New system new thought process required

[lachy]

Allot has been made about free agency and it's impact on clubs like ours.

The main thing to become glaringly obvious is the need to ensure the players you want to keep do not come out of contract.

One method would be long term contracts, 4 years or more. These are fraught with danger. We need to look no further than our own club with the departed Brian Lake and Adam Cooney. Both 4 year contracts and we have not got more than 1 year out of either.

The other method is similar to what European soccer clubs do in response to the Bosman ruling. Basically, if we want to keep players at least 18 months out from their contracts expiring offer 1 or 2 year extensions.

The days of a third of the list coming out of contract could well be over, the risk will become too great. The list managers role has now become almost as important as the recruiter and coach and we cannot afford to allow players we want to keep to even come close to coming out of contract.

Callan Ward was the warning accruals the bow of the new football world, let's hope we have learnt

 

[Unnamed1]

Am I missing something? Cooney departed?

No mention of our resigning of Griffen. We signed Lake up long enough to get some trade value out of him. We moved heaven and earth to keep Ward but ultimately lost out to a crazy offer from a startup club. Ditto Harbrow who was at best a role player. We waited for Minson to test the field, knowing he's no superstar and we had 3 capable albeit young rucks in reserve.

While I agree with what you're saying, it's hard to see what more we could have done...

 

[cammo78]

Ward wanted to sign 12 months before he got said offer.

The fact he left rests squarely on the shoulders of one man: James Fantasia.

 

[Unnamed1]

Ward wanted to sign 12 months before he got said offer.

The fact he left rests squarely on the shoulders of one man: James Fantasia.

Really? He would have been poorly advised to do so

 

[lachy]

Am I missing something? Cooney departed?

No mention of our resigning of Griffen. We signed Lake up long enough to get some trade value out of him. We moved heaven and earth to keep Ward but ultimately lost out to a crazy offer from a startup club. Ditto Harbrow who was at best a role player. We waited for Minson to test the field, knowing he's no superstar and we had 3 capable albeit young rucks in reserve.

While I agree with what you're saying, it's hard to see what more we could have done...

All clubs including ours, up till now have let up to a third of the list come out of contract each year.

Free Agency could kill a club like ours if we are not proactive a recognize its dangers. We need to change the way we do list management and not wait till the final year of a contract for players we want to keep, but extend their contracts at least 18 months before they come out.

I mentioned Cooney as a danger of signing a long term contract, 4 years or more, where we barely will get 1 year of value. Another example of this was Mark Mecuri at Essendon. Traditional ways of keeping players have too great of risk. Lake also signed a 4 year contract, spent 1 year injured and hardly set the world on fire this year.

By all reports Callan Ward would have signed an extension 18 months out. We waited till the final year of his contract and GWS were able to offer more than we could. Yes it was an expansion team, but free agency will provide this type of scenario every year.

Minson is not a critical player long term,we did the right thing with him.

Therefore, what this thread is saying is the playing field has been turned upside down by free agency, list management methodologies must change, and there is an appropriate method in Europe as a result of the Bosman ruling, and the role of list manager has increased substantially in importance due to these changes and I hope we have identified this and have the right people in place. Jason McCartney is just as important as Brendan McCartney as we rebuild the list

 

[dogwatch]

All clubs including ours, up till now have let up to a third of the list come out of contract each year.

Free Agency could kill a club like ours if we are not proactive a recognize its dangers. We need to change the way we do list management and not wait till the final year of a contract for players we want to keep, but extend their contracts at least 18 months before they come out.

I mentioned Cooney as a danger of signing a long term contract, 4 years or more, where we barely will get 1 year of value. Another example of this was Mark Mecuri at Essendon. Traditional ways of keeping players have too great of risk. Lake also signed a 4 year contract, spent 1 year injured and hardly set the world on fire this year.

By all reports Callan Ward would have signed an extension 18 months out. We waited till the final year of his contract and GWS were able to offer more than we could. Yes it was an expansion team, but free agency will provide this type of scenario every year.

Minson is not a critical player long term,we did the right thing with him.

Therefore, what this thread is saying is the playing field has been turned upside down by free agency, list management methodologies must change, and there is an appropriate method in Europe as a result of the Bosman ruling, and the role of list manager has increased substantially in importance due to these changes and I hope we have identified this and have the right people in place. Jason McCartney is just as important as Brendan McCartney as we rebuild the list

Good thread and good posts Lachy. It's pretty obvious that FA will change the dynamics of player movement and list management and your question is the right one: how does a club like ours adapt?

