View Full Version : Biggest Losers - In Order
Hawkeye28
17 Oct 2003, 16:20
1 Nick Stevens
2 Port Adelaide
3 Rawlings
4 North
5 Collingwood
6 Geelong
A lot of people will learn from todays trading that the landscape of trading has changed!!
GOALden Hawk
17 Oct 2003, 16:23
1. Hawthorn
Daylight
Daylight
Some more daylight
Then Nick Stevens, Jade Rawlings, and the Roos.
I agree, in a season where players began to realise that money wasn't everything and that repecting the club is a good idea (barring Stevens), today's trading has now signalled the dirty, underhanded tactics used in the big US sports and Soccer are here.
As a Roos supporter I am disappointed we didn't get Rawlings, but we didn't lose anything so, whoopdy do. But, now the Hawks and Dogs will have to see where this deal leaves them with the 14 other clubs.
no1bankteller
17 Oct 2003, 16:24
Originally posted by Hawkeye28
1 Nick Stevens
2 Port Adelaide
3 Rawlings
4 North
5 Collingwood
6 Geelong
A lot of people will learn from todays trading that the landscape of trading has changed!!
I would say that Collingwood was the biggest loser after promising its supporter base so much. Eddie said that they weill make a big acquisition come trade day surely he did not mean pick 35 in the draft.
As unlikely as it seems Nick Stevens may actually choose to resign with Port rather then play for Carlton or Western Bulldogs. this remaining possibility is why I do not classify them as the biggest losers.
Cheers
Yze_Magic
17 Oct 2003, 16:25
Originally posted by GOALden Hawk
1. Hawthorn
Daylight
Daylight
Some more daylight
Then Nick Stevens, Jade Rawlings, and the Roos.
lol
youre really not happy are you?
NICK THE PIE MAN
17 Oct 2003, 16:25
Originally posted by no1bankteller
I would say that Collingwood was the biggest loser after promising its supporter base so much. Eddie said that they weill make a big acquisition come trade day surely he did not mean pick 35 in the draft.
As unlikely as it seems Nick Stevens may actually choose to resign with Port rather then play for Carlton or Western Bulldogs. this remaining possibility is why I do not classify them as the biggest losers.
Cheers
I think the bridges have been well and truly burnt with Stevens and Port.
Vindaloo Mat
17 Oct 2003, 16:26
forget Stevens
Collingwood still don't have a ruckman
carlos' roos
17 Oct 2003, 16:28
hawthorn and port adelaide are equally both the biggest losers.
They both lost high profile players for nothing.
not only are they the biggest losers they are fools for letting this happen. Greed will come back to bite you
Thewlis Dish
17 Oct 2003, 16:28
Biggest losers are Hawthorn and the Dogs - not for what they got but because clubs aren't going to trust them in trading anytime soon.
Russian
17 Oct 2003, 16:32
Biggest Loser: Nick Stevens by miles then Rawlings, Hawthorn, Collingwood dead heat for 2nd
Biggest Winner: Carlton - gave up bugger all and now have a half-decent midfield to carry them through until they can rebuild with draft picks. How have the odds on Carlton for wooden spooners changed today?
Originally posted by Petrie Dish
Biggest losers are Hawthorn and the Dogs - not for what they got but because clubs aren't going to trust them in trading anytime soon.
What has trust got to do with it .
A deal is a deal and a signed deal is law. Trust means f all.
Well done Bulldogs...they now have something to work woth and I hope they land well with their other picks.
Originally posted by Moti
I agree, in a season where players began to realise that money wasn't everything and that repecting the club is a good idea (barring Stevens), today's trading has now signalled the dirty, underhanded tactics used in the big US sports and Soccer are here.
what? it is far more restricted here, with no true free angency, all they have done is bend the rules, not broken it.
jacqui9
17 Oct 2003, 16:34
Originally posted by Petrie Dish
Biggest losers are Hawthorn and the Dogs - not for what they got but because clubs aren't going to trust them in trading anytime soon.
