The Brian Lake Dilemma - You're in charge of the negotiation

[GVGjr]

What appeared to be a formality in getting Brian Lake to re-sign with the club for 4 years at good money a couple of weeks ago has apparently hit a sizeable hurdle.

What we have heard through various sources
- After a lengthy negotiation throughout the season we offered a 4 year deal at 1.8mil which we thought we had an agreement to.
- Since our defeat in the preliminary final it's become apparent that that deal hasn't been agreed to and the speculation is that Lake believes he deserves more money.
- Both Eade and Fantasia have indicated that if a suitable financial deal cannot get done then Lake will not be traded to another club and will have to take his luck in the draft.
- Our salary cap space is quite limited and something would have to give to substantially increase the offer.

Concerns
The thing that concerns me is the option that we could lose a valuable player and someone who currently has a great deal of currency in the market for nothing.
I understand the benefit of a club standing it's ground but I equally don't want to be in a situation that if Lake doesn't re-sign with us it becomes the catalyst for another rebuilding phase.

You have been given the job of handling the negotiation
Don't get caught up too much with the specifics of this just focus on what you would do to either get Lake to resign, trade him for draft picks and/or players or to stand firm with the sign or go ultimatum.

Make sure you include your reasons for the particular approach you are taking and remember it's 1pm on the Friday and the deadline is approaching. If a deal isn't struck we lose him for nothing.

Reality
I really think Lake will re-sign with us.

[azabob]

To me this scenerio sets a dangerous precident in the coming years for our Football club.

As we dont really know why Lake hasn't signed we need to ask him straight out why are you not signing? Based on his answer that is how we tackle the negoiation.

If the contract is based on what we have offered him is correct we stand firm and tell him straight out the offer is what it is. We a pool of funds which we need to allocate how the Western Bulldogs see fit.

If he doesn't wish to accept our offer - Good money over four years for a player who has a dodgey hip that is on the wrong side of 27 we say thank you very much and send him to a lower ranked club for draft picks.

We cannot be held over a barrell by a player (regardless of ability) wanting more money.

What type of message does that send to the rest of our list if we give him more than what we have offered? Especially with Gold Coast and West Sydney coming in.

[ReLoad]

Rule Number 1. The deal is the deal, as the Transporter would say.

I'm sorry, but the club is greater than the individual, if Brians mateship and comraderie dont count for anything and its a pure mercenary type decision, then so be it.

NONE of the bottom 4 Clubs which would take him are anywhere near a premiership window, and ALL of them would not be in contention for a flag whislt Brian is playing.

So Brian, the choice is yours, Stay with us and have a real genuine crack at a flag and make 450k a year, or take box number two at maybe 650k a year.

Is it just a job, or is it more than that?

[hotdog]

This is the deal Brian. Our position is firm. Sign or it's off to Melbourne. Your choice. :) I agree we must make a stand. $18K a game is not enough? Maybe Rocket has inserted a "you pay us" clause for every brainfade which results in a goal??:p

[Rocco Jones]

Very simplistic to just say "this is our deal, take it or leave it". Yes, it is very frustrating that Lake seems to be stuffing us around at the moment but even if he is being money hungry, we can't cut off our nose to spite our face.

How will be feel if we lose Lake and end up being right up there without winning a flag again?

[Rocco Jones]

Fwiw I would try to call Team Ricky Lake's bluff and stick hard to our last offer. If the PSD cards end up falling Lake's way and it looks likely that he could end up at a desired club I would increase the offer.

[The Coon Dog]

We all seem to think that we will either re-sign him, trade him or send him into the PSD.

Just checking something made me think there was a 4th option, which could make life interesting in a whole lot of ways.

Last year the AFL approved a number of changes, one of those being as follows:

A player who is not contracted on or before October 31 will now be eligible to nominate for that year's National Draft. This applies immediately from the upcoming 2008 NAB AFL Draft.

Now, lets be honest, Brian Lake is worth a first round draft pick every day of the week. The question is which club would be prepared to use one on him at the expense of a youngster?

Not too sure how it would work with him nominating a figure on his head etc...

AFL approves draft, trading rule changes (http://www.afl.com.au/tabid/208/Default.aspx?newsid=58792)

[Happy Days]

I said we should do whatever it takes to keep him, because, regardless of whether he's being greedy, or if he is asking too much, we are in alot of strife if he leaves.

Part of me thinks we were perhaps too hasty with the re-signing of that big group a few months back.

[Rocco Jones]

We all seem to think that we will either re-sign him, trade him or send him into the PSD.

Just checking something made me think there was a 4th option, which could make life interesting in a whole lot of ways.

Last year the AFL approved a number of changes, one of those being as follows:

A player who is not contracted on or before October 31 will now be eligible to nominate for that year's National Draft. This applies immediately from the upcoming 2008 NAB AFL Draft.

Now, lets be honest, Brian Lake is worth a first round draft pick every day of the week. The question is which club would be prepared to use one on him at the expense of a youngster?

Not too sure how it would work with him nominating a figure on his head etc...

AFL approves draft, trading rule changes (http://www.afl.com.au/tabid/208/Default.aspx?newsid=58792)

Very interesting. I don't think any of Lake's potential suitors would want him to nominate for the National Draft though (obviously 1st round ND >>>> 1st round PSD). What advantage would it give him or his new club other than the fact he would be able to train with them? I believe an experienced player is allowed to nominate a figure on his head for the ND.

[The Coon Dog]

Very interesting. I don't think any of Lake's potential suitors would want him to nominate for the National Draft though

I reckon a club like Collingwood are more likely to secure him via the National Draft than the PSD.

PSD, he's a lock in for pick 1, but in the National Draft, do Melbourne forgo Trengove to take him at pick 2? Other clubs up to Collingwood's pick will have to wrestle with the decision of chosing Lake or a youngster, something that wouldn't happen in the PSD.

Just a thought.

[lemmon]

For me the position is that the deal is on the table and we're not budging from it. He can take it or try his luck in the drafts.

[Rocco Jones]

I reckon a club like Collingwood are more likely to secure him via the National Draft than the PSD.

PSD, he's a lock in for pick 1, but in the National Draft, do Melbourne forgo Trengove to take him at pick 2? Other clubs up to Collingwood's pick will have to wrestle with the decision of chosing Lake or a youngster, something that wouldn't happen in the PSD.

Just a thought.

You make some good points. If Carlton and Collingwood are little to no chance of getting him in the PSD, they would definitely consider the ND option.

[Sockeye Salmon]

We all seem to think that we will either re-sign him, trade him or send him into the PSD.

Just checking something made me think there was a 4th option, which could make life interesting in a whole lot of ways.

Last year the AFL approved a number of changes, one of those being as follows:

A player who is not contracted on or before October 31 will now be eligible to nominate for that year's National Draft. This applies immediately from the upcoming 2008 NAB AFL Draft.

Now, lets be honest, Brian Lake is worth a first round draft pick every day of the week. The question is which club would be prepared to use one on him at the expense of a youngster?

Not too sure how it would work with him nominating a figure on his head etc...

AFL approves draft, trading rule changes (http://www.afl.com.au/tabid/208/Default.aspx?newsid=58792)

Lake is contracted until October 31 so I don't believe this option will be available to him.

[chef]

You make some good points. If Carlton and Collingwood are little to no chance of getting him in the PSD, they would definitely consider the ND option.

Carltons pick 11 is gone, so unless they get another one they wouldn't be an option.

Richmond and the Kangaroos would look at him.

[LostDoggy]

The Deal is the Deal you are part of a team working towards a flag. This is a Team sport and this team is not about individuals.

[mjp]

Our best 3 players are Lake, Cooney and Murphy. Without them, we aren't going anywhere.

I am in the 'do whatever it takes' camp here. There is absolutely no way we can lose him except for finances...and in this era of the salary cap we should not be able to be outbid.

Make it happen and make this issue go away.

