News Jackson Hately requests trade to Adelaide

[Mr Alldayeveryday]

The Crows owe GWS for poaching Phil Davis, Hoping the Crows stay at around the Bulldogs pick and nothing better than that.

 

[Mutineer]

The Crows owe GWS for poaching Phil Davis, Hoping the Crows stay at around the Bulldogs pick and nothing better than that.

Not really we signed up like all other clubs to the conditions the AFL set for the introduction of the GWS to the competition.
It was just nobody expected the old fox Sheedy to target highly promising youngsters with high character rather than older seasoned players.

 

[Vhaluus]

Not really we signed up like all other clubs to the conditions the AFL set for the introduction of the GWS to the competition.
It was just nobody expected the old fox Sheedy to target highly promising youngsters with high character rather than older seasoned players.

We didn't really have an option but to sign up did we?

 

[Mr_Moogle]

We didn't really have an option but to sign up did we?

They probably presented the clubs with 3 or 4 different options and they went with the one that was least bad.

 

[Vhaluus]

They probably presented the clubs with 3 or 4 different options and they went with the one that was least bad.

But even then it was a majority consensus. Crows didn't actaully ever have the option to say 'yeah nah thanks but no thanks'.

If I'm telling you that you get to chose if I stab you or shoot you, I can't turn around and go "well you made the choice!"

 

[Samcro24]

Our ex CEO helped draft the concessions didn’t he?

Thanks again Steve.

 

[ltdamn]

You assume wrongly. It doesn't "have to be used" at all.

I was referring to the very circular argument from the poster who believed we should keep it in our pocket for another player, which is redundant and self-defeating as by their own logic it would never be used.

There were no selections made in the PSD in 2015, 2016 and 2018, only 1 selection in 2017, and 2 selections in 2019.

What you're not including above is that free agency arrived at the end of the 2012 season and the bulk of un-contracted movements from then onwards used that mechanic rather than the PSD. In those years you mentioned, the bulk of uncontracted player moving did not require the PSD as they were able to move via FA, and their clubs received compensation picks. Combined with academy players and father/son picks most clubs had completed their senior lists by the end of the National Draft. Rookie list and Cat B elgibility also expanded so players who would previously have been acquired thru the PSD were able to join clubs on those lists.

The list of players who went to new clubs via FA in the years you mentioned with no PSD picks included; Suckling, Selwood, Vickery, Wells, Mayne, Conca, Dalhaus and Tom Lynch - all of whom would have walked into the pre-season draft to their new clubs if there was no FA. Was it a dishonorable act by their new clubs to sign them? No, it was the system and they played by the rules. If FA hadn't been an option, many of them would have gone thru the PSD - as they did before FA, including Tippet in 2011.

That wasn't the way the GC & GWS start-up concessions worked - and Adelaide signed up to the deal which allowed them to do exactly what they did. All of these clubs received a compensation pick from the AFL, for the players that they lost.

And all the clubs signed up to the PSD, it's not a mystery - they knew uncontracted players can move thru this mechanic, exactly the same as GC and GWS took uncontracted players from other clubs. Uncontracted players move from club to club, via concessions, free agency, the PSD. All of them are the same thing. You can't seperate them by placing some sort of ethical supporter ranking over them. They are concessions, either gifted or ranked.

Remember that trades are not done in isolation. Clubs need to maintain working relations, because they will need to trade with each other again next year or the year after that. Clubs rarely opt for the PSD "nuclear option", because they know that sooner or later the boot will be on the other foot - and they don't want to be the ones being kicked in the goolies.

Yes, we have the threat of using the PSD (and it's a "threat", not a "bluff"). This will result in Adelaide paying a lower price than we would in a truly open & fair market. It doesn't mean that we'll be making out like bandits, and it certainly doesn't mean that the PSD will be our 1st, 2nd or even 3rd option - it is always the last case option.

GWS have always been fair & reasonable to deal with, unlike Essendon & Carlton. It is highly unlikely, less than 1% chance, that this ends up going all the way to the PSD.

Well, now you are wrong. They took a number of uncontracted players from other clubs (through mechanics that everyone knew existed), multiple times over the last 10 years (including players like Scully and Davis at the same stage of their careers as Hately), and by your ''play nice or get kicked' logic we and everyone else should be kicking them in the goolies at every opportunity. Let's be clear; the PSD is no different to any other mechanic, FA, concessions, whatever - it's been given to us as the lowest ranking team in the league. It is a ranked concession. It may be the first time we have ever had the opportunity to top up our list this way, but it's a legitimate concession. Suggesting we ignore it out of kindness is like suggesting we don't bid on JUH at Pick #1 so we don't annoy the Bulldogs, or Jones at #8 so Port don't have to slide backwards in draft order to get him. Everyone is in favour of screwing those clubs in that way - even though we get absolutely nothing for it, so how is this different? How is that the right thing to do with such little return, and this, with it's huge return, is somehow wrong and must be avoided at all costs for fear of how it will make people feel?

