List Mgmt. #11. Tim Kelly - Welcome to West Coast

[Suma Magic]

It would be such a relief to get away from Scott, Danger and J. Selwood.

 

[Suma Magic]

Talk about a pack of campaigners.

 

[kerrazy]

I don’t think you were having a laugh. You are a professional club and you do what you have to do.
The offer just wasn’t good enough so everyone said let’s reload next year. Ultimately you paid a lot more but you got a jet so it’s still a win win.

Not sure about us paying a lot more.

Last year your supposed request was this year's first plus two seconds. Basically pick 14, 20 and 22.

Is it really that different to 14, 24, 37 and next year's first (15-18) with 52 and a third rounder coming back? The picks we gave you will fall a few places further too due to nga.

Geelongs 2018 request: 20 and 22 and 2019 first 14 (will probably drop to 17)
Points value after nga: approx 2800 points.

The actual Kelly deal of 2019: 14 (becomes 17), 24 (becomes 27), 37 (40ish maybe?) and next year's first (god knows what that'll become, what a s**t draft next year will be.)
Points value after nga: approx 3000 points.

Us receiving two third rounders takes that back to roughy 2500 points. Yes point system is flawed, but an interesting way of looking at what we gave up.

Considering that he was AA and top 5 in the Brownlow, I don't think we coughed up that much more.

 

[Coasters7]

Ok, maybe not peanuts. But 22 & 24 is a far cry from the actual deal that got done 12 months later.

In hindsight our 2018 deal was well unders but at the time was pretty close to a fair offer for a first year player. It’s too risky to start throwing around handfuls of earlyish picks for someone who’s only played 1 season. This year was probably slightly overs but with more confidence that he’s a gun so easier to swallow. If we pulled the trigger on the 22+24+2019 first, we make out like bandits.. but I’m also comfortable that we walked away at our max price (which turned out to be the wrong call in the long run but I believe was a fair call at the time).

 

[Wedgetailed Westerner]

View attachment 763503

squashface is that you?

 

[squashface]

squashface is that you?

 

[shooshka]

Not sure about us paying a lot more.

Last year your supposed request was this year's first plus two seconds. Basically pick 14, 20 and 22.

Is it really that different to 14, 24, 37 and next year's first (15-18) with 52 and a third rounder coming back? The picks we gave you will fall a few places further too due to nga.

Geelongs 2018 request: 20 and 22 and 2019 first 14 (will probably drop to 17)
Points value after nga: approx 2800 points.

The actual Kelly deal of 2019: 14 (becomes 17), 24 (becomes 27), 37 (40ish maybe?) and next year's first (god knows what that'll become, what a s**t draft next year will be.)
Points value after nga: approx 3000 points.

Us receiving two third rounders takes that back to roughy 2500 points. Yes point system is flawed, but an interesting way of looking at what we gave up.

Considering that he was AA and top 5 in the Brownlow, I don't think we coughed up that much more.

Also the fact that we got 24 for free from the picks we were going to trade last year.

It certainly has value (to both teams), but when working out what we paid this year vs last year it can almost be removed from this year and added to last year (without last year's picks we wouldn't have it, but theoretically Geelong would).

On SM-G973F using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Ricky Vaughn]

I'm pretty sure Tim wouldn't badmouth Geelong publicaly, even if it went against what he actually thought. He's too professional for that. Nevertheless, it isn't as simple as going home. It was either live the dream you've been chasing your whole life, finally get the chance to play against AFL after being passed over in five drafts, or (probably) not have it at all. He may have not been held at gunpoint, but it was choice between living the dream, or giving it up once again.

The problem with what Geelong did is that it breached the normal conduct of morality. In holding Kelly, they indicated that they value their own self interest over the interest of the player; as such, they chose selfishness over empathy. If you find selfishness to be an undesirable trait, then that makes what Geelong did quite grave. The fact that this is football doesn't allow one to operate above the standards of what is deemed acceptable.

