Nick's Collingwood Bulletin Board

Buddy has just kicked 4 goals and set up a further 2 in a quarter of football against Wet Toast. He has done more in 30 minutes than Cloke has over the last month. - And Cloke wants a $1m a season. WTF.

What'sinaname wrote:Dear Trav,

Hope you're watching Hawthorn to see how a real forward plays.

perhaps our midfield need to watch the hawks' disposal by foot.

Member 7167 wrote:Buddy has just kicked 4 goals and set up a further 2 in a quarter of football against Wet Toast. He has done more in 30 minutes than Cloke has over the last month. - And Cloke wants a $1m a season. WTF.

how did he go the rest of the way......

Didnt Cloke play a similar first quarter against the cats recently in a game that mattered a fair bit more than round 23.....

also, the fact that you can only compare him to the other bloke who is considered the best in the business shows you that Travis is fairly handy. Even if Buddy is better, since we cant have him, shouldnt we at least keep the second best bloke. especially since blokes 3-10 are also not going to be available because other clubsarent going to let him go.

This is a sympathetic situation. Cloke if being asked to play below his market value because of the strength of his team. no other key forward is being asked to do that AND the poor guy has comparable offers out there that make his market value even higher than what people here think he is worth.

The solution is obviously a fifth year. $800 * 5. If he isnt worth that in year 5, collingwood could rationalize it as follows - Cloke got 900 for first 4 years (still less than market value) and $400 in year 5.

Our stubbornness may cost us 2-3 yrs of a premiership window. a real shame.

E wrote:

Member 7167 wrote:Buddy has just kicked 4 goals and set up a further 2 in a quarter of football against Wet Toast. He has done more in 30 minutes than Cloke has over the last month. - And Cloke wants a $1m a season. WTF.

how did he go the rest of the way......

Didnt Cloke play a similar first quarter against the cats recently in a game that mattered a fair bit more than round 23.....

also, the fact that you can only compare him to the other bloke who is considered the best in the business shows you that Travis is fairly handy. Even if Buddy is better, since we cant have him, shouldnt we at least keep the second best bloke. especially since blokes 3-10 are also not going to be available because other clubsarent going to let him go.

This is a sympathetic situation. Cloke if being asked to play below his market value because of the strength of his team. no other key forward is being asked to do that AND the poor guy has comparable offers out there that make his market value even higher than what people here think he is worth.

The solution is obviously a fifth year. $800 * 5. If he isnt worth that in year 5, collingwood could rationalize it as follows - Cloke got 900 for first 4 years (still less than market value) and $400 in year 5.

Our stubbornness may cost us 2-3 yrs of a premiership window. a real shame.

Agree and in my mind it has alway been about how much are we prepared to pay to keep the premiership window open, given the high quality of our current list.
If we are offering $550 - $800 in yr 5 on a performance basis, and we know that a flat $800 gets the signature, then we are talking $250k or $80k per yr for 3 years to keep the window open. This is a pittance given that in 3 yrs Suns and others will be on the march.

ThePieMind wrote:

E wrote:

Member 7167 wrote:Buddy has just kicked 4 goals and set up a further 2 in a quarter of football against Wet Toast. He has done more in 30 minutes than Cloke has over the last month. - And Cloke wants a $1m a season. WTF.

how did he go the rest of the way......

Didnt Cloke play a similar first quarter against the cats recently in a game that mattered a fair bit more than round 23.....

also, the fact that you can only compare him to the other bloke who is considered the best in the business shows you that Travis is fairly handy. Even if Buddy is better, since we cant have him, shouldnt we at least keep the second best bloke. especially since blokes 3-10 are also not going to be available because other clubsarent going to let him go.

This is a sympathetic situation. Cloke if being asked to play below his market value because of the strength of his team. no other key forward is being asked to do that AND the poor guy has comparable offers out there that make his market value even higher than what people here think he is worth.

The solution is obviously a fifth year. $800 * 5. If he isnt worth that in year 5, collingwood could rationalize it as follows - Cloke got 900 for first 4 years (still less than market value) and $400 in year 5.

Our stubbornness may cost us 2-3 yrs of a premiership window. a real shame.

Agree and in my mind it has alway been about how much are we prepared to pay to keep the premiership window open, given the high quality of our current list.
If we are offering $550 - $800 in yr 5 on a performance basis, and we know that a flat $800 gets the signature, then we are talking $250k or $80k per yr for 3 years to keep the window open. This is a pittance given that in 3 yrs Suns and others will be on the march.

You are wise. The problem now is that Eddie dug himself into a big hole by saying "we wont do 5 years!". Rule number 1 of negotiating. Never say never. Rule number 2. Never let pride or principle rule your position. Its the sure way to miss out on what you want.

