Sugar Kane - good bloke [Archive]

View Full Version : Sugar Kane - good bloke

Bresh

17 Oct 2003, 17:29

You must be counting your lucky stars he's not a prick like a couple of chaps we've seen this trading period... :(

Mong

17 Oct 2003, 17:44

He is a good bloke.

But he did nothing different to Nick Stevens who is also a good bloke. They both named the club they wanted to go to. The difference was Adelaide and Richmond wanted to make a deal, Port and Collingwood were too stubborn.

Mong

Stiffy_18

17 Oct 2003, 19:41

Originally posted by Mong
Port and Collingwood were too stubborn.

Mong No Collingwood wanted to rape Port. Pick 17 and one of these players Licuria/Presti/Didak/Cole/Lonie is what Port asked for and I think those are fair trades. Maybe Licuria + Pick 17 is a little bit rich bit the other trade proposals by Port were fair.

I take my hat off to Port for standing up to those Victorian w@nkers

PAfolwr

17 Oct 2003, 19:50

DaveW

17 Oct 2003, 20:25

Originally posted by Stiffy_18
I take my hat off to Port for standing up to those Victorian w@nkers "Victorian w@nkers" is a bit unfair.

It was only Collingwood who were being stingy.

Carlton were prepared to offer a good deal but Stevens wouldn't accept.

We were lucky that Johnson never openly declared that he only wanted to go to Richmond. But I wonder... if we couldn't work out a suitable deal with the club Kane supported as a kid, would he have agreed to go somewhere else? By all reports at the time he would have, but we don't really know.

Meanwhile I'm very impressed that Hawthorn have lost Rawlings to the pre-season draft and still got something in return for him.

MarksGirl-kbcrowgirl

17 Oct 2003, 21:23

they way I see it

Port lost out

Nick Stevens lost out

Carlton - party of the century!!!

k
xx

spindoctor

17 Oct 2003, 22:11

MarksGirl-kbcrowgirl

17 Oct 2003, 22:14

lozstar

17 Oct 2003, 22:16

Originally posted by DaveW
Meanwhile I'm very impressed that Hawthorn have lost Rawlings to the pre-season draft and still got something in return for him. Is that what the AFL is going to investigate them about? :confused:

Stiffy_18

17 Oct 2003, 22:44

Originally posted by spindoctor
I take my hat off to Collingwood for standing up to Port. Stevens is an overrated, pansy midfielder who was only barely worth pick 17, let alone pick 17 and a good player. Licuria, Presti, Didak, Cole and Lonie already are or have the potential to be more valuable players than Stevens.

Stevens is the type of player who will only survive in a good team where he gets fed lots of easy ball, he is a lazy pansy who does not like to work hard and go and get the ball for himself. Good luck at Carlton, pansy.

Port were being unbelievably greedy asking for two first round draft picks. And they got their just desserts for it. What a load of rubbish. He is a very good footballer who would have EASILY made our best 22.

Stevens was worth any of those player (except Licuria) and Pick 17. I actually take my hat of to Port for standing up. Stevens thought he could force Port's hand to trade him to Collingwood and Magpies thought they would rape Port. Well think again, by making this stand no player or club will try to pull off another dirty trick like that.

While I think Stevens is worth nowhere near $500K a season he was definetly worth 2 mid 1st round picks in THIS year's draft. Pick 2 alone was more than enough for him. Personally, i think his true worth was Pick 5.

lozstar

17 Oct 2003, 22:47

Originally posted by Stiffy_18
. Personally, i think his true worth was Pick 5. Apparently they were offered that from Melbourne.

Stiffy_18

17 Oct 2003, 22:57

Originally posted by lozstar
Apparently they were offered that from Melbourne. They were but Stevens didn't want to go to Melbourne. They offered a player as well.

Best deal was Pick 2 and Beamount from Carlton but Stevens did a backflip.

What Stevens did was a bit of a dog act BUT I cannot really blame him after Chocko's speech at Best and Fairest Night. Having a bit of a dig at Stevens.

spindoctor

18 Oct 2003, 01:35

Pull it again, Stiffy. If you've ever bothered to watch bloody Stevens, you'd understand what I'm talking about. Soft, soft, soft, soft. A receiver, a lazy pansy who only goes well when he is being fed easy ball in good teams - ie not Carlton. Like how Heffernan and Blumfield could look good in a rampant Essendon side, and ordinary at crapper clubs.

