Tom Boyd

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
I would think he would be the captains man to take down..Phil will take good care of him, but Im sure at some point he will truely be Mummy's Boy
 
Jon Patton, fast becoming my favourite Giant. Ripping interview.

Boyd...Good luck to him. Great management by Pickering as slimy as he appears to be.

If they're not happy let them go. I could never begrudge a young players happiness.
 
Ichabod Noodle said:
So last year we offered the Dogs pick 1 (Tom Boyd) for Ryan Griffen in a straight swap and they said no.

This year the deal is Tom Boyd for Pick 6, Ryan Griffen AND $250,000 per year for 4 years.

And the Doggies fans (and some others) are calling this a win for the Dogs:confused:
Click to expand...

2013 Ryan Griffen was significantly better than 2014 Ryan Griffen. The only way we'd make that trade is if we knew his back was cooked and that he wanted out. Otherwise, you just wouldn't do it.

No one will know who won this trade for years. If Griffen is a key player for you in some deep finals runs you'll be happy. If Boyd is a 50 goal per year key forward we'll be happy.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Couple more points of interest:

- The Age reported today that a "significant portion" of the $1M for Griffen will be paid this coming year; and

- I heard it reported, could either have been on the radio or a podcast, that the Bulldogs were actually into Tom Boyd all year, not Patton, and were pleased that the media was reporting our interest in the wrong bloke. Only the Dogs, Patton and his manager know if that's true.
 
captainMyCaptain said:
Kevin Sheedy on Giants & Boyd

Click to expand...

Very genuine interview with Sheeds... he is realistic about gws losing another star player or two over the next few years and even leaves the door open to his own departure from the club. Worrying but a reality of our current situation
 
TiAn_ said:
Couple more points of interest:

- The Age reported today that a "significant portion" of the $1M for Griffen will be paid this coming year; and

- I heard it reported, could either have been on the radio or a podcast, that the Bulldogs were actually into Tom Boyd all year, not Patton, and were pleased that the media was reporting our interest in the wrong bloke. Only the Dogs, Patton and his manager know if that's true.
Click to expand...

i still can't believe the contract Boyd signed, well good on him in on sense but on another note, what a snotty nosed person, does 12 months away - well not even and wants out, i hope the giants come on and smash the bulldogs this year :D
 
The aspect of the Boyd trade that leaves me a bit perplexed is the Melbourne media's reaction to the Giants 'backflip'. They're asking 'Can we ever trust what the Giants say again?' Implication being GWS were hypocritical. Coz hypocrisy is the worst. (Same as in politics)
I would have thought that the whole trade period is a bit like a game of poker, you don't signal yr moves, hold yr cards close, bluff, all that stuff to win the game. I thought that the Giants did that well, well executed backflip 9 out of 10.
Peter Gordon had said 'wise heads will prevail for a straight swap' Ha_bluff.
What the Giants did do was not let Ryan Griffin hang out to dry. Once he said he wanted to come, a deal was done, as best as could be negotiated.
Did the Giants lie when they said Boyd was staying? Are lies excusable when playing 'trade week' poker?
 
gee whiz giant said:
The aspect of the Boyd trade that leaves me a bit perplexed is the Melbourne media's reaction to the Giants 'backflip'. They're asking 'Can we ever trust what the Giants say again?' Implication being GWS were hypocritical. Coz hypocrisy is the worst. (Same as in politics)
I would have thought that the whole trade period is a bit like a game of poker, you don't signal yr moves, hold yr cards close, bluff, all that stuff to win the game. I thought that the Giants did that well, well executed backflip 9 out of 10.
Peter Gordon had said 'wise heads will prevail for a straight swap' Ha_bluff.
What the Giants did do was not let Ryan Griffin hang out to dry. Once he said he wanted to come, a deal was done, as best as could be negotiated.
Did the Giants lie when they said Boyd was staying? Are lies excusable when playing 'trade week' poker?
Click to expand...

Just like Collingwood said that Beams is required to stay, and the bulldogs would not indulge in letting Ryan Griffen go.

... but if the Giants do it.... OH NO!!! the Hypocrisy!


All the Vic media are doing (apart from straining the upper limit of their collective IQ of 43) is trying to cast doubt on the giants claims that they are confident of retaining their star players.

