think the last thing they should be doing is starting short !!!!!!
But it's pretty obvious what they are doing,we aren't going to stay an import short for long. They have looked at what Sheffield picked up late last year in getting Roy and decided to leave it late to try and duplicate that.
In my opinion it's too dangerous a game to play though. We should have our top guy signed and have a spare import too,there is no excuse for going short,even if you went with a cheap Euro for a while then chop him when you find the right guy. You can get a cheap half decent Euro for £200 a week,what the hell is that to a team with Panthers resources ?
The way the league looks this year,if any Erhardt team is going to stop Braehead,then they are not going to be able to afford to lose many games at all,so hampering yourself by starting one or two imports short seems pretty damn stupid to me !
But hey ho.....ST sales are up at Panthers and Braehead are in the CHL,so what does that matter !!!!!!!!
|
|
Doom
Greg Hadden
Posts: 1,591
|
Post by Doom on Aug 11, 2015 13:40:22 GMT
Just goes to show how stupid the import rule is and the excuse about Brit development is just BS as you can see from the development side in the lower leagues with a lot of teams. I'm sure getting rid of the import rule would generally improve the standard of the league, because Brits wages would drop and teams would be able to sign better quality imports. I guess the issue would be the impact it has on the development of Brits and the GB team, because the fewer Brits there are playing at a professional level the less experience they have and therefore the weaker GB become. I think it's about right where it is now. The better Brits still get a chance and the quality is maintained because of the number of imports. I was never in favour of dropping down to 10 or below. Regards Doom
|
|
iginla
Chick Zamick
Posts: 13,446
|
Post by iginla on Aug 11, 2015 13:56:02 GMT
I reckon the ratio of imports/Brits is now about right.
But purely as a Panthers fan,personally I don't really care what it does to GB,if the Brits are good enough then they will get in EIHL teams,but when you have average Brits getting paid more than plenty of the imports around them then something is wrong.
Can you imagine being a decent import.....and finding out Jason Hewitt got paid more than you did !!!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by fishman on Aug 11, 2015 14:02:12 GMT
With Panthers recent injury record,I think the last thing they should be doing is starting short !!!!!! But it's pretty obvious what they are doing,we aren't going to stay an import short for long. They have looked at what Sheffield picked up late last year in getting Roy and decided to leave it late to try and duplicate that. In my opinion it's too dangerous a game to play though. We should have our top guy signed and have a spare import too,there is no excuse for going short,even if you went with a cheap Euro for a while then chop him when you find the right guy. You can get a cheap half decent Euro for £200 a week,what the hell is that to a team with Panthers resources ? The way the league looks this year,if any Erhardt team is going to stop Braehead,then they are not going to be able to afford to lose many games at all,so hampering yourself by starting one or two imports short seems pretty damn stupid to me ! But hey ho.....ST sales are up at Panthers and Braehead are in the CHL,so what does that matter !!!!!!!! £200 is not even minimum wage, or are you counting on good exchange rate, lol
|
|
Yotes
Forum Admin
Posts: 16,424
|
Post by Yotes on Aug 11, 2015 14:09:01 GMT
You are probably right that with the size of our crowds and the operation we have our budget should be the biggest, and as such we should be able to sign a full complement and one or two spares. But for whatever reason, the budget has been set at a certain level. Whether that is too high, too low or about right is an issue that merits debate elsewhere, but to all intents and purposes the budget for this season is now a given. With that in mind, the conundrum is then how you allocate it. Some people think we should have full import numbers no matter what, while others (myself included) believe you need to create the most balanced team and if that means having one import less to fund the league's strongest British contingent then that is the way to go. I don't think anyone is claiming they would sooner, in a perfect world, have 12+9 than 13+9. Why would you? What people are saying is that within the constraints imposed (rightly or wrongly), 12+9 good Brits is better for our chances than 13+7 good Brits + 2 fillers (or however the numbers would work out). That's the entire argument though, Ian. No one is saying that Corey should've made the money given stretch to 13+9, of course he has to spend it as he sees fit, but that if the owner is going to promise 13+9, he needs to provide the funds - the money we all pay into the club year on year - to do it. If he's not going to, don't say it. As for whether paying out so much on the British premium is a good idea or not, I have my reservations, but that's not the complaint at this stage and if it ever is, it'll be Neilson/Moran being looked at not Black. Also I don't think you (not just you Ian, but everyone thinking this way) can have your cake and eat it here though, can't say 12+9 is budgetary, but that we'll have budget for 13 should someone get crocked, I don't see how that adds up? Someone'll say insurance I'm sure, but there's more cost involved with a player than wages, and certain players' insurance premiums (cough Dave cough) should be astronomic by now if the insurers know what they're doing.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 11, 2015 14:17:48 GMT
Believe it or not. Panthers ain't a bottomless pit like most on here seem to think. I doubt they have as bigger budget as most fans think. It Could be the better packages that Belfast and Braehead offer which is the difference. Id rather play someone more like Myers than a cheap brit for the sake of it who will just skate around meaningless !! Remember quality NOT quantity.
