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

[LostDoggy]

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

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]

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

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]

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

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]

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

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]

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

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]

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

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]

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

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]

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

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]

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

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]

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

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]

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

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]

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

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]

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

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]

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

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]

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

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.