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

Archie87

Club Legend
Joined
Feb 13, 2008
Posts
2,726
Likes
4,320
Location
Adelaide
AFL Club
Adelaide
The problem is that your definition of fair value and Geelong definition of fair value does not necessarily match fair value. For example, yesterday the Herald Sun run an article speaking to anonymous expert who said that in the new system Dangerfield's value is pick 9 and a 2016 2nd rounder. Now I think Geelong would jump at that but I'm not sure the Crows would. If the Crows accepted that your fans would burn the place down.

For example, if that's fair value, Adelaide would be a loser in accepting a first round compensation pick but hardly shafted. Teams generally lose when a player wants to leave too. I'm not saying that Adelaide should accept the pick but fair value has so many definitions its not funny.

Geelong aren't interested in overpaying to appease the Adelaide fan base and that is half the problem the difference between what Adelaide fans want and reality. Like 2 first and Cock is a complete joke. Two firsts is too much if you look at the expert's perception of value above. Geelong aren't trying to screw you over, its your perception of value doesn't align with reality especially when you have little bargaining power. I'd also say that by saying you will match no matter what is trying to shaft Geelong. Surely you can't say that until you know if a side deal can be done.

The outbursts by the Crows make me think they are frustrated as things aren't going as they wanted. Even the press conference today if about Dangerfield is unprofessional and silly. Clubs don't negotiate through the media.
I was debating the tough guy stance of the poster saying Geelong will trade away it's picks before they make an official offer. That is extremely unlikely to happen. I wasn't talking about the differing perception of fair value in my post. Anyway, we won't get "fair value", which would be top 3 pick at least. That just won't happen. We already know that.

However, Pick 9 this year and your first rounder next year (let's assume it's similar give or take 2-3 spots either side) is at least reasonable value (IMO, which like yours, doesn't count for much)... perhaps there will be a second rounder of ours going the other way but who knows.

You seriously put weight into an "anonymous expert:rolleyes:" in an article though? Lol. Don't believe everything you read. This could literally be anyone or completely made up as usual in the Herald Sun. If the Cats want quality, they'll have to give up something of some sort of value and pick 9 and a second rounder in 2016 is highly unlikely to cut it.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

xazos79

All Australian
Joined
Aug 18, 2008
Posts
832
Likes
1,101
Location
Adelaide
AFL Club
Adelaide
The problem is that your definition of fair value and Geelong definition of fair value does not necessarily match fair value. For example, yesterday the Herald Sun run an article speaking to anonymous expert who said that in the new system Dangerfield's value is pick 9 and a 2016 2nd rounder. Now I think Geelong would jump at that but I'm not sure the Crows would. If the Crows accepted that your fans would burn the place down.
Jeese, an anonymous expert. Better take this guys word as gospel. I mean who'd know better as to the worth of danger? This person, or the club that's known him for the better part of a decade? Anyone not a Geelong supporter would agree with pick 14 as being a "shaft".

For example, if that's fair value, Adelaide would be a loser in accepting a first round compensation pick but hardly shafted. Teams generally lose when a player wants to leave too. I'm not saying that Adelaide should accept the pick but fair value has so many definitions its not funny.
Exactly, fair value is subjective. Roles reversed there's every chance you'd view a 1st round compo pick as being "shafted".

Geelong aren't interested in overpaying to appease the Adelaide fan base and that is half the problem the difference between what Adelaide fans want and reality. Like 2 first and Cock is a complete joke. Two firsts is too much if you look at the expert's perception of value above. Geelong aren't trying to screw you over, its your perception of value doesn't align with reality especially when you have little bargaining power. I'd also say that by saying you will match no matter what is trying to shaft Geelong. Surely you can't say that until you know if a side deal can be done.
The simple fact of the matter is that a lot of clubs want Danger. We think the leading candidate is Geelong due to local ties, and what the media tells us. If geelong wanted to make sure they procured him, they would have offered more $$. That's the way it goes down when you want the services of a RFA. Both clubs aren't stupid, i reckon this modest $800k deal for 6 years has been trotted out to appease the media because the clubs are well on their way to working out a trade. If no trade was happening, you'd have seen Geelong's offer be much higher to deter Adelaide from matching. I'm also sick of hearing, "no club has ever matched before." Christ free agency is a few years old, it will happen eventually where a club matches due to no deal being able to be worked out in addition to a club not being happy with compo.

The outbursts by the Crows make me think they are frustrated as things aren't going as they wanted. Even the press conference today if about Dangerfield is unprofessional and silly. Clubs don't negotiate through the media.
What outbursts are you talking about? That's pretty naive thinking, clubs use the media all the time when its suits them. Has anyone told Frank Costa to shut up from your club with the silly statements he makes? Unlikely cos he's pushing a barrow that suits the club whether he's officially part of the club or not.
 

beartoo

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Jul 27, 2004
Posts
7,963
Likes
6,948
Location
Moana Heights Adelaide
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Adelaide
Dangerfield has to agree and only wanted to go to Geelong. Apparently, Adelaide took a risk that they could retain him and not reduce the value significantly if he didn't stay after the 2015 year.