|
|
Shorty
Paul Adey
Still here for Private Messages
Posts: 6,636
|
Post by Shorty on Aug 11, 2015 14:23:50 GMT
The only place that it has been mentioned we are paying more for a Brit, which has meant us playing an import short because of not having enough money left, is here on this forum.
Corey said in the paper that he felt we had enough quality in the squad to not need one.
Whether that is right or wrong is already being debated.
Personally, I would have our missing import slot as an out and out enforcer that is not expecting much ice time. We could have 4 lines and bring him on when needed.
If we do have 13 good forwards, then rotating the lines to fit them all in can cause as much disruption to the team than not carrying a spare.
|
|
iginla
Chick Zamick
Posts: 13,446
|
Post by iginla on Aug 11, 2015 14:33:26 GMT
Hey Fishman........go ask Evan Mosey how much he was earning last season,you would get a massive shock if he told you !!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by ted logan on Aug 11, 2015 14:36:16 GMT
Can you imagine being a decent import.....and finding out Jason Hewitt got paid more than you did !!!!!!! you mean they actually pay Hewitt!!
|
|
Gilly
Ashley Tait
Posts: 1,870
|
Post by Gilly on Aug 11, 2015 14:46:22 GMT
lets not forget we're probably already spending more that last years team combined anyway, just look at the quality of our imports this season compared to last; Peckham, Dimmen, Waugh for Berube, Landry, Wild.
Schultz, Bohmbach, Kolnik and MacMillan for Graham, Higgins, Lawrence & Parent
without the added addition of Myers and Swindlehurst who certainly wont have come cheap either.
i personally can see us spending more this season per player, not just because of the 4 lines, than we did do last year alone
edit: i know this is all theoretical and i certainly do not know what we spend on players, but having to rely on a 35 point ECHLer in Lawrence and what turned out to be a bit of a Ling-less dud in Graham compared to a genuine NHLer in Kolnik, and 2 consistent PPG ECHLers in Schultz and Bohmbach seems like weve certainly upgraded to me, and will more than likely be spending a fair amount on each this year
|
|
Ian
Matt Myers
Posts: 1,702
|
Post by Ian on Aug 11, 2015 15:03:45 GMT
Also I don't think you (not just you Ian, but everyone thinking this way) can have your cake and eat it here though, can't say 12+9 is budgetary, but that we'll have budget for 13 should someone get crocked, I don't see how that adds up? Someone'll say insurance I'm sure, but there's more cost involved with a player than wages, and certain players' insurance premiums (cough Dave cough) should be astronomic by now if the insurers know what they're doing. I'm not sure it's necessarily a case of having your cake and eating it though. While I don't pretend to know the figures on how insurance works with long-term injuries, if Clarke (just for example, I know it's far fetched) gets injured we could theoretically replace him by filling the "spare" import slot - you then simply have 13+8 instead of 12+9. On the money side, it's commonly said that British players are more expensive than equivalent imports due to their scarcity value, so the budget could still work out in such a case. It's all guesswork really though. Incidentally, I 100% agree with you on the fact that we should not be running below the permitted import level regardless of the British players we have signed. I just think that is a separate debate from this thread about season predictions, which is all about how we are likely to fare given the roster we have signed (not the one we ought to sign, if that makes sense).