[LostDoggy]

OK Lakey we would like to be in the position to offer you more money, as we can't at the moment is there anything else that we negotiate? Perhaps pick up some media work for the club - i.e. an article in the HeraldSun weekly, or perhaps a regular gig on one of the radio stations - we could use our influence to make this happen (haha). Yes, I know Sydney offered you $550,000 but they have a larger salary cap than us, they also don't know the full extent of your hip problem either - so after a couple of X-rays and all that might change.

You know we have been through some incredibly tough times together, Browny leaving, the wooden spoon, just missing the finals in 2005 and finally making the finals in 2006. Disappointing as this year has been not making the GF, we have improved and thanks to the new rules not allowing you to throw the ball through for a point, it has made you a star. We expect to be in the GF next season, and it would be a shame if you were to miss out. The boys would really like you to stay.

I always imagined you would be a one club player, and think of you as a mentor to our young players coming on - who all look up and respect you. Still business is business and we can't have you going off to another team who will potentially challenge for the flag next year, so if you don't want to accept our offer - we won't trade. You will have to try your luck in the PSD and I believe Freo are very interested in picking you up. Have a think about it Lakey, unfortunately the players and the fans are very unforgiving Lakey, ala Browny - it might not bother you, but it can be relentless as Browny can testify.

[mighty_west]

I went the trade Everitt option, it seems as though we want to trade him anyway, and at least get a good draft pick for him, and save Brian.

The first option should be good enough, but Ricky O'lerenshaw is a parasite and it seems that won't get the deal done.

To get a player in return, we simply couldn't get a player as valuable as Lake is for us in return, so thats not an option, besides, that player will most likely cost us more than what we offred Lake anyway, so that player probably wouldn't fit in our cap anyway, and Fev is a dickhead!

The do whatever it takes to keep him is what we are trying to do now with no success as it seems, and trading off Everitt is doing what we can to keep Brian, i'd prefer to keep Andrejs, but, i'd rather keep Lake, and something has to give.

[boydogs]

Lake is contracted until October 31 so I don't believe this option will be available to him.

I think it means contracted for the following year - see further excerpt from the article below:

(not sure if I need to add the link again but anyway)
http://www.afl.com.au/tabid/208/Default.aspx?newsid=58792

"A player must also now be contracted by his club by October 31, if that club wishes to retain him. If the player is not contracted by October 31, he has the option to delist himself and enter the national draft and/or the pre-season draft. This increases the options available to players who cannot reach agreement with their clubs.

"Previously, a player was prevented from entering the national draft if he was still listed by his Club, but out of contract … This meant that players were not able to to enter the National Draft and secure a position with clubs before the pre-season draft, where fewer selections are available," Anderson said.

[boydogs]

I think we still have a few options to get it done

We could not only trade Everitt for the highest pick available to free up cap room, but also trade Addison rather than our 3rd rounder to Sydney, and retire Eagle. Not sure I would go any further than this however in retiring Aker/Johnno/Huddo, or trading Callan/Tiller

We could offer him a 5th year at the $450k, heavily backended for when he will be on the vets list. Whilst a risk, this could help us meet our current cap challenges even more so than the 4 @ 450 deal on the table at the moment

We could add an incentive payment to the 4 year $450k deal up to $50k per year based on number of games played, to protect ourselves from injury/suspensions or even poor form later in his career

I would try all of those options to keep him

[Doc26]

Sure I'm now contradicting myself from an earlier thread where was "at all costs" but now have gone the trade Lake scenario, seems in the minority but probably just misinterpreting option 1. That is, we offer our best possible deal, with no Andrejs or similar sacrifice, throw in some marketing incentives, eg Jason bedding, and hold, but not to the point of not getting something decent for him if he decides to take us to the cleaners. Don't go the Port Adelaide Stevens route of masochism.

[The Pie Man]

I'm somewhere between trading Everitt and doing whatever we can.

As frustrating as it is, setting us back right on the cusp will be worse.

Though I always get this feeling players putting themselves in 'this' position tempt the sporting injury gods

[Scraggers]

I voted for the deal is the deal ... take it or leave it

I don't want to lose Lake, but I don't like the club being held to ransom either

If the current contract is not acceptable, then I would look at offering him a two year contract with a premiership clause offer of a further two should we make the big dance ... maybe this would free up some funds to pay him a bit more

In saying all of this, we don't have all the info, and I feel some of the comments on this and other threads are a bit harsh ... I'm with you GVGjr, I still think he will re-sign with us

[The Coon Dog]

I still think he will re-sign with us
According to John Ralph in the Herald Sun, there remains a long way to go in negotiations:

'The Western Bulldogs have told Lake and his management that he won't be traded under any circumstances.

With the parties believed to be up to $100,000 apart in salary talks, Lake is said to be willing to take his chances in the pre-season draft.'


AFL players nervous ahead of national draft (http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/national-draft-keeps-afl-players-on-toes/story-e6frf9jf-1225780649354)

[Go_Dogs]

Geez, still a $100K apart, not a good sign...

[dog town]

I feel sick just thinking about losing Lake. Doesn't seem like we have much option but to let Brian make a decision.

Is it a bit of a concern that clubs like Geelong and Stkilda have been able to keep their lists together but we are struggling to keep our most valuable player and still have Cooney and Griffen to look after next season?

Is it possible that we are paying the price for not having a football manager at certain stages or is it more to do with our economic restraints?

[comrade]

According to John Ralph in the Herald Sun, there remains a long way to go in negotiations:

'The Western Bulldogs have told Lake and his management that he won't be traded under any circumstances.

With the parties believed to be up to $100,000 apart in salary talks, Lake is said to be willing to take his chances in the pre-season draft.'


AFL players nervous ahead of national draft (http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/national-draft-keeps-afl-players-on-toes/story-e6frf9jf-1225780649354)

Would that be $100K over 4 years?

If so, we're talking about a $25K p/year discrepency that's holding up negotiations with our most valuable player.

Get it done, FFS.

[Desipura]

The thing that concerns me is that the Dogs generally put a deal in front of players and it is publicly known, and that is the deal.
I cant recall in recent times, a deal being re-negotiated, with the public being made aware of the new offer.

[LostDoggy]

Just do it

We have a windfall from the re-negotiated Etihad deal - use that.

And still there will be money left over.

Nothing offered by a potential suitor will replace him.

[chef]

I voted 'the deal is the deal'. If he wants to hold the club and the careers of a few players for ransom then he can piss off to the Demons and enjoy his cash and not success.

IMO we are still going to be a very good side next year with or without him.

What happens next year when Cooney and Griffen are out of contract and GC throw some cash at them? The Lake deal is our line in the sand.

[LostDoggy]

ive always thought that our club had a loyalty about it, ive never forgiven browney, and he got what he deserved(no sucess). Take a leaf out of grantys book brian!! you stay for the love of the club, if ya dont like it, BUGGER OFF!!

[Mofra]

I'm in the camp of getting it done - between Barry & Brian we should be close to starting premiership favourites.

Interesting chat on Sunday to someone fairly close to the Dees; not so much about their intentions, but their salary cap issues.
They have issues as serious as we do, but at the opposite end of the scale. They are finding ways to spend more as they would be way under nominally.

They have front loaded contracts in 09 to meet the minimum 92.5% salary cap requirement, and Brock McLean leaving means they are effectively paying just over 80% of their salary cap prior to the draft/trade period.

Picking up Lake would mean the Dees don't have to renegotiate contracts or overpay non-established players. Brian should probably take note.

[Ozza]

Without seeing all the figures and being right in amongst - I have no idea what we should do.
But my thoughts are:

-2010 is going to be our last chance at a premiership for a few years at least.
-We can't win the flag next year without Brian Lake.
-If we don't sort out a deal with Lake - it will be an absolute disaster.

As much as we don't want the club 'held to ransom' - and want to stick to our guns - Lake is holding the cards - he is the gun key position defender, we can't replace him, he can get teh cash he wants elsewhere.

I thought this deal was done at 1.8 for 4 years.

[LostDoggy]

The deal is a deal - we've all got a draw a line somewhere and as someone said before the club is greater than one man. I don't see the Bulldogs as a club who needs to put one player on a pedistal (ie St Kilda & Riewoldt). A football works much better in the long run when it's focused as a TEAM. what will be will be!