Why??
We never PROMISED North would get rawlings
:rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Go have a sook
evertonfc
17 Oct 2003, 16:34
St Kilda looks like it didn't schnap up Pick #19 for Black.
Guerra and Gram will be handy, but I really don't think we achieved a lot.
Fair chance Black will ask to be delisted and picked up for nix by either Freo or West Coast.
pugsville
17 Oct 2003, 16:35
1. Port ( Stevens for zip)
2. Dogs (6 for Veale!??!)
3. Hawthorn (6 for Jacobs ?? Rawlings for?)
winners.
1. Essendon? got pick 6 unsure about carlton connections.
2. Carlton PSD stevens, scotland
3. Dogs PSD Rawlings
Originally posted by evertonfc
Fair chance Black will ask to be delisted and picked up for nix by either Freo or West Coast.
Do you think Black would last long enough in the PSD for West Coast or Freo to actually have a pick at 9 and 10?
Grendel
17 Oct 2003, 16:39
GHawk was nearly right.
Only he missed a couple of 'daylights'.
PD, clubs wont 'trust' Hawthorn? Like Hell they wont, be falling over themselves to deal with us, Hay.. yea.. here round 2 pick and *insert jobber player X here*. Hodge, Mitchell...why of course we could do with a Corey McGrath.. what hbf's do you have spare?
Add another daylight or two..... ten years or more away from seeing a Premiership.. probably more.
Originally posted by Mr Q
Do you think Black would last long enough in the PSD for West Coast or Freo to actually have a pick at 9 and 10?
Chances are West Coast or Freo will have a PSD pick around 3, 4, 5ish because after Stevens and Rawlings there won't be much, so clubs won't bother with their picks.
Originally posted by Bresh
Chances are West Coast or Freo will have a PSD pick around 3, 4, 5ish because after Stevens and Rawlings there won't be much, so clubs won't bother with their picks.
there is still geelong, rich, hawks, stk (they probably wouldn't redraft him), melb and nth before them, i am sure melb, geel can afford him if they wanted to, so he may not last
Thewlis Dish
17 Oct 2003, 16:51
Originally posted by jacqui9
Why??
We never PROMISED North would get rawlings
:rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Go have a sook
It's got nothing to do with him not coming here - I'm glad we didn't give up too much for him cos we've still got our top 2 picks. And teams probably will deal with Hawthorn, I'm just saying they'll likely think twice about it after pulling a deal like that. It's still smart trading by the Hawks, not denying that.
Originally posted by feher
there is still geelong, rich, hawks, stk (they probably wouldn't redraft him), melb and nth before them, i am sure melb, geel can afford him if they wanted to, so he may not last
Yeah, they can afford him, but I'm sure they won't bother. Maybe Richmond, North... but when it's a player the ilk of Heath Black (nothing personal), there's not much point in getting in the way of his desires to play in WA.
GOALden Hawk
17 Oct 2003, 16:55
Originally posted by Yze_Magic
lol
youre really not happy are you?
You don't know the half of it. We could have had 2 top 10 selections in the draft, instead our first pick is at 25!
Hook has to go. HAS TO.
Croad for pick 10 and Jacobs for pick 6 is appalling trading. Shambolic effort.
1jasonoz
17 Oct 2003, 16:58
Originally posted by GOALden Hawk
You don't know the half of it. We could have had 2 top 10 selections in the draft, instead our first pick is at 25!
Hook has to go. HAS TO.
Croad for pick 10 and Jacobs for pick 6 is appalling trading. Shambolic effort.
Very strange when you consider the Hawks knocked back pick 9 plus Corey Jones from us, to end up only getting Jacobs.
Port
Hawthorn
Daylight
Collingwood - only for making their supporters believe they would get Stevens.
Originally posted by Petrie Dish
Biggest losers are Hawthorn and the Dogs - not for what they got but because clubs aren't going to trust them in trading anytime soon.