I don't think Geelong will trade Cockatoo at all. I know you want him because he will be a stud but doesn't mean Geelong have to trade him. My firm belief is that you will get draft picks.
My firm belief is that if Geelong offers draft picks alone, they won't get Danger.
 

WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Oct 26, 2012
Posts
8,211
Likes
11,712
AFL Club
Adelaide
just a quick question regarding the RFA stuff, if we match a 5 yr 800K deal, and then we dont get a good trade and he doesnt want to go into the draft. does this mean we need to honour the 5 yr 800K or can the crows and PD renegotiate and drop it down to $850 for 2 yrs
If the Crows match Geelong's offer then Danger just becomes an uncontracted player. Matching does not bind the Crows or Dangerfield to the matched contract.

So Danger could then try and work a trade to Geelong or any other club, he could re-sign with Adelaide (for however long and at whatever price both parties agree to) or he could walk and nominate for the PSD.
 

Large 1

Club Legend
Joined
May 7, 2015
Posts
1,052
Likes
2,395
AFL Club
Adelaide
Roo just said it will all come out in due course. My $ on his missus is prego
How is being pregnant an extraordinary situation? Not having a go at you or anything (sorry if that is how the first part comes across), but I fail to see why PD or society would thinks being pregnant is extraordinary.

People have been doing it for millions of years, heck all our mothers were pregnant at one point. I myself have got two kids.

Its an amazing thing, a miraculous thing even, but extraordinary? Nah!

(Sorry that is probably less about football and more of a general rant about how some people seem to think THEIR lives are so out of the ordinary)
 
Joined
Mar 26, 2014
Posts
265
Likes
466
AFL Club
Adelaide
No idea who it was. Its the same organisation that is quoting Adelaide sources that they will match. Hence, if you don't believe them you probably shouldn't believe any of it.

I'm not saying the valuation is correct but Free Agency has changed valuations. There is great speculation that compensation is gone next year. Hence, if PD signs for two, he will walk out in two years and the Crows get nothing. Hence, I'm not sure how this effects value but it would have some effect as under the old system, you might as well hold onto them for two years as your compensation doesn't change. Does this reduce his value? As all of a sudden its 9 and a 2016 2nd for two years rental not two years and then you will get compo.
I think the difference is if we keep him for two years you could arguably say we will get two more of his better years, and yes he could leave for nothing as an unrestricted FA, but would be nearing the end of his career so probably not at his prime. That is my biggest problem with him leaving with us only having seen him for 7 years, is that he is just about to hit the prime age for midfielders. I don't mind free agency for players that have been around for say 10 years at a club and leave when they are 27/28ish, but Danger is 25.
 
Joined
Oct 12, 2006
Posts
1,754
Likes
1,051
Location
Far West SA
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
The Panthers, Double Blues
On the public record, Connors last weekend ruled Hawthorn out.

However, Dangerfield committed to Geelong 12 months ago. All the doubt is purely media spin.

Geez wish you could have told us all this info back 12 months ago it would have saved a lot of angst.
 
Joined
Oct 19, 2013
Posts
1,221
Likes
1,656
AFL Club
Adelaide
No idea who it was. Its the same organisation that is quoting Adelaide sources that they will match. Hence, if you don't believe them you probably shouldn't believe any of it.

I'm not saying the valuation is correct but Free Agency has changed valuations. There is great speculation that compensation is gone next year. Hence, if PD signs for two, he will walk out in two years and the Crows get nothing. Hence, I'm not sure how this effects value but it would have some effect as under the old system, you might as well hold onto them for two years as your compensation doesn't change. Does this reduce his value? As all of a sudden its 9 and a 2016 2nd for two years rental not two years and then you will get compo.
You. Make. No. Sense.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Joined
Mar 26, 2014
Posts
265
Likes
466
AFL Club
Adelaide
Jeese, an anonymous expert. Better take this guys word as gospel. I mean who'd know better as to the worth of danger? This person, or the club that's known him for the better part of a decade? Anyone not a Geelong supporter would agree with pick 14 as being a "shaft".


Exactly, fair value is subjective. Roles reversed there's every chance you'd view a 1st round compo pick as being "shafted".


The simple fact of the matter is that a lot of clubs want Danger. We think the leading candidate is Geelong due to local ties, and what the media tells us. If geelong wanted to make sure they procured him, they would have offered more $$. That's the way it goes down when you want the services of a RFA. Both clubs aren't stupid, i reckon this modest $800k deal for 6 years has been trotted out to appease the media because the clubs are well on their way to working out a trade. If no trade was happening, you'd have seen Geelong's offer be much higher to deter Adelaide from matching. I'm also sick of hearing, "no club has ever matched before." Christ free agency is a few years old, it will happen eventually where a club matches due to no deal being able to be worked out in addition to a club not being happy with compo.