Carlton are unreasonable but we still deal with Carlton every year, even after all the Gibbs trade animosity. People also forget that last year Hawthorn took Michael Hartley from Essendon at #2 in the PSD by offering him a better deal. Nothing else, just a better deal and he left to join them in the PSD. At #2. Behind Martin.

People are doing nothing other than applying their own set of values to a process that they are irrelevant to. I'm sure we will try and trade away some picks we have no intention of using this year into next year, the same way Carlton offered peanuts in the form of future picks for Martin last year, knowing they had the whip hand. Hately has not nominated us by sheer coincidence - he knows that he will be here next year because the PSD is a route he will take if GWS won't let him go easy. He's not sitting there hoping we can work out a trade - he's booking a moving truck and packing his things and saying goodbye to his mates in Sydney.

 

[Chase13]

I was referring to the very circular argument from the poster who believed we should keep it in our pocket for another player, which is redundant and self-defeating as by their own logic it would never be used.


What you're not including above is that free agency arrived at the end of the 2012 season and the bulk of un-contracted movements from then onwards used that mechanic rather than the PSD. In those years you mentioned, the bulk of uncontracted player moving did not require the PSD as they were able to move via FA, and their clubs received compensation picks. Combined with academy players and father/son picks most clubs had completed their senior lists by the end of the National Draft. Rookie list and Cat B elgibility also expanded so players who would previously have been acquired thru the PSD were able to join clubs on those lists.

The list of players who went to new clubs via FA in the years you mentioned with no PSD picks included; Suckling, Selwood, Vickery, Wells, Mayne, Conca, Dalhaus and Tom Lynch - all of whom would have walked into the pre-season draft to their new clubs if there was no FA. Was it a dishonorable act by their new clubs to sign them? No, it was the system and they played by the rules. If FA hadn't been an option, many of them would have gone thru the PSD - as they did before FA, including Tippet in 2011.



And all the clubs signed up to the PSD, it's not a mystery - they knew uncontracted players can move thru this mechanic, exactly the same as GC and GWS took uncontracted players from other clubs. Uncontracted players move from club to club, via concessions, free agency, the PSD. All of them are the same thing. You can't seperate them by placing some sort of ethical supporter ranking over them. They are concessions, either gifted or ranked.



Well, now you are wrong. They took a number of uncontracted players from other clubs (through mechanics that everyone knew existed), multiple times over the last 10 years (including players like Scully and Davis at the same stage of their careers as Hately), and by your ''play nice or get kicked' logic we and everyone else should be kicking them in the goolies at every opportunity. Let's be clear; the PSD is no different to any other mechanic, FA, concessions, whatever - it's been given to us as the lowest ranking team in the league. It is a ranked concession. It may be the first time we have ever had the opportunity to top up our list this way, but it's a legitimate concession. Suggesting we ignore it out of kindness is like suggesting we don't bid on JUH at Pick #1 so we don't annoy the Bulldogs, or Jones at #8 so Port don't have to slide backwards in draft order to get him. Everyone is in favour of screwing those clubs in that way - even though we get absolutely nothing for it, so how is this different? How is that the right thing to do with such little return, and this, with it's huge return, is somehow wrong and must be avoided at all costs for fear of how it will make people feel?

Carlton are unreasonable but we still deal with Carlton every year, even after all the Gibbs trade animosity. People also forget that last year Hawthorn took Michael Hartley from Essendon at #2 in the PSD by offering him a better deal. Nothing else, just a better deal and he left to join them in the PSD. At #2. Behind Martin.

People are doing nothing other than applying their own set of values to a process that they are irrelevant to. I'm sure we will try and trade away some picks we have no intention of using this year into next year, the same way Carlton offered peanuts in the form of future picks for Martin last year, knowing they had the whip hand. Hately has not nominated us by sheer coincidence - he knows that he will be here next year because the PSD is a route he will take if GWS won't let him go easy. He's not sitting there hoping we can work out a trade - he's booking a moving truck and packing his things and saying goodbye to his mates in Sydney.