I agree we are losers.
But we didn't screw any other club. We screwed a player.
It's players that probably won't trust us (or Hawthorn). The deal may well backfire on us yet. It shouldn't really backfire on Hawthorn though as we paid upfront.
pav_is_god
17 Oct 2003, 17:16
losers
hawthorn
port
pies
winners
carlton (gave stuff all to get a bevy of half decent players)
freo (3 picks in first 2 rnds...laughing baby!!)
melbell39
17 Oct 2003, 17:20
Biggest losers...
Collingwood.../Eddie.
All that mouthing off at port has cost them, Stevens will still get picked up, but they blew it.
The bleeding continues...
Also thanks to Essendon for taking 3 of teh biggest pains is the butt off our hands...
Matty Allan
Justin Murphy
and David Allison
Pleasure doing business with you all
I would think that the Bulldogs would also be big losers because at the moment they look to have traded Nathan Brown for Veale. It remains to be seen whether they actually get Rawlings.
piefan2002
17 Oct 2003, 17:26
Originally posted by Slax
Port
Hawthorn
Daylight
Collingwood - only for making their supporters believe they would get Stevens.
Collingwood never made its fans think they would get Stevens.
ThePope
17 Oct 2003, 17:34
Originally posted by pav_is_god
freo (3 picks in first 2 rnds...laughing baby!!)
It's actually 4 picks in the 1st 2 rounds!
Picks to Pri+1st 2nd 3rd Rd
WBdg 2 2 2
Carl 1 1 1
Melb 2 2 3
Rich 0 1 2
Geel 1 2 4
St K 1 1 1
Kang 1 2 3
Hawk 0 1 2
WCst 1 3 3
Freo 2 4 5
Essn 2 3 4
Adel 1 2 2
Port 1 1 2
Sydn 1 2 4
Coll 1 2 4
Bris 1 3 4
Lloydy!
17 Oct 2003, 17:34
Losers:
1. Kanga's
2. Melbourne
3. Collingwood
pav_is_god
17 Oct 2003, 18:13
Originally posted by ThePope
It's actually 4 picks in the 1st 2 rounds!
like i said...laughing!!!!
Order of biggest losers in the Nick Stevens hoo har:
1. Max Stevens' reputation as a player manager
2. Nick Stevens
3. Port
4. Collingwood
People are overlooking Max Stevens' role in the whole shenanigans that went on this week. As a Port supporter I'm as ****ed off as the next fan about Nick Stevens' ****ing us around, but you can be fairly certain that as a 23 year old he would have been heavily reliant on the advice from Max Stevens to get him the best deal. Max would have been there telling Nick and Collingwood "Don't worry fellas, Port will be ****ed off, but they'll roll over in the end and you'll go to the Pies". Max seriously misjudged how ****ed off Port were with this tactic and it backfired badly on everyone concerned, leaving him with egg on his face and Nick feeling the wrath of every Port supporter and not getting what he wanted.
Hopefully other players who use Max as a manager will be far more wary of any advice he dishes out in future and his influence in future negotiations is significantly curtailed.
The other problem here was in the offer Collingwood put forward for Nick Stevens. Their inability to put a genuine player on the table was what ultimately killed this deal. I think you can trace this back to Mick Malthouse's reputation for getting too close to his players and not being able to make an objective opinion about what is best for Collingwood as a club.
With Mick putting the thoughts and feelings of his core player group ahead of the bigger picture at the Pies, Collingwood may have to cry in each other's arms a few more times over the coming years as success will continue to elude them. You can call Mick's attitude towards his favoured players noble, honourable or whatever you like, but this is football we're talking about and coaches need to keep a level of separation between themselves and the players so that they can trade ANY of their players for the greater good of the club.
Any before anyone chucks a hissy fit, I'd like to point out that Port has the same problem to a certain degree, with a number of gold passes distributed by the coach to players throughout the club.