He is not a hard player, I know penty of PORT supporters who agree completely and are happy to see the back of him. No passengers in our team, thanks.

Stiffy_18

18 Oct 2003, 01:47

No u pull it:rolleyes:

He is a deadset winger in my books and thats his ****ing role. I am sick of these people bagging Nick Stevens. For ****s sake he was Port's best player against Collingwood in the finals. He is a VERY skillful midfielder and would make our side EASILY.
Originally posted by spindoctor
F Rutten Stevens Johncock
HF Welsh Carey Ladhams
C Burton Ricciuto Stenglein
HB Edwards McGregor Massie
B Bassett Parker Hart

R Biglands McLeod Goodwin

I Schuback, Shirley, Clarke, Burns

E Perrie Begley Bode ...and those blokes I highlited are not soft receivers??????

spindoctor

18 Oct 2003, 02:01

Burton is also an excellent mark and forward line player. And Ladhams is a great goalsneak as well. Burns is not a midfielder, he is solely a forward line player.

Those three are either different to Stevens or have other abilities which are better than his.

Stevens is a soft-ass pansy. His performance against Collingwood was crap - he may have racked up 26-odd disposals, but his actual influence was minimal. Like Matty Connell, you can get plenty of the ball without being a good player.

He doesn't deserve to make our side, he can bugger off to Carlton where he will get shown up as the soft receiver he is.

DaveW

18 Oct 2003, 02:32

Originally posted by spindoctor
Licuria, Presti, Didak, Cole and Lonie already are or have the potential to be more valuable players than Stevens. If Nick Stevens is a soft seagull, what on earth does that make Ryan Lonie?

DaveW

18 Oct 2003, 02:35

Originally posted by Stiffy_18
What Stevens did was a bit of a dog act BUT I cannot really blame him after Chocko's speech at Best and Fairest Night. Having a bit of a dig at Stevens. First I've heard of that!

Jerome

18 Oct 2003, 09:12

Originally posted by DaveW
First I've heard of that!

Williams compared the Port squad to Brisbane. Said something like how Brisbane is the yardstick and that the Lions showed how AFL players could play in finals with colds, injuries and without being contracted.

PAfolwr

18 Oct 2003, 10:12

Originally posted by Jerome
Williams compared the Port squad to Brisbane. Said something like how Brisbane is the yardstick and that the Lions showed how AFL players could play in finals with colds, injuries and without being contracted.
You could direct that at more than just Stevens, and it's a fair enough point too.
He just forgot to add that Matthews is also able to come up with plans B, C and D as required.

As much as we on the Port board think Williams has a few flaws with his coaching, we also see he has a lot of good points, some of which command a lot of respect.
Being a straightshooter is one of them.

noddy

18 Oct 2003, 11:49

Originally posted by Stiffy_18
They were but Stevens didn't want to go to Melbourne. They offered a player as well.

Best deal was Pick 2 and Beamount from Carlton but Stevens did a backflip.

What Stevens did was a bit of a dog act BUT I cannot really blame him after Chocko's speech at Best and Fairest Night. Having a bit of a dig at Stevens.

Apparently Beaumont refused to leave Melbourne so that deal was up s##t creek,

Maybe what Stevens done was below the belt but he was just following his dream of playing for the same club as his dad,

What would have made it more acceptable was if he had said from day 1 that Collingwood was the only club he was willing to go to & not take the paps & others for a bloody ride,

Well done to Port Adelaide for standing by their principles but how come they didn't follow the Hawthorn/Bulldogs lead & make a dummy trade agreement with Carlton ??

Nige_Bix

19 Oct 2003, 02:27

PAfolwr

19 Oct 2003, 02:39

Originally posted by jfb313
I must have missed this - what did they do?
Here (http://afl.com.au/default.asp?pg=news&spg=display&articleid=124471)

Mong

19 Oct 2003, 04:18

Originally posted by Stiffy_18
No Collingwood wanted to rape Port. Pick 17 and one of these players Licuria/Presti/Didak/Cole/Lonie is what Port asked for and I think those are fair trades. Maybe Licuria + Pick 17 is a little bit rich bit the other trade proposals by Port were fair.

