#32 Travis Cloke

Player President threads here thanks.

Moderator: bbmods

Post Reply
thebaldfacts
Posts: 3602
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 9:27 am

Post by thebaldfacts »

Deja Vu wrote:50 goals in an average season. He is simply too important to let go. Get the deal done Collingwood and stop being petulant about this 5th year
Agreed. If we have to lose Goldsack or a Wellers, so be it.

The thought of losing him to the Scum and opening up a premiership window for them should be enough to get the deal done.

Port played hardball with Nick Stevens and look where that got them.

Give him 5.

Forgot how good he was until that performance last night.
User avatar
Pa Marmo
Posts: 5553
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2003 5:14 pm
Location: Nicks BB member #617

Post by Pa Marmo »

thebaldfacts wrote:
Deja Vu wrote:50 goals in an average season. He is simply too important to let go. Get the deal done Collingwood and stop being petulant about this 5th year
Agreed. If we have to lose Goldsack or a Wellers, so be it.

The thought of losing him to the Scum and opening up a premiership window for them should be enough to get the deal done.

Port played hardball with Nick Stevens and look where that got them.

Give him 5.

Forgot how good he was until that performance last night.
Couldn't agree more with this, I would like to hang on to Goldy though. If we have to loose Wellers, Harry or the Caff, so be it. I don't want any of that trio to go, but Trav is just that important.
Genesis 1:1
User avatar
RudeBoy
Posts: 22174
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2005 2:08 pm
Been liked: 150 times

Post by RudeBoy »

I'm sure it's been considered in negotiations, but this would be my compromise offer to try to settle this damn business.

Assuming the parties are willing to accept $750-800,000 pa, the stumbling issue seems to be over it being a 4 or 5 year deal.

I'd offer Cloke a one year deal for $800,000 and then assuming he's in good form give him another 4 years on the same money starting in 2014. This way, he gets his 5 yrs on the money he wants but we don't actually commit to a 5 yr deal up front. It's a win win as far as I can tell.

The stumbling block will really be whether Demir wants to do a deal with Collingwood or whether he has already committed his son to leaving for more dough.
User avatar
rocketronnie
Posts: 8821
Joined: Wed Sep 06, 2006 3:23 pm
Location: Reservoir

Post by rocketronnie »

RudeBoy wrote:I'm sure it's been considered in negotiations, but this would be my compromise offer to try to settle this damn business.

Assuming the parties are willing to accept $750-800,000 pa, the stumbling issue seems to be over it being a 4 or 5 year deal.

I'd offer Cloke a one year deal for $800,000 and then assuming he's in good form give him another 4 years on the same money starting in 2014. This way, he gets his 5 yrs on the money he wants but we don't actually commit to a 5 yr deal up front. It's a win win as far as I can tell.

The stumbling block will really be whether Demir wants to do a deal with Collingwood or whether he has already committed his son to leaving for more dough.
Ummm the stumbling block is that a five year deal is on the table from Travis and his management. Why would Travis and his management even consider a one year deal with only a vague promise of more attached to it?I doubt either party would even consider the option. Collingwood needs to stop mucking about and sign off on the five year deal and just get it over and done if they want him.
"Only the weak believe that what they do in battle is who they are as men" - Thomas Marshall - "Ironclad".
Beast
Posts: 2899
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2011 5:05 pm

Post by Beast »

rocketronnie wrote:
Beast wrote:
rocketronnie wrote:Some beautiful humble pie being eaten in this thread now :lol: :lol: :lol:
The amount of humble pie you've devoured over the years makes me wonder if you order a crane to leave the house :)

For two months Cloke played without any enthusiasm and wasn't getting much love from the rest of the boys. It's not the five goals he's kicked its the passion and the work rate that was absolutely wonderful to see.
Something has clearly changed, maybe he's signed or maybe he got our blessing to leave and feels like the weight is finally of his shoulders....
nomnomnom :lol:

Humble pie is a professional hazard McFeast, are you prepared to eat your share?
Sure, if you point out anything I said about Cloke that was actually incorrect.

Your time to shine ronnie or are you going to squib out of this as usual? :lol:
User avatar
RudeBoy
Posts: 22174
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2005 2:08 pm
Been liked: 150 times

Post by RudeBoy »

rocketronnie wrote:
RudeBoy wrote:I'm sure it's been considered in negotiations, but this would be my compromise offer to try to settle this damn business.

Assuming the parties are willing to accept $750-800,000 pa, the stumbling issue seems to be over it being a 4 or 5 year deal.

I'd offer Cloke a one year deal for $800,000 and then assuming he's in good form give him another 4 years on the same money starting in 2014. This way, he gets his 5 yrs on the money he wants but we don't actually commit to a 5 yr deal up front. It's a win win as far as I can tell.