Certainly offering longer contracts and offering early contract extensions are two approaches. This could be fine-tuned by perhaps offering more attractive deals if the player signs a year early than if they sign in the last year, although that approach has its perils too. The Cooney/Lake situation where injuries or attitude cruel the club's returns on their investment are partly bad luck, but there may be ways of structuring incentive-based contracts to keep the Brian Lakes of the world focussed on what they are being paid large sums of money to do.

Players and managers will likewise learn to adapt ... as we have seen at close quarters already! e.g. Pask says Lake will "walk" next year so let's do a trade now. It could equally (though not in Lake's case due to his age) be: "my player will walk next year unless he gets a better/extended deal now" and other variants. As always the conversation will depend very much on who is perceived to have the stronger hand at the bargaining table. Middle-ranked players and journeymen like say Addison and Sherman may just have to take what they are offered. We can afford to call their bluff if they hold out for too much money. We may stick with 2 year contracts for such players, with only the elite players getting four-year deals.

It will be intriguing to watch how FA evolves over the next year or two (even without the inevitability of the AFL tinkering with the rules). One likely result is a further spiralling of wages for the top tier of players i.e. A-graders.

Many people are already saying that the evidence so far shows the smaller clubs are losing players to the bigger clubs. e.g. Goddard, Rivers, etc. However that can also be interpreted as the lower clubs (with premiership windows firmly shut) are losing out to clubs that are challenging for a flag. It just happens that right now the bottom clubs are also the poorer ones but that wasn't the case a few years ago. Mature players who qualify as UFAs or RFAs and haven't yet played in a premiership team could be excused for seeking a club where they can have a last crack at a flag in their career while they still have some market appeal.

 

[Mutt]

lachy and dogwatch

Thanks for starting the thread Lachy and to you both for the thought-provoking posts. Great to see some supporters thinking deeply about the big issues (as opposed to the get Fev; don't get Dawes conversations we are subjected to.) Our BigFooty club board needs more contributions like this. Thanks.

 

[lachy]

lachy and dogwatch

Thanks for starting the thread Lachy and to you both for the thought-provoking posts. Great to see some supporters thinking deeply about the big issues (as opposed to the get Fev; don't get Dawes conversations we are subjected to.) Our BigFooty club board needs more contributions like this. Thanks.

Thank you Mutt, appreciate your comments and sentiments.

I know the club reads this website, even post on it. Hopefully, some deeper discussion and thoughts expressed through this forum can postively influence even in one decision then it is doing its job. This forum provides an amazing opportunity to discuss and debate issues openly and freely, the more who utilise it in this way the more chance posters have of being heard and positively influence the club we all love and support.

There may be a few issues I am not happy with, both made by the club and posters on this forum, but still love this club and despite not supporting decisions of the club will always support both emotionally and financially and try to provide well thought out posts and new threads for the forum and respect other posters who clearly do the same, even if they are on the opposing side of a discussion

 

[Curly5]

Because the club rarely informs supporters of the reasoning behind decisions, it's easy, and natural, for people to assume they've "got it wrong" or been railroaded by the AFL, or whatever. Unless you are an insider with intimate knowledge of all the processes, saying Fantasia or J McCartney or Garlick don't know what they are doing just can't be accurate. We may not like the decisions, but we have to trust that they've done their best and we'll never have ALL the information they have.

 

[TedDougChris]

The other method is similar to what European soccer clubs do in response to the Bosman ruling. Basically, if we want to keep players at least 18 months out from their contracts expiring offer 1 or 2 year extensions.

The danger that Free Agency poses is that once you have signed ONE contract after you are eligible for restricted FA, then you are automatically an unrestricted Free Agent. (I think.... Please allow some leeway here, I might be wrong).

As Lake had signed a contract after (effectively a few years ago) becoming a restricted free agent, he was now not bound by the restricted FA clauses, even though he was in the top 25% of earners etc. So that allowed him and his management to threaten to leave.

So if we sign Griff up for another 2 years, rather than 4, he would effectively become an unrestricted FA 2 years earlier.

