Lappin contract problems

camel · **Posted:** Mon Jun 20, 2005 10:01 pm

JohnM wrote:

Why does he want three years? Because he's not sure he'll be playing well enough in his second year to warrant a further contract extension.

Why don't we want to offer him three years? Read above. No three year deals for anyone over the age of 28, in my opinion.

If Lappo can find a club that'll offer him 3 years on decent money, I'm sure we can organise a trade. First round pick? Maybe.

As much as I don't really like it, this is the approach the club should take IMO. I love Skinny, he's an absolute marvel and clearly one of our better players, however, football is about pragmatism these days and we wouldn't be the first or last club to release a favourite son over the terms of a contract.

While we all love it when a player can retire from the game on their own terms, hopefully in a successful team, how many actually do that and how many play on that one year too long?

I want Skinny to stay and hope he does, but IMO and based on what I've read in kennyhunter's post, the club needs to remain firm.

squarehead · **Posted:** Mon Jun 20, 2005 10:02 pm

Leave Lappin alone!!!!!!! He has given us service plus over the years.

Wangers · **Joined:** Mon Feb 28, 2005 9:26 pm **Posts:** 1763

squarehead wrote:

Leave Lappin alone!!!!!!! He has given us service plus over the years.

No room for sentiments, squarehead!!

We need to rid some of the cancer at the club, and long term contracts is one of them. Harsh reality if we are a fair dinkum footy club.

TheGame · **Posted:** Mon Jun 20, 2005 10:10 pm

Dennis got a 3 year deal and he's 76 years old. If the coach can get 3 why can't the players. Lappins given more to the club than Pagan ever will.

scottopee · **Joined:** Tue Mar 01, 2005 12:02 am **Posts:** 1724

Wangers wrote:

No more of this greediness...2 years is enough, otherwise we trade for him. No room for greed. This culture of long contracts needs to end, particularly players aged 25yrs+.

I wasn't too thrilled the club accepting Fev's demand for a 3 year deal cause it creates precedent, and creates problems.

Agree Lappin only requires a 2 year because of age but

You wouldn't offer 3 years to Fev? Is this a joke?
Why would Fev stay for 2yr when 10+ other clubs would offer min 3 years some up to 5yr. Why would ANY topline player come to Carlton on a 2 year deal? WHY?
Do we want players to come to this club? Do we realise that in most cases you need to offer above market value to get someone to change clubs unless they want to leave anyway?

spf · **Posted:** Tue Jun 21, 2005 3:47 am

I think it will get sorted out but if it is to become a problem then perhaps a side like Brisbane might be interested in some of our players such as Whitnall and Lappin. Brisbane whilst no longer the side they were would still fancy themselves as Premiership contenders and if they managed to pick up Lappin and/or Whitnall could really have a tilt again.

Think about it. They have the defence (Bradshaw would go back on a permanent basis), they have the midfield (most returning now) and Brown, Merrett and Whitnall or Lappin would give them another dimension up forward. Either of or both Whitnall and Lappin could push Brisbane over the line to another Premiership and this would be enticing to both club and player I believe.

The question would be what considering their revival could Brisbane realistically offer Carlton. I think any deals (deals being the operative word) would have to involve more than just Carlton and Brisbane. I do not believe Luke Power would be part of the deal as they'd want him to strengthen their side in a Premiership tilt.

What young talent on their list could we look at and what other clubs/scenarios could be brought into this?

Food for thought if not a little left of field anyway.

Sumo · **Joined:** Tue Mar 01, 2005 12:18 pm **Posts:** 367

Heâ€™s in the midst of a contract NEGOTIATION.

If any of us went to our employer with a list of demands concerning a new contract & it was agreed too straight up, then weâ€™ve done ourself an injustice & undersold ourself.

Maybe he is after something else & the 3yrs is a smoke screen. Therefore, when finally accepting the 2yr deal, his overall contract reflects what he was actually after. Negotiations are all about making the other person feel like they have had a win, & you getting what you want

CarltonClem · **Posted:** Tue Jun 21, 2005 7:50 am

Having everyone on a 2 year contract is a problem also in the sense that half the list comes up for renewal every 2nd year. There are some players who you'd clearly offer a 3 year contract to (Fev, Waite, Thornton, Walker would my four players - Stevens is already on a long term contract) but the others wouldn't be and shouldn't be on more than 2 IMO.

