This is an unofficial Bulletin Board - owned and run by its users. We welcome all fans of the Mighty Collingwood Football Club.
Ad blocker detected: Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors. Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker on our website.
thompsoc wrote:
WPT I have had the same issue with Mooretreloar.
He posts his opinions as facts.
He is very definite in what he says and he needs to give a little in the back and forth of any discussion.
I heard the conversation with Mathews on Sunday.
He never said he was done only that he lacked the rucking part of his game.
.
Cheers Thompsoc
As is evident, we're not the only two here to experience this type of behaviour.
Only a problem with two people's behaviour, yours and thompsoc, who seem to think their view trumps all and if it doesn't agree with your opinion it isn't fact.
Wash your mouth out young man: Don't put me & Trump in the same sentence
BTW, Thompsoc & I often disagree as what I say is fact & what he says is opinion. The again what he says is objective & what I say is subjective
“I even went as far as becoming a Southern Baptist until I realised they didn’t keep ‘em under long enough” Kinky Friedman
mooretreloar wrote:
With all due respect, Cloke has never been a forward/ruck, so I would suggest Matthews was saying in a very diplomatic way that he was done. Thus, in my view you are dismissing his opinion.
Suggest that you take your own advice. If you don't like what I post, don't try and discredit or misrepresent me when what I have posted is correct. Also, don't try and say I only named 2 experts when I named 5 and have a basis for all.
Played forward - ruck in at least 2 games this year unless I'm mistaken, Saints and Dees. Either way, long bow to go from Matthews saying he can't see a role for him to assume it means he thinks Cloke is done.
Disagree, but happy to take your opinion on board. My reading of it may be wrong, but to say he doesn't see a spot and then suggest a role he has not played, suggests otherwise. He pinched hit in the ruck those days, not specifically playing a forward/ruck role.
He was nominated pre-game by Bucks as the 2nd ruck to support Grundy. Not sure that qualifies as pinch-hit.
What'sinaname wrote:Cloke is an upgrade over Stringer.....so he makes them better.
- and stringer has a premiership medal. And still no one can tell me why the Premiers see him as potentially part of their team and we, in 12th spot, don't.
Soft generation? Hell yeah I agree, I raised two of Them! There comes a time when you have to sit them down and tell them this is what life is all about! Get your arse into gear!
And yes maybe that's what happened and he did the bottom lip tremble! Maybe that's why he will take such a massive pay cut. Still. The Doggies are not rich, they still have massive dept, they can't afford to take a maybe, and yet they still think he can play!
Someone else mentioned man management. Should we, could we, get someone in to help with that?
Bucks is on record as saying he'd be happy for Trav to play at the Pies in 2017. It's Trav that doesn't see himself at Collingwood in 2017.
AN_Inkling wrote:Cloke finished? Bulldogs want to sign him, Pies want to keep him. Case closed.
Two chances Collingwood want to keep him, none and Buckleys, excuse the pun.
We have to say that or we have exactly zero bargaining power, which is just slightly above the bargaining power we currently have. Also, we have to say it, otherwise we void the contract and need to pay him his salary.
One suitor only, and only because Redpath did his ACL and they are looking for coverage. Jason McCartney Bulldogs list manager said they are looking at Cloke, as they have limited coverage in that area.
Based on Travis's history (and David's negotiating technique of holding us to ransom), do you really believe that if there were other suitors that he would take a pay cut?
jackcass wrote:
Played forward - ruck in at least 2 games this year unless I'm mistaken, Saints and Dees. Either way, long bow to go from Matthews saying he can't see a role for him to assume it means he thinks Cloke is done.
Disagree, but happy to take your opinion on board. My reading of it may be wrong, but to say he doesn't see a spot and then suggest a role he has not played, suggests otherwise. He pinched hit in the ruck those days, not specifically playing a forward/ruck role.
He was nominated pre-game by Bucks as the 2nd ruck to support Grundy. Not sure that qualifies as pinch-hit.
