The article completely contradicts itself. On the one hand it mentions carlton pursuing lynch instead of cloke, but it then says that we would have 700k available to spend on stefan martin if cloke leaves.Pa Marmo wrote:Heresay brother, un-named sources = Internet forums.Animal wrote:http://www.news.com.au/sport/afl/blues-first-in-q-for-lynch/story-fnelctok-1226466844404
Reading this article makes me think Cloke is gone.
"Sources say Collingwood is highly active in its pursuit of a versatile big man, with up to $700,000 to offer another key position player to replace Cloke."
#32 Travis Cloke
Moderator: bbmods
- Trezegol
- Posts: 1254
- Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2005 9:59 am
- Location: Doncaster East
"There have been injuries and deaths in boxing, but none of them serious." (Alan Minter)
- Piethagoras' Theorem
- Posts: 19603
- Joined: Mon May 29, 2006 1:09 pm
- Has liked: 1 time
- Been liked: 17 times
- Piesnchess
- Posts: 26205
- Joined: Mon Jun 09, 2008 4:24 pm
- Has liked: 230 times
- Been liked: 94 times
- ClokingDevice
- Posts: 2601
- Joined: Mon May 14, 2012 12:39 pm
- David
- Posts: 50685
- Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2003 4:04 pm
- Location: the edge of the deep green sea
- Has liked: 17 times
- Been liked: 83 times
I know we live in a skeptical age, but is it possible that it is as we've been told? That Cloke and Collingwood have simply decided to make 2012 the priority and hold off all contract negotiations until the end of the season? In which case it would be far from the first thing on Cloke's mind right now.ClokingDevice wrote:Don't we know anyone close to Trav?
Between the hundreds of fans on here surely someone knows someone close to him and has a clue what is going on
Come on we need a deep throat, get it done
People point to the week before the Essendon game as the time Cloke decided to sign, and perhaps that's right. Isn't it equally plausible, however, that in the pre-game address Buckley specifically asked the players to get around Cloke as a means of boosting his confidence?
If the contract negotiations have been put on hold, it would make little sense for grand decisions to be made right now. Not saying it couldn't happen, but it seems counterintuitive to assume it to be so.
"Every time we witness an injustice and do not act, we train our character to be passive in its presence." – Julian Assange
- Deja Vu
- Posts: 4411
- Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2008 10:44 am
- rocketronnie
- Posts: 8821
- Joined: Wed Sep 06, 2006 3:23 pm
- Location: Reservoir
Well I was iffy on 101 but did just great at 202 which is I learnt about Demand Pull Inflation. You must have been away that day.Tannin wrote:Oh dear. Failed Economics 101, did we?rocketronnie wrote:What the AFL needs to do and hasn't yet is to assess salary caps in the light of the inflationary nature of free agency and increase them to accommodate it. They will do this eventually when the clubs start to complain and pressure them to do it.
Inflation is determined by growth in the money supply. Indeed, many economists define inflation as "growth in the money supply". Increased prices are what you and I see in our role as consumers, and are a consequence of inflation, but the cause is an increase in the money supply (more precisely, an increase in the money supply relative to the creation/exchange of goods and services).
Given the salary cap, "inflation" in player payments is impossible. Because the money supply (in this case the AFL salary cap) is fixed and cannot change (except if the AFL decides it wants to change and adjusts the rules) "inflation" in player payments simply cannot happen. We may or may not see a rise in the proportion of total player payments going to individuals who happen to be free agents, but that too is irrelevant - if it happens, it can only happen at the expense of other players who are not yet free agents - in which case the average cost of player payments still remains exactly the same 'cause you can't go over the cap.
Whether players are free agents or not is completely irrelevant. The only thing that can increase player payments is a change in the salary cap rules.
(Oh, unless you are Carlton, of course. They you can just cheat, same as usual.)
Demand-Pull Inflation theory states that the rate of inflation accelerates whenever aggregate demand is increased beyond the ability of the economy to produce (its potential output). Hence, any factor that increases aggregate demand can cause inflation.