Kelly's situation was an extreme one. I'm honestly pretty certain this is the first time it has happened in the AFL - a player has been drafted interstate, a couple of their kids have been diagnosed as autistic shortly after, and then they desperately need to get home. The fact of the matter is that this situation required empathy towards the player for this very reason - they couldn't control how difficult it was. Yet, Geelong chose to view Tim more as a commodity rather than as a person. If they didn't, he would've come home 12 months ago. In the end, you've ended up with a situation where the player's humanity is seemingly taken out of the equation - the human being that is playing for you has been devalued purely for selfish reasons. What Geelong did shouldn't be seen as acceptable in any way.

Given where I’m posting this, I’ll be as respectful as possible.

Given West Coast refused to give up the draft picks Geelong requested at the end of 2018, they also treated Tim as a commodity as opposed to a human being.

There are 2 clubs involved in the negotiations. If Geelong refusing to accept less than Tim Kelly’s value is seen as reprehensible, by the same token, West Coast refusing to pay what they deemed more than Tim Kelly’s value is equally reprehensible.

Neither team did the wrong thing post 2018. They just couldn’t agree on his value, and the hypocrisy of some fans is strange. I know Cats fans who think West Coast were wrong, Eagles fans (such as yourself) who think the Cats were wrong. Club bias can be a strange thing.

 

[Necessary Evil]

I don’t think you were having a laugh. You are a professional club and you do what you have to do.
The offer just wasn’t good enough so everyone said let’s reload next year. Ultimately you paid a lot more but you got a jet so it’s still a win win.

Before the picks found their true position via academy picks, Vozzo said on trade radio that Geelong wanted picks 20, 22 and 2019 1st which became 14. 2018 deal would've been 20, 22 and 14. 2019 deal was 24, 33, 14 and 2020 1st, so the earlier picks in 2018 were better for Geelong, but you scored an extra pick in 2020.

 

[CM9000]

Given where I’m posting this, I’ll be as respectful as possible.

Given West Coast refused to give up the draft picks Geelong requested at the end of 2018, they also treated Tim as a commodity as opposed to a human being.

There are 2 clubs involved in the negotiations. If Geelong refusing to accept less than Tim Kelly’s value is seen as reprehensible, by the same token, West Coast refusing to pay what they deemed more than Tim Kelly’s value is equally reprehensible.

Neither team did the wrong thing post 2018. They just couldn’t agree on his value, and the hypocrisy of some fans is strange. I know Cats fans who think West Coast were wrong, Eagles fans (such as yourself) who think the Cats were wrong. Club bias can be a strange thing.

The problem with this is that you're assuming Geelong acted in good faith. They didn't - you kept changing the price and, in the end, you were never going to trade him to begin with (a gun player on rookie wages is a list managers dream). The difference was literally 10 pick places; we should've payed the full price, but you were still ultimately the ones who could release him. It's entirely your club's decision to let him come home. However, instead of sympathising with the player, you looked for reasons to keep him/question his reasons for going home:

Dangerfield said West Coast’s status as reigning premiers had not weighed favourably on his club’s willingness to strike a deal.

“It’s unfortunate from their perspective, but at the same time, from a club perspective, we’ve got to make sure we do the best thing by our list and list management,” Dangerfield said.

“There’s so many things that you have to weigh up, and one of those is the fact that West Coast is the best team in the competition.

Dangerfield sympathetic to Kelly’s home request

Patrick Dangerfield says West Coast’s billing as the best team in the AFL was a factor in Geelong’s inability to get a deal done to send Tim Kelly back to WA.

thewest.com.au

“He had a brilliant first year and he might be one of our very, very best players not just for next year but for many years into the future. That’s got to be taken into account,” Wells said.

“The West Coast Eagles as the reigning premiers, I don’t think any of the clubs would be all that excited about Tim Kelly playing for them at the moment. All those sort of things have to be taken into account.”

....

Fremantle’s new football boss Peter Bell distanced the club from a Kelly move when speaking to media at Marvel Stadium earlier on Monday.

