This is an unofficial Bulletin Board - owned and run by its users. We welcome all fans of the Mighty Collingwood Football Club.
https://nick.magpies.net/
I'd definitely be willing to pay a third round pick.mooretreloar wrote:I argued this earlier today, no way we would pay a 2nd or 3rd round pick. I could imagine the outrage on these pages if we did.Member 7167 wrote:If the boot was on the other foot and we were attempting to procure the services of Travis, what we we be willing to pay?
Not that much.thompsoc wrote:Thanks Mightymagpie.
So it depends on his new contract with a new club.
Not what he got previously.
So his value needs to be pumped up by kicking a bag of goals.
So he is worth about a packet of chips at the moment.
Fair enough, on football only there is an argument for a 3rd rounder and I stated the other day that this is probably the starting point. I could argue it could be a 4th rounder on football only, but for now let's agree it's a 3rd rounder.AN_Inkling wrote:I'd definitely be willing to pay a third round pick.mooretreloar wrote:I argued this earlier today, no way we would pay a 2nd or 3rd round pick. I could imagine the outrage on these pages if we did.Member 7167 wrote:If the boot was on the other foot and we were attempting to procure the services of Travis, what we we be willing to pay?
I like this idea.magpieazza wrote:So why cant we keep Travis Cloke to his contract and if he walks , then he has to go into the pre season draft where Essendon could pick him up.
Surely we wouldnt have to pay out his salary if he walks out on the club.
All this talk of letting him go for pick 70 whatever ( which even worse than what i first thought we dont even get any points to put towards Daicos and Brown)and having him bend us over the barrell this year like the last contract negotiations which affected our year, (remember how it went on and on ).
Why are we so accommodating to him. You would think after getting $800K from us this year ( omg how overpaid is that!!) he would at least ask the doggies to give us something.
Where is the fair trading bloke in all this anyway?!!
BTW with all this talk of freeing up salary space, what about Tooveys salary space,and McCaffers and N.Brown and Frost and Witts and Blair and Swans and Williams??
If what we get is nothing then why dont we say "you can play with us one more year".
Do what Liverpool did to Louis Suarez and make him play out the year. They soon get the point and put in the effort as there is no use hanging around like a bad smell.
Ever since when has a player been bigger than a club? Why are we so accommodating ?
With all due respect, I haven't dismissed Matthew's opinion. That's a misrepresentation by you of what I posted. I posted this:mooretreloar wrote:Robert Walls - article in Herald Sun 16/9/16. Says Cloke's AFL days are over in his opinion. In his view, Cloke has struggled for 3 years.watt price tully wrote:Robert Walls - I thought he was in France 2 years ago.mooretreloar wrote: Robert Walls said he was done 2 years ago.
David King says the same.
Jason Dunstall said at the end of 2015 we should have traded him at the end of 2015.
Leigh Matthews said after the GF that he couldn't see a spot for Cloke at Footscray, unless he could play the forward/ruck role.
Nathan Buckley said in early 2016 that Cloke's form slump was oot a new thing, it had been apparent for 18 months.
David King - pls find the source
Dunstall trade views were right but that doesn't say he is done just what his value was at the time
Leigh's views that you've quoted doesn't mean he's done
That Bucks couldn't get the best out of him is another matter
So really you have possibly 2 names in that list, not plenty of experts
The freeing up of his salary however combined with a form slump & as Cloke Senior was quoted as saying recently playing for a coach that believes in you is another matter.
David King - multiple times on AFL 360, don't know episodes or exact times, as I didn't think at the time that watt price tully would want the exact details.
Dismiss Leigh's views if you want, but just quietly I would back him over you.
Your view that Buckley can't get the best out of him, no fact to this statement.
.
With all due respect, Cloke has never been a forward/ruck, so I would suggest Matthews was saying in a very diplomatic way that he was done. Thus, in my view you are dismissing his opinion.watt price tully wrote:With all due respect, I haven't dismissed Matthew's opinion. That's a misrepresentation by you of what I posted. I posted this:mooretreloar wrote:Robert Walls - article in Herald Sun 16/9/16. Says Cloke's AFL days are over in his opinion. In his view, Cloke has struggled for 3 years.watt price tully wrote: Robert Walls - I thought he was in France 2 years ago.
David King - pls find the source
Dunstall trade views were right but that doesn't say he is done just what his value was at the time
Leigh's views that you've quoted doesn't mean he's done
That Bucks couldn't get the best out of him is another matter
So really you have possibly 2 names in that list, not plenty of experts
The freeing up of his salary however combined with a form slump & as Cloke Senior was quoted as saying recently playing for a coach that believes in you is another matter.
