Recommitted Tim Kelly [requested a trade to West Coast]

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.

RoversFC

Senior List
Jun 25, 2018
190
120
AFL Club
West Coast
No laughing matter.....I’d say your backside is pretty sore right now.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

I’ve been on this subject multiple times in both threads with multiple people, so I don’t know why I’m even bothering here but I’m a bit bored on this Tuesday night.

Explain how Tim Kelly’s asking price goes up, let alone stay the same. He came second in your best and fairest last year it doesn’t get much better than that. Sure he could become a clear cut best player at Geelong, but he’s also out of contract..

In every other sport, the longer you wait to trade a player quickly going out of contract and wanting to leave, the more the value goes down. I don’t see how Tim Kelly’s case is any different.
 

Pulsedriver

All Australian
Oct 21, 2017
865
1,320
AFL Club
West Coast
Notice how I said 'In your narrative'? I'm humouring you - playing along with your story.
It's a pretty common device, I'm surprised you are struggling to follow. Is this how you're going to avoid explaining your contradiction?

You're not humoring me beyond how you're scrambling to deflect from your contradiction, with these statements: "Wells himself never even put a top 10 price on the trade. Those words have been put into his mouth by imaginative Eagles posters" and "despite [Wells] being clear about the top 10 pick requirement all along?"

Wells requiring a top 10 pick isn't my narrative, it's the requirement Wells himself set, a standard you have been holding WC to in this thread for not being able to acquire Kelly.

Wells said the positions (of Geelong and WC) were too far apart. Given WC were willing to trade for pick 13, it stands to reason that too far apart means Wells wanted a top 10 pick. Wells did state: “He’s worth a top 10 pick I would have thought and perhaps more."
https://www.perthnow.com.au/sport/a...ant-a-top-10-pick-for-tim-kelly-ng-b88984549z

Your deflections need work. Go to SRP and hone your game.
 

Pulsedriver

All Australian
Oct 21, 2017
865
1,320
AFL Club
West Coast
Wells asked from outset for a pick in the top 10. When WC were unable to achieve that then he said that he would accept your 20 and 22 plus the 2019 first rounder in order for Kelly to get back to WA. How in any way is that acting in bad faith?

I've answered this numerous times in thread already. Go back and have a read. I'm not going to answer the same question for every noob to this fred.

WC had weeks to get organise a top 10 pick and either couldn't achieve it or were not prepared to give up what they needed to do it. Do you honestly think that we should have just rolled over and succumbed to WC offer?

Go back and have a read. I'm not going to answer the same question for every noob to this fred.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Pulsedriver

All Australian
Oct 21, 2017
865
1,320
AFL Club
West Coast
I’ve been on this subject multiple times in both threads with multiple people, so I don’t know why I’m even bothering here but I’m a bit bored on this Tuesday night.

Explain how Tim Kelly’s asking price goes up, let alone stay the same. He came second in your best and fairest last year it doesn’t get much better than that. Sure he could become a clear cut best player at Geelong, but he’s also out of contract..

In every other sport, the longer you wait to trade a player quickly going out of contract and wanting to leave, the more the value goes down. I don’t see how Tim Kelly’s case is any different.

This fact eludes them, for they're in the denial phase right now. They're desperate fanbois wishing, hoping and dreaming to have their cake and eat it too, in that they wanted to keep Kelly for 2019, but also want the kind of trade value that comes from being contracted when it comes to trading him a year later.
 
Mar 27, 2006
25,589
36,599
Melbourne
AFL Club
Geelong
I've answered this numerous times in thread already. Go back and have a read. I'm not going to answer the same question for every noob to this fred.



Go back and have a read. I'm not going to answer the same question for every noob to this fred.

Can’t be rooted. I’m just responding to the idiotic post of yours up above. Shouldn’t waste my time with knuckle draggers.
 

ShaunWDT

Premiership Player
Nov 18, 2013
4,638
8,514
AFL Club
Geelong
Kelly is not a guarantee; the term second-year blues exists for a reason. Kelly's year is very comparable to Michael Barlow's debut year, who went on to have a solid career. Was he, at any point, worth a top 10 draft pick?
Prior to breaking his leg yes, easily.
 

Nickoo

Norm Smith Medallist
May 13, 2015
6,700
6,239
Melbourne
AFL Club
Geelong
Other Teams
Melbourne Victory
I've answered this numerous times in thread already. Go back and have a read. I'm not going to answer the same question for every noob to this fred.



Go back and have a read. I'm not going to answer the same question for every noob to this fred.

You sound like julia Gillard denying she did anything out of the ordinary in covering up the union money trail.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
 
Apr 3, 2006
33,469
11,826
AFL Club
Geelong
You're not humoring me beyond how you're scrambling to deflect from your contradiction, with these statements: "Wells himself never even put a top 10 price on the trade. Those words have been put into his mouth by imaginative Eagles posters" and "despite [Wells] being clear about the top 10 pick requirement all along?"