But Wells maintained the Dockers were still in the mix if they could come up with a better deal than the Eagles.

“Home is home, that’s the reason he wants to go and play in WA. So to us (joining the Dockers) would make sense,” he said.

Geelong demand top-10 pick for Kelly

IF West Coast want to land Tim Kelly in the trade period they are going to have to find a top 10 draft pick to exchange for him.

www.perthnow.com.au

Here's where you said he's worth more than Chris Judd:

But despite being out of contract, Geelong list manager Stephen Wells declared the club would play hardball and wants at least two first-round picks for Kelly’s services.

That poses a problem for the Eagles, who only have one first-round pick, 14, and also hold picks 24 and 33.

“Tim is worth more than that,” Wells said when asked if two first-round selections would satisfy the Cats.

AFL trade period 2019: Tim Kelly to West Coast, Stephen Wells says Tim Kelly is worth more than two first-round picks

West Coast will need to come to the party if they are to secure gun midfielder Tim Kelly during the 2019 trade period, with their current draft haul insufficient to please Geelong.

www.foxsports.com.au

Wells has revealed he has colleagues at the Cats "who think we shouldn't even be considering trading Tim at all, let alone specifically to West Coast".

But after Kelly never signed any of the contract offers put forward by Geelong, the club all but accepts he will be on his way home to Perth by the end of the trade period.

The Cats are prepared to take the entire 10 days to get what they want from the Eagles or perhaps even Fremantle.

Geelong prepared to take entire trade period to 'do what's best for the club'

Players and late first-round picks from West Coast won't be enough for the Cats to agree to a deal for Tim Kelly but their list boss says talks will be 'respectful'.

7news.com.au

You were literally valuing him as a commodity, just look at the comments of your club. And instead of trying to bend you over for an uncontracted player, we've literally given you more than what you asked for last year. We're now completely absent from the first round of two drafts.

We've actually overplayed for Kelly now (arguably), despite the fact he should've been easier to get than last year.

Just because we couldn't come to terms in 2018 doesn't make your club any less selfish.

 

[KERRPOW]

Before the picks found their true position via academy picks, Vozzo said on trade radio that Geelong wanted picks 20, 22 and 2019 1st which became 14. 2018 deal would've been 20, 22 and 14. 2019 deal was 24, 33, 14 and 2020 1st, so the earlier picks in 2018 were better for Geelong, but you scored an extra pick in 2020.

Good post. IN reality we only gave up slightly more than what geelong initially wanted.

In hindsight we should have done the deal in 2018...who knows we may have gone further into September and gone B2B.

 

[Necessary Evil]

Good post. IN reality we only gave up slightly more than what geelong initially wanted.

In hindsight we should have done the deal in 2018...who knows we may have gone further into September and gone B2B.

The way I look at it, if we do the deal in 2018 we don't have O'Neill, Foley, Williams or Cameron. I think it worked out just the way it was meant to.

 

[Max Caddy]

It was 22, 24 & our 2019 2nd rounder. For a first year player.

Geelong wanted 22, 24 and our 2019 1st rounder. For a first year player picked at 24.

Geelong wasn't going to let him go. They're on record as saying unless it was an exceptional offer, no deal. And further that they didn't want to make a competitor stronger.

They wanted a good - very good (now) player for peanuts. Was it poor form of Geelong? That's subjective. But this narrative that we were having a laugh with our offer in 2018 is clearly nonsense.

It was 22, 24 & our 2019 2nd rounder. For a first year player.

Geelong wanted 22, 24 and our 2019 1st rounder. For a first year player picked at 24.

Geelong wasn't going to let him go. They're on record as saying unless it was an exceptional offer, no deal. And further that they didn't want to make a competitor stronger.

