Collingwood did the footy world a favour yesterday in announcing it was putting contract talks with Travis Cloke on hold until the end of the season.
It’s a favour because, well, let’s face it, we all want this over and done with.
Why Cloke should stay with Collingwood
While the Pies can’t control when Travis makes a decision, they do have the power to put all the pointless discussion on hold for a bit by calling him out and, more importantly, standing up for themselves.
And that’s exactly what they did yesterday.
The way Cloke has conducted himself of late, including that bizarre interview on The Footy Show, hasn’t reflected well on the club and hasn’t helped their campaign for the 2012 premiership.
While Cloke most definitely has a right to seek out the best possible offer for his services, there simply isn’t a need for him to do so in such a public manner. Especially when it creates unnecessary pressure for the club that he is currently contracted to.
He confirmed to the world on primetime television he had an offer from Fremantle in the vicinity of $1 million.
He confirmed to the world on primetime television he agrees that his contact demands mean either the Pies must let him go or lose another player of decent quality.
These two admissions, both from that famous interview, beg so many questions: What do his team mates think of it all? Would his club approve of him doing this? Is it really possible him and Nathan Buckley are seeing eye to eye right now? Is he really much of a team player? Is there a reason this couldn’t this be kept private?
And because of these questions, the media circle and the issue becomes even bigger. Collingwood suffers.
Put simply, Cloke was dumb for agreeing to sit down with Garry Lyon. But for mine, his biggest mistake lied in what wasn’t said.
There was no, “My number one priority is Collingwood’s 2012 campaign.”
Yes, that line would’ve sounded cheesy. Yes, it can be interpreted as spin. But by failing to emphasise — or even mention — that one basic point, Cloke gave a very good reason for the Magpie faithful to turn on him.
The one thing supporters demand of players above all else — regardless of the size of their pay — is that they are committed to the team and on helping that team achieve premiership glory.
They go to the football on the weekend expecting “their boys” to be unwaveringly dedicated to that elusive goal.
Sadly, Cloke’s public persona has reflected a man more interested in what he’s earning five years from now than lifting the premiership cup alongside his team mates on the last Saturday in September.
You’d like to think that’s not true, but you certainly can’t blame any Magpie fans for believing that.
Lastly, there’s the issue of his form, which has been underwhelming this season, very ordinary the past month and downright terrible the past two weeks.
He’s scoring less goals this year, with just 35 to his name. He’s seeing less of the ball too, with his 15.6 disposals per game last season reduced to 13.1 this season. In the area that is arguably his greatest strength, marks, he’s down from 7.7 per game to 5.9.
There are also signs his forward pressure has dropped off. This is his worst tackling season since 2008 and he’s dropped from 2.8 per game last year down to just 1.8.
When you remember we’re talking about a man who’s only once surpassed the 50-goal mark in a season, you can be forgiven for asking, “is he worth it?”
To that, though, some perspective is needed. Collingwood would much rather have Travis Cloke on their team than on the team of a rival premiership contender. That much cannot be debated.
When Cloke is at his peak, he’s incredibly hard to contain. That, too, must be conceded by all.
He’s also cured that terrible case of the yips he had (he’s on track to kick more goals than behinds two consecutive years for the first time in his career, and do it comfortably).
So yes, Travis Cloke deserves a big contract. And Collingwood appear to have offered him that (things would’ve wrapped up far sooner if they hadn’t).
The problem, though, is that Travis Cloke doesn’t want a big contract. He wants a big, fat, juicy one. For five years, at that.
So much does he want this, he’s been prepared to put unnecessary pressure on his current club — in the heat of a campaign to win the premiership — to get exactly that. He’s also allowed supporters, and anyone else for that matter, to question his commitment to the current season.
As soon as these lines were crossed, Collingwood should’ve called his bluff. “See you at the end of the season,” should’ve been the response.
Better late than never.