He has never played a role that constitutes a forward ruck role, which is 70% forward and 30% ruck. Not saying he hasn't spent time in the ruck, but he has not played a whole game in that specific role, which is spending 10-12 minutes a quarter rucking, even in the games that you are referring to in 2016.
AN_Inkling wrote:Cloke finished? Bulldogs want to sign him, Pies want to keep him. Case closed.
Two chances Collingwood want to keep him, none and Buckleys, excuse the pun.
We have to say that or we have exactly zero bargaining power, which is just slightly above the bargaining power we currently have. Also, we have to say it, otherwise we void the contract and need to pay him his salary.
One suitor only, and only because Redpath did his ACL and they are looking for coverage. Jason McCartney Bulldogs list manager said they are looking at Cloke, as they have limited coverage in that area.
Based on Travis's history (and David's negotiating technique of holding us to ransom), do you really believe that if there were other suitors that he would take a pay cut?
It's your opinion that we don't want to keep him. The fact is we said we want to keep him. Just as Matthews said he doesn't see a role for him at the Dogs - though he then strangely went to outline one, even though it's already being played by Boyd. And if you want, we can go through and list things that Matthews has got wrong in the past (eg. Dogs can't pick Stringer to play finals after not selecting him in round 23), he's very far from infallible.
Cloke played 13 games for us this year, he has at least one team that wants to sign him for next season and has an existing contract at Collingwood who have said they see him as a required player. That's not finished. You can argue that his career is close to an end, but it's a fact that it's not yet done.
Yes I do believe if there were other suitors that Cloke would take a pay cut. That's exactly what he's doing. He can stay at Collingwood for more money, he has a contract, but has decided to leave.
AN_Inkling wrote:Cloke finished? Bulldogs want to sign him, Pies want to keep him. Case closed.
Two chances Collingwood want to keep him, none and Buckleys, excuse the pun.
We have to say that or we have exactly zero bargaining power, which is just slightly above the bargaining power we currently have. Also, we have to say it, otherwise we void the contract and need to pay him his salary.
One suitor only, and only because Redpath did his ACL and they are looking for coverage. Jason McCartney Bulldogs list manager said they are looking at Cloke, as they have limited coverage in that area.
Based on Travis's history (and David's negotiating technique of holding us to ransom), do you really believe that if there were other suitors that he would take a pay cut?
It's your opinion that we don't want to keep him. The fact is we said we want to keep him. Just as Matthews said he doesn't see a role for him at the Dogs - though he then strangely went to outline one, even though it's already being played by Boyd. And if you want, we can go through and list things that Matthews has got wrong in the past (eg. Dogs can't pick Stringer to play finals after not selecting him in round 23), he's very far from infallible.
Cloke played 13 games for us this year, he has at least one team that wants to sign him for next season and has an existing contract at Collingwood who have said they see him as a required player. That's not finished. You can argue that his career is close to an end, but it's a fact that it's not yet done.
Yes I do believe if there were other suitors that Cloke would take a pay cut. That's exactly what he's doing. He can stay at Collingwood for more money, he has a contract, but has decided to leave.
If we wanted to keep him, do you think we would accept pick 70 something, we would make him play out his contract, which by the way he is walking out on.
RudeBoy wrote:I reckon everyone should give it a rest. He's gonski. Time to move on.
Agree RudeBoy said that about 20 pages ago, but thought I would try to help people understand why we are getting the compensation we are getting from the Dogs.
Let's focus on players that are actually going to help us in 2017.
RudeBoy wrote:I reckon everyone should give it a rest. He's gonski. Time to move on.
Agree RudeBoy said that about 20 pages ago, but thought I would try to help people understand why we are getting the compensation we are getting from the Dogs.
Let's focus on players that are actually going to help us in 2017.
Very true, he is not going to be party of our next premiership team, time to move on and get enthused about the players who WANT come to the club, to play for us.
Poverty exists not because we cannot feed the poor, but because we cannot satisfy the rich.