One vic media writer said Adelaide need cough up 17 to 23 to get hately. Reallly. When we can get him for nothing if push comes to shove. Mid to late 3 draft rounder or psd that simple. But again vic bias coming through clear as day

and vic media just automatically saying saud and joe will get them first rounders compos and early ones, yet they barely think brad worth an end of first. This vic bias in media is disgusting.

 

[Sanders]

I don't think anyone is suggesting we use Pick 1 in the Main Draft to trade for Hately, but have you thought about what happens if they call our bluff on the PSD? Is Hateley worth using #1 in the PSD (probably yes as we may or may not use it anyway)?
Is using this method worth the bad blood and reputation issues that it will generate with GWS, the broader AFL community and the AFL Media (which hates us already)? I would suggest not, and Adelaide should trade in good faith (somewhere around the Bulldogs Pick should do it).

Carlton used it last year
WB used the threat against us last year
GC made derisory offers for Greenwood with psd #1 looming

it’s used all the time for leverage, it rarely fails - ergo it doesn’t need to be actually used in practice so good is the threat

anyone who thinks it’s bad form needs to grow up and enter the real world

 

[Sanders]

I'll let Dodo and Essendon know your thoughts?

You do realise the dodoro stuff is all a myth and complete BS?

 

[Sanders]

Do you think we should give steer clear of Hately?

If not, how should we obtain him?

why should we, those who hold all the whip hand, steer clear?

I’ve already said a fair offer: swap of 3rd picks

fair is based on leverage too

 

[Sanders]

So Hately hasn’t been able to jump straight into centre square action in front of Kelly Taranto Coniglio and Hopper, Ward when he is there and De Boer when they are tagging. He sits behind Green (top 5 pick many touted as potential first ) and Caldwell also taken slightly higher.

Even with his limited time in the centre he averages near twice the disposals as Jones who has been given an extended run

Not sure anyone is saying we just recruited the saviour of our midfield but with our current squad there is a distinct possibility he will be our best midfielder in 2-3 year time ( not considering who we may draft over that time)


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

still not answering my point: why is his failure to earn burn a positive in his favour?

you’re arguing it’s not a negative

besides if they had so little opportunity why did they draft him?

2018 Caldwell & Hately
2019 Green

3 picks inside 15 on inside midfielders in last 2 years. Maybe they’re not so stacked as you assume

 

[Sanders]

The talk of looking after relationships when trading with clubs and how good our relationship with GWS is BS.
They took Davis
We bid on Himmelberg and Perryman
We swapped pick 24 for 30 and a 2nd. The talk was we were into Briggs
We swapped 4 for 6 and a 1st. Do you think that's what GWS 1st offered or do you think we went hard core and threatened to bid on Greene?

No way are they offering anything before 44 when you just gone through the turmoil the club has and collect its 1st spoon. New people will want to make a name for themselves.

Currently we have 10 players under 24 that went before pick 30 ( not counting the spud ones)
Add Hately, Pick 1, 8, 20, 29 plus compo picks. Get either Parfit or Sparrow.
That's potentially 18 players in 6 years inside the top 30 and one year was a right off.

Accumulating top 30 draft talent is something Reid has done well and we ain't giving one away when we don't have to.

Our bid on Himmelberg was widely expected, and expected to succeed given it was going about 20 spots earlier than people though he was worth

no way GWS saw that as a friendly move

 

[Sanders]

Possibly because you don’t have a point at all !

Working on your theory Jack Steele should still be trying to break into GWS midfield rather than tearing it up leading the St Kilda midfield and looking like an All Australian. Identifying players being held back by lack of opportunity especially at clubs that have been given huge concessions is part of a recruiters job.

View attachment 980083

words are hard aren’t they?

 

[Sanders]

Wow! Much negotiating experience?

Yes.

a **** tonne.

and I think you play the hand you have, not school boy crap about pretending to be running a back yard lemonade stand

 

[Doc_]

Pick in the 40's or 50's for Hately. If they dont like it just go PSd. I dont get this be fair shit. 40's or 50's gets them a speculative pick or points. Better than nothing.

 

[DJ75]

One vic media writer said Adelaide need cough up 17 to 23 to get hately. Reallly. When we can get him for nothing if push comes to shove. Mid to late 3 draft rounder or psd that simple. But again vic bias coming through clear as day

and vic media just automatically saying saud and joe will get them first rounders compos and early ones, yet they barely think brad worth an end of first. This vic bias in media is disgusting.

On Footy Classified the other night they discussed the Ben Long hit and suspension and compared to the Trent Cotchin one.
They said that the AFL would admit they messed up the Cotchin one and he should have been suspended.

