Remove this Banner Ad

Broughton

  • Thread starter Thread starter Redgum
  • Start date Start date
  • Tagged users Tagged users None

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

I find it hard to believe that st kilda would not have given more for broughton than pick 37, if they had been informed early on in the trade period of our intentions to move him on. Especially given that they sold the farm for hickey and offered the world for hack brown from west coast..... They were in a position to be exploited and we dropped the ball on that one. :rolleyes: in bond we trust
 
Correct me if I am wrong, but Broughton himself said that he was aware that he may be on the table BEFORE the trade period.

It would be kinda strange if we only informed the player and not the potential bidding clubs.

But hey, let's not get in the way of a good conspiracy theory.
 
Proud Bogan said:
Correct me if I am wrong, but Broughton himself said that he was aware that he may be on the table BEFORE the trade period.

It would be kinda strange if we only informed the player and not the potential bidding clubs.

But hey, let's not get in the way of a good conspiracy theory.
Click to expand...

Thats what I thought as well.
 
Proud Bogan said:
But hey, let's not get in the way of a good conspiracy theory.
Click to expand...

Who's saying it was conspiracy? The Broughton trade was one piece of an overall substandard trade period, but obviously they wouldn't conspire to this, they just stuffed up.
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

caterina said:
Who's saying it was conspiracy? The Broughton trade was one piece of an overall substandard trade period, but obviously they wouldn't conspire to this, they just stuffed up.
Click to expand...

You assumed that Bond didn't shop Broughton around enough, ie: didn't test the market properly. But Broughton himself said that he knew that he may be traded prior to him going on holidays.

So it stands up to pretty fair scrutiny that clubs would have been well aware that he was available. Should we have shipped him to Melbourne in a glittering purple suit to do handstands at Etihad??

What else did we screw up??

Roberton is a vanilla player that is a dime a dozen in most squads.

We obviously didn't rate any KPP's and we snagged a decent player in D. Pearce.

What more do you want?
 
Proud Bogan said:
You assumed that Bond didn't shop Broughton around enough, ie: didn't test the market properly. But Broughton himself said that he knew that he may be traded prior to him going on holidays.

So it stands up to pretty fair scrutiny that clubs would have been well aware that he was available. Should we have shipped him to Melbourne in a glittering purple suit to do handstands at Etihad??

What else did we screw up??

Roberton is a vanilla player that is a dime a dozen in most squads.

We obviously didn't rate any KPP's and we snagged a decent player in D. Pearce.

What more do you want?
Click to expand...

I could spend a lot of time dissecting it, but in the end the bottom line is you are apparently of the view that his trading of Pearce in/Broughton out has improved the list enough to get us the flag, I'm not. I see it as a wasted opportunity when we are close enough to have a real crack.
Let's revisit it in September next year, I hope I am wrong and promise I will genuflect appropriately.
In the meantime, with my post I was merely trying to suggest that not everyone that disagrees with you that this was a successful trade period is a conspiracy theorist.
 
caterina said:
I could spend a lot of time dissecting it, but in the end the bottom line is you are apparently of the view that his trading of Pearce in/Broughton out has improved the list enough to get us the flag, I'm not. I see it as a wasted opportunity when we are close enough to have a real crack.
Let's revisit it in September next year, I hope I am wrong and promise I will genuflect appropriately.
In the meantime, with my post I was merely trying to suggest that not everyone that disagrees with you that this was a successful trade period is a conspiracy theorist.
Click to expand...

Hardly. And I would love to see you quote me as saying even close to it. tbh I was against the Pearce pick-up, but can now see the sense in it if it frees up Hill and gives us some added pace and spread.

It appears that we had a genuine crack at Cloke and Goddard, but were unsuccessful. We would have liked to get Hogan, but were not in a position to realistically bargain for him and it seems that we didn't rate anyone else high enough to comprimise our draft position to get them.

That appears to be sound management imo. If you don't rate whats available in the paddock you wait and see what else is coming up.

My point in regards to a conspiracy theory was tongue in cheek, but the fact remains that Broughton was on the table from the beginning.
 
Proud Bogan said:
, but the fact remains that Broughton was on the table from the beginning.
Click to expand...

I doubt it is fact that he was on the table from the beginning, but we will never know if you are right or I am. It's all speculaion.
In the end, I'm happy to put myself on the side of the ledger that I call being dissatisfied and critical, you and others call having unreasonable expectations.
 
caterina said:
I doubt it is fact that he was on the table from the beginning, but we will never know if you are right or I am. It's all speculaion.
In the end, I'm happy to put myself on the side of the ledger that I call being dissatisfied and critical, you and others call having unreasonable expectations.
Click to expand...


Again, why did Broughton say that he knew that a trade was possible before he went on holiday??
 
Proud Bogan said:
Again, why did Broughton say that he knew that a trade was possible before he went on holiday??
Click to expand...

Telling a player in his end of year review that he might be traded is different from saying he was on the table. For all you know he might have told a dozen players they might be traded, doesn't mean they were all being hawked around just that they were not definite keepers and they could be moved on as part of a good deal for us
 
broughton said he knew he was being shopped around before he went to indo. it was the speed with which the trade happened that shocked him and everyone else.
 
caterina said:
Telling a player in his end of year review that he might be traded is different from saying he was on the table. For all you know he might have told a dozen players they might be traded, doesn't mean they were all being hawked around just that they were not definite keepers and they could be moved on as part of a good deal for us
Click to expand...
he was told he wasn't gonna be playing senior footy, and it was then he thought being traded was going to be the best option and agreed to be shopped around. this is what he said as well, i'm pretty sure.
 
caterina said:
Telling a player in his end of year review that he might be traded is different from saying he was on the table. For all you know he might have told a dozen players they might be traded, doesn't mean they were all being hawked around just that they were not definite keepers and they could be moved on as part of a good deal for us
Click to expand...


