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

[jj1978]

Let's face it,

At the moment Ackland is not everyone's favourite player and quite a few want him out.

So how about a cost effective excercise... we trade him for a 5th round pick (which we wont use.) and offer to pay 50% of his salary next year. Thats a 50% saving next year on a player not likely to play 50% of games. And if we find someone good for the 5th round pick even better!

Actually do you have to utilise a pick you obtain in a trade??

 

[Jeremias]

No, I wouldn't be happy, as we don't really have any other options just yet.

Ackland will be competing for our 2nd ruck spot next year, and as it stands is clearly our best fit ruckman right now.

 

[OEGB]

ackland will not be at cartlon next year gurantee you.

 

[Jeremias]

ackland will not be at cartlon next year gurantee you.

Care to make it interesting?

 

[HBF]

ackland will not be at cartlon next year gurantee you.

Sounds like you have some "inside knowledge" there OEGB. In the past couple of seasons, we have retained players that have been on there final years of contracts - Prendergast, McGrath, Teague & Bannister just to name a few. Given that Ackland still has a year to run, i'd be rather surprised if we did in fact delist him. And i'm not so sure another club would want to trade for him either.

 

[BlueYoss]

ackland will not be at cartlon next year gurantee you.

Seeing as no other club will offer ANYTHING for him, and we need to keep him for a second year so as not to have to pay him out for his second and third years AND given that:

• Our #1 ruckman for 2008 in Cloke has had 4 shoulder reconstructions in as many years -hardly reliable.
• McLaren is out of contract at the end of the season and has not managed a game all year in spite of our desperate lack of ruck stocks, so he will definitely not be on the list next year.
• The 2 players we have been using to fill holes in the ruck this year are needed at FB and CHF as much as they need to experience game time in those positions -something I think the new coaching staff are going to be very mindful of.
• Our next option is a project player who has only been playing the sport for a few years and is yet to experience the game at this level.
• Our next option came from the rookie draft, is only 18, is yet to experience the game at this level and is a hopeful at best.
• Our next option is a project player who has only been playing the sport for a few years, is only 18, is yet to experience the game at this level and currently has the build of a 12yo girl -needs a few good pre-seasons in him just so he doesn't get snapped in 2 at ruck contests.

In other words, while we all hope we don't have to see Ackland contesting in the ruck for Carlton next year, there are still way more reasons to keep him on the list than rush to drop him from it.

My logic trumps your guarantee anyday

 

[scorpion2466]

Despite the criticism on here I thought his effort against the Saints wasn't that bad. Had a go.

 

[OEGB]

that gurantee comes from ceo himself, greg swann the old adminstration did the deal not the current and the current are going to pay him out and even lance will be lucky to be at the club next year....

 

[AndyWalkersGirl]

that gurantee comes from ceo himself, greg swann the old adminstration did the deal not the current and the current are going to pay him out and even lance will be lucky to be at the club next year....

Woah. When did Swann say that?

 

[NWTYRX]

Swann said if Lance hadn't changed his attitude (ie; lost those kgs) he would have been traded or possibly delisted

 

[AndyWalkersGirl]

Swann said if Lance hadn't changed his attitude (ie; lost those kgs) he would have been traded or possibly delisted

Well i'm glad to hear that our club is not putting up with anything but the best off-field attitudes, in regard to training and preparation for games.

Know anything about the Ackland comment NWTYRX?

 

[Bluebear]

that gurantee comes from ceo himself, greg swann the old adminstration did the deal not the current and the current are going to pay him out and even lance will be lucky to be at the club next year....

Do we have room in the cap to pay out his final two years?

If we sack him we would have to honour his third year, and at $300k per year, we would have to have $600k up our sleeve to pay him out.

Secondly, if we let McLaren go we are taking a huge punt on Cloke, Aisake, Jacobs and Hampson being fit and capable.

Even if we get Kreuzer he can't carry the number one spot next year.

So we go into round 1 with Cloke and Aisake.