[LostDoggy]

I went for the deal is the deal.

However, to get it over the line, if he really does hit the vet's list in the 4th year, then I would add the missing 100k onto the 4th year of the contract and wear 50k on the salary cap!

[Ozza]

The deal is a deal - we've all got a draw a line somewhere and as someone said before the club is greater than one man. I don't see the Bulldogs as a club who needs to put one player on a pedistal (ie St Kilda & Riewoldt). A football works much better in the long run when it's focused as a TEAM. what will be will be!

Certainly the theory is good. But unforunately - you still need someone to play on Brown, Franklin, Kosi, Tippett, Fevola etc when you play them - and without Lake we will struggle.

I know we don't put one player ahead of a team - but when he is your most important player - the team suffers if he is not there.

If Lake isn't at the Bulldogs next year - we won't be top 4. Simple as that.

[chef]

Certainly the theory is good. But unforunately - you still need someone to play on Brown, Franklin, Kosi, Tippett, Fevola etc when you play them - and without Lake we will struggle.

I know we don't put one player ahead of a team - but when he is your most important player - the team suffers if he is not there.

If Lake isn't at the Bulldogs next year - we won't be top 4. Simple as that.

No it's not.

Who knows what we get get in a trade if that happens?

We will still have a very good side next year without Lake.

[LostDoggy]

Lake is over-rating himself here -- and I believe many of us are also.

Sure, he's had a breakout year (his 2007 B&F notwithstanding), but there's ABSOLUTELY NO GUARANTEE that he'll ever have a year like this one again. In fact, one would suggest that it's highly unlikely, which means we'll end up overpaying in the last two or three years of his contract. If another club is willing to take this risk, by all means, let them.

I've been a very big Lake supporter over the journey, and have a post a couple of months back comparing his worth to a full-forward (in terms of goals saved). However, his stubbornness at the contract table is potentially jeapordising the next five years of the club's future, with less and less salary cap space to keep other players. All the Geelong players have accepted 20% below market value to stay together -- it's the reality of being a successful team as opposed to the best renumerated individual, which is clearly what Brian wants to be. This is not a recipe for sustained success, and if the club doesn't make a stance, it sets a dangerous precedent where all our players will have to be selfish and simply go for market rate as this practice will destroy any chance we have of building a good team in the long-term anyway.

We CANNOT -- make no mistake about it -- CANNOT afford to pay him more and potentially lose up to three or four marquee players (Cooney, Higgins, Hill etc.) to the Gold Coast or elsewhere in the next few years. The club has to start the practice of teaching players to accept lower than market rate in the interest of building a dynasty like Geelong.

If we are so reliant on one player, we are stuffed anyway, and Brian Lake is no Nick Riewoldt. Like I've said in a few other threads, there are at least a handful of replacements who, while not going to be in Lake's 2009 class -- will do the job adequately enough that we will still be serious contenders.

I am of the belief that the club should not be bloody-minded about it and if they can't come to an agreement, work out a three-way trade for a Chris Tarrant, Nathan Bock or Matt McGuire or the like who will be a more-than-adequate stopgap measure.

[chef]

Lake is over-rating himself here -- and I believe many of us are also.

Sure, he's had a breakout year (his 2007 B&F notwithstanding), but there's ABSOLUTELY NO GUARANTEE that he'll ever have a year like this one again. In fact, one would suggest that it's highly unlikely, which means we'll end up overpaying in the last two or three years of his contract. If another club is willing to take this risk, by all means, let them.

I've been a very big Lake supporter over the journey, and have a post a couple of months back comparing his worth to a full-forward (in terms of goals saved). However, his stubbornness at the contract table is potentially jeapordising the next five years of the club's future, with less and less salary cap space to keep other players. All the Geelong players have accepted 20% below market value to stay together -- it's the reality of being a successful team as opposed to the best renumerated individual, which is clearly what Brian wants to be. This is not a recipe for sustained success, and if the club doesn't make a stance, it sets a dangerous precedent where all our players will have to be selfish and simply go for market rate as this practice will destroy any chance we have of building a good team in the long-term anyway.

We CANNOT -- make no mistake about it -- CANNOT afford to pay him more and potentially lose up to three or four marquee players (Cooney, Higgins, Hill etc.) to the Gold Coast or elsewhere in the next few years. The club has to start the practice of teaching players to accept lower than market rate in the interest of building a dynasty like Geelong.

If we are so reliant on one player, we are stuffed anyway, and Brian Lake is no Nick Riewoldt. Like I've said in a few other threads, there are at least a handful of replacements who, while not going to be in Lake's 2009 class -- will do the job adequately enough that we will still be serious contenders.

I am of the belief that the club should not be bloody-minded about it and if they can't come to an agreement, work out a three-way trade for a Chris Tarrant, Nathan Bock or Matt McGuire or the like who will be a more-than-adequate stopgap measure.

Hallelujah brother. Let sanity prevail.

[Mantis]

Would that be $100K over 4 years?

If so, we're talking about a $25K p/year discrepency that's holding up negotiations with our most valuable player.

Get it done, FFS.

Not knowing I would think it would be more like $100K per season.

[LostDog]

I'm over it, the guy comes out and claims a little girl has changed his mind ala Chris Grant story mark 2 and then changes his mind, this guy is gonna cost us more than a position in the future we will lose a young superstar because of him.

Just another brain fade from this guy.
sure your family is a considered result of this, how can you haggle on money that most of us would only dream about per year

[LostDoggy]

This whole issue is starting to make Brian look ordinary. Having said that no one know s for sure what exactly has been presented. It is very frustrating.

[Rocco Jones]

My guess is a partially back loaded $2 million over 4 years deal will keep him at the Dogs.

I know there are long term concerns about this body but could we offer him an option for a 5th year? If we keep on increasing the size of the contract, we would be paying a fair bit of an extra year anyway.

[The Pie Man]

Not knowing I would think it would be more like $100K per season.

If he wants 2.2 mil over 4 years (as 1.8 over 4 years is all over the media I assume the offer on the table is somewhere around that) sorry Brian but that's unreasonable, and I change my stance to the 'deal's a deal'

Then the money we don't spend on him we can perhaps look at Tarrant/Maguire and hope Boumann/Williams can take the next step.

[Ozza]

No it's not.

Who knows what we get get in a trade if that happens?

We will still have a very good side next year without Lake.

Would have to be a pretty good trade - and since we have said we won't be training - that may be irrelevant anyway.

Who is going to play full back if Lake is gone. He is a 194cm big body who has an enormous marking ability and gives us drive from Full back. He isn't 'over rating' himself.

The rest of the side might be very good - but the backline will look very suspect without him in it.

[LostDoggy]

The more I think about it, the more Nathan Bock makes sense. Has had an okay-only year, with some off-field dramas, both club and individual may be happy to move on.

Reasonable alternative, would come (slightly) cheaper than what Brian is asking. What would it take to get this deal done?

[chef]

Would have to be a pretty good trade - and since we have said we won't be training - that may be irrelevant anyway.

Who is going to play full back if Lake is gone. He is a 194cm big body who has an enormous marking ability and gives us drive from Full back. He isn't 'over rating' himself.

The rest of the side might be very good - but the backline will look very suspect without him in it.

FB Hargrave Morris Harbrow
HB Gilbee Williams Tiller/Callan/Addison/Reid/Wood


If he is traded you would think that a deal would include a KPP.

[Ozza]

FB Hargrave Morris Harbrow
HB Gilbee Williams Tiller/Callan/Addison/Reid/Wood


If he is traded you would think that a deal would include a KPP.

You are forgetting that Williams hardly ever plays (and isn't proven) and that Tiller is not much good.

I'm not saying what Brian is doing isn't massively annoying (as well as damaging to his reputation) but the fact is - with the 09 list - we were inches from a Grand Final - we are hoping to get Barry Hall as a big forward - which will benefit us - but losing Lake is an enormous step backwards.

When we had Morris and Hargrave playing on monsters - we used to get flogged a fair bit. Lake's size in taking the biggest and best forward - as well as taking 10-12 marks a game which keep the oppositions small forwards out of the game also - is such a huge benefit to us. I have no doubt whatsover that he is our most important player.