E.g., a guy went to buy a house in 2002. He offered $400k and was told he had it. then he got told he needed to go to $410. he told them to take a hike on principle (the guy renegged on the deal). He missed the house. By the time he found another, the market for that type of house had moved to about $430k. He was pissed off and so kep looking for one worth $400k. It took him about 12 months to realize $400 wasnt the market anymore. He ended up paying $500k for a place that was not quite as good as the one he originally wanted for $400/$410. That $400k house is now worth $1.2 million. Do you think the guy really would have cared that he paid 400 or 410 if his house is not worth 1.2 million?

Similarly, if we can snag one or two more flags in the next three years, are you really going to feel bad that you three time premiership CHF is being overpaid for his 12th year of great service to our great club??????

On the other hand, how will you feel if (i) Cloke gets Carlton a flag - lets face it, they are a CHF away from being seriously good), and (ii) you spend the next three years saying "if we only had a great target up forward, we could beat these teams".

Actually, my understanding is that Collingwood eventually offered a 5 yr deal, with the 5th yr being subject to performance criteria. Cloke rejected this, demanding a flat guaranteed $800,000 in the 5th year, making it $4million over the 5 years.

RudeBoy wrote:Actually, my understanding is that Collingwood eventually offered a 5 yr deal, with the 5th yr being subject to performance criteria. Cloke rejected this, demanding a flat guaranteed $800,000 in the 5th year, making it $4million over the 5 years.

yep, thats what pie mind suggested in the past thread. While the pies offer is actually perfectly reasonable, i think it will be pure idiocy to lose the best contested mark in the competition over that difference.

Cloke will be equally idiotic to jeorpordize his legacy over those terms too, but at the moment, he doesnt seem to have been advised well enough to appreciate it.

the problem is two other teams signed lplayers to 5 yr deals which kind of set the market.

If he's after market rates, he'd better go elsewhere. It's that simple.

You never know, he might get his act together finally, and come out tonight and boot 9 goals against the Bummers. Then again, I might win Wimbledon next year.

RudeBoy wrote:

E wrote:

RudeBoy wrote:Actually, my understanding is that Collingwood eventually offered a 5 yr deal, with the 5th yr being subject to performance criteria. Cloke rejected this, demanding a flat guaranteed $800,000 in the 5th year, making it $4million over the 5 years.

yep, thats what pie mind suggested in the past thread. While the pies offer is actually perfectly reasonable, i think it will be pure idiocy to lose the best contested mark in the competition over that difference.

Cloke will be equally idiotic to jeorpordize his legacy over those terms too, but at the moment, he doesnt seem to have been advised well enough to appreciate it.

the problem is two other teams signed lplayers to 5 yr deals which kind of set the market.

If he's after market rates, he'd better go elsewhere. It's that simple.

you sound like the guy who told the 410k seller to take a hike. that story was true by the way. except the story is a story a bout a Carlton supporter. I thought collingwood supporters were more intelligent.

Piesnchess wrote:You never know, he might get his act together finally, and come out tonight and boot 9 goals against the Bummers. Then again, I might win Wimbledon next year.

I'll put my money on the Wimbledon win .

I have to believe that Ed and Walsh and Pert know what they're doing and will offer the 5th year, and this stubbornness on display from both sides is all part of the to and fro of negotiation.

I don't know much but I know these 2 things:

1. Keeping Cloke will not guarantee us a premiership next year

2. Losing Cloke however, will reduce our chances of a premiership to practically zero.

In these circumstances you gotta pay da man

i think he will stay.

E wrote:

RudeBoy wrote:

E wrote: yep, thats what pie mind suggested in the past thread. While the pies offer is actually perfectly reasonable, i think it will be pure idiocy to lose the best contested mark in the competition over that difference.

Cloke will be equally idiotic to jeorpordize his legacy over those terms too, but at the moment, he doesnt seem to have been advised well enough to appreciate it.

the problem is two other teams signed lplayers to 5 yr deals which kind of set the market.

If he's after market rates, he'd better go elsewhere. It's that simple.

you sound like the guy who told the 410k seller to take a hike. that story was true by the way. except the story is a story a bout a Carlton supporter. I thought Collingwood supporters were more intelligent.

Unlike most professional sports overseas, like soccer, the AFL imposes a salary cap on teams. This means that a shit team with few stars will always be able to offer more to a player like Travis than a great team with several stars already on large salaries. So the 'market' rate for Cloke will always be greater than we can afford. Basically, we can certainly match Cloke's 'market' rate, but that would mean probably losing players like Pendles, Daisy, Beams or Reid over the next 2-3 years. Dumb idea imo.

Collingwood is only being diligent by being careful with Cloke's fifth year of a new contract. He'll be thirty and if by then he is having minimal influence on the field it could handicap our TPP. It also sets a precedent for other player managers who might negotiate with our stars in the future. If you look at most stars at 29 or 30 they are usually on 1 year contracts with options to extend, especially key forwards. The club has to forward plan and look at the whole picture which would a very tricky balancing act.