Mega Thread Possible trades in 2015 for the Crows

[ManInTheArena]

1. I believe I said that I don't feel any sympathy for anyone who feels screwed by the CURRENT system as they all agreed to it. I have simply stated that it will have longer term implications if the AFLPA don't believe the current system is fair in their eyes.

2. The clubs and AFL want as little change as possible as the whole equalisation movement is built around restricting employee rights. That is achieved through draft, trade restrictions and salary caps. The more that gets changed, the more the equalisation measures are eroded. The AFL need equalisation measures for the general good of the game. The AFL wish free agency never existed.

3. When any agreement is about to expire and this one is about to expire, all parties will review the agreement and decide if the system works for them. They will look at the failings and strengths and try to make improvements to suit themselves. I have simply said that from the AFLPA viewpoint, there are failings in the system relating to cases like this where a player wants to go home and potentially can't. The only thing that the current system considers is money and there is more to employee well being than just money.

4. The AFLPA viewpoint and the AFL viewpoint differ dramatically on this. The AFL needs to protect the way things are done and to do this needs to show that the system works so we don't get wholesale changes at the next agreement. It is completely different to any other place of employment as in normal places of employment you don't get drafted or restricted from working with who you want. The AFL will try to prove to the AFLPA that the system works and major changes are not needed.

5. Obviously agreement between the AFLPA and AFL is required and the more the AFLPA believes the system isn't fair or what they want, the more they will resist which is detrimental to whole industry.

Great, more waffling I need to respond to. Some people just don't give up, you're like the cartoon character that runs off the end of the cliff but you're legs keep going. It's like you think if you just keep posting then eventually you think you'll be right. You won't because your position is stupid.

I've had a brief read and you're going to get owned, so when you do please stop responding with more s**t that doesn't make sense as if volume of content outweighs logic. You're clogging up our thread with nonsense.

 

[rezagun]

well then. can we accept a grown man who drinks udl?

Harley bennells price just dropped dramatically.

 

[whattagun07]

Bennell one of the few players to have white line fever, off the field

 

[mistylake]

Harley bennells price just dropped dramatically.

Looks like the Suns need a scapegoat.

 

[mistylake]

Looks like the Suns need a scapegoat. Pretty crook that someone would hand this photo over to the media

 

[rezagun]

Looks like the Suns need a scapegoat.

He was always going to be in the ratpack. Doubt we will go for him now though with philthys zero drug policy. The photo is a couple of years old. But it doesnt look good.

 

[MyLittleSloaney]

Bennell one of the few players to have white line fever, off the field

Did you read the headline?

 

[whattagun07]

Did you read the headline?

No haha
I was hoping to let that slide
It's too esrly for me

 

[whattagun07]

Honestly I couldn't look past the picture.
Also, I have the same aftershave as him

 

[Mattrox]

 

[alex_is_on_fire]

Would we as a club be interested in Harley Bannell?

If we lose Dangerfield, a clean and motivated Bannell would certainly help remove the loss of Dangerfield.

 

[Draft Bored]

Anyone else think it's worth taking a risk on Bennell?

He's just so freaking talented and his asking price would have plummeted.





EDIT: Beat me to it alex_is_on_fire. I was too busy watching highlights videos!

 

[alex_is_on_fire]

Anyone else think it's worth taking a risk on Bennell?

With Andrew Mcleod and Eddie Betts in our corner, this gives me enormious hope we could turn him around and get him to play his best football.

Yes, we should be pushing for him to come to the crows.

Not sure what he's worth right now but maybe a pick between 15 and 30 right now.

 

[crowded house]

it will be interesting to see how this plays out.
Bennell's a great talent and if he has integrity, should stick with them now for dragging them through this s**t.

Suns also need to keep him and back a new regime and culture change because if they just get rid of players with they have trouble with, they're not going to grow as a strong, competant club.

males aged 18-30 have higher rates of impulsivity and drug use. It's fact. If the suns use him as a scapegoat they will massively harm their brand. Crucifying him may be what the media wants, but it's not the right thing to do and will harm the club in the long run.

 

[crowded house]

Ps, if suns want to do the wrong thing and get rid of him I would take him in an nanosecond.

 

[Runnin Blue]

Ps, if suns want to do the wrong thing and get rid of him I would take him in an nanosecond.

Something tells me there's zero chance that Phil Walsh would recruit a a player proven to have taken drugs.

 

[azza77]

Interesting hearing Damien Barrett on TFS mention that Gold Coast expect Dixon, Day and Gorringe will all be gone at years end. I know many have already discussed Dixon to us but I think Day could be a good option if cheap on the market. Straight swap for a 2nd or 3rd rounder perhaps would be a decent gamble

If we give up our second rounder for him I will cry. Much rather take my chances in the draft with a mid 2nd rounder.

 

[azza77]

Something tells me there's zero chance that Phil Walsh would recruit a a player proven to have taken drugs.

There is that, but boy oh boy would I take a player of his ability in a heartbeat.