They wanted a good - very good (now) player for peanuts. Was it poor form of Geelong? That's subjective. But this narrative that we were having a laugh with our offer in 2018 is clearly nonsense.
[/QUOTE]

The problem with this is that you're assuming Geelong acted in good faith. They didn't - you kept changing the price and, in the end, you were never going to trade him to begin with (a gun player on rookie wages is a list managers dream). The difference was literally 10 pick places; we should've payed the full price, but you were still ultimately the ones who could release him. It's entirely your club's decision to let him come home. However, instead of sympathising with the player, you looked for reasons to keep him/question his reasons for going home:

Dangerfield sympathetic to Kelly’s home request

Patrick Dangerfield says West Coast’s billing as the best team in the AFL was a factor in Geelong’s inability to get a deal done to send Tim Kelly back to WA.

thewest.com.au

Geelong demand top-10 pick for Kelly

IF West Coast want to land Tim Kelly in the trade period they are going to have to find a top 10 draft pick to exchange for him.

www.perthnow.com.au

Here's where you said he's worth more than Chris Judd:

AFL trade period 2019: Tim Kelly to West Coast, Stephen Wells says Tim Kelly is worth more than two first-round picks

West Coast will need to come to the party if they are to secure gun midfielder Tim Kelly during the 2019 trade period, with their current draft haul insufficient to please Geelong.

www.foxsports.com.au

Geelong prepared to take entire trade period to 'do what's best for the club'

Players and late first-round picks from West Coast won't be enough for the Cats to agree to a deal for Tim Kelly but their list boss says talks will be 'respectful'.

7news.com.au

You were literally valuing him as a commodity, just look at the comments of your club. And instead of trying to bend you over for an uncontracted player, we've literally given you more than what you asked for last year. We're now completely absent from the first round of two drafts.

We've actually overplayed for Kelly now (arguably), despite the fact he should've been easier to get than last year.

Just because we couldn't come to terms in 2018 doesn't make your club any less selfish.

Kelly doesn't bear any ill will towards Geelong, so I'm not sure why you do? There are so many machinations in a deal like this.

Anyway, it's your board, carry on and good luck next year. I'll definitely be watching more WC game next year as I loving watching TK play.

 

[Ricky Vaughn]

The problem with this is that you're assuming Geelong acted in good faith. They didn't - you kept changing the price and, in the end, you were never going to trade him to begin with (a gun player on rookie wages is a list managers dream).

This is the other common argument.
There was a trade package Geelong requested that would have got the deal done. West Coast refused to give up those draft picks.
That’s in line with all the reporting done at the time, and the word coming from both clubs.

it’s just so much easier to believe “Geelong wouldn’t have traded him anyway” (despite all the reports claiming the opposite).
If that’s true,
you don’t have to reflect on your own bias, you don’t have to question if your clubs decision not to trade cost you a flag
West Coast are the good guys
Geelong are the bad guys

I get why you’d choose that, it’s a completely understandable blissful ignorance to be in.

If you’d like to accept that there was a request from Geelong that West Coast could have paid in order for Kelly to be an Eagles player 12 months ago, you’ll see there was no lack of ”good faith” from either side, just 2 club who couldn’t agree on a players value.

 

[kranky al]

The way I look at it, if we do the deal in 2018 we don't have O'Neill, Foley, Williams or Cameron. I think it worked out just the way it was meant to.

Being that this draft is supposed to be a s**t truck compared to last year - i know which year id rather have given up picks.

Was like when we gave up kennedy and got picks in a s**t draft....

 

[CM9000]

This is the other common argument.
There was a trade package Geelong requested that would have got the deal done. West Coast refused to give up those draft picks.
That’s in line with all the reporting done at the time, and the word coming from both clubs.

it’s just so much easier to believe “Geelong wouldn’t have traded him anyway” (despite all the reports claiming the opposite).
If that’s true,
you don’t have to reflect on your own bias, you don’t have to question if your clubs decision not to trade cost you a flag
West Coast are the good guys
Geelong are the bad guys

I get why you’d choose that, it’s a completely understandable blissful ignorance to be in.

If you’d like to accept that there was a request from Geelong that West Coast could have paid in order for Kelly to be an Eagles player 12 months ago, you’ll see there was no lack of ”good faith” from either side, just 2 club who couldn’t agree on a players value.