I know what you are suggesting is the rolling type of contract, that everytime someone reaches 18 months out from the end of their contract we offer them a new one. But what we have seen from Lake is that they will simply say 'No' and then threaten to walk a year early....

FA is simply another nail in the coffins of the poorer and poorer-performing clubs.

 

[dogwatch]

The danger that Free Agency poses is that once you have signed ONE contract after you are eligible for restricted FA, then you are automatically an unrestricted Free Agent. (I think.... Please allow some leeway here, I might be wrong).

As Lake had signed a contract after (effectively a few years ago) becoming a restricted free agent, he was now not bound by the restricted FA clauses, even though he was in the top 25% of earners etc. So that allowed him and his management to threaten to leave.

So if we sign Griff up for another 2 years, rather than 4, he would effectively become an unrestricted FA 2 years earlier.

I know what you are suggesting is the rolling type of contract, that everytime someone reaches 18 months out from the end of their contract we offer them a new one. But what we have seen from Lake is that they will simply say 'No' and then threaten to walk a year early....

FA is simply another nail in the coffins of the poorer and poorer-performing clubs.

Not quite right TDC. You become a free agent when uncontracted after 8 years of service. You are a restricted FA if you are in the top 25% and unrestricted if in bottom 75% of salary earners on your club's list. However if you have given 10 years service you are automatically unrestricted regardless of salary.

Note that the service must be at the one club. The clock obviously starts again if you switch clubs, so if Veszpremi were to be at the WB for 8 years he would be a FA but he can't count his years at the Swans. Also from what I've read, if Lake comes out of contract at the Hawks in 2 years he is not automatically a FA again.

Griffen has already been at the WB for 8 years so next time he comes out of contract he will be a FA. If that's at the end of the 2014 season (I haven't checked) he will be unrestricted.

FA is certainly a concern but doesn't have to be a nail in our coffin. As we have seen in recent days we suddenly have a lot of salary cap room. This year's top clubs loaded with highly paid stars don't all have this luxury. This positions us well to make an offer for a RFA next year who might be only 26-27 and be able to serve us well from 2014-2017 when (we hope) we will be on the charge again. Although my preference would be to target the expansion clubs for the next two years (for several reasons) and worry about FAs after that.

It's all explained here: http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/148683/default.aspx

 

[TedDougChris]

Not quite right TDC. You become a free agent when uncontracted after 8 years of service. You are a restricted FA if you are in the top 25% and unrestricted if in bottom 75% of salary earners on your club's list. However if you have given 10 years service you are automatically unrestricted regardless of salary.

Note that the service must be at the one club. The clock obviously starts again if you switch clubs, so if Veszpremi were to be at the WB for 8 years he would be a FA but he can't count his years at the Swans. Also from what I've read, if Lake comes out of contract at the Hawks in 2 years he is not automatically a FA again.

Griffen has already been at the WB for 8 years so next time he comes out of contract he will be a FA. If that's at the end of the 2014 season (I haven't checked) he will be unrestricted.

FA is certainly a concern but doesn't have to be a nail in our coffin. As we have seen in recent days we suddenly have a lot of salary cap room. This year's top clubs loaded with highly paid stars don't all have this luxury. This positions us well to make an offer for a RFA next year who might be only 26-27 and be able to serve us well from 2014-2017 when (we hope) we will be on the charge again. Although my preference would be to target the expansion clubs for the next two years (for several reasons) and worry about FAs after that.

It's all explained here: http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/148683/default.aspx

Thanks for the clarification... I quickly looked at it when we were discussing whether Lake would be or would not be a FA next year, but didn't read it thoroughly.

I suppose the danger of the rolling 2 year contracts is that the unrestricted period comes around after 10 years, whereas if you sign Griff up for another 4 after the 8 year mark, we get another few years of Griffen magic...

I don't need 8 yrs of Veszpremi though, thanks for the offer.....

I honestly believe that clubs such ours will need to pay over the odds in terms of salary to get players under FA rules, but they most likely will not be players that we need or want to get long term. The decision to trade Lake (rather than keep him and wear the consequences) has some dangerous potential ramifications, should we continue to stay near the bottom.

 

[paulveed]

I must agree heartily with Mutt and DW, well done Lachy, and the rest of you guys. This is great stuff, and just what we need to see a lot more of on here.

