Oppo Camp Dangerfield's Gone (Zero tolerance to trolling) - READ THREAD LINKED IN OP BEFORE POSTING

[Alex99]

The problem will be finding the player that both clubs are satisfied with and wants to move. Not quite as simple as just plucking names out.

Thats why we tell them now and give them a week to find a suitable player.

If Geelong don't have to find a player to trade, why would they even try?

We have to be complete bastards in this and not say yes until we are totally satisfied.

Pick 9, pick 30 and GHS isn't even close.

 

[Strangled Cat]

Yeah probably enough arguing about terminology, deal?

You're not as much of a wood duck as I first thought.

 

[baldandbroke]

I understand why the cats are like this. They had a free agent who was restricted once, called Gary Ablett Junior, they quite liked him and he marched without much to and/or fro, so they think that's how all RFA's work. The complicating factor in this one is that it's somebody leaving for probably less money (rather than more) so the home club is definitely going to be able to match the offer, which throws a spanner in the FA works.

GAJ was never a free agent - restricted or otherwise. He moved to the Gold Coast before Free Agency was introduced at the end of the 2012 season.

 

[Golumless]

You think that pick 9 this year and our first next year - for argument's sake let's say pick 13 - is fair compensation?

Not at all for a player of Dangers ilk, but as close as we could get to.

If that makes sense.

 

[SpeciousArgument]

Not at all for a player of Dangers ilk, but as close as we could get to.

If that makes sense.

Always have to apply the 'out of contract and nominated 1 club' discount

 

[Bicks]

I agree. He's not a spud just like an average car with no observable, redeemable qualities isn't lemon. It's just that there's nothing at all special about him that nakes him stand out.

OK, if we are talking steak knives as part of this deal I'd be reasonably comfortable if it was Billy Smedts, far more "potential" and a better list fit for the AFC though his inconsistency and at times injury problems are a bit of a worry, What's his "status" at the GFC and what sort of character is he?

 

[Tantidar]

OK, if we are talking steak knives as part of this deal I'd be reasonably comfortable if it was Billy Smedts, far more "potential" and a better list fit for the AFC though his inconsistency and at times injury problems are a bit of a worry, What's his "status" at the GFC and what sort of character is he?

Signed a 2 year deal about a month ago

 

[MRB37]

OK, if we are talking steak knives as part of this deal I'd be reasonably comfortable if it was Billy Smedts, far more "potential" and a better list fit for the AFC though his inconsistency and at times injury problems are a bit of a worry, What's his "status" at the GFC and what sort of character is he?

They re-signed him for 2 more years recently.

 

[Allefgib]

Please move on from semantics folks.

 

[Alex99]

What would pick 28, Josh Walker & CEY get?

Any chance the Western bulldogs would consider Pick 11?

 

[Strangled Cat]

OK, if we are talking steak knives as part of this deal I'd be reasonably comfortable if it was Billy Smedts, far more "potential" and a better list fit for the AFC though his inconsistency and at times injury problems are a bit of a worry, What's his "status" at the GFC and what sort of character is he?

I believe that your comrades have answered for the most part, but my view is that Billie was a kid who killed it in U/18 for the Falcons and Geelong Grammar in school footy, but struggles with the step-up in intensity required to succeed at AFL level. He needs to work on the basics before he can play like a millionaire, but that's exactly what he's lacking at the moment.

As for his character, he was done taking a selfie with a selfie stick driving over the Christmas period in 2013/2014, but he swears his car was stationery at the time.the picture was taken. I'm pretty certain that it wasn't, but I guess having the TAC as one of your club's sponsors, you'll try anything. Whether that says anything about his character other than being a stupid early-twentys male I guess is up to an individual's interpretation.

 

[Sanders]

slower than Atkins?

I'd say so yes. Certainly a lot slower of mind.

 

[ltdamn]

Please move on from semantics folks.

Semantics? Don't you know that the Dangerfield trade will ultimately only be sealed by the two clubs as a result of the talks in this thread? We all await, watching with bated breath.

Semantics indeed. Good day to you sir!

 

[Sanders]

The problem will be finding the player that both clubs are satisfied with and wants to move. Not quite as simple as just plucking names out.

Players can be made to want to move.

 

[Sanders]

It is amazing how many people don't see the benefit it can have for players even if they don't move clubs, or even have no intention of moving clubs.

There are 2 primary restrictions on a player in the AFL

1. He doesn't get paid what he's worth in the market
2. He doesn't get to choose where he plays

RFA addresses #1 and then UFA tackles #2

That's the design.

 

[Bicks]

Players can be made to want to move.

Not good contracted players unless they are up for it I wouldn't think, persuaded maybe, made no.

 

[Sanders]

Yep, highlighted by the fact that we are not bound to our matching offer, in the unlikely event he decided to stay. We would be free to negotiate with him as we would with any other listed, uncontracted player.

We are bound to our matching offer if he chooses to enforce

So say Geelong lodges 5m over 6 years. And we match

Danger has the option to accept that matched contract and it applies whether we like it or not. He also has the option to say alright bitches, here we are, I want 7m over 6 or I'm outta here

We don't get the right to choose when we match

 

[The Sloane Ranger]

Players can be made to want to move.

Agree, just ask Vince

 

[SpeciousArgument]

We are bound to our matching offer if he chooses to enforce

So say Geelong lodges 5m over 6 years. And we match

Danger has the option to accept that matched contract and it applies whether we like it or not. He also has the option to say alright bitches, here we are, I want 7m over 6 or I'm outta here

We don't get the right to choose when we match

I dont think feenix meant we are not bound at all, but that should both parties choose to we can renogotiate.

 

[Sanders]

Not good contracted players unless they are up for it I wouldn't think, persuaded maybe, made no.

Trent croad left in tears. contracted players can always be shown the hard reality of their choices

 

[Sanders]

I dont think feenix meant we are not bound at all, but that should both parties choose to we can renogotiate.

The only party who can choose to renegotiate is PD.

 

[SpeciousArgument]

The only party who can choose to renegotiate is PD.

Not if we dont want to. We cant renogotiate if danger doesnt want to and he cant if we dont want to. If he nominates a contract length of 6 years and we accept he can then take it or leave it, he cant then say he wants a 1 year contract without us agreeing. The contract doesnt become active just because we say we'll match.

But we're getting into semantics again.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

so why hasn't Geelong put their offer on the table yet?

Pointless given we will match

 

[feenix67]

The only party who can choose to renegotiate is PD.

It's technical, but I'm pretty sure that matching is merely a mechanism, which makes him listed but uncontracted, at which point one of the options is to sign back on under any terms agreed upon.

The only stipulation when matching is that it fits our TPP

 

[Alex99]

Players can be made to want to move.

It's amazing how quick a player can change his mind once they have been told they will play 22 weeks in the reserves.