Wut????
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Kickett Punches Read said:
I find it hard to believe that st kilda would not have given more for broughton than pick 37, if they had been informed early on in the trade period of our intentions to move him on. Especially given that they sold the farm for hickey and offered the world for hack brown from west coast..... They were in a position to be exploited and we dropped the ball on that one. :rolleyes: in bond we trust
Click to expand...

Is this the same St Kilda that is known to be struggling with salary cap issues?...

In a vacuum on ability alone, Broughton was worth more than pick 37. In the real world, on a big contract, Broughton was not worth more than pick 37.
 
Proud Bogan said:
Wut????
Click to expand...
Do I need to spell it out for you? Broughton is a contracted player, at the end of year review they say you are not in our plans for best 22 but you have a contract, you have to agree to be traded and so if he says sorry boys I'm going nowhere that is end of story. They could have had that conversation with other contracted players e.g. Suban, Silvagni.
It;s a pretty basic aspect of negotiation that if you shop a guy around and make it clear you want to get rid of him you'll get offered less than if the buyer approaches you. They may have had Broughton on a list of contracted players that they could field offeres about, does not mean he was "on the table" publicly at the start of trade period.
 
BananaOnTheRun said:
broughton said he knew he was being shopped around before he went to indo. it was the speed with which the trade happened that shocked him and everyone else.
Click to expand...

It happened towards the end of the trade period.

Fremantle probably shopped him around from the start, received a few offers, tried to do a deal with the highest bidder (Port?) but couldn't get anything done, then went back to the next best suitor (GC?) and went from there. Given GC's offer, the club probably kept working on other clubs (without luck), eventually received an ultimatum from GC (we're going to use pick 37 elsewhere...) and Fremantle settled for the only offer that was left.
 
caterina said:
Do I need to spell it out for you? Broughton is a contracted player, at the end of year review they say you are not in our plans for best 22 but you have a contract, you have to agree to be traded and so if he says sorry boys I'm going nowhere that is end of story. They could have had that conversation with other contracted players e.g. Suban, Silvagni.
It;s a pretty basic aspect of negotiation that if you shop a guy around and make it clear you want to get rid of him you'll get offered less than if the buyer approaches you. They may have had Broughton on a list of contracted players that they could field offeres about, does not mean he was "on the table" publicly at the start of trade period.
Click to expand...

I was under the impression that we shopped him around and the interested clubs (Port and Saints ) didn't want to pay Broughtons contract as it was quite a bit. So we sent him to Gold Coast as that was the best outcome for both us and Greg. We got what we could for who we could at the price we could from who would deal with us.
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

prattsta said:
It happened towards the end of the trade period.

Fremantle probably shopped him around from the start, received a few offers, tried to do a deal with the highest bidder (Port?) but couldn't get anything done, then went back to the next best suitor (GC?) and went from there. Given GC's offer, the club probably kept working on other clubs (without luck), eventually received an ultimatum from GC (we're going to use pick 37 elsewhere...) and Fremantle settled for the only offer that was left.
Click to expand...
yeah, it was as good as we could get to acquire a live pick for this draft period. port baulked at his salary, and i reckon so would have the saints.
 
None of us know, but here is my speculative take on things.
I reckon all along Bond wanted to upgrade pick 60 to something usable, and started off trying to package it with Roberton to get something he wanted. And maybe other players too, there was the Silvagni rumour going around. And in the last week, when he had failed to do a deal with any of those, he hastily shopped Broghton around and got unders.
You guys are very forgiving if you think he did well with this.
 
caterina said:
None of us know, but here is my speculative take on things.
I reckon all along Bond wanted to upgrade pick 60 to something usable, and started off trying to package it with Roberton to get something he wanted. And maybe other players too, there was the Silvagni rumour going around. And in the last week, when he had failed to do a deal with any of those, he hastily shopped Broghton around and got unders.
You guys are very forgiving if you think he did well with this.
Click to expand...


Realistic is the term that you are searching for.
 
caterina said:
None of us know, but here is my speculative take on things.
I reckon all along Bond wanted to upgrade pick 60 to something usable, and started off trying to package it with Roberton to get something he wanted. And maybe other players too, there was the Silvagni rumour going around. And in the last week, when he had failed to do a deal with any of those, he hastily shopped Broghton around and got unders.
You guys are very forgiving if you think he did well with this.
Click to expand...
you're being very unforgiving with what you admit is your own speculation, and i don't see how any of the above is more realistic than what broughton and bond have said from their own mouths. we got a mid range 2nd round pick from a club also willing to pay out the remainder of his contract. broughton came off the rookie list. we've come out ahead, but compared to some of the trades that went overs and other that went unders, the broughton trade was unspectacular. will broughton look good at his new club? yes. are we going to miss him? no. so what is it that we're losing from this trade? a favourite son, but that's about it.
 
caterina said:
You guys are very forgiving if you think he did well with this.
Click to expand...

I'm not a Bond fan-boi. I don't see what the fuss is about. It was Broughton's contract - signed off by Bond? - that left us struggling to get a deal done in the first place.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top Bottom