Alfred Chan
Expert
It took Collingwood too long to make this decision. Something I would like to see is clubs release contract offers at scheduled intervals in and cyclical order. By this, I mean all players uncontracted at the end of the season receive an offer at the same time. Those who accept do so and move on. This means the club can get contract matters out of the way early and know exactly what they have to spend on those who reject. For example, lets say Harry O and Cloke both continue to to hold out for money. If Cloke is considered more important to the club, he receives his offer first. If he rejects it, Harry gets his first offer. Say both held out till the fifth round of offers. Cloke rejects his fifth round offer and Harry accepts. Suddenly there is not enough money in the cap to accommodate Cloke's fifth round offer and the club can move on or Cloke must accept less money. The other thing no one has mentioned is Cloke's value to Collingwood in free agency. I'm assuming the AFL will be supplying compensatory draft picks for players lost during free agency as per the NFL and NBA. If this is the case, than losing Cloke not only frees up cap space but Collingwood would also get an end of first round draft pick minimum.
amazonfan
Roar Guru
I don't think any of them did anything that should see them being compared to lawyers.
Redb
Roar Guru
Ablett, Cloke & Scully - sounds like a law firm. Much in common.
amazonfan
Roar Guru
Completely agree, I think he's extremely overrated. He may be one of the best key power forwards in the league, but that is less a compliment to him, than an indictment upon the quality of the competition where there are almost no high-quality power forwards, and very few high-quality key forwards. Cloke is very, very, very lucky to be playing today. In any other era, no club would offer him big money.
Kev
Guest
You're not the only one who doesn't rate him that highly. Cloke senior is either very smart or very dumb by demanding a contract as big and as long as this for his son because this is the sort of money that only the league's best players can justify asking for. Frankly I see Cloke as an ordinary forward who has been made to look very good by Collingwood's midfield and it's even more evident this year.
Christo the Daddyo
Guest
He's the player with the highest profile and the biggest reputation, but this season he's been nowhere near his top form. Mumford, Kennedy, Jetta, Jack and McVeigh just to name a few would all be contributing more than Goodes to the Swans success so far this year.
tonysalerno
Roar Guru
This may hurt the morale of Travis Cloke and lead to some poor performances in the forward line. But apart from that i think it was a good idea from the Mapies as they are in a log jam for a top four position.
Richard
Roar Guru
I suspect Travis would not be happy over there and, as such, would not thrive. Frankly I don't believe he'd be the same player without his Melbourne based support team. He'd then be seen to be over-rated, over-paid and over there, as they say. That would be another real downer for a team struggling to make its mark, and they'd be locked in for five years. Big gamble, and I wonder whether they really mean to take it. As I understand it, Travis Cloke has been offered a 4 year deal with Collingwood at a pretty good wage. He'd also continue to get all the benefits that being at the Collingwood Football Club provides. There's no doubt that if he is still contributing at the end of the four years that CFC would offer him an extension. So what's the problem you wonder ? I certainly do. Could it be a new guy in the mix with a big ego trying to prove he adds value as an agent? No doubt in my mind that it's time for CFC to call the bluff.
Ian Whitchurch
Guest
Richard, What Cloke in Fremantle says to his new team is 'We were close to the eight, and beating good sides, before getting one of the best KPFs in the league. Now, time to win the flag while our window's open".
Ian Whitchurch
Guest
Bayman, If I was Collingwood, I would have called his bluff and raised. My offer would have been six years, six hundred thousand a year, with a fifty thousand bonus payment for topping contested marks in the league, and a fifty thousand bonus payment for fifty goals or more a season. He wants a longer contract - jam one down his throat. One that keeps him a Pie for life.
Fred
Guest
Speaking of the $5 million offers, from Freo and Melbourne, do you think they're still on the table? Those clubs must be having second thoughts watching this guy over the past month. It's gone beyond a simple form slump now. You'd have to ask the question: is Travis burning out, like his older brothers did? Can he bounce back from here? Or was 2011 the peak of his career?
Bayman
Guest
Ian, I think Collingwood has done the right thing in this instance but I do agree with you about the possible outcome. It is not beyond the realms of possibility that the Magpies will now prioritise others at Cloke's expense - leaving him to get what he can and elsewhere if necessary. Someone has to compromise on this deal if Cloke is to stay at Collingwood. He either gets his five year deal or accepts their four year offer. Otherwise his only alternative is to go and, in that, he may simply be driven by his pride at being unable to accept backing down. Not to mention his dad's pride, of course!