Blue Bird · **Posted:** Tue Jun 21, 2005 8:20 am

TruBlueBrad wrote:

Lappin also stayed loyal to the club in our darkest hour. That should not be undervalued. Probably stayed for less than he could have got at Richmond.

Still I understand what you're all saying.....sad situation :cry:

Thanks for mentioning that Brad. While agree about problems emanating from long contracts lets not forget our history amidst the new pragmatism.

camel · **Posted:** Tue Jun 21, 2005 8:27 am

http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/footy/ ... 42,00.html

If I was Skinny I'd probably ask for a 3 year deal too, but he probably knows any such deal is going to be unlikely, as noted, its part of the negotiation process.

Laserkid · **Posted:** Tue Jun 21, 2005 8:43 am

CarltonClem wrote:

Having everyone on a 2 year contract is a problem also in the sense that half the list comes up for renewal every 2nd year.

This is the problem that Geelong has. They have to resign 20 players every year and that is hard work. There is the oportunity to lose players. There is also a downside to 2 year contracts.

buzzaaaah · **Joined:** Mon Feb 28, 2005 10:31 am **Posts:** 17893

History is history. We are planning for the future. How Lappin has played or what he has done in the past doesnt change the fact that he is almost 30. His form this year has been patchy. He was exposed by the likes of M Johnson. Teams were matching him to a physical type earlier in the season, now they just ignore him. Notice the 3rd 1/4 against Brisbane, he racked up 15 possies and it was our worst 1/4 for the game. His field kicking is hit and miss and his tackles just dont stick.
2 years is more than enough. I would be disappointed if we gave him more than 2. It would mean that the club hasnt advanced. By the way whoever said the problem with 2 year contracts is that 1/2 your list comes out of contract every year, players like Waite, Thornton, Fevola, Walker can be given 3 year contracts with little anxiety

Blue Bird · **Posted:** Tue Jun 21, 2005 10:00 am

Buzz you can go forward while acknowledging your history. Don't get all Stalinist year zero on me.

nightcrawler · **Joined:** Sun Apr 03, 2005 11:48 am **Posts:** 2891

Why not offer him a 3 year deal on a sliding scale whereby he gets what he's worth next season half that the year after (or something similar) and base salary in the third year, with an option to retire instead when he gets to the end of the second year. Remember base salary is still pretty good money in the real world once you add match payments in.

If he wants to play out his career with the Blues I respect that, but I don't think we should be paying the big bucks to a 32 year old.

Tractor Boy · **Posted:** Tue Jun 21, 2005 1:14 pm

Lappin has been a great player for Carlton..

Key Word Has .

IMO i think a 2 year contract is the only contract we should be offering Skinny. As mentioned by previous posters it is not about Lappin anymore it is about the direction our club is taking. We need to move forward and unfortunately when moving forward difficult decisions need to be made.

If you bleed Blue then sign for 2. And if you are good enough after your 2 years i'm sure the club will offer you that extra one year.

bluehammer · **Posted:** Tue Jun 21, 2005 1:24 pm

Tractor Boy wrote:

If you bleed Blue then sign for 2

Dammit there is our bumper sticker for next season.

Are you reading this marketing department?

fevolaaaa · **Posted:** Tue Jun 21, 2005 1:40 pm

Laserkid wrote:

CarltonClem wrote:

Having everyone on a 2 year contract is a problem also in the sense that half the list comes up for renewal every 2nd year.

This is the problem that Geelong has. They have to resign 20 players every year and that is hard work. There is the oportunity to lose players. There is also a downside to 2 year contracts.

The one player they sign for a longish contract is an absolute dud and always will be, that's the danger. I'm sure they'd rather the issue with 20 players a year than sign another Ottens up

Knackers · **Joined:** Thu Mar 03, 2005 1:27 pm **Posts:** 597

It was only brief and quite guarded, but Andrew Maher hinted this morning (SEN) that a former St Kilda player, now playing good footy with another club, has been linked with a return to the Saints. Could this be OUR former St Kilda player?

Chips · **Joined:** Wed Mar 02, 2005 4:26 pm **Posts:** 834

Lappin and draft pick for KOSI...

DO IT!!!!

bluebo baggers · **Posted:** Tue Jul 05, 2005 1:18 pm

Knackers wrote:

It was only brief and quite guarded, but Andrew Maher hinted this morning (SEN) that a former St Kilda player, now playing good footy with another club, has been linked with a return to the Saints. Could this be OUR former St Kilda player?

Maybe Heath Black :roll:

Lappin contract problems

Who is online