|
|
Ian
Matt Myers
Posts: 1,702
|
Post by Ian on Aug 11, 2015 15:10:18 GMT
The only place that it has been mentioned we are paying more for a Brit, which has meant us playing an import short because of not having enough money left, is here on this forum. Corey said in the paper that he felt we had enough quality in the squad to not need one. Whether that is right or wrong is already being debated. Personally, I would have our missing import slot as an out and out enforcer that is not expecting much ice time. We could have 4 lines and bring him on when needed. If we do have 13 good forwards, then rotating the lines to fit them all in can cause as much disruption to the team than not carrying a spare. Although it has never been said explicitly by the club that the import decision is based on cost, it's not hard to read between the lines that Corey has chosen to allocate his budget in such a way that we can only start with 12 imports without diluting the quality. Unless anyone really thinks he is so complacent about his roster that he doesn't want to sign a 13th import even though money is available to do so? When all said and done, the coach has chosen to start with an import less than he could because he has recruited (and is paying for) the league's strongest line up of British players. Whether that is right, only time will tell. Personally I prefer quality over quantity especially remembering some of the desperately poor imports we've had to endure in the past couple of seasons. You have to have British players in your line-up and I would prefer them to be good quality players who contribute. None of our imports last season matched the goal tally that Clarke regularly grabs, and I'd also argue that none consistently delivered the all-round game we know Matt Myers can provide. I'd sooner the coach spend his budget on players like them than throw the dice and gamble on some overseas player while Clarke and Myers are enjoying successful years with a rival team, that is for sure.
|
|
|
Post by The Flying Shirt on Aug 11, 2015 15:17:20 GMT
Also I don't think you (not just you Ian, but everyone thinking this way) can have your cake and eat it here though, can't say 12+9 is budgetary, but that we'll have budget for 13 should someone get crocked, I don't see how that adds up? Someone'll say insurance I'm sure, but there's more cost involved with a player than wages, and certain players' insurance premiums (cough Dave cough) should be astronomic by now if the insurers know what they're doing. I'm not sure it's necessarily a case of having your cake and eating it though. While I don't pretend to know the figures on how insurance works with long-term injuries, if Clarke (just for example, I know it's far fetched) gets injured we could theoretically replace him by filling the "spare" import slot - you then simply have 13+8 instead of 12+9. On the money side, it's commonly said that British players are more expensive than equivalent imports due to their scarcity value, so the budget could still work out in such a case. It's all guesswork really though. Incidentally, I 100% agree with you on the fact that we should not be running below the permitted import level regardless of the British players we have signed. I just think that is a separate debate from this thread about season predictions, which is all about how we are likely to fare given the roster we have signed (not the one we ought to sign, if that makes sense). I don't think we would be playing an import down for very long (if at all). CL and RS might be looking to see how the squad shapes up with a view to putting a player into a weak spot a few games in rather than carry players season long who just don't fit in. Some of our best players are those who have been signed after the season started if you look back over the last few years.
|
|
Yotes
Forum Admin
Posts: 16,424
|
Post by Yotes on Aug 11, 2015 15:24:38 GMT
Incidentally, I 100% agree with you on the fact that we should not be running below the permitted import level regardless of the British players we have signed. I just think that is a separate debate from this thread about season predictions, which is all about how we are likely to fare given the roster we have signed (not the one we ought to sign, if that makes sense). True, this one has gone a bit off piste. Sorry PantherB. I'll still wait and see on the last 2 before making that prediction, I do think we look good, just not as good as we could be.
|
|
Ian
Matt Myers
Posts: 1,702
|
Post by Ian on Aug 11, 2015 15:33:45 GMT
I'll still wait and see on the last 2 before making that prediction, I do think we look good, just not as good as we could be. Same here. If they are real top-drawer signings I think we could challenge, but those names are vital.
|
|
|
Post by fishman on Aug 11, 2015 16:28:34 GMT
If that the case for Mosey again this season we will have a whip round, so at least give him the living wage!!!!!!
|
|
iginla
Chick Zamick
Posts: 13,446
|
Post by iginla on Aug 11, 2015 16:41:51 GMT
He will be on more this year no doubt about that,but last year they got him cheap as chips.
Had to be the best value player in the league last season.
|
|