3 hours ago, Sir Why You Little said:

I agree. I am another who has often said that long contracts are bad news. 
But CP is a generational player. Other players will come to the MFC to play with him. Sure list management is a gamble, but if CP was poached by another Top Club, i think I would give Footy away

We have been pillaged for years 

Some times clubs have to gamble but he appears a low risk bet. As you say Petracca is a generational player that must be kept. His progress has not been lightening quick but his development has been consistently linear upside with no ups and downs that happen with too many other gifted players. Is more likely to maintain or even improve his standing barring injuries. 

I honestly have no idea how anyone could be against a 7 year deal for Trac. Give me some specific reasoning...??

mist clubs would dream of locking the best player in the league away for that long. I’d do the same for Bont and maybe a couple of others. For a ruckman or aging key forward? Hell no! But for a gun 25yo mid, [censored] yes!

2 hours ago, Billy said:

He’s got some good points.

Theres still some young guns who will be asking for pretty decent contacts in the coming years.

5 years would’ve been perfect.

Im rapt about all our signings & the direction of the club, just hope we have enough money in our cap to keep everyone happy 

If we offered Tracc a 5 year deal the only way he probably signs it is if it’s at 1.2 a season. That’s how he gets his 6 million minus a hefty tax bill.

By going to 7 years at 900k he gets his 6+ million, loses less in tax and we get 300k per season more in cap space.

The entire strategy with Gawn, Lever, Viney, Harmes, May, Salem, Langdon, Tomlinson is to have all those guys signed up on long deals so each takes less per year. Oliver’s done a short term re up then probably gets a long deal when he’s at free agency age. Fritsch the same.

If we save anywhere between 100-300k a season by going longer deals on 8 or so of our big names we can then bank 1M to put towards the next generation and any recruits. 

Kane has this idea that the short deal would save us cap space. It’s nonsense. That only works if Petracca plays poorly or we trade him. The long term deal is how we save cap space. 

Edited May 7, 20213 yr by DeeSpencer

3 minutes ago, DubDee said:

I honestly have no idea how anyone could be against a 7 year deal for Trac. Give me some specific reasoning...??

mist clubs would dream of locking the best player in the league away for that long. I’d do the same for Bont and maybe a couple of others. For a ruckman or aging key forward? Hell no! But for a gun 25yo mid, [censored] yes!

It’s really an 8 year deal because he already has a year to go, and it takes him well in to his 30’s. Imagine paying Nathan Jones 900k a year now, it wouldn’t be a great look. 

The other downside is we lose flexibility. If he signed on one year at a time we could dump all our spare cap space in any individual year in to his contract. Say we unexpectedly traded a couple of players, all of a sudden we pay Tracc 1.5 for a couple of years to get extra space. But that flexibility is only useful if plans change. Still, it’s footy, plans do change!

A recent article about Bont’s contract said they’re looking at triggers and other options to put in his deal. I sense they know he’s a dog for life so they’ve got more freedom on how they structure his deal.

A five year deal really would’ve been optimal, but if your choices are 5 years at 1.2 or 7 years at 900k then it’s a no brainer.

1 hour ago, one_demon said:

Very true.  That's why I worry that Picket, Jackson and Rivers will all want to go home at some stage and we'll get pillaged again.

 

The best chance of that not happening is Melbourne having prolonged success. It's not al about money or heading home (look at Richmond. Nearly all their players are on less money that they could get elsewhere). We've been pillaged in the past because players have wanted top leave to get a premiership (you can't blame them). Similarly, free agents haven't wanted to come to us because they have seen our losing culture. Hopefully, that's in the process of changing. 

11 minutes ago, DeeSpencer said:

The other downside is we lose flexibility. If he signed on one year at a time we could dump all our spare cap space in any individual year in to his contract. Say we unexpectedly traded a couple of players, all of a sudden we pay Tracc 1.5 for a couple of years to get extra space. But that flexibility is only useful if plans change. Still, it’s footy, plans do change!

Would you sign that contract,. If we get unexpected cap space you get more? If not is it bad luck, or do you just shift the guaranteed money difference down the road to be dealt with later. Sounds a little too much like the Collingwood scenario for me. Pay him what he is worth,  phased over an agreed timeline.

I think the flexibility in all this will come in a few years when/if 900k now (for instance) is 1.2mil in later years.

23 minutes ago, DeeSpencer said:

. Imagine paying Nathan Jones 900k a year now, it wouldn’t be a great look. 

