List Mgmt. Weak Flog Jake Lever Requests Trade to Melbourne, Causes Player Revolt

[Big Gazoongas]

Bingo

Im sure the club is prepared to pay him well. I believe you also mentioned in a previous post that we are being run well and are playing finals and currently on top of the tree.

So, paid well, finals top of the ladder. FMD if a player doesn't see that as a reason to stay it says more about them than our club.

 

[Mike Smyth]

My 5 point plan to retaining players or mitigating the loss;

1) don't recruit any kid from Geelong or vic metro
2) meat and potato kids. "Your dads a football administrator" - pass
3) get rid of "were the pride of Sth Australia" from our song.
4) don't let kids spend too long in the sanfl
5) if they do go stop accepting unders in your return. We should have "hand" in all of these negotiations.

Problem solved.

 

[Crowked]

My 5 point plan to retaining players or mitigating the loss;

1) don't recruit any kid from Geelong or vic metro
2) meat and potato kids. "Your dads a football administrator" - pass
3) get rid of "were the pride of Sth Australia" from our song.
4) don't let kids spend too long in the sanfl
5) if they do go stop accepting unders in your return. We should have "hand" in all of these negotiations.

Problem solved.

Removing that wont change that we are based in Adelaide. Wont change anything.

Otherwise agree on your points.

Definitely agree on not drafting Vic Metro kids. Particularly our early picks.

 

[radiojake]

3) get rid of "were the pride of Sth Australia" from our song.

agree 100%

Removing that wont change that we are based in Adelaide. Wont change anything.

While you're right it probably won't change anything directly - but I think it's an important change to do either way

Just like the original West Coast Eagles first verse - Super insular - Need a wider focus

The biggest problem is though it's literally the opening line and possibly the most widely known lyrics of the whole song

 

[Runnin Blue]

He's 19
He's an outside mid, so he's slight
His disposal efficiency is fantastic

His only problems are
- not fit enough to make enough ground yet
- doesn't get enough possessions

Once he's fitter, he'll get the ball more. I don't think there's any problem here ATM.

- not hard enough at the ball
- squibs too many contests
- ignores the better option and holds onto the ball too long in many cases

He needs to fix these. But I agree, he has age on his side.

 

[LC40]

My 5 point plan to retaining players or mitigating the loss;

1) don't recruit any kid from Geelong or vic metro
2) meat and potato kids. "Your dads a football administrator" - pass
3) get rid of "were the pride of Sth Australia" from our song.
4) don't let kids spend too long in the sanfl
5) if they do go stop accepting unders in your return. We should have "hand" in all of these negotiations.

Problem solved.

Love your idea of getting rid of the Pride of South Australian. Such a parochial and small minded concept that had it's time. We need to move on and think bigger and more inclusive.

 

[Samcro24]

I remember Dangerfield saying in an interview that the pride of south Australia line in the song was the deal breaker for him.

Just remove that= problem solved. I bet we'd land more interstate recruits that way too.

Someone email fages!

 

[dogs105]

I remember Dangerfield saying in an interview that the pride of south Australia line in the song was the deal breaker for him.

Just remove that= problem solved. I bet we'd land more interstate recruits that way too.

Someone email fages!

Gunston said that he would have stayed for unders, if not for that song.

 

[Samcro24]

Gunston said that he would have stayed for unders, if not for that song.

Some players don't like the strip because the hoops make them look shorter and fatter.

 

[dogs105]

Some players don't like the strip because the hoops make them look shorter and fatter.

Fages...

 

[Samcro24]

Fages...

Stat!

 

[dogs105]

Are we still making them eat muesli bars from Foodland rather than Woolies?

 

[Scorpus]

So we've confirmed you wouldn't pay him $850 per year. You carried on about players receiving big money or godfather offers and have subsequent left as a fail from the club.

You've also mentioned above that we dont have to match we just need to get close, that may be what you personally think but more likely that isnt reality.

Here is my question, if Lever came to you and said he wants $850k to stay, he won't accept anything less, its $850 or goodbye, and you weren't prepared to pay that amount of coin how would you keep him here?

