Jack Watts

[LFC2010]

Is he lost? Is the ramsgate to the left?

Not lost, he used google.

 

[snozulu]

Looking forward to Watts letting his footy do the talking and MFC regretting the way they treated him.

 

[Peck]

What I don’t understand is why we wanted Melbourne to pay his salary?

How big must his contract have been??

I wonder if they could even fit him and lever under the salary cap?

 

[Schulzenfest]

All of this stuff is great from a Port perspective. Whatever misgivings Jack may have had about leaving the Dees must be chipped away more and more every time they come out with something like this. He’ll be ditching his Melbourne gear at the dump and going full Pear any day now.

 

[Andre]

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2017-10-24/demons-chipped-in-to-get-watts-deal-done

THE TRADE that sent Jack Watts to Port Adelaide wouldn't have been struck if Melbourne hadn't agreed to pay a portion of the forward's wage, says Melbourne CEO Peter Jackson.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2017-10-24/demons-chipped-in-to-get-watts-deal-done

‘When we drafted Jack Watts and didn’t win the flag without changing our culture or everyone trying it was his fault’.
‘If Jack does well at Port it’s Jack’s fault he didn’t at Melbourne’.
‘Jack was so poorly thought of across the league we had to pay part of his salary and offer Costanza goobies’

Wow, what a classy organisation. Port (the club) didn’t even treat Stevens or Chaplin anywhere even in this ballpark and there was cause there.

 

[raman]

What I don’t understand is why we wanted Melbourne to pay his salary?

Because we had the opportunity.

 

[*PAF]

Offset Lobbe?
We offered him a lesser contract?

Lots of possible reasons.

 

[QPower]

Melbourne trashing Watts on the way out the door is very poor form. Does not say good things about their Club.

 

[Enviable Tradition]

Melbourne = Troy Chaplin

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

 

[gbear]

Watts needs to just let his football do the talking. A premiership medal would be just desserts for Jack.

 

[bomberclifford]

Because we had the opportunity.

Offset Lobbe?
We offered him a lesser contract?

Lots of possible reasons.

I prefer to think that we did it to piss Gary Lyon off.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

So Melbourne is paying about 15% of Watts salary over 2 years according to Peter Jackson. Thats about $100k a year which was my back of the envelope calculation what we are probably paying for Lobbe's salary. So the 2 probably net each other out.

 

[Peck]

So Melbourne is paying about 15% of Watts salary over 2 years according to Peter Jackson. Thats about $100k a year which was my back of the envelope calculation what we are probably paying for Lobbe's salary. So the 2 probably net each other out.

I thought we weren’t paying any of Lobbe’s salary.

 

[Peck]

Because we had the opportunity.

Well obviously lol.

I meant why the **** did they want to move him on so badly? Is he on the pipe? Does he have health issues that aren’t public? Was it just that he had a huge celery?

 

[OneGreatClub]

Well obviously lol.

I meant why the **** did they want to move him on so badly? Is he on the pipe? Does he have health issues that aren’t public? Was it just that he had a huge celery?

Mmm..Peck, you're usually the optimistic one..anyway relaaaaaax, I'm sure our club has done it's due diligence. Just look at how Schulzy and glass ankles Dixon worked out for us Melbourne are just trying to appease their masses. He will suit our game style.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

I thought we weren’t paying any of Lobbe’s salary.

You thought wrong. Cripps wouldn't deny it when asked, refused to comment about it. When the potential deal goes from Lobbe+34 for 58ish to Lobbe for 95 you know we are paying a decent chunk of his salary.

 

[Hellgood]

Irrespective of how Watts turns out it's pretty apparent that Melbourne missed a trick here.

They jumped the gun in sharing their intentions for a contracted player, only for rival clubs in basically every instance take the polar opposite stance and proceed to extract every drop out of their potential value. See the almost obscene picks given up for the likes of Cameron, Weller & Murray and the considerable shift towards parity value paid up for the guys who had walked or were even turfed out (ie. Lever, Stringer, Saad, Wilson & Smith).

 

[simmo_bc]

You thought wrong. Cripps wouldn't deny it when asked, refused to comment about it. When the potential deal goes from Lobbe+34 for 58ish to Lobbe for 95 you know we are paying a decent chunk of his salary.

Wouldn't it be the opposite if we get pick 95 for Lobbe? Carlton saying we will pick up the tab but if we are paying massive overs for him, we will give you pick 95.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Wouldn't it be the opposite if we get pick 95 for Lobbe? Carlton saying we will pick up the tab but if we are paying massive overs for him, we will give you pick 95.

Nope. We wanted to move $500k off our cap spend, Carlton said we will do that if you give us 34 + Lobbe and we will give you 58 back as we won't need it.Port said no we need 34. Carlton then say ok we will give you closer to market value ie pick 95 and you pay $200k because if he was out of contract you would probably only offer him $150k he would probably say no, not sign a contract like Ben Newton and we can pick him up in the PSD and offer him a $250k or less, contract.

 

[simmo_bc]

Nope. We wanted to move $500k off our cap spend, Carlton said we will do that if you give us 34 + Lobbe and we will give you 58 back as we won't need it.Port said no we need 34. Carlton then say ok we will give you closer to market value ie pick 95 and you pay $200k because if he was out of contract you would probably only offer him $150k he would probably say no, not sign a contract like Ben Newton and we can pick him up in the PSD and offer him a $250k or less, contract.

Makes sense, thanks mate

 

[chiwigi]

You thought wrong. Cripps wouldn't deny it when asked, refused to comment about it. When the potential deal goes from Lobbe+34 for 58ish to Lobbe for 95 you know we are paying a decent chunk of his salary.

It can be argued that technically Melbourne are, so we aren’t.

 

[GremioPower]

You thought wrong. Cripps wouldn't deny it when asked, refused to comment about it. When the potential deal goes from Lobbe+34 for 58ish to Lobbe for 95 you know we are paying a decent chunk of his salary.

We just offered Melbourne's checks along with Lobbe, then. Interesting move.

 

[GremioPower]

I can see the negotation unfolding:

Carlton: — Port, we see that you don't want Lobbe, how about him+34 for pick 58?

Port: — Look, we need that pick, but we got these checks from Melbourne. How about Lobbe+checks for your pick 70-ish?

Carlton: Look, if those were Collingwood's or Richmond's, we would accept the offer in a heartbeat. Since those are Melbourne's, though... Pick 95?

Port: All right... You got us there! Deal.

 

[finbarr]

"And I wish I could be like Jacky Watts..."

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

What I don’t understand is why we wanted Melbourne to pay his salary?

How big must his contract have been??

I wonder if they could even fit him and lever under the salary cap?

Drive a hard deal, get a bargain especially if we sense they wanted to get Jack out quick smart, and finally to offset, in part or full, what we are forced to still pay Lobbe.