I take my hat off to Port for standing up to those Victorian w@nkers

I don't think anyone can be critical of Collingwood for this.

They can't be blamed for not wanting to depart with their players. Obviously they didn't want Stevens enough to offer more. And that's their choice. They're not obliged to part with their players for the sake of appeasing Port. It's definately not their fault that Stevens didn't want to play for anyone else and the reality is it isn't Collingwood's problem.

The cost for them is not getting Stevens and they are obviously happy to live with that. They were prepared to take him but not for what Port wanted. I don't get why people think Collingwood should be obliged to make a fair deal. They aren't. Everyone goes out there to win trades. Sometimes you take players if they are a bargain, but otherwise aren't that interested. Collingwood clearly had that stand with Stevens and I for one don't blame them. Their team is already quality and are on the way up. They are doing things right, they don't need to tamper with their team majorly to take the next step.

And Nick Stevens wanted to play for Collingwood. He was obviously taking the stand he thought that would give him the best chance to get there. And that was to refuse to be traded anywhere else. The AFL system allows this to happen because they allow players to have a say in trades. If there is a fault here it is the system. Stevens tried to use the system to his advantage. And I still think that was his only option to get to Collingwood, he did what he had to do. I would so the same to get to the Crows if I was any good and there'd probably be a few others on this board that would too. The simple fact is Port weren't going to trade him to Collingwood because Collingwood weren't keen enough to offer more. But from Nick's point of view Port weren't going to do him any favours so why should he do something to appease that club.

Every party in this situation was only thinking what was best for themselves. Port, Collingwood and Stevens. That's fair enough. None of them were trying to do good deeds for anyone else, Port included, otherwise he'd be at Collingwood now. That's the game we play. If Stevens was crap he'd be delisted straight away there'd be no loyalty or compensation to the player.

Nick Stevens didn't initially want to go to Port before he was drafted. That's the game and the risk that Port took. Players don't get a say. The game has reversed and for once a club gets shafted and I am happy that it happened the other way for once. No-one cares when a player is traded when he doesn't want to leave like Scott Cummings public declaration to Mark Williams a few years ago.

Stevens doesn't owe Port anything. He fullfilled his contracts and he played damn good football during that time.

And at least Port got 6 good years of football as return for drafting him. We got a big fat 0 for drafting Angwin with a much higher pick.

It's the system we play under and for once a player has dictated the terms and as far as I'm concerned it's about time someone got their own back on the system.

Stevens didn't get to go to the club he wanted to but he wasn't going to get there anyway. At least he made the club pay for it.

Clubs treat players like commodities. We all know they only do what's best for themselves. Why feel sorry for them? Especially when it's not our club. ;)

[/end rant]

Mong

DaveW

19 Oct 2003, 08:11

Originally posted by noddy
Well done to Port Adelaide for standing by their principles but how come they didn't follow the Hawthorn/Bulldogs lead & make a dummy trade agreement with Carlton ?? If Hawthorn didn't do that deal, then they probably would have traded Rawlings to North Melbourne to get what they could.

Port Adelaide made it quite clear they were never going to take what Collingwood was offering.

Carlton would be mad to give up their #2 pick on a guarantee that Port would send Stevens to the pre-season draft. Because (a) it was going to happen anyway; and (b) Carlton don't have first choice in the PSD (the Rawlings deal was only done at the last minute, so they wouldn't've known that the Bulldogs would be taking Rawlings first up in the PSD).

DaveW

19 Oct 2003, 08:26

Mong:

It's fair enough that Collingwood didn't want to sell the farm to give up Stevens. But why all the negative comments from the likes of Balme? Why all the whinging from the Collingwoood supporters on BF? They are very bitter about not getting Stevens, when it was them who decided not to take him.

That's why there's criticism of Collingwood.

PAfolwr

19 Oct 2003, 11:14

Mong where we differ is interpretation of what happened.
Originally posted by Mong
I don't think anyone can be critical of Collingwood for this.

They can't be blamed for not wanting to depart with their players. Obviously they didn't want Stevens enough to offer more. And that's their choice. They're not obliged to part with their players for the sake of appeasing Port. It's definately not their fault that Stevens didn't want to play for anyone else and the reality is it isn't Collingwood's problem.

