Game of Sloane (THE OFFICIAL HE IS STAYING thread) Thread now closed

[cmndstab]

So how did Essendon receive less draft sanctions? Coincidence that their CEO resigned?

Of all things, the argument at the time was that Essendon had "fully cooperated with the investigation". In fact, AD even singled us out at the time by sayingt something along the lines of "unlike the Crows". We contacted them at the time and pointed out that we had literally invited them in to review our email trail (which led to the discovery of the aforementioned emails) and voluntarily gave up our draft picks, whereas Essendon maintained their innocence and fought the AFL the whole way. AD basically said whatever, supposedly offered a private apology but then continued to maintain publicly that Essendon had fully cooperated and we hadn't.

I'm not sure what went on there, to be honest.

Edit: Also, a reminder, their CEO resigned so he could be replaced with someone who's sole purpose for being there was to fight the drug claims.

 

[cmndstab]

Jesus, how minor do these things look in hindsight.

We really did fold like wet tissue.

Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk

Again, that was just the side story. The big deal was signing Tippett to an illegal contract and then conspiring to keep it secret from the AFL.

The punishment fit the crime.

 

[douglyzia]

So much for underpaying players....
View attachment 519742

CORNES: Should the Crows have let Lynch leave?

 

[Golumless]

CORNES: Should the Crows have let Lynch leave?

That deal just gets worse and worse.

potentially 700k for a player that was ****ing stupid to keep in the first place, window or not.

 

[1990crow]

That deal just gets worse and worse.

potentially 700k for a player that was ******* stupid to keep in the first place, window or not.

What

 

[Shaz2012]

That deal just gets worse and worse.

potentially 700k for a player that was ******* stupid to keep in the first place, window or not.

I think it implies we are paying him $500k/year for 3 years. Or we may have gone up a little on that, but I would guess it would be more like $525k/year. Lynch is an absolutely massive player for us. I don't think we can be disappointed when an all australian victorian stays with us for pretty much all of his productive AFL career. If Gov tells us he wants to leave at the end of the year then keeping Lynch was bang on, no question.

If Gov stays, then I think it might have benefited us to take a first round pick for Lynch IF he told us he wants to go home. But I think the win for keeping another gun Victorian until the end of his career is probably more important in this case, especially if Sloane leaves.

Similarly, its probably better if we get a first round pick for Sloane. BUT I would rather keep him and have another crack at a flag.

 

[Anzacpaul]

Why all the hate for Lynch all of a sudden? Had a down (and injured/illness) year, but most of the team have been garbage.

Was super important last year as the link up between HB and HF.

 

[Elite Crow]

Of all things, the argument at the time was that Essendon had "fully cooperated with the investigation". In fact, AD even singled us out at the time by sayingt something along the lines of "unlike the Crows". We contacted them at the time and pointed out that we had literally invited them in to review our email trail (which led to the discovery of the aforementioned emails) and voluntarily gave up our draft picks, whereas Essendon maintained their innocence and fought the AFL the whole way. AD basically said whatever, supposedly offered a private apology but then continued to maintain publicly that Essendon had fully cooperated and we hadn't.

I'm not sure what went on there, to be honest.

Edit: Also, a reminder, their CEO resigned so he could be replaced with someone who's sole purpose for being there was to fight the drug claims.

Doesn’t matter what Essendons sole purpose was, they moved on the CEO who was responsible. You’ve outlined all the reasons why they shouldn’t have received a lower penalty than us, but your discounting the fact they moved on their CEO as irrelevant?

 

[GreyCrow]

Why all the hate for Lynch all of a sudden? Had a down (and injured/illness) year, but most of the team have been garbage.

Was super important last year as the link up between HB and HF.

Its not hate. Its actually recognising his ability and trading on it.

If you havent thought for 1 moment the value a Tom Lynch may have had then you arent thinking of the club long term.

 

[Anzacpaul]

Its not hate. Its actually recognising his ability and trading on it.

If you havent thought for 1 moment the value a Tom Lynch may have had then you arent thinking of the club long term.

I think his trade value would be far below his playing value from our point of view.

 

[Geoffa32]

Its not hate. Its actually recognising his ability and trading on it.