Wells requiring a top 10 pick isn't my narrative, it's the requirement Wells himself set, a standard you have been holding WC to in this thread for not being able to acquire Kelly.

Wells said the positions (of Geelong and WC) were too far apart. Given WC were willing to trade for pick 13, it stands to reason that too far apart means Wells wanted a top 10 pick. Wells did state: “He’s worth a top 10 pick I would have thought and perhaps more."
https://www.perthnow.com.au/sport/a...ant-a-top-10-pick-for-tim-kelly-ng-b88984549z

Your deflections need work. Go to SRP and hone your game.

What would I be deflecting from? West Coast being willing to trade for pick 13 - even if it is true - is not proof of anything except they were unable to get the deal done.

You're getting bogged down in this whole top 10 pick stuff - and avoiding answering how Wells acted in bad faith. Should I take the above as a white flag?

Let's pretend he told the Eagles brains trust that a top 10 pick was the minimum. Now explain how that is 'acting in bad faith'?

Did he then up it to a top 5 pick once a top 10 was offered? What other nefarious deeds are you inventing and attributing to Wells to explain your bad faith stance?
 
Jul 26, 2007
31,927
33,141
Darwin
AFL Club
West Coast
Wells asked from outset for a pick in the top 10. When WC were unable to achieve that then he said that he would accept your 20 and 22 plus the 2019 first rounder in order for Kelly to get back to WA. How in any way is that acting in bad faith? WC had weeks to get organise a top 10 pick and either couldn't achieve it or were not prepared to give up what they needed to do it. Do you honestly think that we should have just rolled over and succumbed to WC offer?

Its negotiating in bad faith because it was asking / demanding massive overs. Or as Wells stated 'an exceptional offer will be required'

Its like you want to buy my Nissan and I say sure $100,000 thanks take it or leave it.

That isnt negotiating in good faith.
 

Pulsedriver

All Australian
Oct 21, 2017
865
1,320
AFL Club
West Coast
What would I be deflecting from?

Your contradiction, as I quoted of you.

You're getting bogged down in this whole top 10 pick stuff - and avoiding answering how Wells acted in bad faith.

You're from the school of Wells, as you're now arguing in bad faith, given I've already explained on numerous occasions how Wells acted in bad faith.

Let's pretend he told the Eagles brains trust that a top 10 pick was the minimum.

Even you believe Wells placed a top 10 pick as the price for Kelly when you stated: "despite [Wells] being clear about the top 10 pick requirement all along?"
Now you're saying "Let's pretend he [Wells] told the Eagles brains trust that a top 10 pick was the minimum."
Again, you're all over the shop. You can't keep all your nonsense straight since you're making it up on the go.

Did he then up it to a top 5 pick once a top 10 was offered? What other nefarious deeds are you inventing and attributing to Wells to explain your bad faith stance?

Such projection from the Lunchlady.

If I were making it up, I wouldn't have provided a number of links to support my case.
 
Last edited:

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Sep 12, 2013
8,930
23,519
10 min from Optus
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Lakers Claremont
There have been a statements that West Coast had weeks to sort this out. Really? I realise it’s been a while but if your club wins games in September, the trade period hits you fast.

If any club is dragging their feet, it is Geelong coming up with a purposeful pastoral care plan and not hiding behind the off-field soft support cost cap.
 

strauchnyy

Premiership Player
Aug 17, 2009
4,222
8,023
Melbourne
AFL Club
Geelong
Its negotiating in bad faith because it was asking / demanding massive overs. Or as Wells stated 'an exceptional offer will be required'

Its like you want to buy my Nissan and I say sure $100,000 thanks take it or leave it.

That isnt negotiating in good faith.

This is where there is a disconnect between WC and cats supporters. Nothing against either group as we are both biased to our club. The true messure of intelligence is seeing it from the other's perspective.

To you, 2 x early 20s picks seemed like a good deal because you lost Lycett for one of them and they are both reasonable picks. I can see that and if I was a one-eyed eagle completely ignoring Geelong I'd agree with you.