Which brings me to the second part of this rant.... all the Vic media could do in relation to Tom Boyd's primary school conference was to ask if there were any other players planning on leaving. Nothing about did you enjoy you time up there or what they are building, just when do we get to pilfer the rest of their players.
 
Last edited:
AndrewVadermk2 said:
i still can't believe the contract Boyd signed, well good on him in on sense but on another note, what a snotty nosed person, does 12 months away - well not even and wants out, i hope the giants come on and smash the bulldogs this year :D
Click to expand...

If a person doesn't want to live in a certain area or state it's a bit rich to try and force them, or criticise them for not wanting to stay.

A lot of regular people switch jobs for convenience and location. Or better money.

Given the comparative ins and outs this year I'd be surprised if you didn't beat us.

Unfortunately for your supporters, unless you can re-sign the young stars that are out of contract you've got another 12 months of intense speculation. But that's no different to the Victorian clubs that had to deal with year-long speculation when your team (and GC) was throwing silly money at everyone (e.g. Tom Scully, Callan Ward, Phil Davis).

You're just on the other side of the equation now, with cashed up clubs chasing your best young players.
 
A lot of regular people switch jobs for convenience and location. Or better money.

Given the comparative ins and outs this year I'd be surprised if you didn't beat us.

Unfortunately for your supporters, unless you can re-sign the young stars that are out of contract you've got another 12 months of intense speculation. But that's no different to the Victorian clubs that had to deal with year-long speculation when your team (and GC) was throwing silly money at everyone (e.g. Tom Scully, Callan Ward, Phil Davis).

You're just on the other side of the equation now, with cashed up clubs chasing your best young players.[/QUOTE]

Oh, list managers tapping up players is fine.

It's just the hypocritical little pissants who, when their club is making the offer, ignore the promises of large sacks of cash when decisions about players deciding if they are homesick or not are made.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

TiAn_ said:
unless you can re-sign the young stars that are out of contract you've got another 12 months of intense speculation.
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter whether we sign the stars or not - the speculation will continue - probably unabated. Professional Sports Contracts aren't worth the paper they're written on. Even if we sign them all next week to long term deals the Melbourne Meeja and most of Big Footy would still blabber on about how so&so is homesick and always truly deep down wanted to play for a real club like "x".

And all "x" has to do is offer a truckload of dosh and it's done.
 
IanW said:
Oh, list managers tapping up players is fine.

It's just the hypocritical little pissants who, when their club is making the offer, ignore the promises of large sacks of cash when decisions about players deciding if they are homesick or not are made.
Click to expand...

Not really sure what you're saying here.
 
gee whiz giant said:
The aspect of the Boyd trade that leaves me a bit perplexed is the Melbourne media's reaction to the Giants 'backflip'. They're asking 'Can we ever trust what the Giants say again?' Implication being GWS were hypocritical. Coz hypocrisy is the worst. (Same as in politics)
I would have thought that the whole trade period is a bit like a game of poker, you don't signal yr moves, hold yr cards close, bluff, all that stuff to win the game. I thought that the Giants did that well, well executed backflip 9 out of 10.
Peter Gordon had said 'wise heads will prevail for a straight swap' Ha_bluff.
What the Giants did do was not let Ryan Griffin hang out to dry. Once he said he wanted to come, a deal was done, as best as could be negotiated.
Did the Giants lie when they said Boyd was staying? Are lies excusable when playing 'trade week' poker?
Click to expand...

don't forget that Gordon intitially wanted a straight swap
he went public on it, an unusual stance for a club pres during trade week
in the end, along with Griffen, we got pick 6 plus the dogs are paying a big slab of his salary
I mean, seriously, we could not have done any better considering Boyd was going to leave at the end of next season, perhaps with very little coming back to us
 
Drezdyn said:
The Giants have to make a stand and show that trying to poach our players behind our back whilst they are contracted is completely unacceptable.

If we let it happen we'd open the floodgates for other clubs to start a feeding frenzy.

If no deal goes ahead the dogs get nothing, McCarthy gets promoted up, and Boyd ends up cutting the oranges for the next year.
Click to expand...
Wow
 
IanW said:
Its times like these when Im reminded that stupid burns.