 

Yeah and thats because it would be Nathan Jones, who wasnt even worth close to 900k at his peak.

Trac is a superstar and will be worth every penny.  Do you really think he will suddenly be as bad as Nathan Jones when hes the same age?

Edited May 7, 20213 yr by Pickett2Jackson

2 hours ago, one_demon said:

Very true.  That's why I worry that Picket, Jackson and Rivers will all want to go home at some stage and we'll get pillaged again.

 

Maybe KK has already decided on the Long Haul 

“Loyalty” 

2 hours ago, Sir Why You Little said:

Thanks for that. First time i have heard Kate speak like that. 
impressed

Completely agree. She certainly sounded connected to the playing group. Over and above the clarity she provided on board due diligence on signing off on contracts and salary cap management, which was great; I loved the bit where she got round a young player with a knee injury (I'd say Neita earlier this year?) and suggested he have a chat with Trac, only to be told that Trac had already made contact with him. Shows care within the club from board -> player, not just players looking out for each other. 

3 minutes ago, In Harmes Way said:

Completely agree. She certainly sounded connected to the playing group. Over and above the clarity she provided on board due diligence on signing off on contracts and salary cap management, which was great; I loved the bit where she got round a young player with a knee injury (I'd say Neita earlier this year?) and suggested he have a chat with Trac, only to be told that Trac had already made contact with him. Shows care within the club from board -> player, not just players looking out for each other. 

Exactly. The Board Members should know the Players well. They are our assetts and need to be looked after that way. 
Hard work gets rewarded. 
Our bottom 6 are just as important as the rest. 
I always remember the Australian Cricket side from 1987-2005.  Bowlers had to do serious batting in the nets, they learnt how to bat. 
and how often did our Tail End punish an opposition. 
I want more than one Flag, I think Kate feels the same way

 

12 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

Exactly. The Board Members should know the Players well. They are our assetts and need to be looked after that way. 
Hard work gets rewarded. 
Our bottom 6 are just as important as the rest. 
I always remember the Australian Cricket side from 1987-2005.  Bowlers had to do serious batting in the nets, they learnt how to bat. 
and how often did our Tail End punish an opposition. 
I want more than one Flag, I think Kate feels the same way

 

Great analogy. 

1 hour ago, DubDee said:

I honestly have no idea how anyone could be against a 7 year deal for Trac. Give me some specific reasoning...??

mist clubs would dream of locking the best player in the league away for that long. I’d do the same for Bont and maybe a couple of others. For a ruckman or aging key forward? Hell no! But for a gun 25yo mid, [censored] yes!

If it was another club, I would be laughing, at effectively a 9 year contract for a player.

However it is us and Tracc and while concerned he stays fit and keeps his form, I am happy he is ours.

5 hours ago, TRIGON said:

Back off, his parent's christened him Kane... he's been cursed since birth.

Don't forget Chad.  They named their sons Kane and Chad ?

A 32 year old Trac is still going to be a hell of a player. He could play in a forward pocket for the last 3 years and still be a nightmare for the opposition. There is a history of power based midfielders like him having excellent longevity in the game too. Shaun Burgoyne had 24 touches and 2 goals in the 2014 Grand Final at about that age.

Spreading his contract out over 7 years also provides us with the flexibility to move it around to accommodate players, either by bringing some of it forward or pushing it back. It's much harder to do that with 3 year deals.

Also, all decisions like this are based on risk vs reward. Trac is transferring some of his risk to the club by getting more money guaranteed (ie, longer contract) but the flip side for lowering his risk will be in lowering the reward (ie, that the club doesn't have to pay him as much). In our case we are comfortable with the increased risk in exchange for the increased reward. Hopefully we can use that reward on other players to keep a strong group around Trac and hopefully win flags.

16 minutes ago, deegirl said:

Don't forget Chad.  They named their sons Kane and Chad ?

Hmmm...possibly bitter wannabe DINKS who paid no attention during sex-ed classes?

Naming your kids Kane and Chad...the 'long-tail' of retribution.

Who gives a [censored] what Kane Cornes thinks? The bloke says [censored] for a reaction and nothing more. Has worked beautifully with all the Chicken Littles' in here.

1 hour ago, DubDee said:

I honestly have no idea how anyone could be against a 7 year deal for Trac. Give me some specific reasoning...??

mist clubs would dream of locking the best player in the league away for that long. I’d do the same for Bont and maybe a couple of others. For a ruckman or aging key forward? Hell no! But for a gun 25yo mid, [censored] yes!

don't forget we get trac this year and next year on the cheap (existing contract)

he could have restructured to start new contract next year

so if you factor in this and next year the cost per year for 9 years looks a lot better.......then add inflation in too

37 minutes ago, deegirl said:

Don't forget Chad.  They named their sons Kane and Chad ?

they are certainly not Abel.