Well put and fair enough if that was the case.

I see it very differently and by the looks of the posts/newspaper articles going around, most other people in Australia share my view.

Make no mistake, Collingwood wanted Stevens and are ****ed off that they missed their opportunity.
They knew about Stevens wanting to go there so they thought great
a) We can pay him less per year than other Clubs are willing to pay him because he wants to play here.
b) We will offer a token trade, and they (Port Adelaide) will be forced to accept it since we'll put a gun to their head and say it's either this or nothing.

If they had picks 5 and 17 up their sleeves what would they have offered in your opinion?
Probably 17 plus dud.
If Stevens had not stated that he wanted to go to Collingwood what would have they offered?
Probably 5 plus something not so dudish.

Make no mistake. Of course Port lost out on this trade, but not so much pick 17 plus a dud. They missed out on pick 2 or pick 5 that were being put on the table. When Stevens saw that he shat himself and pulled the plug.

As far as Port doing Stevens favors it looked as if they were trying to do just that but within reason.
Had Collingwood come up with a similar offer to other Clubs he would have been traded there because it was his preference.
Doing favors doesn't mean not looking after yourself at the same time.
If somebody wants a lift to the shops you do just that. You do not give them your car to keep.

spindoctor

19 Oct 2003, 12:22

Couldn't have put it better, Mong.

Collingwoof obviously saw Stevens for what he was, and they have plenty of up-and-coming receivers, they don't need another completely overrated one.

Collingwood had the right to offer what thet want. They are not their fans. Collingwood the club are involved in trading. Collingwoof's fans are not.

Port wanted way too much for a player made to look good because he was playing in a good side. Collingwood recognised this.

Mong

19 Oct 2003, 13:14

Originally posted by DaveW
Mong:

It's fair enough that Collingwood didn't want to sell the farm to give up Stevens. But why all the negative comments from the likes of Balme?

Well I'm not fully aware of all the comments but I guess they are just trying to justify to themselves to their supporters as to why they didn't come away with Stevens.

And lets face it, the Collingwood off field honchos aren't exactly known for making fair public comments regarding anything at all.

Originally posted by DaveW
Why all the whinging from the Collingwoood supporters on BF? They are very bitter about not getting Stevens, when it was them who decided not to take him.

That's why there's criticism of Collingwood.

Yeah well I'm not going to try and justify anything their supporters are saying. I'm talking more about the actions of their club. Supporters of all teams stick up for their club in these situations all the time. Doesn't matter what issue it is they will find some argument that makes them look good and the opposition look bad.

But as an outsider to this issue where my club is not involved I can look it a bit differently. I just think Stevens and Port were victims of circumstance. If it was the Crows I'd be very angry too. But from my point of view I view it as the system that has failed and Stevens played the system fairly.

The interesting thing is I posted a topic on the AFL board about a week ago outlining the problems of the double standards of the draft and trade preiod, where in the draft players can't choose or reject clubs but in the trade period the players can make choices. I thought this makes for a poor system that is bound to cause problems. The subject got three reply's. No one cared enough to discuss it. Yet at the same time there were literally thousands of posts regarding the Nick Stevens situation which was affected by that very issue. Yet that system is the system which everyone played within and as far as I'm concerned attempted to use it to their advantage.

Mong

Mong

19 Oct 2003, 13:44

PAfolwr

Thanks for responding. I totally accept I am probably in the minority with my thinking here. It's not the first time. ;)

If Collingwood are devastated at missing out on Stevens then that is clearly their problem and their fault. I am not at all saying that they put in a fair deal of Stevens value, and with the offers they made they don't deserve to get him. All I'm saying is that they shouldn't be obliged to make a fair deal, if they are willing to accept the consequences of missing out on him. And as it stands they don't have any choice but to accept that.

Collingwood, as much as everyone hates them, are a very well run organisation. I am certain that there will be questions asked by Eddie and co as to why they didn't get Stevens because a high profile, high quality player wanted to play for the pies and they couldn't get him. I can't imagine Eddie sitting back and saying, ok boys you did a good job, bad luck you missed out. He will be livid at whoever is responsible.