Ian Whitchurch
Guest
Andyincanberra, In that case, Collingwood have made it very clear that they have no loyalty to him, and he signs elsewhere as a Free Agent. Remember that with the salary cap going up by about 5% a year under the new deal, in five years the cap will be about 30% higher than it is now. What this deal comes down to is the length of the deal. Travis Cloke wants the certainty of a five year contract. His employer wants to maximise their flexibility by signing him for a shorter time. To put it another way, his club wants him on a shorter deal to allow them to be disloyal if he gets injured, and after the recovery has lost his ability to dominate packs and take key contested marks. Collingwood are welcome to not sign a dominant key position forward. There must be, oh, two better than him in the league, and neither of them are available under Free Agency.
Richard
Roar Guru
Good article. The postponement gives the 'Pies the space to finalise deals with all the other players coming out of contract this year. It also gives Travis, who I suspect may be receiving poor advice from his "agents", to think on whether he is really worth what he is asking for. It gives Collingwood time to work on the contingency plan in case Cloke should leave. And it gives Fremantle the opportunity to reflect on the real possibility that they may now end up having to pay an under-performing and unhappy Travis Cloke $1m a year for the next five years, and what that may say to the rest of the very talented team they currently have at their disposal.
Bayman
Guest
Michael, I agree the Cloke saga has gone on way too long and Collingwood is right to terminate negotiations until after the season is completed. We can only speculate on why Cloke had that infamous chat on the Footy Show but it would seem he's been very poorly advised in all this. Presumably, the idea was to put pressure on Collingwood - someone else wants me and if you want me you've got to pay for it - but the result has been to Cloke's disadvantage. Not to mention the team. Since then his performances have only served to lower his value. Indeed, it's fast getting to the point where Collingwood may well start to think they don't really need the aggravation. They may also soon start thinking that another player in Cloke's place would provide at least as much as they're now getting from Cloke for half the price. No doubt there will be those who think Cloke is perfectly entitled to seek the best deal possible. And so he is - just as long as he and everybody else also realises that Collingwood is perfectly entitled to tell him to take a hike. Or, perhaps, to drop him if they perceive that the team is suffering as a result. Strange as it may seem to some I reckon Nathan Buckley right now is a lot more concerned about the team than he is about Travis Cloke's future. Whatever credits Cloke has built up at Collingwood over the journey must now be starting to disappear. If Cloke wants Collingwood's money then it's about time he started to earn it.
Australian Rules
Guest
I just don't rate him as highly as everyone else seems to. Ordinarily, a club tries to re-sign the out-of-contract players in order of how important they are to the club. As you say, there are plenty of good players that Collingwood needs to re-sign. This latest development has put Travis at the back of the queue...and he may miss out.
andyincanberra
Guest
Correct. One thing that Cloke needs to realise is that the size of alot of other player's contracts will depend on how much money is left in the salary cap after his contract is finalised. I'm wondering if, after negotiations are concluded at the end of the season with other players, will the Clokes, Travis and David, sit down to find that the cupboard is bare and money that could have been earmarked for him has gone to his team mates. There are stil a bunch of important, unsigned players at Collingwood, eg Harry O'Brian. Also, as a Collingwood supporter, I can say that this drama would have been far easier to stomach if it didn't coincide with a form-slump. All that being said, I really can't see Cloke moving from Collingwood. I think that Collingwood will do all they can to keep him, after all, who else do they have?
Ian Whitchurch
Guest
Christo, Yes, but its very very hard to win a flag without stars ... and Sydney have Goodes, arguably the single best player on theirs's or Collingwood's list.
Christo the Daddyo
Guest
Do Roar articles go through any sort of editing process? It's 'lay', not 'lied' and 'fewer' not 'less'. But yes, agree with the article overall. Superstars are dangerous to have on your list for this very reason - you run the risk of them holding the club to ransom. Compare Sydney to Collingwood - the Swans list would arguably have less talent that the Magpies, but guess which team is sitting on top of the ladder...
Ian Whitchurch
Guest
Sure. But theres a salary cap, and you need to pay other players under it. Its not as simple as saying 'We'll deal with this at the end of the season' - there are other players to be signed, and if Collingwood spend the money marked 'Cloke' on them, then they are making the decision to let him go, and if they dont, then they are stuffing them around and increasing the chance they will seriously question the club's loyalty to them and therefore be willing to sign elsewhere.