The stumbling block will really be whether Demir wants to do a deal with Collingwood or whether he has already committed his son to leaving for more dough.
Ummm the stumbling block is that a five year deal is on the table from Travis and his management. Why would Travis and his management even consider a one year deal with only a vague promise of more attached to it?I doubt either party would even consider the option. Collingwood needs to stop mucking about and sign off on the five year deal and just get it over and done if they want him.
And then Pendles, Daisy, Beams and Reid will want 5 yr deals too. Not a smart move imo. I genuinely think giving in to Cloke's demands for a 5 yr deal would provide a short term fix with long term pain. The whole management of our TPPs going forward could start to unravel.
User avatar
rocketronnie
Posts: 8821
Joined: Wed Sep 06, 2006 3:23 pm
Location: Reservoir

Post by rocketronnie »

RudeBoy wrote:
rocketronnie wrote:
RudeBoy wrote:I'm sure it's been considered in negotiations, but this would be my compromise offer to try to settle this damn business.

Assuming the parties are willing to accept $750-800,000 pa, the stumbling issue seems to be over it being a 4 or 5 year deal.

I'd offer Cloke a one year deal for $800,000 and then assuming he's in good form give him another 4 years on the same money starting in 2014. This way, he gets his 5 yrs on the money he wants but we don't actually commit to a 5 yr deal up front. It's a win win as far as I can tell.

The stumbling block will really be whether Demir wants to do a deal with Collingwood or whether he has already committed his son to leaving for more dough.
Ummm the stumbling block is that a five year deal is on the table from Travis and his management. Why would Travis and his management even consider a one year deal with only a vague promise of more attached to it?I doubt either party would even consider the option. Collingwood needs to stop mucking about and sign off on the five year deal and just get it over and done if they want him.
And then Pendles, Daisy, Beams and Reid will want 5 yr deals too. Not a smart move imo. I genuinely think giving in to Cloke's demands for a 5 yr deal would provide a short term fix with long term pain. The whole management of our TPPs going forward could start to unravel.
Welcome to free agency. Clubs can no longer dictate to players as they used to.
Last edited by rocketronnie on Mon Sep 03, 2012 1:41 am, edited 1 time in total.
"Only the weak believe that what they do in battle is who they are as men" - Thomas Marshall - "Ironclad".
User avatar
eddiesmith
Posts: 12394
Joined: Tue Nov 23, 2004 12:21 am
Location: Lexus Centre
Has liked: 11 times
Been liked: 24 times

Post by eddiesmith »

I still fail to see how 1 extra year is such a disaster that will screw us over for well that 1 whole year...

Hell he could be still performing and the club would have had to pay him 800k anyway, this way they know for sure what they have to pay in 5 years time instead of having to keep 300k spare in case he actually is still that damn good
AN_Inkling
Posts: 13521
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2007 11:29 am

Post by AN_Inkling »

RudeBoy wrote:
rocketronnie wrote:
RudeBoy wrote:I'm sure it's been considered in negotiations, but this would be my compromise offer to try to settle this damn business.

Assuming the parties are willing to accept $750-800,000 pa, the stumbling issue seems to be over it being a 4 or 5 year deal.

I'd offer Cloke a one year deal for $800,000 and then assuming he's in good form give him another 4 years on the same money starting in 2014. This way, he gets his 5 yrs on the money he wants but we don't actually commit to a 5 yr deal up front. It's a win win as far as I can tell.

The stumbling block will really be whether Demir wants to do a deal with Collingwood or whether he has already committed his son to leaving for more dough.
Ummm the stumbling block is that a five year deal is on the table from Travis and his management. Why would Travis and his management even consider a one year deal with only a vague promise of more attached to it?I doubt either party would even consider the option. Collingwood needs to stop mucking about and sign off on the five year deal and just get it over and done if they want him.
And then Pendles, Daisy, Beams and Reid will want 5 yr deals too. Not a smart move imo. I genuinely think giving in to Cloke's demands for a 5 yr deal would provide a short term fix with long term pain. The whole management of our TPPs going forward could start to unravel.
I don't know. Not everyone wants 5 year deals. Beams signed for 3, not even 4. Pendles only signed for 1 in his last deal, or maybe 2. I don't think they'll all of a sudden demand 5 years. Maybe Cloke's just more loyal?

When a player has rival offers of 5 years and they'd really like that security, it's difficult for them to see why the club would hold back. This is what free agency does, it lengthens and inflates contracts. It's then up to the club to decide how much they want each player.