[LostDoggy]

Sorry Brian but best deal we got.

Sooner or later the asking price reaches a point where we have to consider other options.

He's as good a player we've had for trade in years and we really should get a 1st rounder plus a player for him on the open market!

A few other cheaper back options being touted ATM (Tarrant - surely cheaper??), Nathan Brown (Pies) or even Gibson from North??

Having said that, we need him to stay.

[Mofra]

My guess is a partially back loaded $2 million over 4 years deal will keep him at the Dogs.
I'd be happy to find an extra $200k over 4 years if it meant keeping Lake - just not sure we can backload too much when Cooney & Griffen come up for renegotiation, even allowing for the veteran's list.

[Rocco Jones]

I'd be happy to find an extra $200k over 4 years if it meant keeping Lake - just not sure we can backload too much when Cooney & Griffen come up for renegotiation, even allowing for the veteran's list.

Easy! Give Cooney and Griffen 8 year, back loaded contracts! :)

[Mofra]

Easy! Give Cooney and Griffen 8 year, back loaded contracts! :)
After 8 years the draft may return to normal - we sink down the ladder in time for the return of draft integrity.

This board is a cacophany of freakin' genious!

[comrade]

After 8 years the draft may return to normal - we sink down the ladder in time for the return of draft integrity.

This board is a cacophany of freakin' genious!

I love that you spelt genius wrong :D

[AndrewP6]

I love that you spelt genius wrong :D

and cacophony... :D ...sorry, just being picky!

[Rocket Science]

If he won't sign, take the initiative and trade his belligerent ass.

Lake being told he won't be dealt under any circumstance is obviously a pressure tactic (which doesn't appear to be working), but if contract negotiations are as mired as reports suggest I'm rather hoping the club takes the initiative and is being active behind the scenes in direct contradiction to that stance.

Forget good faith and the virtues of standing behind your word...they've seemingly gone out the window and we've surely got as much right to look after number one as Bryza does.

That means not letting a valuable asset with significant market value walk for nothing, and negotiating a suitable trade. This must be pursued in the name of prudent asset management and the club's longer term future, the very same reasons we can't and won't cough up the dough available to him elsewhere.

Bryza's my most loved current player, and clearly integral to our current structure, but if his priority continues to be self interest in light of where things presently stand between player and club, let him live with his decision and cut him loose, for satisfactory compensation of course.

I won't enjoy seeing Lake in different colours, but if we handle this properly I'm sure we'll live.

If nothing else it'd certainly add more spice to a prospective Hall v Lake matchup at some stage next season. Imagine Barry kicked another bag.

[Remi Moses]

Haggling over 25 grand . COME ON BRIAN F****** WAKE UP

[Mofra]

Completely unsubstantiated rumours flying around today that Lake will sign with the Bulldogs based on the current offer but wont do so until the last minute at the advice of his manager just in case the Dogs can find a few extra pesos.

There are also rumours flying around that I can spell but this thread has so far put paid to that furphy.

[LostDoggy]

This problem has been keeping me awake at nights... and given my username has been emotionally draining as well.

I looked at this year's stats to reinforce my obersvations of Lake over the year to try and remove some of my bias. He ranks very highly for marks and contested marks, rebound 50's and disposal efficiency. What's more he does all of this from full back. The value of this is it allows us to attack from deep defense more fluently, puts more pressure on the oppoistion midfield delivery and helps take the opposition's small forwards out of the game. For mine there is not another player in the league who plays that specific role as well as Lake.

He does have his set of weaknesses though. He is uncomfortable being taken out on the long lead or playing too high which means he can't play CHB. he also does not seem to have a great tank so can't run with the Brown's and Riewoldts. He struggles on a fast lead like Fevola (which is why we generally play Morris on him) and he has those famous Brian Fades which costs us goals. Laslty there are few examples (any?) of the Brian Lake Full Forward tactic paying off.

Weighing up the good with the bad he is still perhaps the hardest player to replace on our list and I would want us to do what we can to keep him. If it is 20-25k extra per year the I would say lets do it but, then put the acid on him with performance based contractual elements (not sure if this can be done).

If he is set to go we would need to understand his motivation. If it is purely money and he does not care about team success we are pretty much stuffed as he will be happy to go to the PSD and name his price at Melbourne, Freemantle Richmond etc.. Not much we can do to stop this, and the destination clubs in this scenario may be prepared to just let it play out rather then dealing with us.

In this situation all we can do is hope to acquire another KPD in the draft or trade week which may include Tarrant or MacGuire as the best options and hope like hell that Bill Davoren and Peter Dean can mould Williams, Tiller, Everitt and Boumann into effective defensive options.

If he wants more cash but also some chance of success then reports suggest we are looking at Carlton and Collingwood. If they are serious we should put up some suggested trades to test that commitment. I would suggest Jarrad Waite as a straight swap, or perhaps Nathan Brown (+ pick??), this may help to either secure a valuable player in return or hopefully get them to back off. At the moment they can just sit back and put all the pressure on us and it costs them nothing.

We are in a difficult position beacuase of our strong public stance on this issue. There is a danger that if we up our offer or consent to a trade that we will have been very publicly caught out in a bluff which could damage our negotiating position in the future. Unless we are confident Brain will come around I think it is time to consider swallowing our pride.

It is a bit crushing to find ourselves in this position, Brian is my favourite player and I am trying to be understanding, he does need to look out for himself and his family, however even if he stays, either becuase we up our offer or he accepts our terms, you have to wonder what this drawn out negotiation may do to his position with the rest of the playing group and the club in general. :(:(

[Mofra]

We are in a difficult position beacuase of our strong public stance on this issue. There is a danger that if we up our offer or consent to a trade that we will have been very publicly caught out in a bluff which could damage our negotiating position in the future. Unless we are confident Brain will come around I think it is time to consider swallowing our pride.
If we slip him an extra $50k lump sum from the marketing budget, can't we still announce him as a $1.8m over 4 year signing?

In any case I'm not sure pride or public perception are super-important right now. I think we will have our best premiership chance in years with Barry & Brian bookending the side in 2010.

[LostDoggy]

If we slip him an extra $50k lump sum from the marketing budget, can't we still announce him as a $1.8m over 4 year signing?

In any case I'm not sure pride or public perception are super-important right now. I think we will have our best premiership chance in years with Barry & Brian bookending the side in 2010.

I fully agree, the prospect of a Brian & Barry bookend with a gloriously bearded Ben centrepiece was making for a very excited supporter until the doubt over Brians' signature became news last week.

[LostDoggy]

If we slip him an extra $50k lump sum from the marketing budget, can't we still announce him as a $1.8m over 4 year signing?

In any case I'm not sure pride or public perception are super-important right now. I think we will have our best premiership chance in years with Barry & Brian bookending the side in 2010.

But quality is only one ingredient that goes into moulding a premiership team. Teams like Sydney and - to a certain extent - St Kilda this year have focused as much on things like team morale/spirit, togetherness, a willingness to sacrifice individual stats for the gameplan, culture etc. in developing Grand Final sides.

One would argue that West Coast of 2005/06 were as chock-ful of talent as any team, but they could only manage one (barely) against a far less talented Sydney team, and have fallen apart ignominiously, thanks to a destructive internal culture.

The culture and future of the club cannot be held ransom to a single individual's greed.. it's the fastest way to underachievement, in any case.

[LostDoggy]

focused as much on things like team morale/spirit, togetherness, a willingness to sacrifice individual stats for the gameplan, culture etc. in developing Grand Final sides.

Nail.
On it's head.
That's where you hit it.

[Mofra]

One would argue that West Coast of 2005/06 were as chock-ful of talent as any team, but they could only manage one (barely) against a far less talented Sydney team, and have fallen apart ignominiously, thanks to a destructive internal culture.
Was there really that much of a talent differential though?
Yes, WCE had a fab 4 in the centre, but the Swans talent around the ground was much better.

We are clearly a better side with Lake playing and I'd think we'd much rather having him in the side than out of it.