But (and please look at it from our perspective) to us:

- Kelly is our best player under 24
- Our only gun mid that runs & carries and creates other than Danger who is almost 30
- 2nd in our BnF
- won best first year player in the AFL
- probably a top 4/5 player for us after Danger, Sel, Hawkins, Stewart
- Therefore is absolutely critical to our list transition
- picks 20 + 22 would be 25 + 27 after acad and F/S players and now not looking like good picks
- Kelly was under contract after 1 year with us after he agreed to go into a draft with 18 clubs, after saying he'd love to play for any team even outside of WA
- given he was under contract, you HAD to offer overs for us to agree, just coz that’s all you had doesn’t mean we had to take it (wc fans ignore this)
- WC had no more right to him than say, Port pre-draft - we picked him before WC after WC chose two others above him (so they did have the chance and chose Allen) - this is how a draft works
- picks are overrated as Kelly is better than more than about two thirds of the players picked around 10 in the last 10 years.
- further from that, even if we got pick 10 for Kelly, it is likely Kelly would be better anyway, therefore 10 is NOT overs for Kelly, in the draft I would’ve picked Kelly at 8 before jones (after smith) but none of the draftees would impact 2019 better than Kelly
- and further to that, picks in the 20s were even less likely to net a player that would justify a trade whilst under contract
- We are playing for the now and a draft pick (even at 10) would be a loss while we have Dangerwood and Hawkins still in good form
- refused freo and in doing so, removed the ‘family’ excuse entirey
- Kelly is on draftee wages and when you consider his output, is one of the most valuable players in the AFL with his TPP - I suspect this is a massive reason to keep him as our cap is apparently tight.

When you look at our reasons, there is no way in this universe would we accept two picks in the 20s. Zero. To us, picks in the 20s weren’t just extreme unders, they were borderline insulting for a contracted Kelly. To us he is worth a top 10 even though we probably would still lose. We had every right to keep to our word and not back down. WC didn't provide the price so he remained. There was no bad faith. That's utter crap. Wells is a professional.

In 2019 he is out of contract so we lose the ability to hold him. That is it. WC still don't have the ability to just take him, that has not changed. We will ask for a pick around the 8 - 13 range. If you have that pick that's what it'll be. If you try to low ball and offer say your R2 pick, we will take that as bad faith and deal only with Freo or he will likely go to the draft to freo. That won't happen because WC are professionals. If you finish with say pick 18, we will push for something else and there will be middle ground reached. Pretty simple.

To us it wasn’t a Nissan. It was a Maserati and you were offering 50c in the dollar when you had no right to it
 
Last edited:

Pulsedriver

All Australian
Oct 21, 2017
865
1,320
AFL Club
West Coast
In 2019 he is out of contract so we lose the ability to hold him.

That's why WC can wait and wait some more. WC can afford to hold out... even if it pushes Kelly into the draft.

WC still don't have the ability to just take him, that has not changed.

Where has any WCE fan claimed such?

We will ask for a pick around the 8 - 13 range.

It'll be rejected, but you're free to ask.

If you have that pick that's what it'll be.

Wishing, hoping, dreaming and praying will at least keep you warm till next October.

If you try to low ball and offer say your R2 pick, we will take that as bad faith and deal only with Freo or he will likely go to the draft to freo.

Give GFC what they demand or they'll do WC a favour and send Tim into the draft. Hhmmm!

That won't happen because WC are professionals.

You seem to equate professionalism with GFC as not acquiescing to WC's offer, but equate WC being professional with acquiescing to GFC's demands. Did you not just speak of seeing things from the other side's perspective?

If you finish with say pick 18, we will push for something else and there will be middle ground reached. Pretty simple.

If WC had pick 18, give or take a pick, it'll be just that pick alone, as it was with WC trading for Redden and Wellingham. If WC had and gave up pick 13, they'd seek an upgrade of their 2nd rounder. What leverage do Geelong have to force such favorable terms for themselves?

To us it wasn’t a Nissan. It was a Maserati and you were offering 50c in the dollar when you had no right to it

Unlike 2018, 2019 is a buyers market, as Tim's out of contract. GFC can think of Tim as a Maserati all they wish, but how they view him won't sway how WC view him, nor will WC ignore the circumstances under which this supposed 'Maserati' can be purchased.[/QUOTE]
 
Jul 26, 2007
31,927
33,141
Darwin
AFL Club
West Coast
This is where there is a disconnect between WC and cats supporters. Nothing against either group as we are both biased to our club. The true messure of intelligence is seeing it from the other's perspective.

To you, 2 x early 20s picks seemed like a good deal because you lost Lycett for one of them and they are both reasonable picks. I can see that and if I was a one-eyed eagle completely ignoring Geelong I'd agree with you.