Walsh would back / put systems in place to clean up his act. You'd be sure as hell he would be walking a very thin line if he did come over and Walsh would not tolerate any bullshit.

 

[ManInTheArena]

1. I believe I said that I don't feel any sympathy for anyone who feels screwed by the CURRENT system as they all agreed to it. I have simply stated that it will have longer term implications if the AFLPA don't believe the current system is fair in their eyes.

Whether it's fair or not has absolutely nothing to do with Adelaide, Geelong and Dangerfield. It's either fair or it's not fair and that will be played out during bargaining regardless. The AFLPA might be trying to get something like the NBA in place and they might have been planning to go hard it at every bargaining agreement since they decided they wanted free agency. If they do go hard at it will be nothing to do with Dangerfield, it would have been planned since they initially got free agency in the agreement. This is how unions do things; they chip away getting more and more. They will do it regardless.

2. The clubs and AFL want as little change as possible as the whole equalisation movement is built around restricting employee rights. That is achieved through draft, trade restrictions and salary caps. The more that gets changed, the more the equalisation measures are eroded. The AFL need equalisation measures for the general good of the game. The AFL wish free agency never existed.

How do you know this? are you at AFL Commission meetings and club board meetings? One coach has mentioned something vaguely and other than that it's been silent. Stop making assertions that come from presuppositions. We'll find out what both parties want or don't want when bargaining begins.

3. When any agreement is about to expire and this one is about to expire, all parties will review the agreement and decide if the system works for them. They will look at the failings and strengths and try to make improvements to suit themselves. I have simply said that from the AFLPA viewpoint, there are failings in the system relating to cases like this where a player wants to go home and potentially can't. The only thing that the current system considers is money and there is more to employee well being than just money.

Again, stop making assertions that come from presuppositions.

Furthermore a "restricted" free agent having an offer matched is not a "failing in the system". Stop saying it is, it's just a dumb argument.

4. The AFLPA viewpoint and the AFL viewpoint differ dramatically on this. The AFL needs to protect the way things are done and to do this needs to show that the system works so we don't get wholesale changes at the next agreement. It is completely different to any other place of employment as in normal places of employment you don't get drafted or restricted from working with who you want. The AFL will try to prove to the AFLPA that the system works and major changes are not needed.

And again, stop making assertions that come from presuppositions.

Furthermore, again, the system will have worked if match the offer. It works exactly the same as the NBA, which is probably what the AFLPA would be going for if they went harder.

5. Obviously agreement between the AFLPA and AFL is required and the more the AFLPA believes the system isn't fair or what they want, the more they will resist which is detrimental to whole industry.

You're whole flimsy argument is based on the fact that some tin foil hat storm is brewing between the AFL and AFLPA over restricted free agency and this Dangerfield deal is HUGE, I mean HUUUUUUUUUUGE in relation to that. All based on nothing but your beliefs. No facts, no evidence, nothing. I mean you're playing this out in your mind like a little boy thinking about the next episode of Ben 10 and wanting everyone to play along. I want to talk about reality not the Ben 10 in your head.

The AFLPA will want a heap of s**t in the agreement anyway. The log of claims will be ridiculous (they always are) and both parties will end up deciding on the entitlements. The Dangerfield deal might be considered as a case if all of your presumptions are true (which is a big if). But even then you're basing your entire argument on restricted free agency "not working" by Adelaide matching the offer. That's just bullshit and your posts are just fantasy.

 

[dogs105]

well then. can we accept a grown man who drinks udl?

So, does that count as a strike?

 

[azza77]

And again, stop making assertions that come from presuppositions.



You're whole flimsy argument is based on the fact that some tin foil hat storm is brewing between the AFL and AFLPA over restricted free agency and this Dangerfield deal is HUGE, I mean HUUUUUUUUUUGE in relation to that. All based on nothing but your beliefs. No facts, no evidence, nothing. I mean you're playing this out in your mind like a little boy thinking about the next episode of Ben 10 and wanting everyone to play along. I want to talk about reality not the Ben 10 in your head.

HAHA

 

[Mismatched]

So, does that count as a strike?

Doubt it, could be icing sugar for all we know... Are there any photos of him actually taking it either?

 

[Lawrst]

Yes please. Where do we sign.

 

[Mattrox]

Doubt it, could be icing sugar for all we know... Are there any photos of him actually taking it either?

Come on man.

This is a - law-talking guy - type argument.

 

[headache1]

The AFLPA will want a heap of s**t in the agreement anyway. The log of claims will be ridiculous (they always are) and both parties will end up deciding on the entitlements. The Dangerfield deal might be considered as a case if all of your presumptions are true (which is a big if). But even then you're basing your entire argument on restricted free agency "not working" by Adelaide matching the offer. That's just bullshit and your posts are just fantasy.

Personally, I think they'll be putting a lot more effort into things like the league/player TV revenue split, rather than 1 of their members potentially getting paid $1m a season whilst not residing in his city of choice. Maybe that's just me though.