-
Mobile App Discontinued
Due to a number of factors, support for the current BigFooty mobile app has been discontinued. Your BigFooty login will no longer work on the Tapatalk or the BigFooty App - which is based on Tapatalk.
Apologies for any inconvenience. We will try to find a replacement.
Strategy Trade and List Management Thread Part 8 (opposition supporters - READ posting rules before posting)
- Thread starter _Mike_
- Start date
- Tagged users None
🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.
- Aug 15, 2014
- 12,681
- 27,197
- AFL Club
- Western Bulldogs
- Other Teams
- Chicago Bulls
The problem is Wilkie is that he seems like the sort of guy that would walk back into the Saints if there was no deal and play excellent football with no complaints.
The Saints are only going to be motivated to move him if they receive significant overs in any deal. Pick 10 and change will not get it done from their perspective.
The Saints are only going to be motivated to move him if they receive significant overs in any deal. Pick 10 and change will not get it done from their perspective.
The inference I took by repeating that he’s contracted was “that comes with a price”
- Sep 4, 2014
- 3,698
- 5,549
- AFL Club
- Western Bulldogs
This was always going to be the biggest hurdle. I think a player needs to be involved.
I'd be happy to part with Sanders and bring in Robertson as his replacement. That's dependent on Sanders wanting to leave and Saints wanting him though.
Log in to remove this Banner Ad
- Jun 1, 2013
- 2,213
- 3,615
- AFL Club
- Western Bulldogs
Wilkie could be the difference between winning a flag next year
- Apr 26, 2013
- 2,504
- 4,167
- AFL Club
- Western Bulldogs
Just makes his situation even more depressing for him.
I reckon he got home last night and his wife got on the phone to Sammy.
lachy
Norm Smith Medallist
If any players are involved it is highly unlikely to be directly with the Saints, unlikely to be one of our players unless we can get a top 10 pick for JUH by paying his entire salary and still handing over a second ,and it wont be Sanders
lachy
Norm Smith Medallist
Disagree. Our midfield needs improvement in big games and our pressure and tackling need to improve. One player alone will not cut it
- Sep 4, 2014
- 3,698
- 5,549
- AFL Club
- Western Bulldogs
Getting rid of JUH for a top 10 pick is even less likely. Gold Coast could get him for a bag of chips and we would be happy with that
- Aug 1, 2005
- 5,402
- 7,384
- AFL Club
- Western Bulldogs
- Other Teams
- Footscray
Can someone explain to me why the St Kilda President is banging on about them being a “relevant club again”? You become relevant when you win games of football consistently, not when you attract a couple of players with large financial offers.
I wonder if Wilkie and JUH are linked in a way. If Wilkie says we’d be more likely to trade Marra for nothing and get all his $ off the books. If we can’t get Wilkie I hope we pay a fair portion of Marra’s money to get a better pick back.
dogwatch
Premium Platinum
They (and we) should steer right away from the term "relevant club".
It - or its opposite, irrelevant - was a term first concocted as a put-down. Probably by a headline seeking germo. As far as I'm concerned every one of the 18 clubs is relevant so it's a meaningless concept. But maybe I'm alone in thinking that.
Those clubs that are relevant don't need to use the term. Do you ever hear Collingwood talking about being relevant? Or even West Coast, one of the wealthiest clubs in the league despite being wooden spooners? Thankfully our club doesn't use the term, as far as I'm aware.
The clubs that don't see themselves as "relevant" are the ones that tend to talk about "becoming relevant".
It's an inferiority cringe. An admission of feeling insecure.
I reckon the Wilkie situation is pretty simple. St Kilda amend his contract to a point where he’s comfortable and feels valued, or they don’t and he takes up our offer. So he’s still waiting to see if the former comes to fruition. It’s also important for St Kilda to keep in mind that if we trade him in, we’re not trading in a player we’ll get 10 years out of. Yes he’s a gun, but the decline can come quickly, so their trade ask should reflect that too.
This seems the most likely way it would get done and best part for us is it is quite realistic given Flanders wanting to take the $$$ at the Saints and GC needing points.
Would our pick 10 work for GC? Or would it be too high and needing us to split it with a 4th club.
🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.
Really good take on it. Supposed ‘relevance’ is measured only by the fickle opinion makers in the football media
lachy
Norm Smith Medallist
No we wouldn't. They need to look after their salary cap and need points for academy players. If we have to pay him anyway why on earth would we give him to one of our rivals for a bag a chips, works for both teams. Any alternative is no good for either in the short or long term
It’s one of my least favourite terms in footy.
We were irrelevant in the McCartney era when we consistently won fewer than half our games.
We became very relevant when we won a flag.
Brisbane were irrelevant most of the Voss/Leppitsch years. Obviously very relevant now.
It’s just a term to describe clubs that aren’t that competitive and there are always 5-6 of them, and they mostly rotate.
- Sep 4, 2014
- 3,698
- 5,549
- AFL Club
- Western Bulldogs
I completely disagree. Getting Jamarra's salary off our books is what's valuable to us. If we can't find a club for him, he's getting delisted and we have to pay him out which isn't great at all rival or no rival.
It's 1 year and we have plenty of space
Our best bet is that they end up with a plethora of decent picks and are happy to hand one over given the academy situation (with something more than JUH going back, perhaps a future pick) or he can be used as a chip to get us one of the mature players we are after cheaply.
