Nick's Collingwood Bulletin Board

So pretty much if he says he wants out & wants to go to the scum, then we can take the risk of matching the offer & have him refuse it, then he heads for the draft & ends up at GWS.

rocketronnie wrote: Of course Goldsack hasn't signed but the idea that clubs use blackmail like that to get its way is both ridiculous and very poor list management.

Yeah you should probably read stuff before commenting on it


I went out of my way to say Collingwood would not have said that to Trav

But if you think it isn't impled by the dwindling numbers and players left to sign then your head is in a bucket of sand or shit or something

ClokingDevice wrote:

rocketronnie wrote: Of course Goldsack hasn't signed but the idea that clubs use blackmail like that to get its way is both ridiculous and very poor list management.

Yeah you should probably read stuff before commenting on it


I went out of my way to say Collingwood would not have said that to Trav

But if you think it isn't impled by the dwindling numbers and players left to sign then your head is in a bucket of sand or shit or something

JUST outa left field, would you guys be willing to swap the Sack for either Hille or Warnock, to replenish our ruck stocks, in the short term.

Ev5Magpies wrote:So pretty much if he says he wants out & wants to go to the scum, then we can take the risk of matching the offer & have him refuse it, then he heads for the draft & ends up at GWS.

No that's not right. If he refuses our matched offer we can trade him or he enters the draft.

Taken from the AFL website link posted earlier...

3. A player has served eight or more seasons of AFL football at one club, is one of the 10 highest-paid players at his club, and is now out of contract for the first time since reaching eight seasons of service.

The player is eligible to field offers from all rival AFL clubs.

If he wishes to change clubs, the player must decide on the best offer of his choice from one rival club.

His club has the right to match the presented offer.

If the club matches the offer, he may choose to remain with his original club, seek a trade or enter the Draft.

If the club does not or can not match the offer, the player can move to the new club of his choice.

His original club will receive a compensation pick for the loss of the player, on an AFL-determined formula to apply where clubs lose more free agents than they gain in any single transfer period.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/ ... fault.aspx

Piesnchess wrote:

ClokingDevice wrote:

rocketronnie wrote: Of course Goldsack hasn't signed but the idea that clubs use blackmail like that to get its way is both ridiculous and very poor list management.

Yeah you should probably read stuff before commenting on it


I went out of my way to say Collingwood would not have said that to Trav

But if you think it isn't impled by the dwindling numbers and players left to sign then your head is in a bucket of sand or shit or something

JUST outa left field, would you guys be willing to swap the Sack for either Hille or Warnock, to replenish our ruck stocks, in the short term.

Hille is a free agent so you could acquire him without having to trade. Warnock is under contract so you would need to trade. I think Warnock is a good option. If he can stay healthy that is.

Travs new car



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

What is missing from all the comments in this thread is the issue of Collingwood's total player payments. Of course Collingwood could agree to Demir's demands and we could secure Cloke for the next 5 years. However, doing this would clearly derail the management of our list for years to come. Pendles, Daisy, Beams, Reid, Sidey and others would be stupid not to make similar demands. So far all the discussion on this thread has been focussed solely on what we should or shouldn't do to keep Cloke. I want to keep Cloke too, as he's the best contested mark in the game. However, I don't want to pay him too much, such that it destroys the fabric of our team, and jeopardises our ability to retain our other stars, or our ability to recruit good players to our club.

RudeBoy wrote:What is missing from all the comments in this thread is the issue of Collingwood's total player payments. Of course Collingwood could agree to Demir's demands and we could secure Cloke for the next 5 years. However, doing this would clearly derail the management of our list for years to come. Pendles, Daisy, Beams, Reid, Sidey and others would be stupid not to make similar demands. So far all the discussion on this thread has been focussed solely on what we should or shouldn't do to keep Cloke. I want to keep Cloke too, as he's the best contested mark in the game. However, I don't want to pay him too much, such that it destroys the fabric of our team, and jeopardises our ability to retain our other stars, or our ability to recruit good players to our club.

Fair enough Rudeboy but I think what you're forgetting is the Clokes sound happy to sign for 4 years given their price demands are met. They are saying 4 years at 900 or 5 years at 8. Collingwood are trying for the best of both worlds and won't succeed.

This is not a discussion about what Trav is worth, but more about Collingwood being inflexible in what they are offering. If they want a 4 year deal then they need to offer a 4 year price.