But that doesn't help this years situation. Whether it's deliberate or accidental that they offered a poor deal, all I'm saying is they can't be expected by everyone else to put in a fair deal. Last year Port didn't want Carey, not anywhere near for what the Crows offered. They may have taken him for a 2nd or 3rd round pick who knows. Is that unfair? Of course it's not. It's every clubs right to offer what they are willing to lose. Even if Carey nominated he wanted to go to Port and no-one else Port still couldn't be expected to offer more.

As for Stevens, yeah well I accept your point that Port were still willing to help him out and send him to his preferred club if the deals were similar but he obviously knew the deals weren't similar and Collingwood weren't going to give a better deal. At that stage he had no other choice but to refuse all other offers or he wouldn't be going to Collingwood. As I said he didn't get there but he wouldn't have got there any other way.

Stevens played the system and the AFL clubs are fully aware that this thing could happen. They should've been lobbying the AFL to change the system long before now. They probably will now that two teams have been burnt by it but that's too late for Port.

For the system to work, players should not get a say in where they are traded to and if the clubs do the deals, the players go. Harsh, and probably not fair on players, but no-one seems to care that draftees don't get a say on where they go. But to give players the right of refusal on trade deals is always going to invite this type of scenario. And as trade tactics become more shrewd this type of thing is only going to happen more and more.

Mong

spindoctor

19 Oct 2003, 14:38

Couldn't have said it better Mong.

macca23

19 Oct 2003, 15:14

Yep. Excellent post Mong.

PAfolwr

19 Oct 2003, 20:10

Originally posted by Mong
PAfolwr

Thanks for responding. I totally accept I am probably in the minority with my thinking here. It's not the first time. ;)

If Collingwood are devastated at missing out on Stevens then that is clearly their problem and their fault. I am not at all saying that they put in a fair deal of Stevens value, and with the offers they made they don't deserve to get him. All I'm saying is that they shouldn't be obliged to make a fair deal, if they are willing to accept the consequences of missing out on him. And as it stands they don't have any choice but to accept that.

Collingwood, as much as everyone hates them, are a very well run organisation. I am certain that there will be questions asked by Eddie and co as to why they didn't get Stevens because a high profile, high quality player wanted to play for the pies and they couldn't get him. I can't imagine Eddie sitting back and saying, ok boys you did a good job, bad luck you missed out. He will be livid at whoever is responsible.

But that doesn't help this years situation. Whether it's deliberate or accidental that they offered a poor deal, all I'm saying is they can't be expected by everyone else to put in a fair deal. Last year Port didn't want Carey, not anywhere near for what the Crows offered. They may have taken him for a 2nd or 3rd round pick who knows. Is that unfair? Of course it's not. It's every clubs right to offer what they are willing to lose. Even if Carey nominated he wanted to go to Port and no-one else Port still couldn't be expected to offer more.

As for Stevens, yeah well I accept your point that Port were still willing to help him out and send him to his preferred club if the deals were similar but he obviously knew the deals weren't similar and Collingwood weren't going to give a better deal. At that stage he had no other choice but to refuse all other offers or he wouldn't be going to Collingwood. As I said he didn't get there but he wouldn't have got there any other way.

Stevens played the system and the AFL clubs are fully aware that this thing could happen. They should've been lobbying the AFL to change the system long before now. They probably will now that two teams have been burnt by it but that's too late for Port.

For the system to work, players should not get a say in where they are traded to and if the clubs do the deals, the players go. Harsh, and probably not fair on players, but no-one seems to care that draftees don't get a say on where they go. But to give players the right of refusal on trade deals is always going to invite this type of scenario. And as trade tactics become more shrewd this type of thing is only going to happen more and more.

Mong
Quite well put.
Wrt Collingwood not being obliged to put in a fair deal, I agree. It is purely up to them however when someone calls their bluff, like Port has, then they shouldn't really come out and lay crap on the other club.

It's amazing how in the eyes of a lot of Collingwood supporters Stevens went from being a softy to our best midfielder back to one worth marginally more than Scotland.
The system works quite well as is. The only time it can fall apart is when Clubs and players try to go that one step further. That will happen from time to time and you just have to live with it.
The situation this time IMO is slightly different as the club doing most of the whinging is not so much the victim, but the one that tried to be the clever.

Stiffy_18

19 Oct 2003, 20:30

I have absolutely no problem with player nominating a club of his choice but for gooness sake come out and say it BEFORE the trade week starts not with 27 hours to go until trade deadline and when the club has already reached an agreement with another club.

