Past #17: Lachie Young - NM trade #63 for LY in '20 trade period - delisted end '23 - 39 NM games / 1 NM goal - thanks Lachie

Remove this Banner Ad

We were always going to be rummaging through the bins for at least a couple of list spots.


After snagging Perez, Mahony & Comben in the 30's last year, I am happy to trust the current footy depts speculative drafting.
 
All rookies from another club?

I'd take it that AFL rookies have more exposed form than under 18 players.

A rookie just won the premiership club's best and fairest.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Hopefully not Alex Morgan 2.0
 
This
The pieces are coming together nicely. Love what Brady’s doing so far.
If Young can hold down a half back spot it releases McDonald into the midfield where he can become tagger or attacking mid.
We all saw what he was able to do this year in a tagging role. Have always felt that McDonald is being wasted in the backline, time to put him in the guts.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

On SM-G965F using BigFooty.com mobile app
 
So basically they got wind of the pending offer from us and offered him a spot on the senior list to force us to trade. AFL response will be interesting
l hope he had his phone on record during their conversation...
 
So according to Twomey, Lachie Young will definitely be a roo. It's whether we have to trade for him.

He mentioned that the Dogs initially offered a 3rd year rookie list spot but then changed to a senior list spot. The grey area is whether the first offer is taken into account or the final offer.

First 5 minutes

 
Last edited:
After snagging Perez, Mahony & Comben in the 30's last year, I am happy to trust the current footy depts speculative drafting.

Still want to extract maximum value out of trades.

Scoring Perez et al only to settle for peanuts for Brown is like getting a good price for your car so thinking **** it I'll hock off my house for unders.
 
Savvy recruiting or hail mary desperate attempt?

Remember the names Will Sierakowski and Alex Morgan. Also savvy recruits from rookie lists which turned out to be, well, just like the rest of our recruiting recently.

Hope this one pans out differently.
I remember also Michael Firrito who I think was a rookie at Hawthorn before we recruited him
 
Lachie Young: ‘The Stock and 2 Smoking Barrels’
 
I remember also Michael Firrito who I think was a rookie at Hawthorn before we recruited him
Picked up via Box Hill
 
Lachie Young: ‘The Stock and 2 Smoking Barrels’
Lachie Young = The up your daughters, lock up your wives
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Still want to extract maximum value out of trades.

Scoring Perez et al only to settle for peanuts for Brown is like getting a good price for your car so thinking **** it I'll hock off my house for unders.


Well, that goes without saying mate, but this thread isn't really about that.
 
So according to Twomey, Lachie Young will definitely be a roo. It's whether they have to trade for him.

He mentioned that the Dogs initially offered a 3rd year rookie list spot but then changed to a senior list spot. The grey area is whether the first offer is taken into account or the final offer.

First 5 minutes



I knew that reading those High Court cases would come in handy one day.

Okay, where's the rule book? Is "offer" singular or plural?
 
The thread isn't but the flow of posts was related to getting #23 for Brown and how we did ok (judging at this stage) with picks in that range last year.

I see. No comment.
 
I can't really remember but Morgs seemed a bit hard done by to me now you mention him.

In his first (of two) senior games he got 18 disposals, nine marks, two tackles and five 1%ers, mostly spoils. His second game wasn't that great but that was the only shot he got.

Hope this kid gets a better run.
Pretty sure he got injured in his second game
 
1603769965801.png

"an offer" is singular.

"an offer.......but does not accept that offer", further reinforces singularity, which has been declined.

My reading of this is that the dogs have very weak grounds to apply for a trade pick, if this can be ratified.
 
So technically even if the Dogs changed their offer to being elevated to the main list clause (h) should apply and he is a free agent as he was offered a third year Rookie Player contract...

Yeh you'd think if there's evidence of the rookie offer he and his agent can argue that they took that as the trigger for his free agency status.

The fact the dogs came back with a senior spot to patch up their loophole ****up should be irrelevant.

As someone said though, this smacks of a pyrrhic victory. We'll whack off about getting one over them as he goes on to play 2 games and gets delisted.
 
View attachment 996477

"an offer" is singular.

"an offer.......but does not accept that offer", further reinforces singularity.

My reading of this is that the dogs have very weak grounds to apply for a trade pick, if this can be ratified.

Of course as others have mentioned, as an act of good will if this opens talks for their pick 12 then I think it's only proper of our club to do the noble thing.
 
Of course as others have mentioned, as an act of good will if this opens talks for their pick 12 then I think it's only proper of our club to do the noble thing.

Of course, and I am applying HCA interpretation of statute law, but if legally pushed to the nth degree then this is how I reckon the matter would be ruled.
 
Hm
As a bush lawyer only, I read it clearly that FA is triggered immediately upon the rejection of any offer of a 3rd year rookie contract. There are no sub-clauses about extraneous circumstances, e.g. subsequent offers, clouding this point.

Of course you may still choose to play nice with the Dogs in the context of any other deals that are being cooked up behind the scenes, but it seems black and white to me.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top