The "We must get Tom Lynch at all costs...or maybe not" Thread

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
Dangerfield was secured at all costs and Geelong are playing finals again. You think they would even be in the 8 without him? No chance. Richmond have Martin. Buddy was another big signing to keep the Swans in the top echelon. If we think we can rely on our bring poor players through the twos and hope, we have another 5 years of pain ahead.
At all costs? Mate, they got Dangerfield for a first, second and Gore and they're paying him like $800k.
Richmond already had Martin. They're giving up cap space for him, not draft picks or players.
Buddy's ludicrous contract still has the potential to bite Sydney given they had to heavily back load it.

Lynch would be a great get, no doubt, and I'd be happy to pay a pretty heavy price for him, but 'at all costs' is the kind of stupid attitude that saw us almost fold in the 80's and 90's.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

We have no financial muscle, there is a salary cap anyway, and when it comes to financial muscle it appears we are in a bidding war with the AFL which we will lose.

We have no advantage. If anything we have several disadvantages. We are not special. We are very very ordinary. The sooner we start living in that world the sooner we stop being a sad anachronism like Carlton used to be.
 
We have no financial muscle, there is a salary cap anyway, and when it comes to financial muscle it appears we are in a bidding war with the AFL which we will lose.

We have no advantage. If anything we have several disadvantages. We are not special. We are very very ordinary. The sooner we start living in that world the sooner we stop being a sad anachronism like Carlton used to be.
But but but my counselor said that we're all special. If i want something now i should be able to have it now. Any argument against these beliefs is hurtful anf oppressive. I want lynch now
 
Ugh.
Our "Over Exposure" these days consist of Ed's racist gaffs.
If I was a sponsor, I'd be running as fast as I could from the "mouth from toorak".
On the contrary - be it negative media at times you're name goes on air. The targeted market aren't gonna go "nup they're associated with Collingwood" they're gonna go "I could use that product, now shut up and take my money"
 
Yes, yes we do have a great list - unbalanced and more so poorly developed but yes the list is "close to"
We have a dozen or more players that other clubs would not want. How is that great?
 
Lynch, Moore, Jamie and Stringer for a little X factor.
Get some credibility back Ed and get this done
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Averages just under 2 goals a game.
Undeniable talent.

But?

  • What does at all costs look like?
Is it feasible?

Or as Leigh Matthews would be fond of saying (looking at the deal if it was agreed by the two sides)

  • Does the positive outweigh the negative?
(That is what we get v what we have to give up? And I'd assume not going to the draft early picks)
 
Averages just under 2 goals a game.
Undeniable talent.

But?

  • What does at all costs look like?
Is it feasible?

Or as Leigh Matthews would be fond of saying (looking at the deal if it was agreed by the two sides)

  • Does the positive outweigh the negative?
(That is what we get v what we have to give up? And I'd assume not going to the draft early picks)
To get lynch we will have to give up a top ten pick, a top ten player this year
And maybe a top pick next year. That's what l think gc will ask for minimum.
To me the cost is to great in what ever people propose,
Next year if wants to move to us is the time. The cost is money.
Not the team. We need new young talent entering the club, and a few too, not
one person who this year will cost to much at the top end of the club
 
Agree with OP - He is worth every penny.

The Club isn't run by idiots - they won't lose complete control of our salary cap - they'll be smart with the list management.

But imagine this spine: Scharenberg - Reid - Grundy - Lynch - Moore
 
Happy to get Lynch - but not at all costs. Still paying the price for overpaying on Treloar and Aish. And underselling on Witts.

I'd rather spend the $$ on development. it's unsexy but it works

1. Aish is not on a big salary
2. Treloar is worth the cash we offered ($700k for 6 years)
3. We received 44 and 62 for Witts - which was on par for other deals that went through last year (ex: Nankervis for Pick 46)
4. Development budget is separate to player salary cap
 
1. Aish is not on a big salary
2. Treloar is worth the cash we offered ($700k for 6 years)
3. We received 44 and 62 for Witts - which was on par for other deals that went through last year (ex: Nankervis for Pick 46)
4. Development budget is separate to player salary cap

Not worried about salary - more concerned about how many draft picks we gave up for Treloar and Aish
 
Treloar costs us:
Pick 9 in 2015 was Sam Weiderman (GWS gave that to Melbourne as part of a separate trade)
Pick 8 in 2016 was Griffin Logue (GWS gave that to Fremantle as part of a separate trade)

2 years later it's an interesting debate...
 
This Tom Lynch to Collingwood thing is the biggest pipe dream on this board for the last 2 to 3 years. I have no idea where this originated from but I can't see any chance that it will ever happen.

get over it!
 
Treloar costs us:
Pick 9 in 2015 was Sam Weiderman (GWS gave that to Melbourne as part of a separate trade)
Pick 8 in 2016 was Griffin Logue (GWS gave that to Fremantle as part of a separate trade)

2 years later it's an interesting debate...

And gave us pick 28 which pretty much bought us half of James Aish IIRC
 
North Melbourne can't offer him the opportunity to be the marquee player at the most marketable franchise in Australia. There is a reason why they can't land a big name no matter how much cash they throw.
This is a misnomer. How many players has it landed us in the past? At a stretch maybe a 20 year old Buckley in the early/mid 90s. Treloar perhaps but whether he came because of Buckley, the perceived list quality (at least that was his stated reason), the salary offer or the profile of Collingwood is debatable Have North landed any les big names than Collingwood?

Father/sons aside, players do not come to Collingwood because we are Collingwood.
 
This is a misnomer. How many players has it landed us in the past? At a stretch maybe a 20 year old Buckley in the early/mid 90s. Treloar perhaps but whether he came because of Buckley, the perceived list quality (at least that was his stated reason), the salary offer or the profile of Collingwood is debatable Have North landed any les big names than Collingwood?
Howe would be a recent one who knocked back larger offers to come to Collingwood. He is now one of the go to guys for media work.
Can you rephrase that last question? I feel like I need to do BODMAS to work it out.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top