I don't think it's a bad thing either. There's no doubt that the power balance was too greatly in favour of clubs previously.
Well done boys!
User avatar
Piesnchess
Posts: 26205
Joined: Mon Jun 09, 2008 4:24 pm
Has liked: 230 times
Been liked: 94 times

Post by Piesnchess »

SIGN him, primarily to spite Caaaaarlton. !
Poverty exists not because we cannot feed the poor, but because we cannot satisfy the rich.

Chess and Vodka are born brothers. - Russian proverb.
thebaldfacts
Posts: 3602
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 9:27 am

Post by thebaldfacts »

FWIW the boys on morning glory said that he wants to sign and that it is only Demir who is holding off.

Saying that whispers are that he may sign this week, but it is SEN.
E

Post by E »

how about a four year deal with a 5th year being a team option with a buy out of say $300k or something.

what this means is that if Pies dont want him in year 5 they would have to give him a $300k parting gift. That way, he will have gotten his extra $300k, and then is free to get what he can in the fifth year.

Usually, this kind of structure results in a fifth year, unless the guy is a total spud. In the latter case, he still gets the higher salary recognition for the four years he did play. I expect the $300k would count towards the fifth year for salary cap purposes, but sommeone else can confirm that.

This is a very US style solution to the problem of more years less cash vs less cash for more years (in a tight salary cap environment). This way, we decide in Year 5 whether its a 4 year or 5 year contract, and if We decide its a four years contract, then we pay him the extra cash to recognize that.
User avatar
John Wren
Posts: 24186
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2007 5:28 pm

Post by John Wren »

AN_Inkling wrote:
RudeBoy wrote:
rocketronnie wrote: Ummm the stumbling block is that a five year deal is on the table from Travis and his management. Why would Travis and his management even consider a one year deal with only a vague promise of more attached to it?I doubt either party would even consider the option. Collingwood needs to stop mucking about and sign off on the five year deal and just get it over and done if they want him.
And then Pendles, Daisy, Beams and Reid will want 5 yr deals too. Not a smart move imo. I genuinely think giving in to Cloke's demands for a 5 yr deal would provide a short term fix with long term pain. The whole management of our TPPs going forward could start to unravel.
I don't know. Not everyone wants 5 year deals. Beams signed for 3, not even 4. Pendles only signed for 1 in his last deal, or maybe 2. I don't think they'll all of a sudden demand 5 years. Maybe Cloke's just more loyal?

When a player has rival offers of 5 years and they'd really like that security, it's difficult for them to see why the club would hold back. This is what free agency does, it lengthens and inflates contracts. It's then up to the club to decide how much they want each player.

I don't think it's a bad thing either. There's no doubt that the power balance was too greatly in favour of clubs previously.
isn't daisy due to become a restricted free agent at the end of next year?

we know pendles held off until the cba was signed. even then he did not commit lng term and he too soon becomes a restricted free agent.

additionally, it's the other clubs who set the precedent with offering five year deals so you can't blame cloke to ask for the same at his club.
Purveyor of sanctimonious twaddle.
User avatar
MJ23
Posts: 4163
Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2011 8:52 pm
Location: Sydney

Post by MJ23 »

AN_Inkling wrote:
RudeBoy wrote:
rocketronnie wrote: Ummm the stumbling block is that a five year deal is on the table from Travis and his management. Why would Travis and his management even consider a one year deal with only a vague promise of more attached to it?I doubt either party would even consider the option. Collingwood needs to stop mucking about and sign off on the five year deal and just get it over and done if they want him.
And then Pendles, Daisy, Beams and Reid will want 5 yr deals too. Not a smart move imo. I genuinely think giving in to Cloke's demands for a 5 yr deal would provide a short term fix with long term pain. The whole management of our TPPs going forward could start to unravel.
I don't know. Not everyone wants 5 year deals. Beams signed for 3, not even 4. Pendles only signed for 1 in his last deal, or maybe 2. I don't think they'll all of a sudden demand 5 years. Maybe Cloke's just more loyal?

When a player has rival offers of 5 years and they'd really like that security, it's difficult for them to see why the club would hold back. This is what free agency does, it lengthens and inflates contracts. It's then up to the club to decide how much they want each player.

I don't think it's a bad thing either. There's no doubt that the power balance was too greatly in favour of clubs previously.
Pendles extended his current deal by 4 years - this year
Thats four more after this year
"Even when Im old and gray, I wont be able to play but Ill still love the game"
Michael Jordan
User avatar
Deja Vu
Posts: 4411
Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2008 10:44 am

Post by Deja Vu »

Pendles signed a 4 year deal earlier this year.

Daisy has only ever signed contracts 2 years at a time, so it will be interesting to see what happens with him next year.

The advent of free agency will mean clubs will need to be more flexible in offering 5 year deals. Selwood, Deledio, Hurley have all recently signed on for 5 years
Post Reply