[LostDoggy]

Was there really that much of a talent differential though?
Yes, WCE had a fab 4 in the centre, but the Swans talent around the ground was much better.

We are clearly a better side with Lake playing and I'd think we'd much rather having him in the side than out of it.

Of course -- but with the proviso that he wants to be there and the club and Brian's handling of the situation hasn't pissed everyone else on the list off.

Balance is a hard thing to achieve on any list, and something like this has the potential to screw up a lot of team harmony. I mean, if I were, say, Shaun Higgins, I would feel pretty aggrieved if I played out of my skin next year only to be told that I won't be able to get an upgraded contract because Bryza's got all the money, ESPECIALLY if Brian goes down with a hammy in round 2, or has a shocker of a year.

Then the GC comes-a-knockin...

Multiply this by 20 or 30, and you have a situation where everyone starts looking out for no.1 and playing only for their next contract or for a big money upgrade to one of the big boys. Like Sockeye's said many times, if there were free agency we would be screwed.

[The Coon Dog]

Lake is contracted until October 31 so I don't believe this option will be available to him.
I spoke with someone today who said Lake could nominate for the National Draft & I would expect he'd know such rules better than us on here. ;)

[GVGjr]

For those of you that have voted for the The deal is the deal and it's the best we can offer you option (over 50% of voters) why do you think it's best top lose him for nothing rather than getting an early draft pick or two or to even explore a trade?
How does this course of action benefit the club?

To be honest if a company I had invested in dropped a valuable asset with no gain or return I'd be asking them for a comprehensive reason why.

[Yankee Hotel Foxtrot]

I'm voting for deal stands and No trade.

On the basis that we met his original criteria, being years and money, we as a club MUST stand firm on our principles. And this is not some lofty airy fairy ideal that means little in the real world. If we were to fold on negotiations, then we leave ourselves wide open to being held over a barrel every time an important players contract is up for renewal (RE: next year with Cooney and Griffen).

It is also a matter of team cohesion. If we cave to Brian's demands, and end up having to trade someone else to fit him in, that cannot foster a good feeling of togetherness amongst the group.

As other's have mentioned here, winning a premiership is not just about having the best playing group, it is about self-sacrifice, committing to a team cause etc. If Brian's interests are about squeezing every last drop of cash he can get, and reneging on a 'handshake agreement' then I don't trust him to put the playing group ahead of himself when it get's tough.

If he is not with us, then we need to accept the short term pain that losing him for nothing in the draft would cause. I think in the long run it is important to stand firm, let him go in the draft and end up with the Dee's or in Freo, if he is unwilling to commit to the deal he originally was happy with.

I wonder if it's possible to send the leadership group around to meet him, and let him know that they think he is a vital component of our team, and we need him more than ever if we are to achieve our goal of a premiership that he must know is close. But that if he is more intent on holding out for the extra $$'s then they have to question his commitment and that they will support the club decision to let him go in the draft, and to NOT to find him a home via trade.

Ball in Brian's court.

[LostDoggy]

For those of you that have voted for the The deal is the deal and it's the best we can offer you option (over 50% of voters) why do you think it's best top lose him for nothing rather than getting an early draft pick or two or to even explore a trade?
How does this course of action benefit the club?

To be honest if a company I had invested in dropped a valuable asset with no gain or return I'd be asking them for a comprehensive reason why.

They mentioned in the HS today that the Bulldogs were quoted as saying that we will not trade Brian under any circumstances. I guess a few may've taken the same line and are playing hard ball. I just cant see him playing for Melb for a few more $$$$, and having to go with a team rebuilding, when we are going well.

Personally if we can get something reasonable for him, its better to get something as opposed to nothing.

I dont reckon Eade has done too much wrong with trades etc since being at the club, so I will trust the club to make the right decision.

[Yankee Hotel Foxtrot]

For those of you that have voted for the The deal is the deal and it's the best we can offer you option (over 50% of voters) why do you think it's best top lose him for nothing rather than getting an early draft pick or two or to even explore a trade?
How does this course of action benefit the club?

To be honest if a company I had invested in dropped a valuable asset with no gain or return I'd be asking them for a comprehensive reason why.

If this was just a case of two parties not being able to agree to terms, then I would say yes let's trade and do a deal. But the big thing here is we moved a considerable way from our initial offer both in terms of dollars and years. He was happy initially. He then reneged and asked for more money.

If we roll-over on this, and then trade him to where he gets the terms he wants (presumably a top 4 club) then we not only lose out on our principles, but give potential rivals a leg-up up in the premiership race in 2010, plus we also send the word out to player managers that we are easy-beats in negotiations.

[LostDoggy]

Went for option.

'The deal is the deal and it's the best we can offer you'

Let him leave for nothing & end up at Melbourne, he will turn into another Nathan Brown.

[GVGjr]

Went for option.

'The deal is the deal and it's the best we can offer you'

Let him leave for nothing & end up at Melbourne, he will turn into another Nathan Brown.

But that's not really a reason. Are you taking that option out of spite and to teach him a lesson? How does it benefit the club, the team and the supporters?

I'd let players go for nothing or next to nothing for compassionate reasons but if the player is being very professional and fully focused on his finances (which he is entitled to) then why should we play chicken and hope that he will eventually just come around? Why shouldn't we try and turn it into the best deal we can get for the club?

A few years back Nick Stevens forced Ports hand because he only wanted a trade to Collingwood and what the Pies offered was a not really adequate compensation, not even close. Port said stuff it and let him go into the draft and got nothing for him. Nick was leaving the club no matter what.

With Lake, I have haven't heard the same sort of conditions being applied and I presume his preference is to stay with us but for whatever reason he wants more than he originally requested and probably more than we can afford to pay.
With that in mind if one or more of 4 clubs can put together a decent offers why should we ignore them?

[LostDoggy]

But that's not really a reason. Are you taking that option out of spite and to teach him a lesson? How does it benefit the club, the team and the supporters?

I'd let players go for nothing or next to nothing for compassionate reasons but if the player is being very professional and fully focused on his finances (which he is entitled to) then why should we play chicken and hope that he will eventually just come around? Why shouldn't we try and turn it into the best deal we can get for the club?

A few years back Nick Stevens forced Ports hand because he only wanted a trade to Collingwood and what the Pies offered was a not really adequate compensation, not even close. Port said stuff it and let him go into the draft and got nothing for him. Nick was leaving the club no matter what.

With Lake, I have haven't heard the same sort of conditions being applied and I presume his preference is to stay with us but for whatever reason he wants more than he originally requested and probably more than we can afford to pay.
With that in mind if one or more of 4 clubs can put together a decent offers why should we ignore them?

To me it has already left a sour taste in my mouth, considering $450,000 per year was a good offer to start with. Like most posters have stated above, we need to stick to our guns & show that no player is bigger than the club.

I look at Geelong and envy what those players are doing, all have taken pay decreases to stay together, because they can see success on the horizon. You definitely don't get that same feeling with the whole Lake situation, because a very generous deal has already been rejected.

How much would Scarlett be on at Geelong?

I would rather let him leave for nothing, then allow him to move onto another top four club & push us back in the pecking order. I wouldn't want a draft pick for him, because it simply doesn't help us now, with the group being so close. The only other team in the competition from the lower clubs who would have something we want is Freo, but they won't let Pavlich leave (in my opinion).

I honestly don't think he will sign, and news reports don't give me any more confidence.


Lake is said to be willing to take his chances in the pre-season draft.

http://www.foxsports.com.au/story/0,8659,26138005-5018851,00.html

I would probably only trade if it did involve Pavlich, because i don't want the club to slip away from the top four, with the inclusion of Lake into one of those sides.

[Dry Rot]

T
I honestly don't think he will sign, and news reports don't give me any more confidence.

I would probably only trade if it did involve Pavlich, because i don't want the club to slip away from the top four, with the inclusion of Lake into one of those sides.

If Lake leaves, we slip out of top four anyway. Lake is the most important player in our side. Without him, we are seriously diminished. Might as well do a bit of a rebuild now if that happens.

Surely we need some deadline soon and then if he doesn't sign, get the best trade for him. If he's just after extra money, he won't care about going to the Demons, leaving us with nothing.

