Nick's Collingwood Bulletin Board

Pa Marmo wrote:

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."

Heresay brother, un-named sources = Internet forums.

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.

Ah, yes, HS covering all its bases without any verification. Typical weak as piss

i reckon stefan martin can play. melbourne have jamar and mitch clarke so maybe this is doable. yes, the article is the usual circular dribble..

Trav may well stay IMHO, I think another stint under the old man at Blooooze land may not tickle his fancy at all. !

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

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

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.

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.

I would have hoped the coach instructed his team to do that a long time ago, not last week.

Tannin wrote:

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.)

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.

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?

Two ripping games in a row from the big fella. If he goes we're f#*ked!

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

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 was any other club I'd say bye Trav, but Carlton, cmon, we have to match it, just to ruin their mood.

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.

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.

Please stay Trav.

mattys123 wrote:

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 was any other club I'd say bye Trav, but Carlton, cmon, we have to match it, just to ruin their mood.

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.

You have to consider they may be bluffing to force us to pay overs.

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.

6 goals, big final, give him 5 years, if we lose him our forward line would be an even bigger mess, the mids would be even more confused. Without Cloke our mids wouldn't even have a long bomb bailout option.

Given him 5, end it.