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

Where will Jake Lever end up?


  • Total voters
    245
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.

Big Gazoongas

Premiership Player
Joined
May 18, 2008
Posts
3,722
Likes
4,617
Location
Western Suburbs
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Arsenal, WWT
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.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Mike Smyth

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Oct 8, 2012
Posts
13,664
Likes
16,378
AFL Club
Adelaide
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

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Oct 14, 2004
Posts
6,322
Likes
5,325
Location
The other end of the foot bridge
AFL Club
Adelaide
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

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Nov 28, 2011
Posts
14,758
Likes
23,180
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
LIVFC
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

The Oracle™️
Joined
Apr 5, 2015
Posts
7,783
Likes
15,138
Location
The future
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
AC Milan, Arsenal, North Adelaide
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

Club Legend
Joined
Oct 14, 2008
Posts
1,869
Likes
2,081
Location
Adelaide
AFL Club
Adelaide
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.
 

dogs105

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Jan 12, 2002
Posts
28,621
Likes
33,124
Location
Edinburgh
AFL Club
Adelaide
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.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Scorpus

Enough is Enough
Joined
Apr 16, 2014
Posts
29,755
Likes
63,123
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Adelaide
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.
 

feenix67

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Aug 17, 2004
Posts
8,710
Likes
13,057
Location
Adelaide
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Sturt FC; Pittsburgh Steelers
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

Enough is Enough
Joined
Apr 16, 2014
Posts
29,755
Likes
63,123
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Adelaide
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.
 

Paladin

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Sep 4, 2008
Posts
8,793
Likes
13,583
Location
Adelaide
AFL Club
Adelaide
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?
 
Joined
Oct 1, 2004
Posts
293
Likes
332
Location
The Bay
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Adelaide
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!.
 
Last edited:

WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Oct 26, 2012
Posts
8,216
Likes
11,714
AFL Club
Adelaide
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

Club Legend
Joined
Oct 22, 2013
Posts
2,679
Likes
5,238
AFL Club
Adelaide
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

Enough is Enough
Joined
Apr 16, 2014
Posts
29,755
Likes
63,123
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Adelaide
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
 

crowsup

Premium Platinum
Joined
Nov 24, 2007
Posts
1,749
Likes
1,167
Location
Adelaide
AFL Club
Adelaide
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?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom