No Oppo Supporters Re-signing Tex, Danger and Sloane *** Crows Only ***

[Aaron929]

I think Enright is going to retire as well. So yes full rebuild for Geelong how does this look attractive for Paddy?

Also what is with the AFL thinking we won't match were signing everyone on 2-3 year deals, It's pretty obvious there saving money to match danger if he says he want's to go which I don't think he is , I still think 2 year deal being announced next week. and Also making a play for Motlop who I think might end up at the crows as well, and then Scharenberg to top it off!

 

[Glenno23]

Not sure any of those are what we want are they?

no, no, no and no

 

[baldandbroke]

Not sure any of those are what we want are they?

Yeah - I dunno - the change in the sub rule means that having AFL hardened players will be an advantage next year ... so maybe they have more worth than we think?

All academic once Danger signs anyway

 

[Bay62]

My theory is we are signing up all these other players on our list to put pressure on Paddy by showing him that we have a whole list who have confidence in the direction of the club and are willing to stay and work for success

The fact that it's probably the time of the year when you sign up players anyway is irrelevant

 

[Danoz]

imagine if Carlton get pick 4 for Kruezer !!

EFA, Brisbane pick 2 for Leuenberger.

 

[Wood_Duck]

how is it a major flaw if everyone knows about it and have so for ages.

North and Fremantle are exploiting the rules this week. We should too.

Its almost exactly the same. North and Fremantle are exploiting a flaw that everyone has known about for ages. Doesnt mean everyone accepts it as being the right thing to do.

 

[SydCrow]

EFA, Brisbane pick 2 for Leuenberger.

your avi ie epic

 

[Houston]

So another little theory ...

Assume Danger is leaving for the purposes of this example.

We only get a compo pick or two if we don't bring in another Free-Agent right? Otherwise they work out what the nett result is and adjust it accordingly.

What if the AFL said - you can bring in someone like:

Matthew Leuenberger - Restricted (9 years)
Jed Adcock - Unrestricted (12 years)
Matthew Kreuzer - Restricted (8 years)
Matthew Suckling - Unrestricted (9 years)​

And we will still let you have a first round compo pick?

I'd take Kreuzer. The rest suck.

 

[Mattrox]

how is it a major flaw if everyone knows about it and have so for ages.

It just mean they have not fixed the flaw since it was exposed.

 

[SmegHead]

how is it a major flaw if everyone knows about it and have so for ages.

The expectation with Free Agency was that even the Resticted FA's would have large contracts infront of them that their original club wouldn't/couldn't match, or that the team wasn't in a position in regards to premiership chances and this player is not in their plans.

Adelaide are the first team where it is more beneficial to the original club to match the offer. We are on the cusp of a premiership window and Danger is at the prime of his career. To lose him would be a setback to us. I expect the AFL would rather sweeten our deal than incur the wrath of the AFLPA.

 

[Jarman3]

No they don't. There is a rule in there that says the AFL can adjust the compensation as they see fit or something exceptionally broad and non-specific like that. A Geelong poster pointed this out.

Maybe they should start a petition to get us decent compensation for Danger to stop us from matching? Print off some bumper stickers to really pile the pressure on the AFL!

 

[Bonkers000]

Maybe they should start a petition to get us decent compensation for Danger to stop us from matching? Print off some bumper stickers to really pile the pressure on the AFL!

According to the Geelong board there is no possible way we will match. Ofcourse they would know

 

[Danoz]

According to the Geelong board there is no possible way we will match. Ofcourse they would know

It's what is constantly spouted in the media. AFL website "whispers" article has it again today.

 

[Freddy Bassett]

My theory is we are signing up all these other players on our list to put pressure on Paddy by showing him that we have a whole list who have confidence in the direction of the club and are willing to stay and work for success

The fact that it's probably the time of the year when you sign up players anyway is irrelevant

The theory that we are or aren't signing players cause of Danger is bollocks...

 

[MRB37]

According to the Geelong board there is no possible way we will match. Ofcourse they would know

Article on AFL.com says rival clubs don't think we will match. Not sure how they'd know though.

 

[Bonkers000]

It's what is constantly spouted in the media. AFL website "whispers" article has it again today.

All speculation really. It's still a possibility.

 

[baldandbroke]

According to the Geelong board there is no possible way we will match. Ofcourse they would know

You know, I don't mind the Geelong board hoping that we don't match ... what I don't understand is the insistence that it never could eventuate.

I also hate the inference that we would be treating Dangerfield badly by matching.

There really are two scenarios here:

1. Dangerfield wants to stay at AFC, in which case we will make sure we more than look after him as part of our club
2. Dangerfield wants to leave the AFC, in which case he is no longer an AFC player and we will match / trade without a care for what Danger wants

Somehow cutting Danger adrift would be bad by us, but not trading for Danger and threatening him with the PSD is really nice of Geelong?

It's the same crazy argument that somehow Dangerfield will want to look after the Crows in the trade - even though he is leaving to become a Geelong player. Rubbish. He will look after himself and his new club. Geelong supporters struggle to see the reverse. Once he leaves our club, we don't give a crap what he does - we care about AFC not ex-AFC players.

 

[Bonkers000]

You know, I don't mind the Geelong board hoping that we don't match ... what I don't understand is the insistence that it never could eventuate.

I also hate the inference that we would be treating Dangerfield badly by matching.

There really are two scenarios here:

1. Dangerfield wants to stay at AFC, in which case we will make sure we more than look after him as part of our club
2. Dangerfield wants to leave the AFC, in which case he is no longer an AFC player and we will match / trade without a care for what Danger wants

Somehow cutting Danger adrift would be bad by us, but not trading for Danger and threatening him with the PSD is really nice of Geelong?

It's the same crazy argument that somehow Dangerfield will want to look after the Crows in the trade - even though he is leaving to become a Geelong player. Rubbish. He will look after himself and his new club. Geelong supporters struggle to see the reverse. Once he leaves our club, we don't give a crap what he does - we care about AFC not ex-AFC players.

100% agree. It's funny how our best player can chose to leave, leaving high and dry in the sense we won't get adequate compensation, yet we try to fight to get something out of the deal and were the bad guys? It's not like we're not letting him leave at all.

 

[xchadders]

i think im starting to move into the gone category.
i feel dirty. shower time.

 

[Bay62]

The theory that we are or aren't signing players cause of Danger is bollocks...

I was just kidding

 

[1970crow]

I decided this morning that he's going to sign on for 2 years. I'm sure that he had considered leaving and at some stage perhaps his bags were being sought for and end of season packing. The change in dialogue from wanting to achieve success to 'home and family' was obviously concerning and remains that to this day. However, I've come to the conclusion that the reports of deals being stitched up while Patty was still stating that he hadn't made a decision, let alone actually sat down to think about would have annoyed him. It means that if he did intend to go, it would have looked like he was with holding the truth all along and I don't think he would want that hanging over the head of his integrity.

So, I think that him and his missus have had a chat and have come to the conclusion that holding off baby plans until May of 2017 isn't particularly life altering and they can roll back down to Geelong with her about 5 months pregnant at the conclusion of Patty's season in early October of that year.

I bet that's a fair weight off a few minds around these parts.

Edit - Plus I like the theory that Patty will sign after our season concludes as proof that it can happen and will ease the burden for players in similar situations for a few years until we're back to where we are now because every player in that situation ended up leaving throughout those years.

 

[ManInTheArena]

The AFL are concerned about widespread backlash if we exploit a major flaw in the FA rules, not the least of which will be the AFLPA.

It's not a flaw in the rules. Everyone knew what the rules were when the agreement was signed off by all parties. Very similar rules to NFL, everyone knew what they were doing.

 

[Wood_Duck]

It's not a flaw in the rules. Everyone knew what the rules were when the agreement was signed off by all parties. Very similar rules to NFL, everyone knew what they were doing.

Lets see how long the rule lasts if we match.

 

[crowhead]

The AFL are concerned about widespread backlash if we exploit a major flaw in the FA rules, not the least of which will be the AFLPA.

I don't even agree it can be called a "flaw" when it was inserted by design. A flaw implies a loophole or an oversight in the drafting of the document... but by virtue of the fact there are two separate and distinct categories (RFA and FA), it follows that it is not a flaw but a clear provision - the purpose of which must necessarily be to be activated at some point!

 

[Freddy Bassett]

I decided this morning that he's going to sign on for 2 years. I'm sure that he had considered leaving and at some stage perhaps his bags were being sought for and end of season packing. The change in dialogue from wanting to achieve success to 'home and family' was obviously concerning and remains that to this day. However, I've come to the conclusion that the reports of deals being stitched up while Patty was still stating that he hadn't made a decision, let alone actually sat down to think about would have annoyed him. It means that if he did intend to go, it would have looked like he was with holding the truth all along and I don't think he would want that hanging over the head of his integrity.

So, I think that him and his missus have had a chat and have come to the conclusion that holding off baby plans until May of 2017 isn't particularly life altering and they can roll back down to Geelong with her about 5 months pregnant at the conclusion of Patty's season in early October of that year.

I bet that's a fair weight off a few minds around these parts.

Edit - Plus I like the theory that Patty will sign after our season concludes as proof that it can happen and will ease the burden for players in similar situations for a few years until we're back to where we are now because every player in that situation ended up leaving throughout those years.

Would you want to play for a Scott brother? If he goes home in 2, wont be to Geelong IMO
Total and complete *****. Both are running their clubs into the ground by looking for Voss quick fixes...
Geelong and North will be bottom four in 3 years