Nick's Collingwood Bulletin Board

rocketronnie 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.

They 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.

Good post. I think a lot of people are not being realistic about the inflationary pressure that 2 new clubs, bigger salary caps and free agency will have on player salaries.

We might all think that 800K is more than enough for Travis Cloke but it is reportedly 400K short of what Freo are prepared to offer.

Travis Boak will sign for close to 700K to STAY at Port. 700K!!

Buddy Franklin will be a restricted free agent next year. If he instructed his manager to shop him around (which he won't - that's the difference between a quality manager and Cloke Senior) what offers do yo think he will receive? I'll say $1.5 million easily.

Furthermore, if Cloke leaves and we don't replace him with a free agent this year, and Buddy says he wants to come to Collingwood to play with Sharrod, as long as we offer a 5 year deal, would we all still be sticking to our "4 years at most" principles then?

You've got to be more flexible in a player driven market. The teams used to carry the whip. The landscape has changed with free agency. We need to adjust our thinking.

You can only be as flexible as your total player payments allow you to.

Deja Vu wrote:
Furthermore, if Cloke leaves and we don't replace him with a free agent this year, and Buddy says he wants to come to Collingwood to play with Sharrod, as long as we offer a 5 year deal, would we all still be sticking to our "4 years at most" principles then?

No.. I'd be talking him into 6 years

Money cannot buy happiness. just a thought for the day.

Tannin 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.

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.

Believe it or not Tannin - I completely agree with your viewpoint and have promoted this same opinion in the past.

Some here say - "Pay him what he wants to stay". What will these same individuals say if in the future if be breaks down and we loose a number of "must retain" players in the future due to to salary cap constraints.

I do not believe that any team that has given one individual a big chunk of pie has ever been successful as a result.

Agree with you both. Want him to stay for sure, but not at any price. It must be within what we can afford to pay him within our TPP.

Piesnchess wrote:Money cannot buy happiness. just a thought for the day.

It may not buy happiness, but gee it reduces a whole lot of unhappiness.

Trezegol wrote:You can only be as flexible as your total player payments allow you to.

I agree, but if what is being said is true, it's not a matter of TPP, it's just about the length of the deal. If we are offering 500K with the ability to make 800K should certain KPI's be met in the 5th year, then we actually have to allow 800K for his salary in that 5th year. Might as well just guarantee the 800K if that's the only sticking point.

Member 7167 wrote:

Tannin wrote:

Deja Vu wrote: 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.

Believe it or not Tannin - I completely agree with your viewpoint and have promoted this same opinion in the past.

Some here say - "Pay him what he wants to stay". What will these same individuals say if in the future if be breaks down and we loose a number of "must retain" players in the future due to to salary cap constraints.

I do not believe that any team that has given one individual a big chunk of pie has ever been successful as a result.

A risk taken with any player for any length of contract. Same could be said about Pendles who signed a 4 year deal.

Also, 800K is not really a big chunk of the cap, given that Swan and Pendles are believed to be close to that, and Daisy, Beams, Reid, Fasolo, Sidebottom and others may be close to that by 2016. Are we going to knock them all back on principle?

Deja Vu wrote:

uuuuu..... The LoneSTAR wrote:

WITTY 35 DAICOS MAGIC wrote:Travs new car

Does The Club have any link [unofficial] to HSV!?!?.... Perhaps that's a Visy style deposit?

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

Yep, Travis has a deal with Bayside Holden, Frankston, signed shortly after he linked up with Ralph Carr (his manager for off field deals).

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.

Oh dear. Failed Economics 101, did we?

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.)

^^^ Except of course, that the salary cap increases every year.

4% increase in 2013.

5.4% increase in 2014.

Deja Vu wrote:^^^ Except of course, that the salary cap increases every year.

Read my lips.

Tannin wrote:Inflation is determined by growth in the money supply.

Tannin wrote: 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.

Tannin wrote:The only thing that can increase player payments is a change in the salary cap rules.

It isn't that "the salary cap increases", the AFL decides to increase it, and decides how much (if any) to increase it by.

The salary cap and any increases to it have nothing, repeat nothing to do with free agency.

(PS: But, of course, ignorant and/or devious people with barrows to push will pretend that it does. A player association rep, for example, might claim that it does because his real aim is to negotiate an increase in his members wages. (I.e., a salary cap lift.) Unions do this stuff all the time. So do employers. It's normal. But it's only pretending to an untruth, which is a dishonest but very common negotiating tactic.)

One player does not make a premiership. Except for Wayne Carey, he got 2 for North. Is Cloke Wayne Carey? Nope.