Deja Vu wrote:

RudeBoy wrote:What is missing from all the comments in this thread is the issue of Collingwood's total player payments. Of course Collingwood could agree to Demir's demands and we could secure Cloke for the next 5 years. However, doing this would clearly derail the management of our list for years to come. Pendles, Daisy, Beams, Reid, Sidey and others would be stupid not to make similar demands. So far all the discussion on this thread has been focussed solely on what we should or shouldn't do to keep Cloke. I want to keep Cloke too, as he's the best contested mark in the game. However, I don't want to pay him too much, such that it destroys the fabric of our team, and jeopardises our ability to retain our other stars, or our ability to recruit good players to our club.

Fair enough Rudeboy but I think what you're forgetting is the Clokes sound happy to sign for 4 years given their price demands are met. They are saying 4 years at 900 or 5 years at 8. Collingwood are trying for the best of both worlds and won't succeed.

This is not a discussion about what Trav is worth, but more about Collingwood being inflexible in what they are offering. If they want a 4 year deal then they need to offer a 4 year price.

The 4 year price is $800,000. This will make him clearly the highest paid player at Collingwood - by far! To argue that being "flexible" requires the club to agree to Demir's demands for $900,000 pa is non-sensical. If you genuinely think that Collingwood's $800,000 x 4 yr offer is unreasonable, then you have every right to criticise our club. I happen to think such an offer is more than reasonable, and believe that Demir should be more realistic in his demands of our club. If he stands firm on his demands then he will have to take his son elsewhere. Sadly, I think Demir has backed himself into a corner with his exorbitant demands and public comments and now his ego can't allow him to be "flexible". For that reason I have always felt that poor Travis is gonski.

Deja Vu wrote:

RudeBoy wrote:What is missing from all the comments in this thread is the issue of Collingwood's total player payments. Of course Collingwood could agree to Demir's demands and we could secure Cloke for the next 5 years. However, doing this would clearly derail the management of our list for years to come. Pendles, Daisy, Beams, Reid, Sidey and others would be stupid not to make similar demands. So far all the discussion on this thread has been focussed solely on what we should or shouldn't do to keep Cloke. I want to keep Cloke too, as he's the best contested mark in the game. However, I don't want to pay him too much, such that it destroys the fabric of our team, and jeopardises our ability to retain our other stars, or our ability to recruit good players to our club.

Fair enough Rudeboy but I think what you're forgetting is the Clokes sound happy to sign for 4 years given their price demands are met. They are saying 4 years at 900 or 5 years at 8. Collingwood are trying for the best of both worlds and won't succeed.

This is not a discussion about what Trav is worth, but more about Collingwood being inflexible in what they are offering. If they want a 4 year deal then they need to offer a 4 year price.

Nonsense! Given the compelling need to retain players like Swan (Brownlow medalist), Pendlebury (best midfielder in the game), Beams (Coleman medalist and future Brownlow medalist), Thomas (absolute gun and noted finals out-performer), Sidebottom (see Thomas), Reid (All-Australian centre-half back), Fasolo (rising young gun), Heater (All-Australian running backman), and Harry (see Heater), over-paying for one ruthless, greedy, deluded parent just isn't an option. Notice that I haven't even mentioned the need to pay some pretty big dollars for a couple of replacement ruckmen (badly needed) or an extra key forward (one who can actually catch the ball better than Dawes and actually kick it better than Cloke).

Add all that up, and paying overs for Damir just isn't an option. If Cloke won't sign when we have already offered the very top price we can possibly offer, then he can farrk off. Simple as that. No individual is more important than the team.

You're right, no individual is more important than the team, but some are more important than others.

I don't like how this is playing out and I don't agree with some of the tactics being employed to date but the market dictates the price. If the market says big tall strong marking forwards are rare, then the price for such a player will be high. It doesn't make that player better than any other player, just rarer in the open market.

Does anyone think Warnock had shown anything at Freo to warrant a 3 year deal at the blues for between 300 and 400K?

But quality ruckmen are rare and they can ask for more. Contested marking forwards are rare and they can ask for more.

I approach this scenario from the other perspective. If we were minus a CHF right now with our current team, and felt that we needed a contested marking forward to really make us a genuine premiership contender, would we be willing to pay Travis Cloke $4 million over 5 years to get him to our club?

I believe Trav signed a deal with a Holden dealer earlier this year off his own bat. Nothing to do with the club.