It wasn't a case of "simply get this price" though. It wasn't decided upon till the very last minute, and the difference (in the end) was only 10 pick places anyway.

And I was actually furious at the time when we didin't do the trade. I thought we should've just payed the price, but I'm not the list manager. However, what you seem to be misunderstanding is the fact only Geelong could release Kelly - it isn't our fault you were being (arguably) incredibly unreasonable on the price. You could say "we failed Kelly", but you still held a player to ransom that needed to come home for greater profits.

Look at all the comments your club has made in relation to the trade. They all follow the same line that you "don't want to make a rival stronger", or, as you're coach said this year, "you don't want to lose Kelly under any circumstances". You didn't want to let him go, despite the fact needed to get home. You prioritised the interest (not the need) of the club over the wellbeing of Kelly - you treated him as though he were a piece of meat that makes you stronger. It's a bit rich to claim I'm living in "blissful ignorance" when you won't, even for a second, consider the fact that your club didn't help Kelly at all with its actions. It's not simply a case of me being biased - I would find it distasteful if my club did the same thing.

Maybe you just don't realise how hard it is with young children that are diagnosed with austism. It's hard enough to move across to the other side of the country with 3 young kids, but to have them require special assistance (and one of Kelly's kids is nonverbal, that means it's even more severe) is something else altogether. Kelly's situation requires a degree of empathy that your club didn't show.

 

[WCE_phil]

This is the other common argument.
There was a trade package Geelong requested that would have got the deal done. West Coast refused to give up those draft picks.
That’s in line with all the reporting done at the time, and the word coming from both clubs.

it’s just so much easier to believe “Geelong wouldn’t have traded him anyway” (despite all the reports claiming the opposite).
If that’s true,
you don’t have to reflect on your own bias, you don’t have to question if your clubs decision not to trade cost you a flag
West Coast are the good guys
Geelong are the bad guys

I get why you’d choose that, it’s a completely understandable blissful ignorance to be in.

If you’d like to accept that there was a request from Geelong that West Coast could have paid in order for Kelly to be an Eagles player 12 months ago, you’ll see there was no lack of ”good faith” from either side, just 2 club who couldn’t agree on a players value.

No it's not. Geelong wanted a top 10 pick to begin with, we tried multiple avenues but couldn't secure one.
Geelong changed the goal posts asking for our 2 second rounders last year which at the time were 20 and 22 and our 2019 second rounder for kelly and their 2019 third.
Geelong then changed their mind (we never agreed to the above) and said we want the 3 second round picks.

With just over an hour left of the trade period we relented and agreed to the 3 second round picks.
Geelong then changed the goalposts again and asked for our two 2018 second round picks 20 & 22 and wanted our 2019 first for Kelly and geelongs 2019 second.

It was at this point we walked out on Geelong. It was because of them continuing to move the goalposts that we walked out before permanent relations were soured to the point of it never being recoverable and had we wanted to could have run the whole thing through the press, gotten sanctions from the AFL and paid them and not given a flying * as we are easily the wealthiest club in the AFL. After continuing to try and meet their demands and then finally coming up with what they asked for and them then changing the line again there is no guarantee that had we then agreed they would have signed the paperwork.

The GFC acted entirely in bad faith in the 2018 trade period and it was all a show so that they didn't look like the worlds biggest campaigners so they could get a second year out of a highly performed first year player on minimum wages to have a crack at the flag. That's their prerogative but to bring it up in any other light is entirely fallacious. The fact that at that stage last year both clubs knew that issues the Kelly family were facing and acted entirely in bad faith is something that will be held onto for a long, long time. Even if Kelly himself harbours no ill will towards the GFC, the players or administration I can tell you there are many that now do.

Wells built up a reputation of being a fair trader over a period of many years. In the last couple he's washed that all away.