But (and please look at it from our perspective) to us:

- Kelly is our best player under 24
- Our only gun mid that runs & carries and creates other than Danger who is almost 30
- 2nd in our BnF
- won best first year player in the AFL
- probably a top 4/5 player for us after Danger, Sel, Hawkins, Stewart
- Therefore is absolutely critical to our list transition
- picks 20 + 22 would be 25 + 27 after acad and F/S players and now not looking like good picks
- Kelly was under contract after 1 year with us after he agreed to go into a draft with 18 clubs, after saying he'd love to play for any team even outside of WA
- given he was under contract, you HAD to offer overs for us to agree, just coz that’s all you had doesn’t mean we had to take it (wc fans ignore this)
- WC had no more right to him than say, Port pre-draft - we picked him before WC after WC chose two others above him (so they did have the chance and chose Allen) - this is how a draft works
- picks are overrated as Kelly is better than more than about two thirds of the players picked around 10 in the last 10 years.
- further from that, even if we got pick 10 for Kelly, it is likely Kelly would be better anyway, therefore 10 is NOT overs for Kelly, in the draft I would’ve picked Kelly at 8 before jones (after smith) but none of the draftees would impact 2019 better than Kelly
- and further to that, picks in the 20s were even less likely to net a player that would justify a trade whilst under contract
- We are playing for the now and a draft pick (even at 10) would be a loss while we have Dangerwood and Hawkins still in good form
- refused freo and in doing so, removed the ‘family’ excuse entirey
- Kelly is on draftee wages and when you consider his output, is one of the most valuable players in the AFL with his TPP - I suspect this is a massive reason to keep him as our cap is apparently tight.

When you look at our reasons, there is no way in this universe would we accept two picks in the 20s. Zero. To us, picks in the 20s weren’t just extreme unders, they were borderline insulting for a contracted Kelly. To us he is worth a top 10 even though we probably would still lose. We had every right to keep to our word and not back down. WC didn't provide the price so he remained. There was no bad faith. That's utter crap. Wells is a professional.

In 2019 he is out of contract so we lose the ability to hold him. That is it. WC still don't have the ability to just take him, that has not changed. We will ask for a pick around the 8 - 13 range. If you have that pick that's what it'll be. If you try to low ball and offer say your R2 pick, we will take that as bad faith and deal only with Freo or he will likely go to the draft to freo. That won't happen because WC are professionals. If you finish with say pick 18, we will push for something else and there will be middle ground reached. Pretty simple.

To us it wasn’t a Nissan. It was a Maserati and you were offering 50c in the dollar when you had no right to it

Three 2nd round picks is not 50 cents.

Cats asked for two 2nds and our 2019 1st.

We countered I beleive with our 2019 1st plus a 2nd for Kelly and your 2019 3rd.

None of this is the 'miles apart' notion Wells was sprouting at the end.

He never intended to trade unless the Eagles offered stupid compensation. The Eagles werent stupid.
 

Isaac Cumming No 1

Cancelled
10k Posts
Mar 28, 2018
10,491
8,454
AFL Club
GWS
Its negotiating in bad faith because it was asking / demanding massive overs. Or as Wells stated 'an exceptional offer will be required'

Its like you want to buy my Nissan and I say sure $100,000 thanks take it or leave it.

That isnt negotiating in good faith.
Actually it is though. If that's the price you're willing to sell it for.
 

Isaac Cumming No 1

Cancelled
10k Posts
Mar 28, 2018
10,491
8,454
AFL Club
GWS
I agree, lot’s of playing semantics.

Mrs Kelly, “ look what you’ve done to these footy supporters “.

In 2019, these boards are going to be taken over by the Kelly Chronicles, ......... Tim & Josh.
:think:I think we'll try and sort Josh early.
 
Apr 3, 2006
33,469
11,826
AFL Club
Geelong
Your contradiction, as I quoted of you.



You're from the school of Wells, as you're now arguing in bad faith, given I've already explained on numerous occasions how Wells acted in bad faith.



Even you believe Wells placed a top 10 pick as the price for Kelly when you stated: "despite [Wells] being clear about the top 10 pick requirement all along?"
Now you're saying "Let's pretend he [Wells] told the Eagles brains trust that a top 10 pick was the minimum."
Again, you're all over the shop. You can't keep all your nonsense straight since you're making it up on the go.



Such projection from the Lunchlady.

If I were making it up, I wouldn't have provided a number of links to support my case.

Cool, assumptions and leaps of logic, all good.
 

Isaac Cumming No 1

Cancelled
10k Posts
Mar 28, 2018
10,491
8,454
AFL Club
GWS
Not if the chance of actually get that price is zero.

Then you are just wasting peoples time. Including your own.
I dont think you get what good faith means.

It's certainly not bad faith to set the set the bar, where you have no obligation or declared interest in trading a player. Bad faith would be telling the other side you did want to trade and then not being reasonable.
The Cats never said they wanted to trade Kelly and they had no obligation to.
 
Apr 3, 2006
33,469
11,826
AFL Club
Geelong
Direct quotes = "assumptions and leaps of logic." - Lunchlady Doris.

We've already shown your whole schtick is based on the fact that Wells actually listened to offers and didn't dismiss the Eagles attempts outright.

You're taking the fact that the Eagles didn't end up with Sydney's pick 13 as proof that Wells stating pick 13 is not good enough. Even if this massive leap is correct - according to you he already made it clear he wanted a top 10 pick.

No bad faith, whatsoever.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back