Caro also said that 'everyone' was behind the Tigers that year, including the AFL, and that if it happened this year, Richmond wouldn't get looked after.

They openly admitted that the AFL looked after Richmond and tried to help them win. Not one of the panel batted an eye lid for even for a second considered the Crows or the fact that the Crows were showing incredible resilience after their coach had been murdered.

If you want to fully understand just how entrenched and entitled the Victorian bias is, watch that segment.

 

[rocket18]

On Footy Classified the other night they discussed the Ben Long hit and suspension and compared to the Trent Cotchin one.
They said that the AFL would admit they messed up the Cotchin one and he should have been suspended.

Caro also said that 'everyone' was behind the Tigers that year, including the AFL, and that if it happened this year, Richmond wouldn't get looked after.

They openly admitted that the AFL looked after Richmond and tried to help them win. Not one of the panel batted an eye lid for even for a second considered the Crows or the fact that the Crows were showing incredible resilience after their coach had been murdered.

If you want to fully understand just how entrenched and entitled the Victorian bias is, watch that segment.

Certainly one of the reasons I've taken a step back from the Crows/AFL.

After 30 years the Vic bias hasn't gotten any better, I thought over the years the competition would evolve to become a truly national one.

Unfortunately it hasn't, the AFL have the new franchises in their pocket (GC, GWS, Powah), and all decisions are dependent on the best outcome for Victoria clubs and/or the Victorian government.

 

[1990crow]

On Footy Classified the other night they discussed the Ben Long hit and suspension and compared to the Trent Cotchin one.
They said that the AFL would admit they messed up the Cotchin one and he should have been suspended.

Caro also said that 'everyone' was behind the Tigers that year, including the AFL, and that if it happened this year, Richmond wouldn't get looked after.

They openly admitted that the AFL looked after Richmond and tried to help them win. Not one of the panel batted an eye lid for even for a second considered the Crows or the fact that the Crows were showing incredible resilience after their coach had been murdered.

If you want to fully understand just how entrenched and entitled the Victorian bias is, watch that segment.

Clip? Needs to be raised on main board.

 

[TubbsFarquhar]

Clip? Needs to be raised on main board.

Pointless, they won't care. Replies will consist of:

- Image of power stance
- Be grateful you joined our league (while ignoring the fact that the VFL was a financial basket case that needed to expand to stay afloat)
- Richmond supporter jizzfest
- Etc. etc. etc.

 

[DJ75]

Pointless, they won't care. Replies will consist of:

- Image of power stance
- Be grateful you joined our league (while ignoring the fact that the VFL was a financial basket case that needed to expand to stay afloat)
- Richmond supporter jizzfest
- Etc. etc. etc.

Sour grapes
Salty gif
etc...
As I said, the level of entitlement is amazing.

 

[pjcrows]

Pointless, they won't care. Replies will consist of:

- Image of power stance
- Be grateful you joined our league (while ignoring the fact that the VFL was a financial basket case that needed to expand to stay afloat)
- Richmond supporter jizzfest
- Etc. etc. etc.

If you lose a GF that you're favourites in, you cop it for years until you win one. Just a part of it.

 

[DJ75]

Clip? Needs to be raised on main board.

Go on 9now, watch the latest episode at 26.00 minute mark. If that doesn't make your blood boil....

 

[Mr_Moogle]

Clip? Needs to be raised on main board.

The main board is a hive of scum and villainy. What those campaigners think doesn't matter in the slightest so why bother putting your argument to them?

 

[GreyCrow]

On Footy Classified the other night they discussed the Ben Long hit and suspension and compared to the Trent Cotchin one.
They said that the AFL would admit they messed up the Cotchin one and he should have been suspended.

Caro also said that 'everyone' was behind the Tigers that year, including the AFL, and that if it happened this year, Richmond wouldn't get looked after.

They openly admitted that the AFL looked after Richmond and tried to help them win. Not one of the panel batted an eye lid for even for a second considered the Crows or the fact that the Crows were showing incredible resilience after their coach had been murdered.

If you want to fully understand just how entrenched and entitled the Victorian bias is, watch that segment.

Am currently listening to a podcast about Tim Donaghey an NBA ref convicted of betting on NBA games

The podcast , along with TD , strongly imply the NBA set up large market teams to succeed and ''officiated'' smaller teams out of finals

Since listening I see the same ''good feels story'' occurring in the AFL - and only incompetence or great kicking ie Sheed stopped the Collingwood fairytale