59 minutes ago, Redleg said:

If it was another club, I would be laughing, at effectively a 9 year contract for a player.

However it is us and Tracc and while concerned he stays fit and keeps his form, I am happy he is ours.

Laughing why? What’s the negatives?

you want to risk losing him in 4-5 years for nothing?

if he does his knee next year I’ll still offer him a long contract. 

1 hour ago, DeeSpencer said:

It’s really an 8 year deal because he already has a year to go, and it takes him well in to his 30’s. Imagine paying Nathan Jones 900k a year now, it wouldn’t be a great look. 

The other downside is we lose flexibility. If he signed on one year at a time we could dump all our spare cap space in any individual year in to his contract. Say we unexpectedly traded a couple of players, all of a sudden we pay Tracc 1.5 for a couple of years to get extra space. But that flexibility is only useful if plans change. Still, it’s footy, plans do change!

A recent article about Bont’s contract said they’re looking at triggers and other options to put in his deal. I sense they know he’s a dog for life so they’ve got more freedom on how they structure his deal.

A five year deal really would’ve been optimal, but if your choices are 5 years at 1.2 or 7 years at 900k then it’s a no brainer.

With all due respect to Jonsey, he should not be compared to Petracca. In 7 years time The money we are paying Trac will seem like a bargain

how do you know there is not flexibility built into the contract? Or a long term strategy by the club to front end for example, freeing up money for Kozzi and Jackson. Therefore giving us more flexibility and the ability to plan ahead with confidence 

2 hours ago, Pickett2Jackson said:

Yeah and thats because it would be Nathan Jones, who wasnt even worth close to 900k at his peak.

Trac is a superstar and will be worth every penny.  Do you really think he will suddenly be as bad as Nathan Jones when hes the same age?

Jones is the best example given we’ve had no one else.

Maybe I should’ve gone Scott Pendlebury or even Buddy Franklin.

Theres a distinct possibility we’re paying Tracc more than his output in the latter years. Anyone confidently predicting he plays at a high level in to his 30’s is very optimistic.

Don’t get me wrong I support this deal and think if things go to plan with the cap rising and a window for success right now it’s absolutely the right thing to do. 

It’s just a reality of free agency and the competitive market for players. There’s no way we were ever getting the perfect deal. 

6 hours ago, Engorged Onion said:

The fact that anyone would start a thread on this is hilarious.

And contributing to it, even more so. ?

we have no idea what the split is

as it's an extension of an existing deal it presumably allows us to include the 7 year component in the 8 and a half year payment cycle, if the salary cap allows as such

the best players in the competition tend to still be going fairly strong at 33 these days

trac is amongst the best players in the competition at 25 years of age with just over 100 games under his belt; sky is the limit

dusty hadn't even won three norm smith medals when he got a 7 year deal and that worked out okay for the tiges

Cornes is entitled to his opinion but in this case his thinking is rather one-dimensional. There would be a number of factors behind the amount and duration of the contract going well beyond the individual in this case. In contrast to the other recent high profile long term contract (Grundy) this one was not conceived out of haste or panic or within a scenario where the club will fall into a salary cap trap. 

The new deal gives the club time and scope to settle its playing list. We also have a number of players who are coming to the end of their careers. I can think of half a dozen who are likely to end up this year with a couple of potential trades out as well that would leave us well placed to bring in at least one quality ready made player as well as additional youth. 

Compare that with Collingwood which, as a result of its salary cap madness which stemmed in part from the Grundy contract, is in heaps of draft and salary cap trouble and with low morale at least in the short term.

Apart from anything else, others look at Melbourne and the way the team’s playing and the message is all positive. Add the fact that our best players are making these commitments to their club and teammates and the outcome is a happy, feel good place. That’s the sort of atmosphere you need for success.

3 hours ago, Sydney_Demon said:

We've been pillaged in the past because players have wanted top leave to get a premiership (you can't blame them). Similarly, free agents haven't wanted to come to us because they have seen our losing culture. Hopefully, that's in the process of changing. 

True.  Players must feel that the chances of winning a premiership at Melbourne are slim so they leave early or before we get the full benefit which means we then can't win a premiership.  Sort of self-fulfilling prophecy that we get trapped in.