Nick's Collingwood Bulletin Board

Defender wrote:

Harvey wrote:

Defender wrote: That's when the Luke Ball scenario comes in, Lions offer him a one year deal at 1.5 million, no one else will touch him.

Why are we even talking about the Luke Ball scenario? We would be in a potential Luke Ball scenario next year. Not this year. This year we hold the cards and negotiate from a position of power. We shouldn't weaken our whole bargaining power by negotiating based on where will be next year. We have all of next year to accept unders for Beams.

Even if we do end up losing Beams for nothing, in this era of free agency salary cap space is just as valuable. Use the free cap space from Beams to sign Dangerfield as a free agent next year = same best case outcome as this year.

If the Luke Ball scenario is as simple as you make it out to be, we could even use Beams + Thomas + Shaw + Lumumba's free cap space or backload all our player contracts and lure Jeremy Cameron next year when he comes out of contract next year on a $2m one year deal. If it's that simple, why not just do it for all the uncontracted players we want rather than trade for them? I think what you'll find with Ball is that one of the major reasons we got him was because of his injury issues and clubs not being able to perform detailed medicals on him whilst we could.

Not disagreeing with your post but clubs don't like to be assholes, It's a last resort move, and remember the Ball deal almost failed because Mark Williams was willing to take him but was knocked back by the Port board, Crazy Vossy was sniffing around as well.

Agreed. The Luke Ball scenario is not a legitimate threat the Lions can make. It's just too risky for them which is why all clubs end up offering close to fair value even for uncontracted players. When a player is contracted, the offer always has to be fair or even overs to pry the player away. We just need to stand firm and we'll get the right compensation.

Harvey wrote:

Defender wrote:

Harvey wrote: Why are we even talking about the Luke Ball scenario? We would be in a potential Luke Ball scenario next year. Not this year. This year we hold the cards and negotiate from a position of power. We shouldn't weaken our whole bargaining power by negotiating based on where will be next year. We have all of next year to accept unders for Beams.

Even if we do end up losing Beams for nothing, in this era of free agency salary cap space is just as valuable. Use the free cap space from Beams to sign Dangerfield as a free agent next year = same best case outcome as this year.

If the Luke Ball scenario is as simple as you make it out to be, we could even use Beams + Thomas + Shaw + Lumumba's free cap space or backload all our player contracts and lure Jeremy Cameron next year when he comes out of contract next year on a $2m one year deal. If it's that simple, why not just do it for all the uncontracted players we want rather than trade for them? I think what you'll find with Ball is that one of the major reasons we got him was because of his injury issues and clubs not being able to perform detailed medicals on him whilst we could.

Not disagreeing with your post but clubs don't like to be assholes, It's a last resort move, and remember the Ball deal almost failed because Mark Williams was willing to take him but was knocked back by the Port board, Crazy Vossy was sniffing around as well.

Agreed. The Luke Ball scenario is not a legitimate threat the Lions can make. It's just too risky for them which is why all clubs end up offering close to fair value even for uncontracted players. When a player is contracted, the offer always has to be fair or even overs to pry the player away. We just need to stand firm and we'll get the right compensation.

But the PSD could be a viable option, remember drafting players through the PSD allows for 1 year deals, the ND is minimum of 2 years, they could get him to nominate a crazy number knowing they'll get him on the cheap for the remainder of his career.

Harvey wrote:

Defender wrote:

AN_Inkling wrote:Difference being that Stevens to a Melbourne club or another Melbourne club. Not so much difference.

Beams has just left Victoria because he wants to play in Queensland. Would be tough for a Melbourne club or GWS to take him at $800k a year. Might need the Suns to finish below Brisbane.

That's when the Luke Ball scenario comes in, Lions offer him a one year deal at 1.5 million, no one else will touch him.

Why are we even talking about the Luke Ball scenario? We would be in a potential Luke Ball scenario next year. Not this year. This year we hold the cards and negotiate from a position of power. We shouldn't weaken our whole bargaining power by negotiating based on where will be next year. We have all of next year to accept unders for Beams.

We're talking about it because people are suggesting we keep Beams under sufferance in 2015 if the Brisbane deal is not good enough.

WEmust hold firm on this, other wise, any of our contracted players, in the future, can crack the sads and wanna walk out, contract or no contract. If contracts mean anything, we must hold firm, beams seems to be playing ducks n drakes, I thought his dad was really ill, now I hear hes in full recovery, good on him for that, but hey, don't try and shaft us with spin and bullshit. Nah, bugger this, his under contract, this must not set an precedent, or contracts wont be worth the paper they are written on. Hold firm Pies, and bleed those Lions pricks for the earth, stuff the bastards, had enough of this shit, times up.

Pretty likely that the family issues is a polite way of saying 'I want out' - not sure if we want to keep a player who does not want to be there...? however I am sure there are many out there in Nicks who can relate to working in a job when they would rather be somewhere else!

If he is professional about footy - he should be able to produce his best even if he dreams of playing in the sunshine state. I think he owes the club - he was carried through 2010 - guy was awful in the final series and is lucky to have that premiership medallion IMO - why not step up as a senior player rather than jump ship? The best teams have players willing to sacrifice for the team - look at Presty back in 2010 - could have played but instead wanted the team to be successful - we need more with that mentality to be back in the thick of September action!

yin-YANG wrote:Pretty likely that the family issues is a polite way of saying 'I want out' - not sure if we want to keep a player who does not want to be there...? however I am sure there are many out there in Nicks who can relate to working in a job when they would rather be somewhere else!