 

[ziad]

No it's not. Geelong wanted a top 10 pick to begin with, we tried multiple avenues but couldn't secure one.
Geelong changed the goal posts asking for our 2 second rounders last year which at the time were 20 and 22 and our 2019 second rounder for kelly and their 2019 third.
Geelong then changed their mind (we never agreed to the above) and said we want the 3 second round picks.

With just over an hour left of the trade period we relented and agreed to the 3 second round picks.
Geelong then changed the goalposts again and asked for our two 2018 second round picks 20 & 22 and wanted our 2019 first for Kelly and geelongs 2019 second.

It was at this point we walked out on Geelong. It was because of them continuing to move the goalposts that we walked out before permanent relations were soured to the point of it never being recoverable and had we wanted to could have run the whole thing through the press, gotten sanctions from the AFL and paid them and not given a flying fu** as we are easily the wealthiest club in the AFL. After continuing to try and meet their demands and then finally coming up with what they asked for and them then changing the line again there is no guarantee that had we then agreed they would have signed the paperwork.

The GFC acted entirely in bad faith in the 2018 trade period and it was all a show so that they didn't look like the worlds biggest campaigners so they could get a second year out of a highly performed first year player on minimum wages to have a crack at the flag. That's their prerogative but to bring it up in any other light is entirely fallacious. The fact that at that stage last year both clubs knew that issues the Kelly family were facing and acted entirely in bad faith is something that will be held onto for a long, long time. Even if Kelly himself harbours no ill will towards the GFC, the players or administration I can tell you there are many that now do.

Wells built up a reputation of being a fair trader over a period of many years. In the last couple he's washed that all away.

A club is defined by its leaders. Scott is demented with emotional issues, Wells has lost the moral plot and Danger is an egotist.
The others are old and heading over the hill

 

[Jiggyman]

How are some people still upset over this? It's an industry; prying a first-year player away at excessive cost wasn't the most rational choice considering we'd won a flag, instead doing the best possible thing by continuing to work with Kelly over 12 months and arranging a fair exchange at the start of this trade period.

We got our gun and he's undoubtedly elated to be here, Cats get a few spins on the draft wheel.

 

[Godfather32]

This is the other common argument.
There was a trade package Geelong requested that would have got the deal done. West Coast refused to give up those draft picks.
That’s in line with all the reporting done at the time, and the word coming from both clubs.

it’s just so much easier to believe “Geelong wouldn’t have traded him anyway” (despite all the reports claiming the opposite).
If that’s true,
you don’t have to reflect on your own bias, you don’t have to question if your clubs decision not to trade cost you a flag
West Coast are the good guys
Geelong are the bad guys

I get why you’d choose that, it’s a completely understandable blissful ignorance to be in.

If you’d like to accept that there was a request from Geelong that West Coast could have paid in order for Kelly to be an Eagles player 12 months ago, you’ll see there was no lack of ”good faith” from either side, just 2 club who couldn’t agree on a players value.

Just like how Jack Steven isn't worth pick 37 hey?

Face it, your team has been acting like a bunch of campaigners at the trade table lately, trying to play hardball with everyone. It backfired on Cockburn last week and it's going to come back and bite you guys on the arse as well. Watching you slide down the ladder into mediocrity with your aging list and whiny coach is going to be fun viewing.

 

[Ricky Vaughn]

It wasn't a case of "simply get this price" though. It wasn't decided upon till the very last minute, and the difference (in the end) was only 10 pick places anyway.

And I was actually furious at the time when we didin't do the trade. I thought we should've just payed the price, but I'm not the list manager. However, what you seem to be misunderstanding is the fact only Geelong could release Kelly - it isn't our fault you were being (arguably) incredibly unreasonable on the price. You could say "we failed Kelly", but you still held a player to ransom that needed to come home for greater profits.

Look at all the comments your club has made in relation to the trade. They all follow the same line that you "don't want to make a rival stronger", or, as you're coach said this year, "you don't want to lose Kelly under any circumstances". You didn't want to let him go, despite the fact needed to get home. You prioritised the interest (not the need) of the club over the wellbeing of Kelly - you treated him as though he were a piece of meat that makes you stronger. It's a bit rich to claim I'm living in "blissful ignorance" when you won't, even for a second, consider the fact that your club didn't help Kelly at all with its actions. It's not simply a case of me being biased - I would find it distasteful if my club did the same thing.