I agree completely, the system of rolling contracts, rather than letting guys we wish/need to retain come out of contract then offering them long contracts is definitely the way to go, particularly in this new age of AFL [ FA etc.].

Now at the time of both the Ablett, and Ward lead up to their defections, I advocated that teams not allow the situation [ players playing out their contract] to continue through to season's end.
That is to say, if a player and his management refuse to negotiate on a contract so he can move on at seasons end, or hold the club to ransom [ Cloke], the club's response should be...well sorry but you will play the rest of the season in the ressies or not at all, unless you sign up. I was howled down at the time by those who said that would be shooting yourself in the foot. However, I believe you would only have to call a manager or player's bluff once. Then all parties would know you meant business, and the situation would never be allowed to play out that way again.
If a player was considering doing a 'Ward', and he had not played senior football for 12 months, I suspect his marketability would drop considerably, so certainly not in his interest.

It might be harsh, and even cause some pain for the club, but as I say I think it would only ever need to be invoked once. The offset for players being they would not be put in the position of not knowing in advance if they truly are wanted by the club, and financially their future is secure for some time ahead.

Now I think The Pres. and his board, and club management have done an absolutely terrific job over recent years, and I certainly am not advocating one of the old fashioned coups. However, I do believe it is time in the current AFL climate, that we as an organisation are going to have to take on a far tougher [ and to quote B Mac himself]
a much more ruthless edge to the whole way we operate. And that probably means we need a bit of a clean-out/refresh unfortunately. To many of our actions, and reactions of late seem to be timid and intimidated. Admittedly this is viewed from outside the club's inner sanctum and structure, but I have been a supporter and member over many decades. In my career I have had to deal with big businesses and bureaucracies on comparable, or even larger scales than the AFL, and some times, despite the odds you simply have to stand up, or stand your ground, or you will absolutely get trampled.

Is it about time the Bulldogs lived up to their own logo, became the mouse that roared? As an organization we need to quit being a victim.

What ever areas we are weak in, or need to replace personnel, lets get bold and go out and poach the very best that's out there.
Now I know we have severe financial constraints, but I firmly believe if we don't get our sh1t together soon, we may not exist at all anyway.
I'd rather go down in flames fighting than fade quietly into the sunset.

 

[TedDougChris]

the club's response should be...well sorry but you will play the rest of the season in the ressies or not at all, unless you sign up. I was howled down at the time by those who said that would be shooting yourself in the foot. However, I believe you would only have to call a manager or player's bluff once. Then all parties would know you meant business, and the situation would never be allowed to play out that way again.

We have shown that we do not have the balls to do this, as recently as Monday of this week.......

I don't disagree, but we do not have the strength to go through with this...

 

[paulveed]

We have shown that we do not have the balls to do this, as recently as Monday of this week.......

I don't disagree, but we do not have the strength to go through with this...

Perhaps it is about time [ or overdue] for us to grow some balls.

 

[Mutt]

TedDougChris and paulveed if you don't think the club has balls think about the appointment of McCartney over Cameron; the trade of Lake; the due diligence we are doing on Dawes and other potential trades when the easy road is to not upset anyone and select kids in the draft.

For the first time in a long while the club is showing some balls in my view. It is prepared to be unpopular if it means doing the right thing the right way.

 

[TedDougChris]

TedDougChris and paulveed if you don't think the club has balls think about the appointment of McCartney over Cameron; the trade of Lake; the due diligence we are doing on Dawes and other potential trades when the easy road is to not upset anyone and select kids in the draft.

For the first time in a long while the club is showing some balls in my view. It is prepared to be unpopular if it means doing the right thing the right way.

I dont think that you can link all these events together and state they all demonstrate that we are showing balls.

The major issue that I have at the moment is the lack of honesty we have displayed to the supporter base and the massive about face in our stated direction of the club, with regards to drafting/trading.

All year we have been about drafting and recruiting kids and teaching the ones we have to play to the systems we need to be successful. We have repeatedly stated that we would not be active in the trade period and that we were going to recruit kids and teach them well.

Then 30 seconds in to a three week trade period, we have traded our #1 KPD of the last five to ten years, for the first offer we were given, after an ultimatum from his manager. Please demonstrate where in this process we have shown balls.

If we had toughed it out for the full three weeks and managed to hold onto pick 27 as well, then you could have argued it. If we'd simply refused to trade him, made him play out his contract or even dropped him to the 2's if he'd refused - then we would have shown some balls.

