Would you be happy to trade Ackland and pay 50%?

[borissey]

Bluebear what is the alternative? Endure the worst decision weve made for out list in years for a further 2 years?

The new Board has come in and raised a bucketload of cash. Theyve also come in with a clean mandate to fix the place up with support from Mr Pratt. If it means exercising the rights of power that comes with money and removing 2 individuals not seen to be part of the future of the Blues then so be it.

We can debate forever whether Pagan deserved a 3 year contract extension after his first Wizzer Cup win, effectively giving him 4 years from that point, but we have now made the decision to remove on and move on.

We can debate whether Ackland deserved a 3 year contract despite being undersized and really not very good, but theres no doubting he has struggled and will soon not be able to keep his spot on the team, let alone the list.

if the new board has the cash and the desire then I have no problem with them making decisions they consider to be in the club's best interest.

 

[gandaal]

carlton next year is going to be fresh start kernhan will have no influence on football side of things just board level side of things.....
the job is there for voss for taking if he wants it....
we will make a profit this year of 2 to 3 million dollars........
i told you lance would be lucky to be at carlton next year i do know.....
ill keep you up to date...

Where exactly did he say that?

 

[Bluebear]

We can debate forever whether Pagan deserved a 3 year contract extension after his first Wizzer Cup win, effectively giving him 4 years from that point, but we have now made the decision to remove on and move on.

No we won't debate this again.
My point is not about the where's and why's of Pagan being signed then dumped, but more who is responsible for this massive waste of OUR money. If it was a mistake - WHO TAKES THE FALL!
Here's a clue - "We are Carlton and F#$K the rest"

We can debate whether Ackland deserved a 3 year contract despite being undersized and really not very good, but theres no doubting he has struggled and will soon not be able to keep his spot on the team, let alone the list.

if the new board has the cash and the desire then I have no problem with them making decisions they consider to be in the club's best interest.

Is it in the clubs best interest?

I have already posted this but:
Current rucks stocks
Cloke - injury prone
Ackland - poor perfromance mentally, can play "average footy" when motivated
Aisake, Jacobs, Hampson - Untried, unproven
McLaren - proven dud. To be delisted.

So if McLaren goes, and we sack Ackland:
1st ruck - Cloke, injury prone
2nd Ruck - ???? Hampson, Jacobs, Aisake, Kreuzer?

With Cloke doing hid shoulder in a pre-season sky diving incident (or just brushing his hair) our rucks stocks are almost non-existent.

Don't just present me with a wish list - give me an option.

As stated earlier, if we have a deal done for trading for a ruck, or the PSD, then great, but do we?

 

[borissey]

Not sure I understand what you are saying - are you saying keep Ackland despite him not being very good because our other options aren't better? Our options in 2007 v our options in 2008? Are we allowed to factor in any form of improvement in what we have?

I just cant agree with the premise that a player known (or proving himself to be) to be substandard should be retained. On a list of 44 we dont have the luxury of saving spots for those who dont deserve it.


Just because weve made mistakes doesnt mean weve had to live with them. I would much rather play a pumpkin in the middle than let Ackland embarrass us any further.

 

[jj1978]

Now that Pagan's gone and if the rumours were true that French retired earlier because of Pagan... how about we bring French back for one more year until our younger rucks are ready

My fear is that the club may wish to continue breeding JK for a ruck role!

 

[Bluebear]

Is it not clear that if we delist Acland and McLaren, that we are hinging our ruck stocks on injury prone or unproven rucks?

Hows this.

Keep Ackland. He will vary in his perfromance as he does this year. Delsiting him may prove worse by exposing rucks that are not ready too early.

Keep him on next year. Delist McLaren.

If Cloke and Aisake are fit and in form then great, they are the rucks. If one of them goes down it comes down to Ackland and Jacobs for the spot.

This is one reason why I would like to trial Jacobs this year. If he is competitive then fine get rid of Ackland.
If we have a deal done with another ruck (Seaby, Charman) then fine, piss him off.

If we are getting rid of him without a plan B then we may just stuff the good rucks we have actually got by playing them too soon.

Make sense?

 

[borissey]

That is probably how the club will go - keeping up payments on his $300,000 a year to play in the Bullants. Who knows, maybe that rumour about him having conditions on his third year will be broken by him playing at the Bullants and we'll all be happier.

To me though there's nothing wrong with paying him out, if thats the way they decide to go. Paying out a guy you know isnt good enough makes alot of sense. You appear fearful of not one of Aisake or Hampson at least being useful in 2008, and I dont share that. Id much rather give Aisake 23 games (we'll make a final ) than Ackland 1. To me:

Unproven > Proven not to be good enough

Think of Richmond's Pattison. Really come on this year after looking very shaky in his first year. He is now more valuable than Ackland could ever be.

 

[Bluebear]

To me though there's nothing wrong with paying him out, if thats the way they decide to go. Paying out a guy you know isnt good enough makes alot of sense. You appear fearful of not one of Aisake or Hampson at least being useful in 2008, and I dont share that. Id much rather give Aisake 23 games (we'll make a final ) than Ackland 1. To me:

Unproven > Proven not to be good enough

Think of Richmond's Pattison. Really come on this year after looking very shaky in his first year. He is now more valuable than Ackland could ever be.

I have no problems with them playing these guys ahead of Ackland next year.
What do we lose by keeping him as a back up?

If we were so keen to do what you suggest, why would we keep McLaren this year?
It was apparent that he would not play seniors this year unless we had heaps of injuries.

We will keep Ackland next year for this same reason.

and yes, I really hope the rumour about his third year is true.

 

[Aussie Joe]

Ackland will be on our list in 2008.

END OF THREAD.