Maybe you just don't realise how hard it is with young children that are diagnosed with austism. It's hard enough to move across to the other side of the country with 3 young kids, but to have them require special assistance (and one of Kelly's kids is nonverbal, that means it's even more severe) is something else altogether. Kelly's situation requires a degree of empathy that your club didn't show.

We certainly weren't being unreasonable on the price. Given he was one of the best 10 players in the comp last season, we were actually willing to accept unders to get the trade done, as evidenced by the trade that was actually completed this year.

The bolded is my main issue. Every single thing you wrote I could apply to West Coast with equal validity.

• You didn't want him for the price, despie the fact he needed to get home
• West Coast prioritised the interest (not need ) of the club over the wellbeing of Kelly (You could have just handed over the picks no questions asked)
• West Coast treated him as though he were a piece of meat to make your club stronger
• Your club didn't help Kelly at all with it's actions, valueing numbers in a draft over Tim Kelly
• Your club did do the same thing as Geelong. Didn't (in their mind) overpay for Tim Kelly on compassionate grounds.

You are right, I haven't had to raise kids with autism, it would be tremendously challenging. Which is why the Geelong fans I speak to wish him nothing but the best. Nobody (except the handful of nuffies we all get) hold any ill will toward Kelly. I have more respect for Tim Kelly than probably every footballer currently on a list. Honesty, integrity, professionalism; he showed that more than almost any player in particularly trying circumstances.

It doesn't change my belief that you can either be upset with both clubs for not showing enough empathy, or neither.
If you choose just one as the bad guy (some Eagles fans have chosen Geelong, while some Cats fans have chosen the Eagles, funny that), you're either deliberately or unconsciously not looking at the situation objectively.

 

[liam123]

Why are we still talking about this?

 

[Coasters7]

We certainly weren't being unreasonable on the price. Given he was one of the best 10 players in the comp last season, we were actually willing to accept unders to get the trade done, as evidenced by the trade that was actually completed this year.

The bolded is my main issue. Every single thing you wrote I could apply to West Coast with equal validity.

• You didn't want him for the price, despie the fact he needed to get home
• West Coast prioritised the interest (not need ) of the club over the wellbeing of Kelly (You could have just handed over the picks no questions asked)
• West Coast treated him as though he were a piece of meat to make your club stronger
• Your club didn't help Kelly at all with it's actions, valueing numbers in a draft over Tim Kelly
• Your club did do the same thing as Geelong. Didn't (in their mind) overpay for Tim Kelly on compassionate grounds.

You are right, I haven't had to raise kids with autism, it would be tremendously challenging. Which is why the Geelong fans I speak to wish him nothing but the best. Nobody (except the handful of nuffies we all get) hold any ill will toward Kelly. I have more respect for Tim Kelly than probably every footballer currently on a list. Honesty, integrity, professionalism; he showed that more than almost any player in particularly trying circumstances.

It doesn't change my belief that you can either be upset with both clubs for not showing enough empathy, or neither.
If you choose just one as the bad guy (some Eagles fans have chosen Geelong, while some Cats fans have chosen the Eagles, funny that), you're either deliberately or unconsciously not looking at the situation objectively.

I think you missed what that poster was trying to say. It isn’t really our prerogative to give Geelong exactly what they want. That’s what negotiations are for. At the end of the day Geelong and Geelong only are the ones capable of releasing him. By your logic, Wells can theoretically come out and say we want Yeo, Shuey and NN for Kelly and if we walk away we ”treated him as a piece of meat”.