But to just give in and bend over - there's no honour or backbone demonstrated here....

If we get Dawes it will be exactly the same. We had a disfunctional F50 this year, so let's get the best available reject to fix it. Rather than taking the harder option, of teaching and developing from within. We have tried the first option repeatedly - with only failure to show for it. Let's try the second option and truly build a team from the ground up - which is what we were promised all year by everyone at the club - rather than these repeated short term patches.

I have no issue with the club making unpopular decisions, should they be in the best long term interests of the club. But I also am yet to see any evidence that we are making these decisions after much consideration, assessment of the available options or looking at this from any other angle. I think what we've displayed is an amazing ability to knee-jerk at the first sign of trouble....

 

[Mutt]

I dont think that you can link all these events together and state they all demonstrate that we are showing balls.

The major issue that I have at the moment is the lack of honesty we have displayed to the supporter base and the massive about face in our stated direction of the club, with regards to drafting/trading.

All year we have been about drafting and recruiting kids and teaching the ones we have to play to the systems we need to be successful. We have repeatedly stated that we would not be active in the trade period and that we were going to recruit kids and teach them well.

Then 30 seconds in to a three week trade period, we have traded our #1 KPD of the last five to ten years, for the first offer we were given, after an ultimatum from his manager. Please demonstrate where in this process we have shown balls.

If we had toughed it out for the full three weeks and managed to hold onto pick 27 as well, then you could have argued it. If we'd simply refused to trade him, made him play out his contract or even dropped him to the 2's if he'd refused - then we would have shown some balls.

But to just give in and bend over - there's no honour or backbone demonstrated here....

If we get Dawes it will be exactly the same. We had a disfunctional F50 this year, so let's get the best available reject to fix it. Rather than taking the harder option, of teaching and developing from within. We have tried the first option repeatedly - with only failure to show for it. Let's try the second option and truly build a team from the ground up - which is what we were promised all year by everyone at the club - rather than these repeated short term patches.

I have no issue with the club making unpopular decisions, should they be in the best long term interests of the club. But I also am yet to see any evidence that we are making these decisions after much consideration, assessment of the available options or looking at this from any other angle. I think what we've displayed is an amazing ability to knee-jerk at the first sign of trouble....

So...if you don't agree with a decision it shows no balls?

The club has never said it wouldn't trade players in or out. Where did you get that idea from? The club said it would primarily use the draft and develop our own. To do that we need to trade or delist players out of the club. I'm sure you'd be singing a different tune if we traded out Sherman (or pick any random player you don't like) instead of Lake.

All of this angst can be put down to not liking the club's decisions. It certainly isn't a case of the club not having any balls.

 

[TedDougChris]

So...if you don't agree with a decision it shows no balls?

The club has never said it wouldn't trade players in or out. Where did you get that idea from? The club said it would primarily use the draft and develop our own. To do that we need to trade or delist players out of the club. I'm sure you'd be singing a different tune if we traded out Sherman (or pick any random player you don't like) instead of Lake.

All of this angst can be put down to not liking the club's decisions. It certainly isn't a case of the club not having any balls.

And consequently if you do like the decision it does show some ?? I asked you to explain how what happened on Monday (with Lake) showed any form of backbone and you can't.

We'll just have to respectfully disagree - I can't see any common ground here....

 

[Mutt]

And consequently if you do like the decision it does show some ?? I asked you to explain how what happened on Monday (with Lake) showed any form of backbone and you can't.

We'll just have to respectfully disagree - I can't see any common ground here....

You saw the reaction on here to the trading of Lake. The club was obviously determined to move him on despite the adverse reaction and it did. That shows balls. How can you not see that? The easy thing to do would have been to keep Lake and have him eat away at the culture of the club for a year, whereupon he would walk and we would be at the mercy of the AFL for any compensation. The club took the courageous but unpopular decision and I'm glad they did.

Again, your objections are based on whether you agree, not on whether the decision was ballsy.

 

[TedDougChris]

You saw the reaction on here to the trading of Lake. The club was obviously determined to move him on despite the adverse reaction and it did. That shows balls. How can you not see that? The easy thing to do would have been to keep Lake and have him eat away at the culture of the club for a year, whereupon he would walk and we would be at the mercy of the AFL for any compensation. The club took the courageous but unpopular decision and I'm glad they did.