I must say, I respect Kane Johnson for saying that his preference was Richmond but as long as Richmond compensated Adelaide fairly. I think that was a human thing to do and I have utmost respect for Kane for his willingness to give something back to the club that has made him the player he now is.

On the other hand, I have absolutely no respect for Nick Stevens who left Port high and dry.

spindoctor

19 Oct 2003, 20:45

Or are you sure Port didn't cold-shoulder Stevens and treat him like sh|t after he said he wanted to g back to Melbourne?

MarksGirl-kbcrowgirl

19 Oct 2003, 21:01

we will never know the truth about what happened in the Stevens/Port/Collingwood trade debacle. I think all 3 played some part in the deal not going through.

As for Kane.......we knew he wanted to go and we did our best to get him there. I am proud of the AFC and of Kane for getting there act together and everyone being happy at the end of the day.

k
xx

DaveW

19 Oct 2003, 21:05

Originally posted by MarksGirl-kbcrowgirl
we will never know the truth about what happened in the Stevens/Port/Collingwood trade debacle. What's not to know?

Stevens only wanted to go to Collingwood.

Collingwood wouldn't offer Port a satisfactory deal.

Port weren't going to trade Stevens for peanuts.

MarksGirl-kbcrowgirl

19 Oct 2003, 21:07

Originally posted by DaveW
What's not to know?

Stevens only wanted to go to Collingwood.

Collingwood wouldn't offer Port a satisfactory deal.

Port weren't going to trade Stevens for peanuts.

yep those are facts..........but there is more to this........I am sure of it.

k
xx

DaveW

19 Oct 2003, 21:09

Originally posted by MarksGirl-kbcrowgirl
yep those are facts..........but there is more to this........I am sure of it. Why do you think that and what more do you think there is?

MarksGirl-kbcrowgirl

19 Oct 2003, 21:13

Originally posted by DaveW
Why do you think that and what more do you think there is?

I just think there is more to what happened. Particularly between Stevens and Port. I have heard rumours about falling outs etc and I just think there is some truth.

k
xx

DaveW

19 Oct 2003, 21:17

Originally posted by MarksGirl-kbcrowgirl
I just think there is more to what happened. Particularly between Stevens and Port. I have heard rumours about falling outs etc and I just think there is some truth.

k
xx There were no doubt some falling outs between Stevens and some people at Port due to the nature of his depature.

But I still don't know what you're getting at when you say there was more to this.

PAfolwr

19 Oct 2003, 21:18

Originally posted by MarksGirl-kbcrowgirl
I just think there is more to what happened. Particularly between Stevens and Port. I have heard rumours about falling outs etc and I just think there is some truth.

k
xx
If Collingwood had offered something half decent, he would be playing there next year and Port would have wished him well just like they have done to all other players in the past.

MarksGirl-kbcrowgirl

19 Oct 2003, 21:28

Originally posted by PAfolwr
If Collingwood had offered something half decent, he would be playing there next year and Port would have wished him well just like they have done to all other players in the past.

your probably right..........but why didn't Collingwood offer something reasonable?? Maybe I am reading 2 much into the whole thing.

k
xx

lozstar

19 Oct 2003, 22:25

Originally posted by MarksGirl-kbcrowgirl
your probably right..........but why didn't Collingwood offer something reasonable?? Maybe I am reading 2 much into the whole thing.

k
xx I heard the same sorta thing that in the next few days that we'll hear the truth about what happened with Nick Stevens and Mark Williams and the whole trade thing.

naughty monkey

20 Oct 2003, 01:42

Originally posted by MarksGirl-kbcrowgirl
your probably right..........but why didn't Collingwood offer something reasonable?? Maybe I am reading 2 much into the whole thing.

k
xx

Because egoes at Collingwood got in the way, imo. They hate Port and thought they could screw them.

Both Stevens involved in this have a lot to answer for.

noddy

20 Oct 2003, 10:58

Originally posted by naughty monkey
Because egoes at Collingwood got in the way, imo. They hate Port and thought they could screw them.

Both Stevens involved in this have a lot to answer for.