We offered up a fairly reasonable deal (especially considering this years deal was only effectively an extra second rounder), multiple times yet Geelong failed to come to the party.. multiple times. We had our price and stuck to it, we aren’t coming out and shelling every draft pick we had for the next 5 years just so he could get home. Like I said, that’s not really our problem. We did all we realistically could and Geelong, holding most of the cards, treated him like a commodity by not releasing him over 10 pick spots.

I think the fact Kelly’s come out 12 months later and specifically requested us again speaks volumes, plus us also selling the farm this year out of respect to Kelly and his family while Geelong still drove a hard bargain. I think the way both clubs handled it are poles apart, as evidenced by Geelongs continual playing out in the media while we just made sure the deal got done fair to all parties.

 

[shooshka]

We certainly weren't being unreasonable on the price. Given he was one of the best 10 players in the comp last season, we were actually willing to accept unders to get the trade done, as evidenced by the trade that was actually completed this year.

The bolded is my main issue. Every single thing you wrote I could apply to West Coast with equal validity.

• You didn't want him for the price, despie the fact he needed to get home
• West Coast prioritised the interest (not need ) of the club over the wellbeing of Kelly (You could have just handed over the picks no questions asked)
• West Coast treated him as though he were a piece of meat to make your club stronger
• Your club didn't help Kelly at all with it's actions, valueing numbers in a draft over Tim Kelly
• Your club did do the same thing as Geelong. Didn't (in their mind) overpay for Tim Kelly on compassionate grounds.

You are right, I haven't had to raise kids with autism, it would be tremendously challenging. Which is why the Geelong fans I speak to wish him nothing but the best. Nobody (except the handful of nuffies we all get) hold any ill will toward Kelly. I have more respect for Tim Kelly than probably every footballer currently on a list. Honesty, integrity, professionalism; he showed that more than almost any player in particularly trying circumstances.

It doesn't change my belief that you can either be upset with both clubs for not showing enough empathy, or neither.
If you choose just one as the bad guy (some Eagles fans have chosen Geelong, while some Cats fans have chosen the Eagles, funny that), you're either deliberately or unconsciously not looking at the situation objectively.

Not wanting to get involved in the back and forth semantics here, but a simple clarification:

Tim Kelly is not currently, nor has he been (up to this stage) one of the top 10 players in the comp.

Maybe top 10 mids. Maybe. But he's probably in the 15-25 range if you were going in order including every other position (which is basically the 75% of the competition who can't get brownlow votes as umpires focus on production rather than impact).



On SM-G973F using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Balls In]

We certainly weren't being unreasonable on the price. Given he was one of the best 10 players in the comp last season, we were actually willing to accept unders to get the trade done, as evidenced by the trade that was actually completed this year.

The bolded is my main issue. Every single thing you wrote I could apply to West Coast with equal validity.

• You didn't want him for the price, despie the fact he needed to get home
• West Coast prioritised the interest (not need ) of the club over the wellbeing of Kelly (You could have just handed over the picks no questions asked)
• West Coast treated him as though he were a piece of meat to make your club stronger
• Your club didn't help Kelly at all with it's actions, valueing numbers in a draft over Tim Kelly
• Your club did do the same thing as Geelong. Didn't (in their mind) overpay for Tim Kelly on compassionate grounds.

You are right, I haven't had to raise kids with autism, it would be tremendously challenging. Which is why the Geelong fans I speak to wish him nothing but the best. Nobody (except the handful of nuffies we all get) hold any ill will toward Kelly. I have more respect for Tim Kelly than probably every footballer currently on a list. Honesty, integrity, professionalism; he showed that more than almost any player in particularly trying circumstances.

It doesn't change my belief that you can either be upset with both clubs for not showing enough empathy, or neither.
If you choose just one as the bad guy (some Eagles fans have chosen Geelong, while some Cats fans have chosen the Eagles, funny that), you're either deliberately or unconsciously not looking at the situation objectively.

With respect to you Geelong is coached by Ross and fish rot at the head. Disgraceful, inexcusable conduct right throughout. And your supporters are the biggest ********s on BF just to underline the obvious. * Geelong i hope you end up like Freo, At Kilda or gold coast.