As usual in your pompous self important way you selectively graze part of the story to suit yourself and distort the argument of those that disagree with your magnificience.
In this case free agency has increased availability of a previously largely unavailable scarce commodity, being elite AFL players, leading to price increases on the market of that commodity. Competition for that scarce commodity leads to price increases. The salary cap only partially restricts the growth of player prices in that players can place what ever value on their services they want - Averages of available finances in the salary caps of clubs may restrict that price only to a degree, but as it is established that clubs will outbid each other for elite players within those limits, the demand will send player prices upwards.
Eventually these increases will lead to salary cap increases to accommodate these higher player prices. We can see the first sign of these upward pressures in the trouble Collingwood is having keeping all its players within the cap at the moment.
That is all self evident really. Your arguments are a crock. and based on highly selective and self interested criteria. The scenario I describe is now playing out in front of us with Travis Cloke.
The Real Tannin?
Last edited by rocketronnie on Fri Sep 07, 2012 1:36 pm, edited 3 times in total.
"Only the weak believe that what they do in battle is who they are as men" - Thomas Marshall - "Ironclad".
- Ev5Magpies
- Posts: 967
- Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2003 8:01 pm
- Location: Aspendale, Victoria
- ClokingDevice
- Posts: 2601
- Joined: Mon May 14, 2012 12:39 pm
- mattys123
- Posts: 5031
- Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 11:17 pm
- Location: Narre Warren, VIC
If it was any other club I'd say bye Trav, but Carlton, cmon, we have to match it, just to ruin their mood.ClokingDevice wrote:Luke Darcy on Triple M said Collingwood had viewed the Carlton contract and it was 5 years and 5 million, doesn't mean he is going but that's what has been offered, his source was Eddie he said
If it means we lose a Wellingham, Goldsack or a similar player, so be it, but we can not, under any circumstances let Cloke go to Carlton.
- Jezza
- Posts: 29545
- Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 11:28 pm
- Location: Ponsford End
- Has liked: 271 times
- Been liked: 356 times
Another impressive game by the big man. I was surprised that he was able to back himself up after a good performance last week. It was one of the few encouraging signs of the night.
I really do hope that Travis does re-sign, but I'm still bracing myself for the day he may potentially leave, but right here, right now, I will support him 100% and just enjoy watching him play. Right now, he is still under contract for this club and I'd hope the fans show him the respect he deserves, even if he hasn't gone about the contract situation as well as he could have.
I really do hope that Travis does re-sign, but I'm still bracing myself for the day he may potentially leave, but right here, right now, I will support him 100% and just enjoy watching him play. Right now, he is still under contract for this club and I'd hope the fans show him the respect he deserves, even if he hasn't gone about the contract situation as well as he could have.
| 1902 | 1903 | 1910 | 1917 | 1919 | 1927 | 1928 | 1929 | 1930 | 1935 | 1936 | 1953 | 1958 | 1990 | 2010 | 2023 |
- Big T
- Posts: 10228
- Joined: Sat Oct 18, 2003 1:31 am
- Location: Torino, Italy
- Has liked: 6 times
- Been liked: 82 times
You have to consider they may be bluffing to force us to pay overs.mattys123 wrote:If it was any other club I'd say bye Trav, but Carlton, cmon, we have to match it, just to ruin their mood.ClokingDevice wrote:Luke Darcy on Triple M said Collingwood had viewed the Carlton contract and it was 5 years and 5 million, doesn't mean he is going but that's what has been offered, his source was Eddie he said
If it means we lose a Wellingham, Goldsack or a similar player, so be it, but we can not, under any circumstances let Cloke go to Carlton.
Teams can do that now to destroy their oppositions list and hope they get away with it.
If we suspect Carlton of doing this, don't match it and watch the, get emulsified for breaching the salary cap.
No chance they can afford that.
Buon Giorno
- Monco Matt
- Posts: 3093
- Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2009 12:47 am
- Location: Sittin, Drinkin, Reloadin & Waitin