RudeBoy wrote:

Deja Vu wrote:

RudeBoy wrote:What is missing from all the comments in this thread is the issue of Collingwood's total player payments. Of course Collingwood could agree to Demir's demands and we could secure Cloke for the next 5 years. However, doing this would clearly derail the management of our list for years to come. Pendles, Daisy, Beams, Reid, Sidey and others would be stupid not to make similar demands. So far all the discussion on this thread has been focussed solely on what we should or shouldn't do to keep Cloke. I want to keep Cloke too, as he's the best contested mark in the game. However, I don't want to pay him too much, such that it destroys the fabric of our team, and jeopardises our ability to retain our other stars, or our ability to recruit good players to our club.

Fair enough Rudeboy but I think what you're forgetting is the Clokes sound happy to sign for 4 years given their price demands are met. They are saying 4 years at 900 or 5 years at 8. Collingwood are trying for the best of both worlds and won't succeed.

This is not a discussion about what Trav is worth, but more about Collingwood being inflexible in what they are offering. If they want a 4 year deal then they need to offer a 4 year price.

The 4 year price is $800,000. This will make him clearly the highest paid player at Collingwood - by far! To argue that being "flexible" requires the club to agree to Demir's demands for $900,000 pa is non-sensical. If you genuinely think that Collingwood's $800,000 x 4 yr offer is unreasonable, then you have every right to criticise our club. I happen to think such an offer is more than reasonable, and believe that Demir should be more realistic in his demands of our club. If he stands firm on his demands then he will have to take his son elsewhere. Sadly, I think Demir has backed himself into a corner with his exorbitant demands and public comments and now his ego can't allow him to be "flexible". For that reason I have always felt that poor Travis is gonski.

Collingwood's offer of 4 years at $800k is not unreasonable, but neither is Cloke's demand of 5 years at $750-800k. On the estimates being bandied around he would be sacrificing between $1-1.2 million over 5 years to stay. That's a fair hair cut, particularly when he is most likely on unders on his current contract. Neither side is being particularly unreasonable here and I still think they will come to a compromise. I certainly hope so because power forwards don't grow on trees.

Deja Vu wrote:You're right, no individual is more important than the team, but some are more important than others.

I don't like how this is playing out and I don't agree with some of the tactics being employed to date but the market dictates the price. If the market says big tall strong marking forwards are rare, then the price for such a player will be high. It doesn't make that player better than any other player, just rarer in the open market.

Does anyone think Warnock had shown anything at Freo to warrant a 3 year deal at the blues for between 300 and 400K?

But quality ruckmen are rare and they can ask for more. Contested marking forwards are rare and they can ask for more.

I approach this scenario from the other perspective. If we were minus a CHF right now with our current team, and felt that we needed a contested marking forward to really make us a genuine premiership contender, would we be willing to pay Travis Cloke $4 million over 5 years to get him to our club?

The answer to your question is NO. Only shit teams with few other stars can afford to pay top dollars for individual players. Carlton paid top dollar to get Judd and they have been spectacularly unsuccessful ever since. Gold Coast paid top dollar for Ablett and they can hardly win a game. Likewise Scully at GWS, or Mitch Clarke at the Dees. The common factor is one player being paid a shit load more than any of their teammates and the clubs being shit clubs outside the eight. What Demir does not recognise (or doesn't care) is that Collingwood - or any top team for that matter - cannot pay the top 'market' rate for Travis. Only shit clubs can do this - at their peril! He simply has to accept considerably less to stay at Collingwood. IMO, we have been incredibly flexible and generous in offering him $800,000 pa x 4 yrs. you obviously disagree. We just have to agree to disagree.

RudeBoy wrote:What is missing from all the comments in this thread is the issue of Collingwood's total player payments. Of course Collingwood could agree to Demir's demands and we could secure Cloke for the next 5 years. However, doing this would clearly derail the management of our list for years to come. Pendles, Daisy, Beams, Reid, Sidey and others would be stupid not to make similar demands. So far all the discussion on this thread has been focussed solely on what we should or shouldn't do to keep Cloke. I want to keep Cloke too, as he's the best contested mark in the game. However, I don't want to pay him too much, such that it destroys the fabric of our team, and jeopardises our ability to retain our other stars, or our ability to recruit good players to our club.

Those players will be probably demand increases sooner or later anyway. Its the nature of free agency. 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. Collingwood are trying to enforce capped increases in a system that now works against that. That is not viable in the long or medium term. We need to be flexible in these situations. We lost Leon to ther detriment of the team through being inflexible and we should not do that again. In other words - do the deal!