Losers:
1. Port
2. Hawthorn
why anybody would accept nothing ahead of something is beyond me.
3. Kangaroos. McKernan? you are kidding me.
4. Collingwood
5. Melbourne
didnt win, didnt lose.
Winners
Carlton. Thanks North and Port
Bulldogs Thanks Richmond and Hawthorn.
superstar
17 Oct 2003, 18:27
LOSERS:
1. Port Adelaide
2. Kangaroos
3. Hawthorn
4. Collingwood
WINNERS:
1. Essendon
2. Carlton
3. Doggies
Kapow!!!
17 Oct 2003, 18:29
1. Fremantle
2. Fremantle
3. Fremantle
4. Fremantle
5. Fremantle
DAYLIGHT
6. Fremantle
SOME MORE DAYLIGHT
AND MORE DAYLIGHT
AND MORE DAYLIGHT
7. Fremantle
8. Dockers
9. Freo
Daylight
10. Fremantle
As if you would give up Croad for a draft pick!!!!:mad: :mad: :mad:
Koops for a draft pick:mad: :mad: :mad:
Draft picks aren't really too good unless you get the top 5 picks. Good players come from it but when you can get better players, don't go for the draft picks. We've wasted a backman and an alright utility.
Maybe it's cos I'm disgruntled or not I'm really p***** off.
:mad: :mad: :mad: :confused: :confused: :confused:
Originally posted by GOALden Hawk
You don't know the half of it. We could have had 2 top 10 selections in the draft, instead our first pick is at 25!
Hook has to go. HAS TO.
Croad for pick 10 and Jacobs for pick 6 is appalling trading. Shambolic effort.
Pick 25 for Croad would have been OK
Jim Boy
17 Oct 2003, 18:41
Originally posted by aesop
I would think that the Bulldogs would also be big losers because at the moment they look to have traded Nathan Brown for Veale. It remains to be seen whether they actually get Rawlings.
Bulldogs have some insurance though, if they miss out on Rawlings (entirely possible), then they can still pick up Stevens.
how is pick 10 for croad a loss???????? i think hawthorn must have felt guilty over the initial trade and gave us a good deal
ThePope
17 Oct 2003, 19:30
Originally posted by Jim Boy
Bulldogs have some insurance though, if they miss out on Rawlings (entirely possible), then they can still pick up Stevens.
Unless the AFL finds that the Hawks/Dogs deal was illegal, as it trying to bypass the draft process and kicks them out of the preseason draft as a penalty (remember in the Fabian Francis affair, Freo was banned for a slight salary cap infringement).
Could be Melbourne's lucky day then. Stevens to Carlton, Rawlings to Melbourne?
Originally posted by no1bankteller
As unlikely as it seems Nick Stevens may actually choose to resign with Port rather then play for Carlton or Western Bulldogs. this remaining possibility is why I do not classify them as the biggest losers.
Cheers
Can't see that happening. Chocco is just as likely to strangle him as let him back on his list, and I reckon Stevens knows that.
Out of this whole scenario, I think one can safely say that Nick Stevens will not be wearing a Port Adelaide guernsey next year!
Crow-mosone
17 Oct 2003, 20:44
Originally posted by carlos' roos
hawthorn and port adelaide are equally both the biggest losers.
They both lost high profile players for nothing.
not only are they the biggest losers they are fools for letting this happen. Greed will come back to bite you
how can you say hawthorn lost rawlings for nothing? pick 6 counts I think.
Hawkeye28
17 Oct 2003, 20:49
its such a joke if people reckon Hawthorn has done badly in this trade period.
Lets all remember that this draft is one of the weakest ever! any pick after 5 is a gamble. so crying about giving pick 10 for Croad is a joke. pick 10 whoever he might be, will nver have the same impact on the HFC as Croad will, both on and off the field.
Hawthorn people stop complaining and embrace the guys we got!!