That would turn an awful result (Lake leaving) into a shocking one (Lake leaving and we get nothing).

Get the best draft pick deal we can and see if we can get another good defender. If we can't, recognise that Lake has buggered us, get rid of most of the vets and do a bit of a rebuild.

[comrade]

If Lake goes, should we still target Hall?

[LostDoggy]

If Lake leaves, we slip out of top four anyway. Lake is the most important player in our side. Without him, we are seriously diminished. Might as well do a bit of a rebuild now if that happens.

Surely we need some deadline soon and then if he doesn't sign, get the best trade for him. If he's just after extra money, he won't care about going to the Demons, leaving us with nothing.

That would turn an awful result (Lake leaving) into a shocking one (Lake leaving and we get nothing).

Get the best draft pick deal we can and see if we can get another good defender. If we can't, recognise that Lake has buggered us, get rid of most of the vets and do a bit of a rebuild.

If we were able obtain Hall & Pavlich, would you still think we wouldn't make top four?

[GVGjr]

If Lake goes, should we still target Hall?

Great question. The two might be linked.

The problem with the clubs public approach on Lake is that we will stitch up a trade with the Swans for Hall before we know if we can maintain Lake. I really do believe that if we can't keep Lake or get something good for him then we don't get the full value in trading for Hall. I'm not really a fan of getting Hall anyway but it becomes a bit harder for me to accept trading for Hall if we were to lose Lake for nothing.

[Dry Rot]

If Lake goes, should we still target Hall?

Depends upon why. He was always a dodgy proposition re winning a flag but he could still be useful with helping to blood our young talls as a rebuilding side.

On balance, I'd say no (if Lake leaves) and try to trade for a good young tall who's been in the system for a few years.

[Dry Rot]

If we were able obtain Hall & Pavlich, would you still think we wouldn't make top four?

Why not chuck in Jon Brown too? Unrealistic question, but probably not.

[Dry Rot]

Great question. The two might be linked.

The problem with the clubs public approach on Lake is that we will stitch up a trade with the Swans for Hall before we know if we can maintain Lake. I really do believe that if we can't keep Lake or get something good for him then we don't get the full value in trading for Hall. I'm not really a fan of getting Hall anyway but it becomes a bit harder for me to accept trading for Hall if we were to lose Lake for nothing.

Agree with all that - why we need a deadline soon re Lake.

[LostDoggy]

Why not chuck in Jon Brown too? Unrealistic question, but probably not.

Unrealistic due to salary cap?

[Dry Rot]

Unrealistic due to salary cap?

That's one factor. Another is that we wouldn't go too well without Cooney and Griffin either.

[LostDoggy]

That's one factor. Another is that we wouldn't go too well without Cooney and Griffin either.

So we would have to give up Lake, Cooney & Griffen to get Pav?

[GVGjr]

So we would have to give up Lake, Cooney & Griffen to get Pav?

You are taking the thread right off track. There is a trade thread better suited to this speculation.

[Julie C]

I'd like to just throw something out of leftfield. Could keeping Lake be as simple as offering him the captaincy.
I have watched him take control of the game from Full Back, including sending messages back to Rocket via the runner. I think he would make a great captain.
I think Johno would be better value to us over the next 2 years without the pressure of the captaincy.

[GVGjr]

I'd like to just throw something out of leftfield. Could keeping Lake be as simple as offering him the captaincy.
I have watched him take control of the game from Full Back, including sending messages back to Rocket via the runner. I think he would make a great captain.
I think Johno would be better value to us over the next 2 years without the pressure of the captaincy.

I doubt it. It really seems to be a purely financial consideration at the moment.

[Topdog]

So we would have to give up Lake, Cooney & Griffen to get Pav?

Well Pav is rumoured to be on 1m a year. Cooney is out of contract next year so getting Pav means we wouldn't have much left to play around with.

Pav is impossible to get unless Freo pay for 50% of his salary.

[1eyedog]

Dear Brian,

You are tearing the heart out of the supporters who have followed the club through thick and thin. Through 54 and the dark days of the 70s and 80s. We watched in despair and did what little we could in 89 and it gelled the club and its people together.

We need you Brian, more than we have ever needed a player at the Bulldogs since I have been following them. We have a chance to make history in the next two years and you have a chance to be apart of it. You are a vital component of that history. You are our lone sentinel down there, our rock of Gibraltar and western bulldogs supporters come to watch you play.

We love you Brian, but you are putting us through the wringer, I hate to think what the players are going through, the stalwarts, the Johnson's, the Gia's, the Boyd's all good men and true. I know you are a good man Brian but after the bitter Preliminary final loss you throw this at us? We were devastated with the end result of that match and then slight hope surfaced with the acquisition of a full forward. Could 2010 be the year?

Brian, do it for the blokes you stand in the heat of battle with every weekend and do it for the supporters who lived through and gave their dole cheque to the Bulldogs in 89, do it for the boys who remember 54 but most of all do it for yourself so when you are 60 years old and you are looking back over your life you can say you were apart of history at this club, a club who will remain your family forever.

[Doc26]

I'd like to just throw something out of leftfield. Could keeping Lake be as simple as offering him the captaincy.
I have watched him take control of the game from Full Back, including sending messages back to Rocket via the runner. I think he would make a great captain.
I think Johno would be better value to us over the next 2 years without the pressure of the captaincy.

I couldn't reward Brian in this way and although I can understand where you're coming from it just seems to smack of desperation. Boyd, Morris, Murph and Higgins would be in front of the queue from where I sit to take over from Johnno. In terms of captaincy I would send him to the back of the queue. Is all very well that he looks for better terms but not to the point of breaking the club again. As is too often said no one individual is bigger than the Club which is exactly where Brian appears to have positioned himself if all we read is true.

We should go to where we can but not to breaking point. Stuff principle, if he will not accept a reasonable offer / terms then go as hard as we can at the trade table so that we don't suffer the full whack of a Bryza departure. If that fails let him go to Melbourne in the Nat. Draft and let karma deal with him.

I still feel he'll stick with us. Shite if I get a 5k pay rise I'm normally pretty rapt.

[boydogs]

Fantastic thread everyone. Characteristic of the discussion on WOOF, passionate yet respectful, diverse and insightful

Here is another related question to keep the debate burning -

Would you rather, given the choice between the two, do the deal today for 4 years @ $550k or 4 @ $500k on October 31?

It seems to me that there are a lot of things in the air at the moment and the Lake deal now has a lot to do with the timing of things.

If we lose Lake, we may face a bit of a rebuild where getting Hall to push us over the top for a premiership in the next 2 years suddenly does not look as sensible. We would be more likely to retire Aker and Eagle, and less likely to trade Everitt and Addison to free cap room

If we keep Lake, then the quest is on in earnest to make a short-term decision or two for a premiership

With trade week next week, we really need to know where we stand so that we can make those other decisions. My feel is that Lake and his management are well aware of this, and are making unreachable demands early on because they know we want the deal done early, remembering Lake postponed the discussions until after the season. If we stand firm, I believe these will ease however what will we have lost in the meantime by working blindfolded in the trade period?

With regards to standing on principle, and the example set for Cooney and others, I think it is quite legitimate to say that we just wanted to get the deal done to give us certainty in shaping the remainder of our 2010 side rather than continue the slow progress of negotiation right through to contract expiry. I would rather publicly expand the 4 @ 450k offer, which I have not heard was a set in stone, final offer presentation, than publicly revert on a board-ratified instruction not to trade him, and I definitely don't want him to walk

Thoughts?

[Ozza]

If Lake leaves, we slip out of top four anyway. Lake is the most important player in our side. Without him, we are seriously diminished. Might as well do a bit of a rebuild now if that happens.

Surely we need some deadline soon and then if he doesn't sign, get the best trade for him. If he's just after extra money, he won't care about going to the Demons, leaving us with nothing.

That would turn an awful result (Lake leaving) into a shocking one (Lake leaving and we get nothing).

Get the best draft pick deal we can and see if we can get another good defender. If we can't, recognise that Lake has buggered us, get rid of most of the vets and do a bit of a rebuild.

