VB willing to give captaincy to Danger to keep him at Crows.

Remove this Banner Ad

Log in to remove this ad.

If Geelong didn't offer Ablett the captaincy to stay at the cattery, then no player in the history of the game should be offered it to stay. Whether or not being the captain was the deal breaker in Ablett's case, it just sends the wrong message. Anyone who accepts the captaincy who was otherwise out the door, isn't captaincy material anyway.

For what it's worth, I hope that if Paddy stays at the crows, it's for the right reasons and not just to be a captain.

I'm pretty sure that whatever Van Berlo did say has been twisted around more than a knot roll. He strikes me as reasonably intelligent and not someone who says ill-measured comments. We all know what the media is like. They're not allowed to report outright lies, but stretching the truth so much that every single fibre becomes damaged beyond recognition seems to be an acceptable practice. .
 
Last edited:
Strangled Cat said:
If Geelong didn't offer Ablett the captaincy to stay at the cattery, then no player in the history of the game should be offered it to stay. Whether or not being the captain was the deal breaker in Ablett's case, it just sends the wrong message. Anyone who accepts the captaincy who was otherwise out the door, isn't captaincy material anyway.
Click to expand...

Ablett has nothing to do with Dangerfield nor is the Geelong squad of 2009 anything like the Crows squad of 2014. They have absolutely nothing to do with each other.

Also - the Ablett situation was completely different in that a new franchise was paying him whatever he wanted to become the face of that new franchise. Dangers $$ will be similar whether he stays in Adelaide or goes home to Melbs.[/QUOTE]
 
Last edited:
Peter J said:
He could say that he is staying
Click to expand...
No half decent AFL player is going to jeopardise their chances of securing the best deal possible by telling any club their exact intentions.

aaaaaaand here's how it will work out.

negotiations will go on and on and on and on until suddenly Danger announces he is going to Geelong for the chance to play in a premiership team (forget the fact that his deal offers $1.4 mill more over 4 years and that he'll be moving to a stone's throw away from home). Then this board will start 2 possibly 3 threads. 1) Dangerfield Leaving:There is something wrong with the AFC culture, how do we fix it? 2)Sack the admin for not being able to keep Dangerfield 3) Dangerfield is no loss - he can't kick and plays injured, should have traded him earlier.
 
Strangled Cat said:
If Geelong didn't offer Ablett the captaincy to stay at the cattery, then no player in the history of the game should be offered it to stay. Whether or not being the captain was the deal breaker in Ablett's case, it just sends the wrong message. Anyone who accepts the captaincy who was otherwise out the door, isn't captaincy material anyway.

For what it's worth, I hope that if Paddy stays at the crows, it's for the right reasons and not just to be a captain.

I'm pretty sure that whatever Van Berlo did say has been twisted around more than a knot roll. He strikes me as reasonably intelligent and not someone who says ill-measured comments. We all know what the media is like. They're not allowed to report outright lies, but stretching the truth so much that every single fibre becomes damaged beyond recognition seems to be an acceptable practice. .
Click to expand...
So on the money there.:thumbsu:
 
AFC979810 said:
Ablett has nothing to do with Dangerfield nor is the Geelong squad of 2009 anything like the Crows squad of 2014. They have absolutely nothing to do with each other.

Also - the Ablett situation was completely different in that a new franchise was paying him whatever he wanted to become the face of that new franchise. Dangers $$ will be similar whether he stays in Adelaide or goes home to Melbs.
Click to expand...
You missed my point completely. But alas, I maintain that no player should be offered captaincy as a last ditch effort to keep them from leaving. If you're pining for Adelaide to do as much, and Dangerfield accepts based solely on becoming captain, then your club hasn't made the correct captaincy decision. That is my opinion, you can take it or leave it.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Strangled Cat said:
You missed my point completely. But alas, I maintain that no player should be offered captaincy as a last ditch effort to keep them from leaving. If you're pining for Adelaide to do as much, and Dangerfield accepts based solely on becoming captain, then your club hasn't made the correct captaincy decision. That is my opinion, you can take it or leave it.
Click to expand...

Why does it have to be absolutes? There is no way a player would select a side purely based on one factor.