David King - multiple times on AFL 360, don't know episodes or exact times, as I didn't think at the time that watt price tully would want the exact details.
Dismiss Leigh's views if you want, but just quietly I would back him over you.
Your view that Buckley can't get the best out of him, no fact to this statement.
.
"Leigh's views that you've quoted doesn't mean he's done" what you posted was:
Leigh Matthews said after the GF that he couldn't see a spot for Cloke at Footscray, unless he could play the forward/ruck role.
Again, that doesn't mean he's done: that's your deduction from what you quoted about Mathews comments regarding Cloke & about a role at Footscray.
Now, if your're going to post please try to do it without misrepresentation.
Given how premiership teams create roles -> the 'Matera Goalkicking Wingman Role', the 'Leigh Brown Sh#t Truck Role', the 'Gunstan Leadup Role' etc i guess Lethal is saying that Cloke would need to play the 'Boyd Mobile Forward/Ruck Role', which might be slightly difficult given that the Boyd in question is young and still there.watt price tully wrote: Leigh Matthews said after the GF that he couldn't see a spot for Cloke at Footscray, unless he could play the forward/ruck role.
Could be, but he said he didn't see a spot for him at the Dogs and then suggested if there was a spot it was a role that he has never played.Cam wrote:Given how premiership teams create roles -> the 'Matera Goalkicking Wingman Role', the 'Leigh Brown Sh#t Truck Role', the 'Gunstan Leadup Role' etc i guess Lethal is saying that Cloke would need to play the 'Boyd Mobile Forward/Ruck Role', which might be slightly difficult given that the Boyd in question is young and still there.watt price tully wrote: Leigh Matthews said after the GF that he couldn't see a spot for Cloke at Footscray, unless he could play the forward/ruck role.
Played forward - ruck in at least 2 games this year unless I'm mistaken, Saints and Dees. Either way, long bow to go from Matthews saying he can't see a role for him to assume it means he thinks Cloke is done.mooretreloar wrote: With all due respect, Cloke has never been a forward/ruck, so I would suggest Matthews was saying in a very diplomatic way that he was done. Thus, in my view you are dismissing his opinion.
Suggest that you take your own advice. If you don't like what I post, don't try and discredit or misrepresent me when what I have posted is correct. Also, don't try and say I only named 2 experts when I named 5 and have a basis for all.
Cheers:Cam wrote:Given how premiership teams create roles -> the 'Matera Goalkicking Wingman Role', the 'Leigh Brown Sh#t Truck Role', the 'Gunstan Leadup Role' etc i guess Lethal is saying that Cloke would need to play the 'Boyd Mobile Forward/Ruck Role', which might be slightly difficult given that the Boyd in question is young and still there.watt price tully wrote: Leigh Matthews said after the GF that he couldn't see a spot for Cloke at Footscray, unless he could play the forward/ruck role.
Disagree, but happy to take your opinion on board. My reading of it may be wrong, but to say he doesn't see a spot and then suggest a role he has not played, suggests otherwise. He pinched hit in the ruck those days, not specifically playing a forward/ruck role.jackcass wrote:Played forward - ruck in at least 2 games this year unless I'm mistaken, Saints and Dees. Either way, long bow to go from Matthews saying he can't see a role for him to assume it means he thinks Cloke is done.mooretreloar wrote: With all due respect, Cloke has never been a forward/ruck, so I would suggest Matthews was saying in a very diplomatic way that he was done. Thus, in my view you are dismissing his opinion.
Suggest that you take your own advice. If you don't like what I post, don't try and discredit or misrepresent me when what I have posted is correct. Also, don't try and say I only named 2 experts when I named 5 and have a basis for all.
Don't care if you agree with my view of his comments or not.watt price tully wrote:Cheers:Cam wrote:Given how premiership teams create roles -> the 'Matera Goalkicking Wingman Role', the 'Leigh Brown Sh#t Truck Role', the 'Gunstan Leadup Role' etc i guess Lethal is saying that Cloke would need to play the 'Boyd Mobile Forward/Ruck Role', which might be slightly difficult given that the Boyd in question is young and still there.watt price tully wrote: Leigh Matthews said after the GF that he couldn't see a spot for Cloke at Footscray, unless he could play the forward/ruck role.
I understand what Mathews was saying: that was quite clear. He did not say however he was done.
Moore Treloar (MT) believes this was Mathews diplomatic way of saying Cloke is done and that for MT constitutes fact. I'm saying Mathews did not say he is done. That MT believes this is is the case is Moore's opinion & not a fact.