Again, your objections are based on whether you agree, not on whether the decision was ballsy.

No - you are assuming that he was a cancer and that he was bad for the culture. Big difference. We have shown to every player and player manager that if you want a trade away from the club, we'll happily bend over and provide one... That's not balls.....

 

[dogwatch]

The major issue that I have at the moment is the lack of honesty we have displayed to the supporter base and the massive about face in our stated direction of the club, with regards to drafting/trading.

All year we have been about drafting and recruiting kids and teaching the ones we have to play to the systems we need to be successful. We have repeatedly stated that we would not be active in the trade period and that we were going to recruit kids and teach them well.

Then 30 seconds in to a three week trade period, we have traded our #1 KPD of the last five to ten years, for the first offer we were given, after an ultimatum from his manager. Please demonstrate where in this process we have shown balls.

If we had toughed it out for the full three weeks and managed to hold onto pick 27 as well, then you could have argued it. If we'd simply refused to trade him, made him play out his contract or even dropped him to the 2's if he'd refused - then we would have shown some balls.

But to just give in and bend over - there's no honour or backbone demonstrated here....

If we get Dawes it will be exactly the same. We had a disfunctional F50 this year, so let's get the best available reject to fix it. Rather than taking the harder option, of teaching and developing from within. We have tried the first option repeatedly - with only failure to show for it. Let's try the second option and truly build a team from the ground up - which is what we were promised all year by everyone at the club - rather than these repeated short term patches.

I have no issue with the club making unpopular decisions, should they be in the best long term interests of the club. But I also am yet to see any evidence that we are making these decisions after much consideration, assessment of the available options or looking at this from any other angle. I think what we've displayed is an amazing ability to knee-jerk at the first sign of trouble....

There are different ways of looking at it. Your perspective is understandable and you could be right. I don't know for sure either way but I lean more toward the following as alternative explanations:

• Lack of honesty/about face - funny, but in another thread the club is criticised for not keeping its cards close to its chest. So they keep their cards close to their chest this time (on the Lake trade) which means giving politician-type answers to questions like "What about trading Lake to Hawthorn?" and get criticised for being dishonest with supporters. Conclusion: you can never please all the fans.
• 30 seconds into the trade period ... Well, it turns out that this trade had been discussed for about 10 days. Can't reveal it beforehand (well done, both clubs and the manager - usually these stories leak like crazy). Nothing knee-jerk about it.
• First offer we were given. Who knows if there would have been any others, but this could be right. I suspect we were also targetting Hawthorn to offload Lake, so it may have been mutually satisfactory. Especially as Lake clearly wanted to go to the one team that desperately needed a big-bodied FB and had just come within 2 goals of a premiership. Would he have been prepared to go to another club?
• Ultimatum from his manager. Yep, that's how I understood it at first and it could be as simple as that. Or it might also have been that we engineered the whole situation. The thought process might be something like this... Lake: self-centred, poor recent history in dealings with club/coaches, doesn't fit team ethos, rising 31, only 2 years left in AFL, we have viable young and mid-20s KPDs, and on a massive back-ended contract which is much more than he's worth. Hmmm, we either make him play and work for the club or we move him on (listen to BMac's BnF speech). OK, let's develop the backline in 2013 and let lake fill one of the KPF holes. If he doesn't like it, we do a know a club that would LOVE to have Lake.
• Tough it out and hold onto pick 27. If you are inclined to accept the above possibility then what we got for Lake was a reasonable deal (basically an end-of-first round pick and a downgrading of our 2nd rounder - the first rounder may still end up 6-9 places ahead of our old pick 27 depending on compo picks handed out for FA). As somebody posted in the Lake thread the terms indicate that Hawthorn probably had a better bargaining position than we did. We've just been relieved of $700k salary burden in 2013 which is not a bad start. Net improvement after paying his replacement will be about $0.5million. There aren't too many comparable trades to say whether this was good value but you can see how important it was for us to hold our cards close to our chest. It could have got worse if Hawthorn sensed we were desperate to unload him.
• If we get Dawes. Yes, I agree. I am not at all keen on getting Dawes, especially for pick 21 or 41. I would rather we go with the draft. However the club may see it like this: Dawes is at least close to the age the club told supporters it might look at in the draft period (up to 23 IIRC) and he knows what playing in a premeiership side is about. We can use him as a forward focus until we have drafted a classy KPF and got 1-2 years into him (or until Jones/Cordy/etc show they can produce consistently).
• Build from the ground up. So far that's exactly what we are doing. We have offloaded an expensive and possibly ill-fitting Lake and we have yet to trade in anybody. We will probably end up with one, maybe two, trades arriving at the WO who are between 20-23 (or 24 if we get Dawes). So far that promise looks like being kept.