At the end of the day & after all is said & done "loyalty" between clubs & players as we once knew it has long been gone & even as much as i can understand the Paps position on the Stevens affair but AFL players in the past have been screwed by their clubs when ever it suits their needs so the reverse turned on them was bound to happen sooner or later,

Max Stevens was as far as i know only following his clients directions & negotiating the best deal possible for that player concerned,

Just didn't work out the way Stevens, Port & Collingwood would have liked, but i bet Carlton's hierarchy are struggling to wipe the smiles from their faces. :)

Port Power & Collingwood, couldn't happen to 2 worthier clubs,

well in my opinion anyway, ;)

Mong

20 Oct 2003, 13:52

Originally posted by PAfolwr
Wrt Collingwood not being obliged to put in a fair deal, I agree. It is purely up to them however when someone calls their bluff, like Port has, then they shouldn't really come out and lay crap on the other club.

True. We all know Collingwood management have an unrealistically high opinion of their own actions and opinions. They are a very good management team and as they've settled into the roles and the team is now enjoying success they seem to be getting far to big for their boots.

Some of the things that have come out of the mouths of the Collingwood hierarchy of late have been beyond belief, almost comical.

It's amazing how in the eyes of a lot of Collingwood supporters Stevens went from being a softy to our best midfielder back to one worth marginally more than Scotland.

Yes, it's funny isn't it?

It's always the way. Just look back to Kangaroos fans valuation of Carey before last years trade period. Then when the trades finished they almost immediately change to say how much the Crows overpaid for him.

It's almost like they think their opinions are going to sway the clubs doing the trading.

Anyway, most football fans act very strange when they let emotions get in the way. They are in love with their club and love is blind.

Mong

Kid Dynamite!

20 Oct 2003, 21:00

Originally posted by noddy
Just didn't work out the way Stevens, Port & Collingwood would have liked, but i bet Carlton's hierarchy are struggling to wipe the smiles from their faces. :)

I'd just like to say, that's the first time I've ever seen you use a full stop! :eek:

noddy

20 Oct 2003, 21:16

Originally posted by Kid Dynamite!
I'd just like to say, that's the first time I've ever seen you use a full stop! :eek:

......... don't stop me now !! i'm on a roll...... :D

Kid Dynamite!

20 Oct 2003, 21:47

Originally posted by noddy
......... don't stop me now !! i'm on a roll...... :D

:D

macca23

20 Oct 2003, 23:13

Originally posted by noddy
......... don't stop me now !! i'm on a roll...... :D

Sorry to upset your party noddy, but you're not!!

There's no full stop above!! :D

Crow-mosone

21 Oct 2003, 02:25

I think collingwood's principals have been very much overstated here. I 100% agree is their right to value stevens, and offer as they see fit. end of.

However the story doesn't end their, what about the player?

Nick Stevens did not suddenly wake up one morning, screaming 'eureka, the pies!' - he just didn't.

Representations were made to him by collingwood, as in any similar situation that he was wanted, where he fit into their game plan, what sort of salary would be offerred and that they would do what they could to get him there. So impressed by their professional approach, no other team would do.

Nothing wrong with this, happens to any heavily courted player, in any trading period.

But this part about where Collingwood are not prepared to see through their committment to Stevens is worrying - they did the same to Everitt.
my opinion is that this well run, professional team left him hanging in the wind. Now his conduct doesn't inspire much sympathy, but do you think he would go Collingwood, if their pitch to him matched the valuation they offered port?

The two faces of Collingwood I see as the problem here, and the belief that port didn't any choices once he elected his club.

Does anyone think there was no discussion between Collingwood and Max Stevens +/or the player during trade week? they would have told him what they were going to do, and MAY have even advised him of tactics. What's he to do? not a good position for any player to be in. Just do this son, and we'll see you at victoria park next week.

No, I just don't agree that Collingwood is a well run, thoroughly professional club, nor do I believe their conduct acceptable.

Don't tap up the player, if you're not prepared to see it through.

dyertribe

21 Oct 2003, 02:29

Originally posted by Crow-mosone
Nick Stevens did not suddenly wake up one morning, screaming 'eureka, the pies!' - he just didn't.

Can you provide a footnote?

Porthos

21 Oct 2003, 10:58

Originally posted by Crow-mosone
Don't tap up the player, if you're not prepared to see it through. Bingo.