Remove this Banner Ad

Traded #30: Patrick Ryder - Returns to the club as Indigenous Player Development Manager

  • Thread starter Thread starter DaSawx
  • Start date Start date
  • Tagged users Tagged users None

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

TheFrenchCut said:
I maintain that we shouldn't agree to it unless we can just give them either Hardingham or pick 53. I understand there's the bullshit "trade for 17 has to be commercially viable" yet the whole point of them giving us 17 as well is because 21 isn't enough for Ryder.
Click to expand...
17 for 53 absolutely will not happen, under any circumstances, ever. Hardy for 17 would be an enormous stretch and an obvious rort, but it wouldn't be the dodgiest thing the Comission has OK'd by a long shot.
ghostdog said:
I don't mean to sound like I'm having a ping at you MR, I'm not. I'm a bit annoyed with the perception of some that the offer of pick 21 and our exchange of a low end player somehow how evens the ledger. That's p***weak. The bottom line is that if we receive picks there are no guarantees that we'll be able to find AFL ready players who'll be best 22 while we lose a top 10 player. I hope Dodoro holds his ground.
Click to expand...
No worries mate, understood. I think people are just inclined to be happy to see any improvement on 17 + fringe at this stage. I'd love for us to get a higher pick through a third party, but I don't like our chances of getting a better-than-decent player out of Port.
 
2one2 said:
I thought the "trade" for pick 17 was just literally anything - so we could trade them pick 100 for pick 17 just to formalise it. The idea is that they get paddy for pick 17 and we get more than pick 17. If you told me we would get another pick in the top 25 a week ago I'd honestly have taken it.

It's like Luke Delaney being traded for an unused 5th round pick with St Kilda and North - worth a whole lot more and works out as a straight swap for Dal after it all washes up.
Click to expand...
You can at least make an argument for a player being commensurate in worth to a pick, even if it's a stretch. No-one in their right mind would exchange one pick for another without it affecting another trade, and the AFL will definitely not sign off on it.
 
We're lucky if this deal goes through, because it shouldn't be allowed if the system was truly fair. Two more Zak Merretts wouldn't go astray though. :)
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

Debating Society said:
Which is why it shouldn't be tried. The club could get halfway through by releasing Paddy, then get shafted at the point of trying to get pick 17. It stinks.
Click to expand...
It's ok, Essendon can just verbally agree on the provisa that the Hardingham for #17 is completed first. Then we reneg on releasing Paddy. That would be fun. ;)
 
Debating Society said:
Which is why it shouldn't be tried. The club could get halfway through by releasing Paddy, then get shafted at the point of trying to get pick 17. It stinks.
Click to expand...
Trade hardy for 17 first then. Then later do the Ryder deal. Or reneg, either way is good.
 
Bunk Moreland said:
This is pointless - as I've said, even if Port wanted to do a fair trade, they can't. There's no way a quality player is agreeing to move from a top 4 club to a rabble who can't even tell you who the coach is going to be next week.
Click to expand...
Sure they can, they just need to find another pick from a third party. Just like Hawthorn did when Burgoyne left Port.
 
Debating Society said:
Which is why it shouldn't be tried. The club could get halfway through by releasing Paddy, then get shafted at the point of trying to get pick 17. It stinks.
Click to expand...
Just do the Hardingham trade first.
 
I would absolutely be insisting that the 'paperwork' for the first trade goes through BEFORE we release Ryder.. and that we have a solid, in writing, promise from the AFL about the compensation we would receive.

I would be very interested to see what a court would make of a rival club essentially 'taking over' the management of a player to try and incite them to break a contract. Very messy stuff.

However this 'release to a FA and get a compo pick' is just another reason to get rid of FA compo.. I mean this is absolutely now going to turn into a free-for-all..

Frawley won't be the first play 'encouraged' out the door.. knowing you are going to get a top 5 pick for an average player will do that... even mid table clubs or top clubs.. offloard a 'mid range' player.. and get a top 2- pick.. sounds great..

I do not like the slippery slope we are on. And I'm not quite sure why the AFL (and thus the other 16 clubs) should be 'paying' for Port Adelaide to get Ryder's services.. either Port cough up a fair trade, or the contracted player stays.. just like it has ALWAYS been.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

reincarnated said:
We finished 7th position. Our first round pick is 13, which AFL have taken away. But our end of first round pick is still 14, as per Free agency purposes, which will be back to 13 r
P
Click to expand...
That is how I read the rules too.

Our first round pick doesn't 'disappear' so to speak.. we are just forced to 'pass' but our draft position is the same. So IF we got a compo that was 'after' our first round pick.. then it would be #13.. not the pick after our COMPO pick..

So we would end up with #13 + #18 + #21 for Ryder + EKav.

I don't like how it has happened but ultimately that might be enough to get this thing done and finished. This situation will never be repeated.

Personally I would do the following:
EKav + #53 = #18 + #37
Ryder FA = #13

I would then trade #37 to Gold Coast for Gorringe.
I would then trade #71 to GWS for Giles



Ruck Stocks solved.. and we end up with trade period balance sheet:
Picks: #13, #18, #21, #53, #89
Players: Gorringe, Giles

Lose: Ryder, Ekav and #71
 
Considering #20 is a compo pick.. I don't see why it would be 'after' that pick.

The rules state it is after our 'first round draft selection'.. which is technically Pick 13..

Either way.. it seems like the best deal we are going to get.. I just think it stinks though.. the concept of it.. the sliminess of it all.

And I am going to back in our recruiters to pick up 3 very handy players with 3 picks under 21.. Could form the backbone of our midfield in 3 years times..
 
rines said:
That is how I read the rules too.