Sorry for the long post TDC but it's not easy to explain the above with the usual BF cliches and one-liners. Not expecting you'll agree entirely, but hoping you will see there could be another angle.

 

[Interloper]

No - you are assuming that he was a cancer and that he was bad for the culture. Big difference. We have shown to every player and player manager that if you want a trade away from the club, we'll happily bend over and provide one... That's not balls.....

It’s the ‘want a trade away’ from the club that I think McCartney will ultimately turn around to ‘want to stay and want to come’. His speech was impressive and he pulls no punches. He deals in reality. It’s a tough world, nothing worthwhile is easy, that’s how it is and will be, are you with me? In the short term we might lose a few who we may be better off without in hindsight. He’s ingraining an attitude which I believe will ultimately prevail and pay off. I can wait 5 years.

 

[TedDougChris]

There are different ways of looking at it. Your perspective is understandable and you could be right. I don't know for sure either way but I lean more toward the following as alternative explanations:

• Lack of honesty/about face - funny, but in another thread the club is criticised for not keeping its cards close to its chest. So they keep their cards close to their chest this time (on the Lake trade) which means giving politician-type answers to questions like "What about trading Lake to Hawthorn?" and get criticised for being dishonest with supporters. Conclusion: you can never please all the fans.

Dogwatch, thanks for such a detailed reply. I'll try to address each point seperately. I do understand the need to keep individual deals close to it's chest, but the entire year all we have spoken about is not being active in trading and drafting the kids. We have on numerous times spoken about not drafting older players, but only recruiting kids. We specifically denied that we wanted to trade Lake. They have blatantly lied to the members, supporters and fans on this. If they had stated last week that 'we will look at all potential options', then everyone would have understood.

30 seconds into the trade period ... Well, it turns out that this trade had been discussed for about 10 days. Can't reveal it beforehand (well done, both clubs and the manager - usually these stories leak like crazy). Nothing knee-jerk about it.

If they have been talking for 10 days and that's the best deal they could get, they should be immediately sacked for taking it....

First offer we were given. Who knows if there would have been any others, but this could be right. I suspect we were also targetting Hawthorn to offload Lake, so it may have been mutually satisfactory. Especially as Lake clearly wanted to go to the one team that desperately needed a big-bodied FB and had just come within 2 goals of a premiership. Would he have been prepared to go to another club?

There were other options. What would we have lost for keeping him for a year and getting the kids to learn from his expertise, his positioning, his reading of the play? If the offer wasn't suitable (see above comment), we should have walked away.... Let them make the play to us. Name one other experience KPD that would have made the difference to the Hawks in the next year or two that WAS available to them... And we just gave him up.

Ultimatum from his manager. Yep, that's how I understood it at first and it could be as simple as that. Or it might also have been that we engineered the whole situation. The thought process might be something like this... Lake: self-centred, poor recent history in dealings with club/coaches, doesn't fit team ethos, rising 31, only 2 years left in AFL, we have viable young and mid-20s KPDs, and on a massive back-ended contract which is much more than he's worth. Hmmm, we either make him play and work for the club or we move him on (listen to BMac's BnF speech). OK, let's develop the backline in 2013 and let lake fill one of the KPF holes. If he doesn't like it, we do a know a club that would LOVE to have Lake.

I understand all of that, but surely we didn't get the best possible value by getting rid of him as quickly as we did. I'm not personally convinced he is the devil reincarnate in the clubs cultural issues, but I'm prepared to accept he is not Crossy either...

Tough it out and hold onto pick 27. If you are inclined to accept the above possibility then what we got for Lake was a reasonable deal (basically an end-of-first round pick and a downgrading of our 2nd rounder - the first rounder may still end up 6-9 places ahead of our old pick 27 depending on compo picks handed out for FA). As somebody posted in the Lake thread the terms indicate that Hawthorn probably had a better bargaining position than we did. We've just been relieved of $700k salary burden in 2013 which is not a bad start. Net improvement after paying his replacement will be about $0.5million. There aren't too many comparable trades to say whether this was good value but you can see how important it was for us to hold our cards close to our chest. It could have got worse if Hawthorn sensed we were desperate to unload him.

