View Full Version : Lochlan Veale
Can Hawthorn fans tell us Doggies about Lochlan Veale?
Disgustipated
17 Oct 2003, 17:03
Originally posted by Tank
Can Hawthorn fans tell us Doggies about Lochlan Veale?
Think he spent the majority of the year In the Ray Martins out at Box Hill....
He's a good kid and will go all day?
His mudder was a mudder?
GOALden Hawk
17 Oct 2003, 17:04
193cm forward who also spends time in the ruck. Quite possibly the rawest player I've ever seen on a senior list.
He was so raw he didn't manage a single game for Box Hill this year, spent the whole season in the reserves doing not very much.
He is a nice bloke and occassionally does something that makes you think he might make it. Very young too.
But he is MILES off senior footy. Wouldn't be confident he will make it, might just be remembered as a trivia question.
Feel for the kid though, he got shafted.
Originally posted by Tank
Can Hawthorn fans tell us Doggies about Lochlan Veale?
Sorry but no
Demon37
17 Oct 2003, 17:07
Did the Bulldogs seriously trade pick 6 for this guy?
Thanks guys. Feel sorry for him as well...if Rawlings doesn't end up at the Doggies this kid is gonna be unfairly maligned by the fans even though none of this is his fault.
Hodgie_15
17 Oct 2003, 17:08
He's a young developing tall, who can play KP and may develop into a ruckmam.
Height 190cm
Weight: 83kg
Recruited From: Colac/Geelong U18
Debut: -
Date of Birth: 04/03/1985
Not the greatest talent going around, but the reason this trade was done was to get Rawlings. Thanks Doggies. But I have a feeling this was a planned move between the Dogs and Hawks. The Roos will be spewing. And suck s**t jade you won't get to play with Brady!
Bulluss
17 Oct 2003, 17:19
is this comprimising the draft?
the roos really copped it from the Dogs/Hawks.
mattyc2422
17 Oct 2003, 17:20
Originally posted by GOALden Hawk
193cm forward who also spends time in the ruck. Quite possibly the rawest player I've ever seen on a senior list.
He was so raw he didn't manage a single game for Box Hill this year, spent the whole season in the reserves doing not very much.
He is a nice bloke and occassionally does something that makes you think he might make it. Very young too.
But he is MILES off senior footy. Wouldn't be confident he will make it, might just be remembered as a trivia question.
Feel for the kid though, he got shafted.
I echo those sentiments 100%. VERY, VERY raw kid. Hard to tell what position he will turn out to play, but he is a very shy, country lad that I feel unbelievably sorry for.
Originally posted by Bulluss
is this comprimising the draft?
the roos really copped it from the Dogs/Hawks.
I don't think it comprimises the draft. It's a loophole that the Dogs and Hawks used very effectively. I suppose you could class it as collusion but there is nothing in the rules to say you can't arrange a deal like that.
I like it because Rawlings and the Roos were holding the Hawks to ransom over the past couple of weeks and it's nice to see them now with sweet FA!
Originally posted by Demon37
Did the Bulldogs seriously trade pick 6 for this guy?
They couldnt have traded pick 6 for Rawlings, as he wouldnt have agreed to the deal...if they trade pick 6 for this other bloke...then Hawthorn are happy....Bulldogs get Rawlings in the preseason draft...even if Rawlings doesnt want to go there.
Then Carlton get Stevens!!!:D :D :D :D
MightyHawks
17 Oct 2003, 17:49
Originally posted by Hawk71
I don't think it comprimises the draft. It's a loophole that the Dogs and Hawks used very effectively. I suppose you could class it as collusion but there is nothing in the rules to say you can't arrange a deal like that.
I like it because Rawlings and the Roos were holding the Hawks to ransom over the past couple of weeks and it's nice to see them now with sweet FA!
Exactly, Richmond with Brown, Collingwood with Stevens, North with Rawlings... all 3 clubs offered jack for what they were getting - pity Brown went to Tigers...
Other rorts of draft (loopholes) - Pick 19, traded just because it had to be - you aren't allowed to give a player for nothing!
Interpol
17 Oct 2003, 17:55
Originally posted by MightyHawks
Exactly, Richmond with Brown, Collingwood with Stevens, North with Rawlings... all 3 clubs offered jack for what they were getting - pity Brown went to Tigers...
Since when is picks 9 and 24 or pick 9 and Corey Jones for Rawlings jack all?
Originally posted by Interpol
Since when is picks 9 and 24 or pick 9 and Corey Jones for Rawlings jack all?
I would have accepted that, but for some reason we just had to get jacobs, and sheeds had to get pick 6 and the bullies had to get rawli ... err veale.
GhostofJimJess
17 Oct 2003, 18:06
Originally posted by MightyHawks
... all 3 clubs offered jack for what they were getting - pity Brown went to Tigers...
Sheeez ... we coughed up our top 2 picks for him - effectively Pick 6 and Peter Street or Ben Holland (whatever way you wanna look at it). What else did they want out of us ?!
Bloody Woewodin only went for Pick 16 or something !!
Vindaloo Mat
17 Oct 2003, 18:14
a stupid move by the dogs. Perhaps the most stupid move in the history of stupid moves.
What do they gain by the trade. You could say that Hawthorn agreed NOT to trade Rawlings to the Roos or the Cats....but then why not insist that they instead trade him to the Dogs ? Why leave the uncertainty ? Rawlings may decide to play for Norwood for all we know....or the Hawks might offer him a deal he cannot refuse. So why trade pick 6 and get nothing (no offense to the lad) in return ?