If you havent thought for 1 moment the value a Tom Lynch may have had then you arent thinking of the club long term.

I don't think Lynch's value to other clubs is that high.

He is not a true key forward and has suffered a bit with injury and illness.

He excels in a role that is dependent on the rest of the team doing well.

He is more important for us, when we are playing well, than being a valuable "missing piece" at another club.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

 

[GreyCrow]

I think his trade value would be far below his playing value from our point of view.

You could be right but its a short dip if you can get talent in. And that is also a lottery

 

[jbanger]

CORNES: Should the Crows have let Lynch leave?

hypothetical

 

[Pea Nut]

hypothetical

Has he done the hypothetical on whether Port should have let Wines leave ??

 

[GROTTO]

You could be right but its a short dip if you can get talent in. And that is also a lottery

Damn straight its a lottery.

Im fairly certain there was fap fest over Aish and Scharenberg in their draft years being SA kids. I hope someone can check if this is the case and resurrect those threads.

Giving up two draft picks for Pick 1 is one thing, its an entirely another issue giving up on proven players.

 

[Roovolution]

Again, that was just the side story. The big deal was signing Tippett to an illegal contract and then conspiring to keep it secret from the AFL.

The punishment fit the crime.

No it didn’t. Essendon lost less draft picks than us.

 

[ad victoriam]

So how did Essendon receive less draft sanctions? Coincidence that their CEO resigned?

The story going around at the time was Paul Little, was the biggest reason Essendon escaped serious sanctions.

 

[GROTTO]

No it didn’t. Essendon lost less draft picks than us.

The penalty we got is fine given what had happened, its the way the AFL penalised other Clubs (or rather didnt) which made our penalty so severe imo.

Only a fool would believe that Danger is being paid only ~$700k by the Cats. Yet the AFL have turned a blind eye because they got their fairytale ending.

 

[Roovolution]

The penalty we got is fine given what had happened, its the way the AFL penalised other Clubs (or rather didnt) which made our penalty so severe imo.

Only a fool would believe that Danger is being paid only ~$700k by the Cats. Yet the AFL have turned a blind eye because they got their fairytale ending.

It’s laughable considering how the AFL engineer outcomes to move players around to get them where they want to go (ahem Geelong). Carlton’s Visy deal etc. incredible double standards.

 

[Big Gazoongas]

Doesn’t matter what Essendons sole purpose was, they moved on the CEO who was responsible. You’ve outlined all the reasons why they shouldn’t have received a lower penalty than us, but your discounting the fact they moved on their CEO as irrelevant?

Think you'll find Essendon didn't move on the CEO, Robson resigned as did Evans a few months later.

 

[chazwazza]

The penalty we got is fine given what had happened, its the way the AFL penalised other Clubs (or rather didnt) which made our penalty so severe imo.

Only a fool would believe that Danger is being paid only ~$700k by the Cats. Yet the AFL have turned a blind eye because they got their fairytale ending.

I think it’s very likely Dangerfield is paid by the AFL to be an AFL Ambassador.

 

[Elite Crow]

Think you'll find Essendon didn't move on the CEO, Robson resigned as did Evans a few months later.

Before or after the sanctions?

 

[GROTTO]

It’s laughable considering how the AFL engineer outcomes to move players around to get them where they want to go (ahem Geelong). Carlton’s Visy deal etc. incredible double standards.

FFS.

As if Carlton were not offering Judd more than what paid him.

I dont blame us for being desperate to keep Tippett, what it should have done is highlighted to the AFL how hard it is to keep good talent in SA.

(At the time back in 2012 I am talking about Tippett being a talent)

Its a f**kin joke.

 

[Big Gazoongas]

Before or after the sanctions?

Robson resigned on 23 May 2013 an Evans in July 2013.

AFL found the players innocent on 31 March 2015.

CAS handed the guilty verdict on 12 January 2016

 

[MarcusP2]

Robson resigned on 23 May 2013 an Evans in July 2013.

AFL found the players innocent on 31 March 2015.

CAS handed the guilty verdict on 12 January 2016

Initial sanctions (draft picks and fines) were handed down in August 2013.