I completely agree with this.

[LongWait]

The club seems to be intent on forcing Lake to stay by refusing to trade him. It is a huge gamble to take on 2 counts: the obvious being that Lake may call the bluff and we lose (with absolutely no compensation) an AA player who is rated by the coach as our most important player. On the other hand the hardball, risk it all tactic may well work, but it may also lead to a resentful Lake who will still be being paid huge money for 4 years. Will Brian really have his heart in it any more? The second risk is therefore that we bully Lake into staying and then live to regret it.

[LostDoggy]

I just don't think Lake is that important to the team, or should be. He's a wonderful full-back, but surely not irreplaceable. I don't mean by someone of the same quality, but there are plenty of good, solid full-backs running around that would do an adequate job.

Besides, if we are THAT reliant on one guy we're stuffed anyway and we might as well rebuild.

What if he gets injured long-term (touch wood) in round 2? Does that mean we just flush the season down the toilet?
--

I'm 100% with GVGjr here, but it looks (from the poll) that we're in the minority. Lake's trade value would be immense, and if he doesn't want to play ball, we could do very well out of some business with another club.

We should be sensible and not trade him to a top 6 club unless they gave us something seriously substantial -- I'm realistically thinking Tippett/Bock + draft picks -- but there would be a queue to talk to him if we put him on the table. We should also be sensible and set up the club for the next few years if he does walk, rather than just be bloody-minded about it.

I say give him till Friday to make up his mind, then shop him around if he can't put pen to paper.

Fev for Lake has a ring to it.

[The Coon Dog]

Fev for Lake has a ring to it.

The only ring I see here is suffering!

[LostDoggy]

The only ring I see here is suffering!

Haha forget I posted that and respond to the REST of the post.

[LostDoggy]

I agree with Lantern, if Lake wants to go, lets throw everything at getting the best deal for the club, Lake leaving via the PSD or ND does not excite me whatsoever, this would be absolutely stupid. He has until Friday to sign. If not, Hawks need a KPB, we need Roughead who can play KPF, Ruck and KPB if required. Lets throw Lake and the Kitchen sink at them to get him, Hawks have Dowler that can step into Rougheads place.

[LostDoggy]

I agree with Lantern, if Lake wants to go, lets throw everything at getting the best deal for the club, Lake leaving via the PSD or ND does not excite me whatsoever, this would be absolutely stupid. He has until Friday to sign. If not, Hawks need a KPB, we need Roughead who can play KPF, Ruck and KPB if required. Lets throw Lake and the Kitchen sink at them to get him, Hawks have Dowler that can step into Rougheads place.

I like this too. It would be interesting to see if Jarryd wanted to come over. Two Rougheads in the same stable!

[Desipura]

The only ring I see here is suffering!

working beautifully, well bowled.;)

[The Coon Dog]

The Bulldogs have made it very clear that they're not going to trade him.

If he isn't traded (from his POV to the club of his choice), then after trade week Lake has 2 options; a) re-sign with the Bulldogs or b) enter the lucky dip (ND/PSD) & end up anywhere.

Some might argue that the club's stance is bloody minded, but it also might make others think twice in the future.

[LostDoggy]

The Bulldogs have made it very clear that they're not going to trade him.

If he isn't traded (from his POV to the club of his choice), then after trade week Lake has 2 options; a) re-sign with the Bulldogs or b) enter the lucky dip (ND/PSD) & end up anywhere.

Some might argue that the club's stance is bloody minded, but it also might make others think twice in the future.

So we're going to hold everyone else in line with a stick?

Not necessarily a great incentive in this day and age; if the players start figuring that they're not going to win anything with this administration anyway (if we start hemorrhaging players) they might decide that they may as well take their chances on the open market and really chase the dollars, playing for a bottom club be damned (especially if you're young.. you know that things turn around quickly in this business and Melbourne could well be on their way up in a few years and the Dogs on their way down).

[BornInDroopSt'54]

I'm 100% with GVGjr here... Lake's trade value would be immense, and if he doesn't want to play ball, we could do very well out of some business with another club.

I say give him till Friday to make up his mind, then shop him around if he can't put pen to paper.

Fev for Lake has a ring to it.

Agreed. As long as Lake is not backed into a corner and is given plenty of room to back down before a deadline, then once it becomes clear that what he wants is unrealistic for the club or shows that he is not caring of the club, then we should announce a sale of the century, market him as the best thing since sliced bread (he'll believe it) and benefit from the offers from the completing clubs.
I just hope he re-signs and doesn't resign.

Fev for Lake FMD would be like "what is a club?", like changing jumpers after the grand final except you now play for the team when you change jumpers. We would all need therapy for years to cope.

[LostDoggy]

Or we could continue to lose out, if a player wants to go for money, and not play for the chance of a premiership, they will leave irrespective of any precendent the club makes with Lake. You can not let an AA go without any compensation, yes this is bloody minded and could bite us in the ar#e big time.

[Sockeye Salmon]

In the 70's we actually had a lot of pretty decent players and should have done well.

Georgie Bissett and David Thorpe left and then we sold Bernie Quinlan. Those left behind instantly thought we couldn't win a flag with the number of good player's leaving and the floodgates opened. Demps, Mocca, Rocky Stoneham, Laurie Sandilands, Dennis Collins etc etc.

If we let Lake go to wherever he wants and then GC come shopping for Cooney and Griff next year, it's 1976 all over again.

We are using the threat of being drafted by a team with no chance of a premiership as an arguement against leaving, what if we are seen as having no chance of winning one?

We will lose one of Cooney or Griff next year, the AFL practically decreed it when they wrote the rules for the GC, but all the other good sides will lose someone too. If we can keep the rest of the group together we have enough talent coming through that we can stay thereabouts for a long time, especially considering the compromised drafts coming up.

[Go_Dogs]

Great question. The two might be linked.

The problem with the clubs public approach on Lake is that we will stitch up a trade with the Swans for Hall before we know if we can maintain Lake. I really do believe that if we can't keep Lake or get something good for him then we don't get the full value in trading for Hall. I'm not really a fan of getting Hall anyway but it becomes a bit harder for me to accept trading for Hall if we were to lose Lake for nothing.

I whole-heartedly agree with this one. I'm not against getting Barry, but I'm not convinced he's going to be a fantastic player for us. He's old, slow and getting less mobile by the minute. According to media reports he's put a fairly significant price on his head too, so I certainly think the Lake/Hall issues are linked.

If Lake does decide to leave, trading for Hall will certainly be a mistake. We'd be back around the mid-table region, lose Lake with no compensation, and have a key forward finally, but our arguably biggest weakness in our ability to stop goals, will be well diminished. Our F50 defensive pressure won't improve with Hall either, which is another of our weakest areas.

If Lake stays, Hall will be a great get, but if not....

[Go_Dogs]

We will lose one of Cooney or Griff next year

I'm not ashamed to admit, I will shed tears next year if that actually happens.

[Mantis]

I voted do whatever it takes, but having had a lot of time to think about it on the long drive back from Wagga Wagga I propose the following:

Assuming Lakes still wants to go I would sign him up on a 1 year deal with the promise that we will ship him off to the GC next season. That way we should get fair compensation in regard to draft picks, Lake will get paid squillions by becoming the 1st mercenary to sign with GC17 and we keep Lake for the 2010 season when realistically we should give the GF a real shake.

[Max469]

Our best 3 players are Lake, Cooney and Murphy. Without them, we aren't going anywhere.

I am in the 'do whatever it takes' camp here. There is absolutely no way we can lose him except for finances...and in this era of the salary cap we should not be able to be outbid.

Make it happen and make this issue go away.


I agree.

So many are sounding like they are would be happy to see him go if he does not take what is offered. - no way. Brian Lake is such an integral part of our team.

Give him what he wants.

Many are not complaining about getting Hall - so the money we could pay to Lake may go to a player that is clearly unstable on a football field.

So we don't give Lake what he wants and walks (yes, I know the club is bigger than the player and all that) and then Hall's first week out there, he goes BANG. He is gone on holiday for a few weeks.

So then we have lost both of them and then what?