Look at GWS' list. Add three years and another 50 games to it. Find me the sort of holes in it that need extensive use of free agency.

It doesnt. What it needs is cap room, to retain those players, and time.

Now, there was a time when there was a deal that could have been done to spend some draft picks and create some cap room and bring in a bridging midfielder for those three years. But, due to an acute attack of stupid by a panicking club president, that time is gone.

The Dogs are not getting Boyd this year. He is, as I'd said repeatedly, untradeable, as in 'not going to be traded'. Yes, he was tapped up. Yes, he was promised a shitload of cash if he didnt re-sign. Big deal, life in the big city. Have a go next year, together with everyone else, after you've lost surprise (and when we all see who you hire as a coach, and how they deal with things).

Now, imagine the Western Bulldogs new list manager Gordon coming back to the supporter base and saying 'We totally didnt get Boyd, despite the money we promised him. The bastards wouldnt trade. But we did totally trade them our ex-captain, Griffen'.

The same melting flogs who were so angry at the Griffen-for-cap-room trade - in other words, you and people like you - would rip the joint apart, because dammit you got promised Boyd ! And pick 4 ! And pick 7 !

You'll get an offer for Griffen. But he's under contract, and after all thats happened, accepting our new offer will be seen as an insult by a very angry Doggies supporter base.

And this is why you hire professionals, and let them do their job, and dont do amateur hour shenanigans like getting your club president to be your list manager.
Click to expand...
You are the biggest hypocrite on this site, so many times you were saying you're club accommodates the players that wish to leave, you are so full of it.
 
gee whiz giant said:
The aspect of the Boyd trade that leaves me a bit perplexed is the Melbourne media's reaction to the Giants 'backflip'. They're asking 'Can we ever trust what the Giants say again?' Implication being GWS were hypocritical. Coz hypocrisy is the worst. (Same as in politics)
Click to expand...

The GG said:
don't forget that Gordon intitially wanted a straight swap
he went public on it, an unusual stance for a club pres during trade week
in the end, along with Griffen, we got pick 6 plus the dogs are paying a big slab of his salary
I mean, seriously, we could not have done any better considering Boyd was going to leave at the end of next season, perhaps with very little coming back to us
Click to expand...

Yeah, from my memory the sequence of events was....
1. Ryan Griffen says he wants out and wants to go to GWS.
2. We say fine, we'll try to do a deal.
3. Bulldogs say he's contracted, required and will not be released.
4. We say OK, how about pick 4
5. Gordon says straight swap for Tom Boyd
6. We say he's contracted, required and will not be released.
7. Dogs sack coach, and insist that Griffen is contracted
8. Liam Pickering sticks his skuzzbuckect-slime bag-piece of s#hit nose in.
9. Tom Boyd says wants to go.
10 We say it doesn't matter, see step 6
11. Tom Boyd and Liam Pickering acknowledge that he will see out the terms of the contract.
12. We say great, now how about that pick 4 for Griffen
13. Dogs come back with a revised offer adding Pick 6 and $1,000,000 to Griffen, who they didn't want to let go,
14. We say OK fine we'll take it.

Tell me who blinked first? Who rolled over on what they set in stone at the start, first? Points 3,5 & 13 would indicate that each time there was back flipping to be done, the dogs got in first and flipped away.

Griffen will not go.
Nothing short of a straight swap for Boyd
Ok, lots less than a straight swap then

A career in gymnastics awaits. - crazy date, crazy date, crazy date - Flat Bag
 
AndrewVadermk2 said:
i still can't believe the contract Boyd signed, well good on him in on sense but on another note, what a snotty nosed person, does 12 months away - well not even and wants out, i hope the giants come on and smash the bulldogs this year :D
Click to expand...
lol Carlton were into him as well...no doubt it was SOS's plan to give boyd to Carlton next year then join him himself
 
Bulldog15 said:
You are the biggest hypocrite on this site, so many times you were saying you're club accommodates the players that wish to leave, you are so full of it.
Click to expand...

Which is a really, really weird accusation to make when GWS did end up taking yes for an answer and saying 'thank you' to the kings ransom the Dogs eventually offered for Boyd.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top