By round 6 Aisake has succumbed to his groin again (already twice this year), and Kreuzer comes in.

Cloke does his shoulder hailing a taxi in King street, and now we are down to Kreuzer and one of Jacobs and Hampson.

Unless we are supremely confident of landing a mature ruck by trade or PSD this will not happen.

 

[Smell The Glove]

Has a shitty attitude and is pretty much brainless when it comes down to basic football skills. That said, I cant see him being ditched when there are so few other viable options on the list now, or next year.

 

[OEGB]

auction night at few weeks back. me dad knows him and was talking to him and i was there also, look people you can believe what you like, i know this site is a rumour site and full of inendo, believe what you want....
greg swann is there to fix the place up and clean it out he has got 100 per cent trust from pratt....

 

[NWTYRX]

Know anything about the Ackland comment NWTYRX?

I highly doubt he would have said any such thing

 

[Johnny Utah #9]

Seeing as no other club will offer ANYTHING for him, and we need to keep him for a second year so as not to have to pay him out for his second and third years AND given that:

• Our #1 ruckman for 2008 in Cloke has had 4 shoulder reconstructions in as many years -hardly reliable.
• McLaren is out of contract at the end of the season and has not managed a game all year in spite of our desperate lack of ruck stocks, so he will definitely not be on the list next year.
• The 2 players we have been using to fill holes in the ruck this year are needed at FB and CHF as much as they need to experience game time in those positions -something I think the new coaching staff are going to be very mindful of.
• Our next option is a project player who has only been playing the sport for a few years and is yet to experience the game at this level.
• Our next option came from the rookie draft, is only 18, is yet to experience the game at this level and is a hopeful at best.
• Our next option is a project player who has only been playing the sport for a few years, is only 18, is yet to experience the game at this level and currently has the build of a 12yo girl -needs a few good pre-seasons in him just so he doesn't get snapped in 2 at ruck contests.

In other words, while we all hope we don't have to see Ackland contesting in the ruck for Carlton next year, there are still way more reasons to keep him on the list than rush to drop him from it.

My logic trumps your guarantee anyday

Good post. Not one other club in the league would even consider him, hence our position is weakened. Keep him for one more year and delist McLaren.

 

[borissey]

I would be happy to trade him and pay 100%.

All he is doing at the moment is filling a spot that a young player could take.

Dont give me this rot that the young players cant take it. Ackland is worse than ineffective and needs no more chances.

 

[BlueYoss]

Unless we are supremely confident of landing a mature ruck by trade or PSD this will not happen.

...or the deal has already been done?

 

[Bluebear]

...or the deal has already been done?

If Ackland gets delisted it would have to be.

With Kouta going Jacobs is a chance to be elevated and given a run.
Jamieson a chance as well.

I can't see Jacobs doing less than Ackland (barring a few games).

 

[blueskies]

No better time to do it than now with a young list, unless it eats into any money we might offer an OCC star.

But you'd reckon we have enough space to pay him off and send him packing. It's time t9o clean the slate and we don't need players who don't go in 100%.

 

[DamianBis]

i wouldn't be surprised if we had atleast 600k room in the salary cap to pay ackland off this year.

I would prefer to get rid of ackland and keep mclaren. he actually tried unlike ackland

 

[gandaal]

that gurantee comes from ceo himself, greg swann the old adminstration did the deal not the current and the current are going to pay him out and even lance will be lucky to be at the club next year....

Where exactly did he say that?

 

[C4[2]Yo`DooR]

I think he's a great mark of the ball.

 

[OEGB]

Where exactly did he say that?

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...

 

[Bluebear]

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...

Profit of 2-3 million.
Minus $600 k for Pagan, now your suggesting minus another $600k for paying out Ackland's last two years.

Is the club really trying to tell us they are paying out 1.2 mill to get rid of these guys? Not to mention the addition of the salary of the new coach (?400k) and new player to take Ackland spot ($150-$300k?).
Looking at 2million.

Who is responsible for this wreckless use of our money?
Are we seriously happy with this?