Sorry Hall will not be our Messiah.

Please feel free to Flame me - I don't care and I am happy and willing to accept egg on face if he proves me wrong.

Please stay Brian.

[LostDoggy]

I voted to do what we need to do to keep him. I am worried that if, for whatever reason, we can't re-sign Brian, we will be the losers. I have trouble imagining that we will gain the equivalent of what we have lost through trades of players or draft picks. As a fan have really enjoyed watching him play over the past couple of years. I think he is good for our club and he is important to our success. I have been hooked on all the gossip about his motives and was starting to think badly of him, but I don't think thats right - I have always viewed him as a loyal and dedicated bulldog, so I'm going to reserve judgement until something official is released, and in the mean time, hope like hell that he puts pen to paper!

[Rocco Jones]

Sorry Hall will not be our Messiah.


Why do so many fans who are against us getting Hall use this argument? He does not have to be our messiah, he just needs to be worth what we are giving away for him. Pick 67/PSD pick benchmark isn't a messiah. It's a player who is worth the 42nd spot on your list.

[mighty_west]

Why do so many fans who are against us getting Hall use this argument? He does not have to be our messiah, he just needs to be worth what we are giving away for him. Pick 67/PSD pick benchmark isn't a messiah. It's a player who is worth the 42nd spot on your list.

I guess alot of people may see the dollar signs on his head, as being reported in the media, and think that money would be of better use to make sure Lake doesn't leave.

Plus the emotions of others knowing this big power forward wanting to come to our club, and the expectations of how much of a difference that could make to our side.

[Rocco Jones]

I guess alot of people may see the dollar signs on his head, as being reported in the media, and think that money would be of better use to make sure Lake doesn't leave.

Plus the emotions of others knowing this big power forward wanting to come to our club, and the expectations of how much of a difference that could make to our side.

His price really isn't that much. It's $325k a year right? (perhaps 350). That isn't much more than an average, regular senior player.

If we need to find more money, I would much prefer us delist Eagle.

[mighty_west]

His price really isn't that much. It's $325k a year right? (perhaps 350). That isn't much more than an average, regular senior player.

If we need to find more money, I would much prefer us delist Eagle.

I have to be careful on how much he was reported to be asking for, so i won't even try..:o

I like the idea of having him in the forward line, look forward to seeing opposition defenders trying to work over the likes of Hill or any of our other forwards with Big Bad in the same postcode!

[Mofra]

If we need to find more money, I would much prefer us delist Eagle.
His effect on the salary cap would be less than keeping a first or second year player as half his salary would be under the vets list provisions next year.

[Sockeye Salmon]

His effect on the salary cap would be less than keeping a first or second year player as half his salary would be under the vets list provisions next year.

Not really.With Eagle on the vets list we would be going in with 39 players on the main list rather than 38.

Even if Eagle was happy to play for the minimum $110K, we would still be at least $55K better off salary cap wise.

[Mantis]

His effect on the salary cap would be less than keeping a first or second year player as half his salary would be under the vets list provisions next year.

It is still money we need to spend regardless of if it comes under the salary cap.

If for instance Eagleton receives $200K next year and a 1st year player gets $100K the effect on the salary cap is the same, but we could save $100K nett. With this extra money we could bump up our payments for 'promotional incentives' of which we pay only about $250K of the available $550K.

[Mofra]

It is still money we need to spend regardless of if it comes under the salary cap.

If for instance Eagleton receives $200K next year and a 1st year player gets $100K the effect on the salary cap is the same, but we could save $100K nett. With this extra money we could bump up our payments for 'promotional incentives' of which we pay only about $250K of the available $550K.
Will this be an issue next year with the extra Jihad stadium money? Would expect player payments be a fairly high priority for a re-allocation of extra resources.

[mjp]

Why do so many fans who are against us getting Hall use this argument? He does not have to be our messiah, he just needs to be worth what we are giving away for him. Pick 67/PSD pick benchmark isn't a messiah. It's a player who is worth the 42nd spot on your list.

'I have always been told that my career would not be over until I have been recruited to play full-forward for Footscray'. B. Hall.

(Well, this was previously attributed to S. Minton-Connell, J. Cook, A. James etc etc but why not add one more to the list).

[Mofra]

'I have always been told that my career would not be over until I have been recruited to play full-forward for Footscray'. B. Hall.
Can we put him at CHF and put this myth to bed? ;)

In any case, we're a different club now culturally. We're building towards a flag, not just vying for survival.

[mjp]

Can we put him at CHF and put this myth to bed? ;)

In any case, we're a different club now culturally. We're building towards a flag, not just vying for survival.

Yeah...well we say we are a different club.

Meanwhile every year there is a rumour (and in some cases, true story) about how we are chasing a 'big forward' who another club is sick of. Nathan Thompson last year, Hall this year...if it doesn't come off there will be someone else next year.

[The Boy From Brasil]

I agree.

So many are sounding like they are would be happy to see him go if he does not take what is offered. - no way. Brian Lake is such an integral part of our team.

Give him what he wants.



Within reason, I agree with you. He is an integral part of our team and we shouldn't be penny pinching with him and do everything reasonably possible to keep him. But we have to be responsible at the same time. We cannot give him a blank cheque to whatever he wants.

1)It throws our salary cap into more pressure than it already is

2)It has a flow on effect. If Lake is getting huge money, then our equivalent players will also want big money. It is all relative.

It might not be solely about what Brian wants as well. If two other clubs are chasing him then it might get down to their offer against ours. And I wouldn't have a clue how much they are offering him. If they are offering say $650K per year against our $450K then it is a big deficit to fill and I am not sure he is worth that sort of money. So it all depends on how much the shortfall is between what we are offering and what other clubs are offering.

[Sockeye Salmon]

Here's another theory.

We need to move someone on before we have the room to offer Lake any more. Perhaps we don't want it known that we have to move someone like Everitt or we might find ourselves forced to take pick 27.

[Go_Dogs]

Here's another theory.

We need to move someone on before we have the room to offer Lake any more. Perhaps we don't want it known that we have to move someone like Everitt or we might find ourselves forced to take pick 27.

If this is the case, why don't we politely tell the players who are being paid way over their market rate that their contracts will be re-negotiated, or they can be traded out if they aren't happy with less $$?

Trading out first round picks every year cannot be helping us in the long run, and the players who are being over paid will continue to be so until their contracts run out. By then we may have lost a few more good kids...

[GVGjr]

Here's another theory.

We need to move someone on before we have the room to offer Lake any more. Perhaps we don't want it known that we have to move someone like Everitt or we might find ourselves forced to take pick 27.

That's why I listed the second option. Get a draft pick for Everitt and use some of the additional money to sweeten the offer for Lake.

[azabob]

We will lose one of Cooney or Griff next year, the AFL practically decreed it when they wrote the rules for the GC, but all the other good sides will lose someone too. If we can keep the rest of the group together we have enough talent coming through that we can stay thereabouts for a long time, especially considering the compromised drafts coming up.

SS, thinking short term and long term who can we least afford to lose in order out of

Cooney, Lake and Griffen?

For me it is a toss up between Cooney and Lake.

[hujsh]

We will lose one of Cooney or Griff next year, the AFL practically decreed it when they wrote the rules for the GC, but all the other good sides will lose someone too.

Huzza! It's great to be able to look back and say that wasn't the case.:D

[Sockeye Salmon]

Huzza! It's great to be able to look back and say that wasn't the case.:D

I should have written "one of Cooney, Griffen or Harbrow"

[Desipura]

I should have written "one of Cooney, Griffen or Harbrow"
C'mon no excuses, you got it worng.:D

[LostDoggy]

Are we doing this? Going back through the archives to pick out Sockeye's mistakes? Could be bags of fun! :)

[Sockeye Salmon]

Are we doing this? Going back through the archives to pick out Sockeye's mistakes? Could be bags of fun! :)

Could be a very long thread

[Go_Dogs]

Ha, good grab. It certainly looked likely at stages last year that we could struggle to fit them both in.

At the end of the day we're still losing a key younger player, so I guess SS wasn't too far off the mark.