All I'm saying is that if we decide that we need to move him on, let's try to get the best deal possible. If he is the only KPD that Hawthorn can bring in that will make an immediate difference, then surely we can make them sweat and see if they blink or up their offer.... Pick 21 for a premiership... Small price to pay.

I understand the salary cap issue, but I would have thought that sacking Vez, Sherman and DJ retiring would have freed up a similar cap space, allowed for additional kids to be recruited, reduced the number and size of the floggings we are going to get next year, while allowing for the continued development of our young defenders under his guidance...

If we get Dawes. Yes, I agree. I am not at all keen on getting Dawes, especially for pick 21 or 41. I would rather we go with the draft. However the club may see it like this: Dawes is at least close to the age the club told supporters it might look at in the draft period (up to 23 IIRC) and he knows what playing in a premeiership side is about. We can use him as a forward focus until we have drafted a classy KPF and got 1-2 years into him (or until Jones/Cordy/etc show they can produce consistently).

All Dawes will do is take game time and time as the focal point away from our developing KPF targets. This isn't a win for the club, it's a negative. Jones, Cordy, Panos, Stringer, Boyd etc will all be stuck behind the highly paid 25 year old, who cannot mark, cannot kick and couldn't deliver in a Collingwood side with a number of star midfielders....

Build from the ground up. So far that's exactly what we are doing. We have offloaded an expensive and possibly ill-fitting Lake and we have yet to trade in anybody. We will probably end up with one, maybe two, trades arriving at the WO who are between 20-23 (or 24 if we get Dawes). So far that promise looks like being kept.
Sorry for the long post TDC but it's not easy to explain the above with the usual BF cliches and one-liners. Not expecting you'll agree entirely, but hoping you will see there could be another angle.

At the end of the trade period, I'm sure we'll have burnt this philosophy to the ground too. We'll have traded pick 47 for Stevens, Pick 6 for someone else and have no young talent to hope for next year... The kids will get sick of 100 point floggings as we have no KPD's, no quick midfielders and they'll start looking elsewhere....

Sorry for so much negativity - I understand where the club is at in terms of it's list, but I cannot see what we have achieved this week makes it better in any way.... Now I expect to hear that Dawes has made it so much worse for us.....

 

[paulveed]

Sorry Mutt and DW, I cannot read any strength into the trading of Lake, or the non appointment of Cameron as coach. I am not saying that I am necessarily anti either decision in the end, but using either as indication of strength is stretching credibility a bit for me.

You could also look at those decisions and say... re Cameron: was the club intimidated by the 'No jobs for the boys ' group? I am not saying that was the reasoning, but it is a supposition that could just as easily be argued.

Re Lake, while I acknowledge it was not my prefered option personally, I do think it is pretty clear the club underestimated the response they got from their supporter base.
I can accept the arguments for going down that track, but that I do not believe is the actual, or perceived problem. What people are most upset about is that we pretty clearly accepted serious unders on the deal.
We surely were the seller. It is us not Hawthorn that should set the price. They needed desperately a big bodied, experienced, talented key full back.
They have a one, maximum two year window in which to win a flag with their present group, but their defence is seriously shaky.
There was an all Australian sitting there, but safely under contract.
Now you tell me, who was holding the whip hand, because we were under no real pressure to get rid of him, or therefore to accept anything less than what we wanted for him.

What did we accept by way of compensation for losing arguably the best current FB playing the game [ and yes I am aware of his age, but they only need him for for the next 2 years, given that is the extent of their window anyway], two jelly beans and a crumpled wrapper!

Look in the beginning I cannot say I was a huge fan of Campbell Rose. But by the end I have to admit more than a grudging admiration for the guy. I did not agree with everything he did, or even how he went about everything. But god the guy did have balls, vision, and an admirable work output.
Perhaps he seemed a bit dictatorial at times, but sh1t, nobody walked over him, or us when he stood in the way.

That is the kind of leadership that seems to be missing at the club right now. Some one who is prepared to kick down doors, even if there are the letters AD in gold on the door.