Chess and Vodka are born brothers. - Russian proverb.
mooretreloar wrote:
Two chances Collingwood want to keep him, none and Buckleys, excuse the pun.
We have to say that or we have exactly zero bargaining power, which is just slightly above the bargaining power we currently have. Also, we have to say it, otherwise we void the contract and need to pay him his salary.
One suitor only, and only because Redpath did his ACL and they are looking for coverage. Jason McCartney Bulldogs list manager said they are looking at Cloke, as they have limited coverage in that area.
Based on Travis's history (and David's negotiating technique of holding us to ransom), do you really believe that if there were other suitors that he would take a pay cut?
It's your opinion that we don't want to keep him. The fact is we said we want to keep him. Just as Matthews said he doesn't see a role for him at the Dogs - though he then strangely went to outline one, even though it's already being played by Boyd. And if you want, we can go through and list things that Matthews has got wrong in the past (eg. Dogs can't pick Stringer to play finals after not selecting him in round 23), he's very far from infallible.
Cloke played 13 games for us this year, he has at least one team that wants to sign him for next season and has an existing contract at Collingwood who have said they see him as a required player. That's not finished. You can argue that his career is close to an end, but it's a fact that it's not yet done.
Yes I do believe if there were other suitors that Cloke would take a pay cut. That's exactly what he's doing. He can stay at Collingwood for more money, he has a contract, but has decided to leave.
If we wanted to keep him, do you think we would accept pick 70 something, we would make him play out his contract, which by the way he is walking out on.
I never said I didn't share the opinion. Doesn't change the fact that it is opinion though. We also don't know that we are accepting pick 70.
What we do know is that Cloke has a contract at Collingwood. It's his right to hold the club to it if he wishes. Instead he wants to be released from that contract and play at the Dogs for, it appears, quite a bit less money. None of that suggests his career is done. If no one wanted him to play a role at their club he'd stay at Collingwood and get paid. It's simply a fact that he is not done.
AN_Inkling wrote:
It's your opinion that we don't want to keep him. The fact is we said we want to keep him. Just as Matthews said he doesn't see a role for him at the Dogs - though he then strangely went to outline one, even though it's already being played by Boyd. And if you want, we can go through and list things that Matthews has got wrong in the past (eg. Dogs can't pick Stringer to play finals after not selecting him in round 23), he's very far from infallible.
Cloke played 13 games for us this year, he has at least one team that wants to sign him for next season and has an existing contract at Collingwood who have said they see him as a required player. That's not finished. You can argue that his career is close to an end, but it's a fact that it's not yet done.
Yes I do believe if there were other suitors that Cloke would take a pay cut. That's exactly what he's doing. He can stay at Collingwood for more money, he has a contract, but has decided to leave.
If we wanted to keep him, do you think we would accept pick 70 something, we would make him play out his contract, which by the way he is walking out on.
I never said I didn't share the opinion. Doesn't change the fact that it is opinion though. We also don't know that we are accepting pick 70.
What we do know is that Cloke has a contract at Collingwood. It's his right to hold the club to it if he wishes. Instead he wants to be released from that contract and play at the Dogs for, it appears, quite a bit less money. None of that suggests his career is done. If no one wanted him to play a role at their club he'd stay at Collingwood and get paid. It's simply a fact that he is not done.
Not a fact that he is not done. Absolutely, my opinion that he is done, which has been hijacked by watt price tully wanting to get pedantic and have me quote experts.
To be clear by done, I am saying that he will not play football at the required standard that will allow him to play AFL football on a regular basis. That is, he will be a VFL footballer, wherever he goes.
I am not going to change your opinion that Collingwood don't want him, nor are you going to change mine, but I would suggest everything that we know points to that this is a fact. We may not accept pick 71, but we won't be getting anymore than a 4th round pick, 59 at best. We will accept the pick because we don't want him or his salary on the list, as we want to attract players that are actually going to make us a better side in 2017, as Cloke won't.