Well this is an interesting question and I'm not going to answer it directly. Obviously you've proposed it in such a way that the answer is "you can't keep him", although I don't think this really reflects how it would be done.

I'd look at the market, and see what is available. If any gun player is willing to come to Adelaide for $850k, seeya Jake! If we're going to get a great draft pick, seeya Jake! And **** off too, while you're at it.

But if there's no one available, all our trade targets fall through, and/or Jake's destination club isn't offering us enough at the draft table, I'd retain him on the salary he wants. Because if there's no better option, then the best option becomes retaining him.

You look at the Tippett, Gunston, Dangerfield deals and so forth. What did we do? Well Tippett gave us draft sanctions, Gunston gave us literally jack shit, and Dangerfield we got some pretty mediocre picks. We didn't do well out of those players leaving. Imagine if we got some seriously good players in return; I doubt we'd be complaining as much.

Would I rather trade Lever for some junk late first round pick, or retain him for $200k p/a more than he's worth? I'll take the latter every single day of the week thanks.

 

[LC40]

I remember Dangerfield saying in an interview that the pride of south Australia line in the song was the deal breaker for him.

Just remove that= problem solved. I bet we'd land more interstate recruits that way too.

Someone email fages!

On the agenda.

 

[feenix67]

Well this is an interesting question and I'm not going to answer it directly. Obviously you've proposed it in such a way that the answer is "you can't keep him", although I don't think this really reflects how it would be done.

I'd look at the market, and see what is available. If any gun player is willing to come to Adelaide for $850k, seeya Jake! If we're going to get a great draft pick, seeya Jake! And **** off too, while you're at it.

But if there's no one available, all our trade targets fall through, and/or Jake's destination club isn't offering us enough at the draft table, I'd retain him on the salary he wants. Because if there's no better option, then the best option becomes retaining him.

You look at the Tippett, Gunston, Dangerfield deals and so forth. What did we do? Well Tippett gave us draft sanctions, Gunston gave us literally jack shit, and Dangerfield we got some pretty mediocre picks. We didn't do well out of those players leaving. Imagine if we got some seriously good players in return; I doubt we'd be complaining as much.

Would I rather trade Lever for some junk late first round pick, or retain him for $200k p/a more than he's worth? I'll take the latter every single day of the week thanks.

Come on mate, you don't know any of those variables half way through a season. That's fanciful thinking.

 

[Scorpus]

Come on mate, you don't know any of those variables half way through a season. That's fanciful thinking.

You can re-sign him during the trade period or even afterwards if it looks like things aren't going our way.

We're talking about a player that will supposedly stay if we meet his salary demands. So during negotiations to trade him, it looks like we're not getting a good deal, we go to Lever and say we'd rather retain you, here's the cash. Alternatively, the opposition club gives us a good deal.

 

[pirate bob]

Some players don't like the strip because the hoops make them look shorter and fatter.

Vertical strips..?

 

[Paladin]

Well this is an interesting question and I'm not going to answer it directly. Obviously you've proposed it in such a way that the answer is "you can't keep him", although I don't think this really reflects how it would be done.

I'd look at the market, and see what is available. If any gun player is willing to come to Adelaide for $850k, seeya Jake! If we're going to get a great draft pick, seeya Jake! And **** off too, while you're at it.

But if there's no one available, all our trade targets fall through, and/or Jake's destination club isn't offering us enough at the draft table, I'd retain him on the salary he wants. Because if there's no better option, then the best option becomes retaining him.

You look at the Tippett, Gunston, Dangerfield deals and so forth. What did we do? Well Tippett gave us draft sanctions, Gunston gave us literally jack shit, and Dangerfield we got some pretty mediocre picks. We didn't do well out of those players leaving. Imagine if we got some seriously good players in return; I doubt we'd be complaining as much.

Would I rather trade Lever for some junk late first round pick, or retain him for $200k p/a more than he's worth? I'll take the latter every single day of the week thanks.

The problem with paying Lever 200k overs is wont every player want 200k overs?
Which makes it a very big problem when Crouch and Laird and Sloane all come cap in hand for 200k overs.
Even if you scrimp on depth and run a smaller list paying Lever more than Tex and Sloane becomes a hurdle for signing all players wont it?

