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

[LongWait]

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

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]

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

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]

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

Fev for Lake has a ring to it.

The only ring I see here is suffering!

[LostDoggy]

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

The only ring I see here is suffering!

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

[LostDoggy]

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

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]

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

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]

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

The only ring I see here is suffering!

working beautifully, well bowled.

[The Coon Dog]

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

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]

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

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]

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

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]

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

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]

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

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]

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

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]

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

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]

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

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.