Originally posted by Spook
What has trust got to do with it? A deal is a deal and a signed deal is law. Trust means f all. Well done Bulldogs... Negotiation is not just about winning at all costs. Any professional negotiator will tell you, it's about maintaining a relationship that allows you to continue to do business in the longer term too. From this perspective, I think you'll find that the Bulldogs may well have cut off their nose, to spite their face.
Originally posted by Grendel
...clubs wont 'trust' Hawthorn? Like Hell they wont, be falling over themselves to deal with us
This is not to say that clubs won't deal with the Bulldogs or Hawthorn, but the lack of goodwill will inhibit their capacity to do good deals in future. When one party feels aggrieved, they play harder next time. For instance, you don't think Hawthorn didn't play hardball on the Roos trade cos they were feeling dudded by Jade, or, judging by the attitude of Hawthorn posters, previous trade deals? Those who deny the role of emotions in negotiations such as these are kidding themselves IMHO. (Nothing personal Grendel.)
Originally posted by K9-54
I agree we are losers. But we didn't screw any other club. We screwed a player.
It's players that probably won't trust us (or Hawthorn). The deal may well backfire on us yet. It shouldn't really backfire on Hawthorn though as we paid upfront. Funny, isn't it? Clubs preach loyalty, then throw up players names in trade week, then bleat when an uncontracted [sic] player decides he'd rather play elsewhere. And, to top things off, they get in his way! (And don't tell me Hawthorn didn't do that.)
I agree, the Dogs may well pay for this deal, and I'm not talking AFL investigation. Is Jade going to happily play at the Dogs? Or play happily at the Dogs?
Kenny_01
17 Oct 2003, 21:13
Originally posted by Kapow!!!
1. Fremantle
2. Fremantle
3. Fremantle
4. Fremantle
5. Fremantle
DAYLIGHT
6. Fremantle
SOME MORE DAYLIGHT
AND MORE DAYLIGHT
AND MORE DAYLIGHT
7. Fremantle
8. Dockers
9. Freo
Daylight
10. Fremantle
As if you would give up Croad for a draft pick!!!!:mad: :mad: :mad:
Koops for a draft pick:mad: :mad: :mad:
Draft picks aren't really too good unless you get the top 5 picks. Good players come from it but when you can get better players, don't go for the draft picks. We've wasted a backman and an alright utility.
Maybe it's cos I'm disgruntled or not I'm really p***** off.
:mad: :mad: :mad: :confused: :confused: :confused:
:confused:
I thought we did rather well.
1jasonoz
17 Oct 2003, 21:18
Originally posted by Crow-mosone
how can you say hawthorn lost rawlings for nothing? pick 6 counts I think.
Because they first knocked back pick 24+Baird+Morrell, then knocked back pick 9+Corey Jones from the Roos. They excepted pick 6 from the Doggies, which got them Jacobs!!!
superstar
17 Oct 2003, 22:04
Originally posted by 1jasonoz
Because they first knocked back pick 24+Baird+Morrell, then knocked back pick 9+Corey Jones from the Roos. They excepted pick 6 from the Doggies, which got them Jacobs!!!
Er...sounds fine by me. Morrell and Baird are VFL players, and Jones is a fringe dwellar. Jacobs is better than those offers.
1jasonoz
17 Oct 2003, 22:10
Originally posted by superstar
Er...sounds fine by me. Morrell and Baird are VFL players, and Jones is a fringe dwellar. Jacobs is better than those offers.
You could have used your pick 10 to get Croad, and still had our pick 9 to either trade for Jacobs, or use in the draft, and you obviosly havent seen anything of Jones if you think he is a fringe dwellar!!
Anja_Nees
17 Oct 2003, 22:19
Goalden Hawk, we chatted about Hawthorn's trades earlier today and I could tell you were angry, but you haven't done that badly. Jacobs is a gun who is about to enter the prime of his career and at least you got some quality for Rawlings. How do you think Port would be feeling right now?