In todays game the captaincy is a farce and if we can use it as a small carrot to keep a star with us - we would be stupid not to.
 
Hard to believe we're still having this discussion. The ship has sailed. Dangerfield should have been appointed captain at the beginning of this year. The club had the perfect out, with VB out for the whole year.

We can't even make decisions that are practically made for us.
 
Slippery Pete said:
Hard to believe we're still having this discussion. The ship has sailed. Dangerfield should have been appointed captain at the beginning of this year. The club had the perfect out, with VB out for the whole year.

We can't even make decisions that are practically made for us.
Click to expand...

Yet his captaincy in the interim role left a lot to be desired. Sloane was a better captain this year.
 
AFC979810 said:
Why does it have to be absolutes? There is no way a player would select a side purely based on one factor.

In todays game the captaincy is a farce and if we can use it as a small carrot to keep a star with us - we would be stupid not to.
Click to expand...
You're right, it doesn't. I meant that if the tipping point is the captaincy issue, and if obtaining the captaincy is what gets him over the line, then I don't think that it's a good thing. A captain should be on board 100%, be committed and focused purely on what benefits the club, then be awarded as captain in the case that all other prerequisites for being captain are ticked off. Captaincy should be an honour reserved for those deserving, not a carrot to tangle in front of talented flight risks.
 
Slippery Pete said:
Hard to believe we're still having this discussion. The ship has sailed. Dangerfield should have been appointed captain at the beginning of this year. The club had the perfect out, with VB out for the whole year.

We can't even make decisions that are practically made for us.
Click to expand...
and had they done that, the club would have been pilloried for sacking VB. It would have been a dog act, or a conspiracy that had been brewing amongst the ranks yadda yadda yadda, Rucci et al would call it a cancer and bring it up at every opportunity, even though the players obviously love VB as captain.

It was certainly an opportunity lost to change captains, but I'm not sure it's Danger who should be given the job. It would be worse to appoint him captain and then see him pack his bags regardless.

Will the players have any say in selecting their captain?
 
I'm usually against it, but when it comes to Danger and Sloane I'm still for co-captains.

On-field you need a group of leaders, 2 captains won't hurt.

Off-field is where the demands are massive…why overburden one guy and compromise them when we have 2 equally good candidates to share the load.

Jacobs, Talia, Tex to round out the leadership group.

As for VB, if it takes one last season of captaincy and average playing performances to make the final transition, in a year which will no doubt be transitional in nature anyway, then so be it. If he somehow keeps his spot in the 22, he can stay in the leadership group.
 
footy4ever said:
and had they done that, the club would have been pilloried for sacking VB. It would have been a dog act, or a conspiracy that had been brewing amongst the ranks yadda yadda yadda, Rucci et al would call it a cancer and bring it up at every opportunity, even though the players obviously love VB as captain.
Click to expand...
I don't think it would have been seen that way. More like when Hodge replaced Mitchell.
 
What I don't understand is how we always say that the demands on our captain are so enormous.

Why?

Let's trim the off field crap, corporate engagements, leadership meetings. Focus on playing and training and their team mates. Sando bogged down in this stuff too?

Why have we got captains and coaches doing all this s**t?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

spenze
Review Good, Bad, Keeping shape, keeping shat - Crows V Bombers
19 20 21 22 23
Replies
555
Views
19K
DangerSloane
DangerSloane
adelaidecrows
Roast Roo has to go and he can take Nicks with him....Sloane, Murphy and Smith can go as well.
Replies
1
Views
364
craig crowing
C
Kane McGoodwin
Analysis SANFL Club Contribution to the Crows
2 3
Replies
71
Views
3K
32year crow
3
1970crow
Game Day Crows v Blues at Marvel 4pm
71 72 73 74 75
Replies
2K
Views
31K
MsTopG
MsTopG
Crow-eater
  • Poll
Game Day Crows v Essendon. Friday Night Footy at AO
72 73 74 75 76
Replies
2K
Views
28K
chazwazza
chazwazza
John Who
Top 10 Crows in relation to BnF top-5 ratings
2
Replies
33
Views
1K
Kane McGoodwin
Kane McGoodwin
Southerntakeover
Is there any reason to attend home games?
2 3 4
Replies
94
Views
3K
rocket18
rocket18

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top