Our first round pick doesn't 'disappear' so to speak.. we are just forced to 'pass' but our draft position is the same. So IF we got a compo that was 'after' our first round pick.. then it would be #13.. not the pick after our COMPO pick..

So we would end up with #13 + #18 + #21 for Ryder + EKav.

I don't like how it has happened but ultimately that might be enough to get this thing done and finished. This situation will never be repeated.

Personally I would do the following:
EKav + #53 = #18 + #37
Ryder FA = #13

I would then trade #37 to Gold Coast for Gorringe.
I would then trade #71 to GWS for Giles



Ruck Stocks solved.. and we end up with trade period balance sheet:
Picks: #13, #18, #21, #53, #89
Players: Gorringe, Giles

Lose: Ryder, Ekav and #71
Click to expand...


We dont need two ready to go rucks - And we have to upgrade Ambrose.
 
rines said:
That is how I read the rules too.

Our first round pick doesn't 'disappear' so to speak.. we are just forced to 'pass' but our draft position is the same. So IF we got a compo that was 'after' our first round pick.. then it would be #13.. not the pick after our COMPO pick..

So we would end up with #13 + #18 + #21 for Ryder + EKav.

I don't like how it has happened but ultimately that might be enough to get this thing done and finished. This situation will never be repeated.

Personally I would do the following:
EKav + #53 = #18 + #37
Ryder FA = #13

I would then trade #37 to Gold Coast for Gorringe.
I would then trade #71 to GWS for Giles



Ruck Stocks solved.. and we end up with trade period balance sheet:
Picks: #13, #18, #21, #53, #89
Players: Gorringe, Giles

Lose: Ryder, Ekav and #71
Click to expand...

In a perfect world that would happen....

Too bad we live in a imperfect world
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

yaco55 said:
We dont need two ready to go rucks - And we have to upgrade Ambrose.
Click to expand...
I think we need at least 3 ruckmen on the list. But each to their own.

Giles won't cost more than a 4th rounder.. and Gorringe is worth a 2nd round pick. Both would be good additions for us.
 
rines said:
That is how I read the rules too.

Our first round pick doesn't 'disappear' so to speak.. we are just forced to 'pass' but our draft position is the same. So IF we got a compo that was 'after' our first round pick.. then it would be #13.. not the pick after our COMPO pick..

So we would end up with #13 + #18 + #21 for Ryder + EKav.

I don't like how it has happened but ultimately that might be enough to get this thing done and finished. This situation will never be repeated.

Personally I would do the following:
EKav + #53 = #18 + #37
Ryder FA = #13

I would then trade #37 to Gold Coast for Gorringe.
I would then trade #71 to GWS for Giles



Ruck Stocks solved.. and we end up with trade period balance sheet:
Picks: #13, #18, #21, #53, #89
Players: Gorringe, Giles

Lose: Ryder, Ekav and #71
Click to expand...
I think you can forget about #13. This deal will be enough of a PR nightmare without the AFL effectively lightening our penalties (unless it's been misread and we do have #13 - even then, not going to be a good look for them). There are limits to what they'll do to lessen the risk of clause shenanigans.

I think #71 for Giles is hopelessly optimistic too, for what it's worth. Someone will offer more - maybe even Port themselves. Wouldn't mind the Kav + #53 part, if we go down that route. Not sure that Port would go for it, though, given they probably have very little interest in Kav or a late pick. They refused to part with #18 + #37 before, didn't they?
 
Mercuri Rising said:
I think you can forget about #13. This deal will be enough of a PR nightmare without the AFL effectively lightening our penalties (unless it's been misread and we do have #13 - even then, not going to be a good look for them). There are limits to what they'll do to lessen the risk of clause shenanigans.

I think #71 for Giles is hopelessly optimistic too, for what it's worth. Someone will offer more - maybe even Port themselves. Wouldn't mind the Kav + #53 part, if we go down that route. Not sure that Port would go for it, though, given they probably have very little interest in Kav or a late pick. They refused to part with #18 + #37 before, didn't they?
Click to expand...
Yeah.. I know.. but AFL might get involved and tell port to get it done.

Has become very clear the AFL don't want any players going down this 'clause' route.. could bring down the entire system (considering that the AFL is run under a 'qausi' legal system that could be unenforceable if challanged)
 
Lance Uppercut said:
Essendon didn't come up with this. They aren't even keen on it. Yet your first reaction is oh we're cheating, we haven't learned our lesson.

Now you're making up reasons to berate the club.
Click to expand...

Are you sure they didn't? http://www.essendonfc.com.au/news/2014-10-08/patrick-ryder-trade-update

"On Monday after Trade discussions it was apparent that Port Adelaide were not prepared to offer a deal that would satisfy Essendon from a trade perspective. In discussions with another club the issue of compensation picks were raised which later led us to contemplate whether a contract that was in place could be annulled, along the lines of Nick Dal Santo last year, to generate a free agency compensation pick."
Click to expand...

Essendon approached the AFL on Monday to get an understanding of whether that was possible.
Click to expand...

If the club has indeed come up with this because they believe they'll get pick 13 out of this, then I'm actually thinking this is a genius move now. But it's still going to result in more hate coming towards the club.

EFC get picks 13 and 18, in the process trimming a possibly non-essential player. And Port get Ryder + potentially a depth or development player for just pick 17 (only becomes 18 if FA comes into it). So many clubs and so many supporters will be so mad; because that's a win for both clubs IMO.
 
Last edited:

Remove this Banner Ad

Similar threads

RedmanWasHere
    • Like
Delisted 47: Oskar Smartt - Delisted as of 22/09/25
5 6 7 8 9
Replies
211
Views
16K
DERO
DERO

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top Bottom