As for Croad...Well like I said, Jacobs is a gun.
TheNextBigThing
17 Oct 2003, 22:31
Jacobs is a big girl, Corey Jones will have a much better year then Jacobs in 2004 and will have a much better career for that matter.
macca23
18 Oct 2003, 01:10
Time will show that Collingwood will be the big losers out of this week's trading fiasco.
They have shown that they think it is clever to be dishonourable and the other 15 clubs will just not fall for that crap again.
As a result Collingwood will find it pretty hard to do a trade in the next couple of years as nobody will even entertain dealing with them for departing palyers.
evertonfc
18 Oct 2003, 02:21
Originally posted by Kenny_01
:confused:
I thought we did rather well.
Absolutely you did, Kenny.
Got rid of two players taking upwards of $750,000 out of your salary cap, and put two kids in who will most definitely make it.
Picks 10 + 19 will be fantastic additions, and won't cost you barely a dime in 2004.
*Guess who now has a vacuum of salary cap space that needs to be filled....certain player springs to mind....here's 500k Coughlan*
:D
Unwritten_Law
18 Oct 2003, 02:26
Originally posted by Hawkeye28
6 Geelong
We didn't lose anything. In my personal opinion the trade week was a failure because we didn't attract the key forward that we desperately need but what have we lost? it is more a case of what we missed out on.
INS: Haynes, Loats, Pick 42.
OUTS: Street, Clarke.
On face value we did rather well.
|D_J^B_J|
18 Oct 2003, 02:34
Originally posted by evertonfc
Absolutely you did, Kenny.
Got rid of two players taking upwards of $750,000 out of your salary cap, and put two kids in who will most definitely make it.
Picks 10 + 19 will be fantastic additions, and won't cost you barely a dime in 2004.
*Guess who now has a vacuum of salary cap space that needs to be filled....certain player springs to mind....here's 500k Coughlan*
:D
I agree, we traded well. If only we had spoken to the Saints six minutes earlier on Friday, receiving pick 10, pick 19 and Black for Croad, Koops and pick 27 would have been one of our best trading periods yet. :(
I have a feeling we are clearing salary cap space to make a bid at one of Simon Black, Coughlan, Carr or Hay, all of whom are Western Australians and come out of contract next season.
And if Heath Black still wants to return to WA next season, our second round pick will still be available. ;)
londontiger
18 Oct 2003, 04:47
Originally posted by |D_J^B_J|
I have a feeling we are clearing salary cap space to make a bid at , Coughlan, of whom are Western Australians and come out of contract next season.
Have fun trying to pick up Coughlan. He doesn't want to move. He will not be out of contract at the end of next season, and he will want to stay in Melbourne.
Check any Coughlan interview on the afl website
all footy
18 Oct 2003, 07:06
Originally posted by macca23
Time will show that Collingwood will be the big losers out of this week's trading fiasco.
They have shown that they think it is clever to be dishonourable and the other 15 clubs will just not fall for that crap again.
As a result Collingwood will find it pretty hard to do a trade in the next couple of years as nobody will even entertain dealing with them for departing palyers.
How is Collingwood the loser in this anyway??
They never had Stevens, and YOU CAN"T LOSE SOMETHING YOU HAVN"T GOT!!!!!
I'm not entirely sure why people think the Bulldogs acted dishonourably. It was hardly their fault that North and Hawthorn were unable to reach an agreement, and once it became apparent that this was the situation it was probable that Rawlings was going to fall their way. They could have had him for nothing, but instead effectively gave Hawthorn the number 6 pick for free. This could be seen to be trying to do the right thing.
Of course, if there was collusion involved early on, it looks different. But do we know there really was?
Maybe this is a naive perspective - but is certainly an alternative interpretation of the Dogs' actions.