If he is professional about footy - he should be able to produce his best even if he dreams of playing in the sunshine state. I think he owes the club - he was carried through 2010 - guy was awful in the final series and is lucky to have that premiership medallion IMO - why not step up as a senior player rather than jump ship? The best teams have players willing to sacrifice for the team - look at Presty back in 2010 - could have played but instead wanted the team to be successful - we need more with that mentality to be back in the thick of September action!

I think the same thing. Manager mentioned Heath Shaw & that Beams missed him. If Heater's latest indiscretion is not proof enough to Dayne that the club made the right call, then I don't know what is. Heater had more chances than anyone but would not change his ways.
Dayne is just about my favourite player on the list right now, but I feel there is a lot more to this than just his Dad. Who apparently is in remission now.

It is just my opinion but there seems to be a new level of fitness & professionalism being implemented at the Westpac centre. There seems to be some that are embracing it & some that are resisting.I think if we want to win more than one premiership every 20 or 30 years then we need to make changes. With Bucks & Pendles being known for their hard work & dedication, I would not be surprised if more dedication was being asked of our guys & rightly so. We have lost some players that don't want to change. But lets be honest here. If we were to nominate a few players that wouldn't be prepared to change & dedicate themselves to improving & being fitter & stronger most of us would have nominated Heater, Daisy & Wellers. I remember Wellingham saying how much harder West Coast trained when he went there. I also still see Daisy buckled over on his haunches whenever he runs 20 meters, & I still see Heater abusing his young team mates for making mistakes. & still getting in trouble after drinking too much. There seems to be a my way or the highway mentality being implemented at our club. The strong will stick fat & put their head down. The weak will be moved on & replaced with someone who not only wants to be at our club, but is prepared to go the extra yard to get the very best out of themselves & their team mates.

I think it's a risk to implement this culture change, but it's a bigger risk not to do anything. The Port's, Hawthorn's & Sydney's of the competition will leave us in their wake if we don't raise the bar.

Short term pain for long term gain.

All of what I just wrote could be completely wrong, but it's just a feeling I have. We are weeding out the one's unwilling to change or to 100% invest in the new direction of the club.

Slobbo has finally lost the plot if he thinks we should be content with only pick 4 for Beams.

Wouldn't swap Hanley for Beams is his opinion.

Wow what a tool.

thankfully the D's are giving us some industry context to a Beams deal. If they are willing to trade picks 2 and 3 for a 24 yr old All Australian onballer that clearly sets a platform for Beams ? Pick 4 only is not even laughable. Sit tight. If they don't move they are insulting him and ego still plays some part in this. How long before Dayne realises the club he wants to go to thinks he is not that great ?

Defender wrote:

The Boy Who Cried Wolf wrote:

Defender wrote: Do they even have a coach yet? If they haven't that stance could change rather quickly.

IMO the Crows aren't in the running for the 2015 premiership, if Danger wants out now they'll deal IMO, but do we really want to pay for a franchise player now considering the age profile of our list? Probably not.

The Crows don't think that, that's one of the main reasons why they sacked their coach.

Though he'd be great for us, but I think our chances are Buckley's chance (pun intended).

He's overkill for us IMO, what we need now are prime DPs.

I think he's exactly what we need to be honest.

Tough, hard midfielder who uses the ball well and has a line-breaking burst of pace. He's also able to win games off his own boot a number of times each season.

swoop42 wrote:Slobbo has finally lost the plot if he thinks we should be content with only pick 4 for Beams.

Wouldn't swap Hanley for Beams is his opinion.

Wow what a tool.

Would you expect anything less from him? Not to mention less than a week ago he was saying exactly what we were saying.. that we hold all the cards in this situation and that we have every right to ask for pick 4 and a good player as Beams is that good. Was actually surprised as he usually tries to dress us down at any given opportunity, and looks like he's finally reverted to what comes naturally.

Very concerned the way Connors is portraying Beams in this situation. It doesn't feel like Beams is worried at all about fair compensation for the club the way this is being reported (keeping in mind I shouldn't believe everything I read). Sick father or not, he owes it to the club to help get the best deal possible in this situation and am hoping he has the maturity not to turn sour if we decide we're getting bent over in this deal.

The B & F is going to be very interesting for Dayne. I wonder how speech is going to be given ? Maybe in this environment he will tell the faithful that he expects Brisvegas to pay overs ?

swoop42 wrote:Slobbo has finally lost the plot if he thinks we should be content with only pick 4 for Beams.

Wouldn't swap Hanley for Beams is his opinion.

Wow what a tool.

Yep. I watched/heard that too with disbelief. Beams is at least worth their 1st and 2nd rounder (or equivalent in players), even then I think we are getting unders.

In Robbos opinion, Hannely is better than Beams! So that show how far off Robbo is. Did himself no favours there Robbo.

Hine on trade radio


Said clearly it will take more than pick 4 to get the deal done.

Was not wound up, just matter of fact.

Made a comment that it was great for brisb to speak to trade radio as they hadn't as yet spoke to the pies until late last night briefly.

Matter of fact about our age profile and what we need in the trade. Need a player ready to play.

I can't see why they wouldn't trade out Jack Redden as the "and a player".

Would be behind Rockliff, Rich, Hanley and Beams, but still a very good player.

yin-YANG wrote:Pretty likely that the family issues is a polite way of saying 'I want out'

Wild speculation at best and dishonest rumour at worst. The truth is that we dont know the truth so are free to opiniate according to our own wishes and thought processes.
My view is based solely on the credible posts on this thread by qldmagpie67 and (maybe naively) believing what I read in them. Time will tell if I have been sucked in or not but hey, my father died suddenly while I was away from home and not being able to spend his last days with him, it never ever leaves you.
Que sera sera.................