Looking back at some of the articles on Trav when signing his 5 year deal there are some interesting comments
From the Age 28/12/12:
It is estimated the deal is worth between $3.7 million and $4m. Carr said yesterday the 25-year-old had forgone an additional $1m on offer elsewhere to pen a contract that effectively means Cloke will be a Magpie for life.
The fifth year, though, is no given, with clauses regarding form and fitness inserted to protect Collingwood, which has been averse to penning deals of that length.
Coach Nathan Buckley reiterated this stance in June when saying he believed long-term deals were fraught with danger. But, in the end, Cloke is too valuable to Collingwood's structure given his standing as an elite forward.
"The final year is not unencumbered. There are conditions that will remain a matter for Collingwood and Travis, but clearly both parties are comfortable with them," Collingwood football manager Geoff Walsh said.
From the ABC 27/9/12:
Cloke was rumoured to be considering an offer from Carlton after former Collingwood coach Mick Malthouse was appointed Blues coach earlier this month.
Collingwood confirmed the new deal included a conditional fifth year, reportedly the sticking point throughout contract discussions between the club and Cloke's management.
Magpies director of football Geoff Walsh says Cloke is worth the long-term investment.
"There's a number of players in our club who will be playing with us in five years time, and not all players get five-year deals," he said.
"I understand that, but we're happy to back Trav in that he'll still be performing at the levels that put him in the upper echelon of the competition in five years time."
From the Hun 7/7/13:
Cloke was heavily targeted by Fremantle and Carlton but re-signed with the Magpies on a rich five-year deal after the club’s preliminary final loss.
“At the time I didn't think it did (affect me); looking back at it now, it definitely affected my form,'' Cloke told Channel Nine’s Sunday Footy Show.
“I was talking maybe four to five hundred thousand different a year."
----------------------------------
Five year deals are always very risky. We were under a lot of pressure to get that deal done externally & internally. It is probably the biggest contract Collingwood has ever done. We had to do the 5 years (against Bucks wishes) in order to keep him. However we didn't completely sell out as to his credit Trav stayed for less than he could have got at the Scum & Freo - $1mil deals. It is hard to conceive of Trav as a million dollar player now.
Geoff Walsh was the architect of the deal and although in retrospect it seemed a poorly managed exercise and ill advised they managed to insert the 5th year clause that was performance based. This may have become important this year when Trav realised there was risks he would not meet his performance conditions in the 5th year. "The final year is not unencumbered. There are conditions that will remain a matter for Collingwood and Travis, but clearly both parties are comfortable with them"
If you are looking at flat dollars per year Trav was on around $800k a year. However, some of this I expect was loaded to the back end of the contract as at the time of signing we had salary cap pressures and were desperately trying to fit guys in to stay. It would have made sense to lock Travs wages away to a later time so we could keep the list together and have another shot at the flag (having just lost the prelim).
It is conceivable that if Trav met conditions he would have been drawing $1mil or more from the salary cap for 2017 - put in context that is around 10% of TPP (one Travis = 4 players). For example he may have had $500k normal pay & $500k conditions/performance based.
Given his performances were down it is likely he would not have met conditions and any payment to him would be far less, but nonetheless it would mean a significant amount of cap is reserved just in case he does. If we spent this money elsewhere and suddenly he performs we would either have to drop him despite dominating or risk breaching the salary cap. I do wonder if this fed into both camps thinking throughout the season. I don't think Trav would have dealt well with this performance pressure impending.
We would have had to allow for his 2017 pay day as we would not know if he qualifies for conditions or not until the end of 2017. This would essentially cripple future planning - when it is now known Travis was not going to be the savior we all hoped for. Such an allocation of resources really would have been stupid and the deal to see him go without us paying was the best result possible.
I dare say a large part of this cap allocation goes towards those FA's. It means those guys get paid and out of the way early which means a large amount of room is created again at end of 2017. It will mean we fit 3-4 best 22 players in thanks to Trav's departure.
The lesson of 5 year deals is they are too long. So much changes in 5 years, even with conditions it is just too hard to forecast future performance or club needs. It also illustrates why players are taking the best offers out there and throwing club loyalty away. Trav should have at the end of the day taken an extra $2mil unconditional contract.
From the Age 28/12/12:
It is estimated the deal is worth between $3.7 million and $4m. Carr said yesterday the 25-year-old had forgone an additional $1m on offer elsewhere to pen a contract that effectively means Cloke will be a Magpie for life.
The fifth year, though, is no given, with clauses regarding form and fitness inserted to protect Collingwood, which has been averse to penning deals of that length.
Coach Nathan Buckley reiterated this stance in June when saying he believed long-term deals were fraught with danger. But, in the end, Cloke is too valuable to Collingwood's structure given his standing as an elite forward.
"The final year is not unencumbered. There are conditions that will remain a matter for Collingwood and Travis, but clearly both parties are comfortable with them," Collingwood football manager Geoff Walsh said.
From the ABC 27/9/12:
Cloke was rumoured to be considering an offer from Carlton after former Collingwood coach Mick Malthouse was appointed Blues coach earlier this month.
Collingwood confirmed the new deal included a conditional fifth year, reportedly the sticking point throughout contract discussions between the club and Cloke's management.
Magpies director of football Geoff Walsh says Cloke is worth the long-term investment.
"There's a number of players in our club who will be playing with us in five years time, and not all players get five-year deals," he said.
"I understand that, but we're happy to back Trav in that he'll still be performing at the levels that put him in the upper echelon of the competition in five years time."
From the Hun 7/7/13:
Cloke was heavily targeted by Fremantle and Carlton but re-signed with the Magpies on a rich five-year deal after the club’s preliminary final loss.
“At the time I didn't think it did (affect me); looking back at it now, it definitely affected my form,'' Cloke told Channel Nine’s Sunday Footy Show.
“I was talking maybe four to five hundred thousand different a year."
----------------------------------
Five year deals are always very risky. We were under a lot of pressure to get that deal done externally & internally. It is probably the biggest contract Collingwood has ever done. We had to do the 5 years (against Bucks wishes) in order to keep him. However we didn't completely sell out as to his credit Trav stayed for less than he could have got at the Scum & Freo - $1mil deals. It is hard to conceive of Trav as a million dollar player now.
Geoff Walsh was the architect of the deal and although in retrospect it seemed a poorly managed exercise and ill advised they managed to insert the 5th year clause that was performance based. This may have become important this year when Trav realised there was risks he would not meet his performance conditions in the 5th year. "The final year is not unencumbered. There are conditions that will remain a matter for Collingwood and Travis, but clearly both parties are comfortable with them"
If you are looking at flat dollars per year Trav was on around $800k a year. However, some of this I expect was loaded to the back end of the contract as at the time of signing we had salary cap pressures and were desperately trying to fit guys in to stay. It would have made sense to lock Travs wages away to a later time so we could keep the list together and have another shot at the flag (having just lost the prelim).
It is conceivable that if Trav met conditions he would have been drawing $1mil or more from the salary cap for 2017 - put in context that is around 10% of TPP (one Travis = 4 players). For example he may have had $500k normal pay & $500k conditions/performance based.
Given his performances were down it is likely he would not have met conditions and any payment to him would be far less, but nonetheless it would mean a significant amount of cap is reserved just in case he does. If we spent this money elsewhere and suddenly he performs we would either have to drop him despite dominating or risk breaching the salary cap. I do wonder if this fed into both camps thinking throughout the season. I don't think Trav would have dealt well with this performance pressure impending.
We would have had to allow for his 2017 pay day as we would not know if he qualifies for conditions or not until the end of 2017. This would essentially cripple future planning - when it is now known Travis was not going to be the savior we all hoped for. Such an allocation of resources really would have been stupid and the deal to see him go without us paying was the best result possible.
I dare say a large part of this cap allocation goes towards those FA's. It means those guys get paid and out of the way early which means a large amount of room is created again at end of 2017. It will mean we fit 3-4 best 22 players in thanks to Trav's departure.
The lesson of 5 year deals is they are too long. So much changes in 5 years, even with conditions it is just too hard to forecast future performance or club needs. It also illustrates why players are taking the best offers out there and throwing club loyalty away. Trav should have at the end of the day taken an extra $2mil unconditional contract.
oh well.
Having said that the what could have been's is a little overrated.