 

[The Smith Revolution]

agree 100%




While you're right it probably won't change anything directly - but I think it's an important change to do either way

Just like the original West Coast Eagles first verse - Super insular - Need a wider focus

The biggest problem is though it's literally the opening line and possibly the most widely known lyrics of the whole song

I take the opposite side of this. It is who we are. What % of the supporter base are not from SA?

Agreeing to change is where the franchise mentality starts. Victoria West maybe? The first line is a fact no other team can use, all the other words in most AFL team songs are just piffle in the main, interchangeable with a few trumpet blows!.

 

[WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot]

Well this is an interesting question and I'm not going to answer it directly. Obviously you've proposed it in such a way that the answer is "you can't keep him", although I don't think this really reflects how it would be done.

I'd look at the market, and see what is available. If any gun player is willing to come to Adelaide for $850k, seeya Jake! If we're going to get a great draft pick, seeya Jake! And **** off too, while you're at it.

But if there's no one available, all our trade targets fall through, and/or Jake's destination club isn't offering us enough at the draft table, I'd retain him on the salary he wants. Because if there's no better option, then the best option becomes retaining him.

You look at the Tippett, Gunston, Dangerfield deals and so forth. What did we do? Well Tippett gave us draft sanctions, Gunston gave us literally jack shit, and Dangerfield we got some pretty mediocre picks. We didn't do well out of those players leaving. Imagine if we got some seriously good players in return; I doubt we'd be complaining as much.

Would I rather trade Lever for some junk late first round pick, or retain him for $200k p/a more than he's worth? I'll take the latter every single day of the week thanks.

Seems like your issue is with how we handle the trade table then.

 

[Jarman3]

Gunston said that he would have stayed for unders, if not for that song.

Buddy also would have chosen the Crows instead of Swans. The whole reason he left Hawthorn in the first place was because he saw some footage of Clarko in the coach's box during a match and realised that they were not, in fact, a happy team at Hawthorn.

 

[Scorpus]

The problem with paying Lever 200k overs is wont every player want 200k overs?
Which makes it a very big problem when Crouch and Laird and Sloane all come cap in hand for 200k overs.
Even if you scrimp on depth and run a smaller list paying Lever more than Tex and Sloane becomes a hurdle for signing all players wont it?

Depends if they have interest from other clubs at the salary they're supposedly demanding

 

[hodra]

Just had a very interesting chat to someone high up at the club.....really just confirmed what most here seem to suspect. Lever almost certainly gone and McGovern almost certain to re-sign.

 

[hey shorty]

Depends if they have interest from other clubs at the salary they're supposedly demanding

Don't think Sloane will be in that position, no one is going to offer him 200K overs

 

[crowsup]

I am kind of getting sick of this thread. Not for reasons of discussing Jake leaving but because some are using this issue to again pot the club with out any facts or knowledge. If Jake and Gov leave, it clearly says more about them than it does the AFC. Yet some are acting like the worlds coming to an end and that its more players walking out of the AFC etc. I must have been asleep over the past few years because the only person to leave since Tippett that I am aware of is Dangerfield and he was speculated to leave at the beginning of 2014. Thats 5 whole seasons and one player. This talk about the club being easy pickings is actually statistically a load of crap. Using players that left before 2012 during the establishment of Gold Coast and GWS and others that have left doesn't count in this argument. If we had players leave last year and a couple in 2014 and 2013 I would understand this anti AFC sentiment. I just don't see how them leaving reflects on the AFC. As proven over and over again in the AFC list analysis we have the players to cover Lever. McGovern, not so much but I hear through the rumour mill that he is likely to stay. With Lever leaving we get to give opportunities to Doedee, hopefully get good draft pick compensation and use levers money on the midfield which is where we need a boost in depth.

Plus we are top! If all these players leaving were a issue, we wouldn't be.

Well said. One more thing I would like to point out. We, as a club would have an issue only if these players leaving was to leave the club and accept less money by the clubs they finish up to play for. If the problem was with the culture or the environment, why have not other players left for less money or a worse deal?
Can anyone here tell me of one player that has left the club for less money than we offered them?