Thewlis Dish
17 Oct 2003, 18:17
The whole point of the deal was to make sure he went to the PSD which means Hawthorn won't re-sign him. Gaining Jacobs and Croad will mean they'll have no cap room to sign Rawlings anyway. Rawlings could go anywhere, but it's likely he'll go into the PSD and nominate a 1 year contract.
Originally posted by Demon37
Did the Bulldogs seriously trade pick 6 for this guy?
Nope, they gave away pick 6 and Mark Alvey for this guy!!! :D
Vindaloo Mat
17 Oct 2003, 18:40
Originally posted by Petrie Dish
The whole point of the deal was to make sure he went to the PSD which means Hawthorn won't re-sign him. Gaining Jacobs and Croad will mean they'll have no cap room to sign Rawlings anyway. Rawlings could go anywhere, but it's likely he'll go into the PSD and nominate a 1 year contract.
but still stupid.
Look at it from each side:
Hawthorn : apart from the subsequent deal they did for Jacobs, perhaps it is Christmas. They can choose to sign Rawlings or not. Salary cap problem ? delist a couple of other lesser lights and away we go...hell they got rid of a few players anyway.
Bulldogs : give up a lot for perhaps a PSD option. No cerntainty and the real prospect that the AFL will not look kindly "Conduct Prejudicial to the draft" or something of the like.
Rawlings : says he won't go to WB. But when it is clear that that is the only option why would you not agree to the trade ? What benefit does he take out of the deal ?
Essendon : look like winners in this instance
scooter600x
17 Oct 2003, 20:27
Originally posted by GhostofJimJess
Sheeez ... we coughed up our top 2 picks for him - effectively Pick 6 and Peter Street or Ben Holland (whatever way you wanna look at it). What else did they want out of us ?!
Bloody Woewodin only went for Pick 16 or something !!
I don't think you appreciate just how good a player you got.
At some stage in the Wizard Cup next year, Brown will be trapped on the boundary deep in the right forward pocket, he will - off one step - promptly put it through with a right foot banana, and rather than cheer, under your breath you will go f***! Then you will cheer - loudly (unless, of course, he does it in the last quarter, then you will hear about it on the radio as you are leaving the carpark.
azza102
17 Oct 2003, 20:32
if rawlings doesn't go in the draft the dogs will probably get stevens anyway.
unless something crazy happens with both rawlings and stevens then the dogs will get one of em.
Originally posted by azza102
if rawlings doesn't go in the draft the dogs will probably get stevens anyway.
unless something crazy happens with both rawlings and stevens then the dogs will get one of em.
Yes, that's right. My guess is that we cannot afford to have both Rawling and Stevens in our list. But we could draft/trade for both of them. We prefer Rawling and pay pick 6 for the right to get him. If this did not eventuate then we still can pick Steven.
Some guys in our footy department must have been working for a stock broker!!
BigCat1
17 Oct 2003, 21:39
Originally posted by scooter600x
At some stage in the Wizard Cup next year, Brown will be trapped on the boundary deep in the right forward pocket, he will - off one step - promptly put it through with a right foot banana, and rather than cheer, under your breath you will go f***! Then you will cheer - loudly (unless, of course, he does it in the last quarter, then you will hear about it on the radio as you are leaving the carpark.
:D LOL
You might be an emotional, crazy and sometimes irrational bastard scooter but you still tell a ripper yarn
GhostofJimJess
17 Oct 2003, 22:17
Originally posted by scooter600x
I don't think you appreciate just how good a player you got.
At some stage in the Wizard Cup next year, Brown will be trapped on the boundary deep in the right forward pocket, he will - off one step - promptly put it through with a right foot banana, and rather than cheer, under your breath you will go f***! Then you will cheer - loudly (unless, of course, he does it in the last quarter, then you will hear about it on the radio as you are leaving the carpark.
Must admit, scoot, that belting the Tiges dished out to the Dogs in Round 17 did get a little tedious as the margin blew out over 10 goals ... but then I thought that one of the departed Bulldog fans has probably boosted my motor by then anyhow ...
Captain Sensible
17 Oct 2003, 23:12
Originally posted by GhostofJimJess
... but then I thought that one of the departed Bulldog fans has probably boosted my motor by then anyhow ...
Not if it had a Richmond sticker on it.
Groucho
17 Oct 2003, 23:31
Still more to be played out in the Rawlings saga I believe. He wanted the security of a long term contract and the pre-season draft allows a player to nominate his terms. Rawlings could request a 4 year contract at $350k+ per year. He would have to ensure that the Cats or Roos or whoever have agreed to pick it up if the Bulldogs baulk at it. Either way he gets security.
Borgsta
18 Oct 2003, 00:52
Dont worry the Bulldogs wont baulk at the price of Rawlings.
Unwritten_Law
18 Oct 2003, 02:40
Originally posted by Vindaloo Mat
Essendon : look like winners in this instance
Would it surprise anyone if it was Sheedy's idea in the first place?
The_Flying_Egg
18 Oct 2003, 02:47
Originally posted by Hawk71
I suppose you could class it as collusion but there is nothing in the rules to say you can't arrange a deal like that.
That should be end of story. No rules have been broken
GhostofJimJess
18 Oct 2003, 12:59
Originally posted by localyokel
Not if it had a Richmond sticker on it.
Hey local, that sticker's holding it together ...