Grendel
18 Oct 2003, 08:30
Originally posted by Kimbo
This is not to say that clubs won't deal with the Bulldogs or Hawthorn, but the lack of goodwill will inhibit their capacity to do good deals in future. When one party feels aggrieved, they play harder next time. For instance, you don't think Hawthorn didn't play hardball on the Roos trade cos they were feeling dudded by Jade, or, judging by the attitude of Hawthorn posters, previous trade deals? Those who deny the role of emotions in negotiations such as these are kidding themselves IMHO. (Nothing personal Grendel.) [/B]
No offense taken. However your talking Hawthorn here. Any club is going to be willing to trade with us because basically, we're no good at it. Pick 9 and 24 for Rawlings or Jacobs? Pick 5 or 7 from Melbourne or Geelong or Jacobs? Plus we throw in a kid that may or may not (Veale) amount to something only we don't wait long enough to find out.
Goodwill does not exsist in the cauldron that is AFL. Anyone will deal for the right price. Hawthorn didn't play 'hard ball' with North, they played 'unrealistic expectations'.
Rawlings/Veale = Jacobs.
Terrible.
Originally posted by macca23
Time will show that Collingwood will be the big losers out of this week's trading fiasco.
They have shown that they think it is clever to be dishonourable and the other 15 clubs will just not fall for that crap again.
Remind me again which team gave Stevens away for free? What exactly did Collingwood lose? There were 15 teams who did not come up with a suitable trade for Stevens.
Port is the loser. Their pigheaded attitude has cost them dearly.
I will watch the career of pick 17 and Heath Scotland with interest.
Macca19
18 Oct 2003, 09:58
I can see how Collingwood lost. After Eddie came out and claimed heavy trading would be done...what key position star did you pick up? What ruckmen did you get? What classy midfielder did you get? Oh thats right...none.
Originally posted by Macca19
I can see how Collingwood lost. After Eddie came out and claimed heavy trading would be done...what key position star did you pick up? What ruckmen did you get? What classy midfielder did you get? Oh thats right...none.
Yes we lost because we didn't get what we needed. A key position player or a ruckman. Stevens was neither of those anyway, and Holland, Rawlings, Croad etc were considered too expensive. We weren't looking for a midfielder - if Stevens had re-signed at Port we would probably not have looked anywhere else.
We lost because we didnt improve our list. Port lost more though, because they allowed their top midfielder to walk without any compensation.
Everybody loses. Except the Old Dark Navy Blues.
dan warna
18 Oct 2003, 10:56
north melbourne
a broken down old hack for two youngish players...
donuts mckernan comes home to retire...
Hawka_JT
18 Oct 2003, 12:44
Stop your bloody whinging Grendel..............we have done well to replace Rawlings, in fact we have come out on top.
Hawthorn didn't break any rules. Why should Rawlings expect to nominate a team an go there without adequate compensation?
Stuff him..................well done hawks
Grendel
18 Oct 2003, 13:18
Show me again where Jacobs finished top three in the Dons B&F this year...
Rawlings for Jacobs.. lunacy.
Originally posted by Grendel
Show me again where Jacobs finished top three in the Dons B&F this year...
Rawlings for Jacobs.. lunacy.
grendle the way i look at it is:
veale for jacobs (pick 6), that is what's going to be shown in the history books, and we lost rawlings for nothing, not rawlings for jacobs. i know what is really happening, but hey looks far better like that doesn't it????
I would love to see Stevens deregistered and Collingwood banned from the first few rounds of this years draft for collusion to try and hold Port to ransom, reallistically I don't see why it couldn't happen. Stevens told Collingwood he wanted to play for them, so they told him to refuse any deals from any other clubs so that they had the ability to pick him up as cheap as possible.
I don't think we've heard the last of this issue.
Zombie do you think Stevens needs to be told that in order to go to Collingwood he has to not accept to go anywhere else? He's not that stupid.
Port Adelaide made a concession to morality at the expense of the mid-term future of the team.
They made an absoloutly stupid decision.
However this has sent a message to players looking to go to a preffered team. That is why should they get that option when other players don't?