What outbursts are you talking about? That's pretty naive thinking, clubs use the media all the time when its suits them. Has anyone told Frank Costa to shut up from your club with the silly statements he makes? Unlikely cos he's pushing a barrow that suits the club whether he's officially part of the club or not.
Exactly. People seem to lack the ability to differentiate between this situation and previous ones. For example, have Geelong offered Danger a $10m, 9 year deal, effectively pricing all other clubs out of the market? No. $800K over 5 or 6 is easily affordable by every single other club for a top 5 player in the league. They made a distinction between restricted free agents and unrestricted free agents and I see no problem with us using the mechanisms available to get more value than a compensation pick which is likely to be 16, especially since Geelong will hold pick 9 this year, and clubs can now trade future draft picks - their first rounder next year will do nicely as well thank you, or at least as a minimum. And it's shitting me to tears these geelong posters talking about the club deliberately trading this years first round pick so they can say sorry, don't have it any more. Surely Danger is a more important get than Henderson.
 

WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Oct 26, 2012
Posts
8,211
Likes
11,712
AFL Club
Adelaide
Best for both parties is Adelaide dont match the offer get a 1st round compo pick and Geelong hand over their 1st rd pick to be a fair deal
I see you don't understand the AFL rules around fair trades. The AFL last week came out and said this sort of thing won't be allowed. Look up Veale deal for further information.
 

Strangled Cat

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Jul 27, 2009
Posts
7,911
Likes
11,351
Location
Adelaide
AFL Club
Geelong
Other Teams
South Adelaide Panthers
Where does it say opposition supporters welcome to post incorrect information and then rant about how your club is going to do us over regarding us losing a favourite player?
I think you've had a fair enough crack
How is anything I've said necessarily incorrect? I have maintained all along that there is a very real possibility that Geelong gets Dangerfield for nothing. I have articulated my points for stating that as clearly and as concisely as I could using well-reasoned logic while having done so in a respectful manner. I haven't ranted at all.

So, just as all the Crows' fans have been welcome to post on our board, it has been my opinion all along that since this thread's inception, the same level of courtesy has been extended to opposition supporters, too. Until I'm thusly informed otherwise, I shall continue to post in here as I see fit, with the intention of continuing to do so in a respectful manner.
 
Last edited:

hazard

Club Legend
Joined
Feb 17, 2010
Posts
2,382
Likes
3,982
Location
Europe
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
The Exers
I always find it ends up somewhere in the middle between what majority opposition supporters demand to get and give up in a trade. The club the player is leaving want his "value". Rarely happens. The club the player is going to want to pay half of what they'll actually pay.

AFC supporters want two really good early picks or two first rounders and a good player, Geelong supporters just want to give up their first rounder.

At this point the middle looks like two first rounders, this year's and next, or this year's and a good player. That's not his value but if the trade happens we won't get his value. That's footy.
Key point being somewhere in the middle, not bang in the middle. The discussions are giving me major deja vu from the Paddy Ryder deal last year, I'm seeing dozens of identical comments, just with a different last name. Two key differences being Danger isn't contracted, and wasn't the subject of experimental pharmaceuticals (which didn't earn Essendon much goodwill from neutral supporters).

Port supporters were arguing that a first round pick was enough (16 or 17) and we'd get him for free if Essendon didn't play ball.

Essendon supporters countered that he was contracted, that he was worth a first round pick and an A-grader (Wines or Wingard) and would play no footy at all in 2015 if Port didn't play ball.

Obviously in the end it was much closer to Port's wishes than Essendon's (17 + 37).

99% of the time, the player gets to go where they want (lol Nick Stevens), and the original club's supporters are left feeling pretty burned. This will not be a win for your club, but you will have many opportunities to turn the tables and maybe even come out ahead from free agency. You might even pick up a gun in 2016, think Rich, Masten, or Hooker.
 

Wood_Duck

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Aug 12, 2004
Posts
10,812
Likes
10,505
Location
Not in Adelaide
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
CDFC, Arsenal
How is anything I've said necessarily incorrect? I have maintained all along that there is a very real possibility that Geelong gets Dangerfield for nothing. I have articulated my points for stating that as clearly and as concisely as I could using well-reasoned logic while having done so in a respectful manner. I haven't ranted at all.

So, just as all the Crows' fans have been welcome to post on our board, it has been my opinion all along that since this thread's inception, the same level of courtesy has been extended to opposition supporter. Until I'm thusly informed otherwise, I shall continueto post in here as I see fit, with the intention of continuing to do so in a respectful manner.
Mate we have been on a very short leash on your board. Multiple deletions and bans for far less than what you have been allowed to get away with here. Might I suggest easing your head in a bit.
 

catman2006

Premiership Player
Joined
Feb 15, 2006
Posts
3,065
Likes
1,132
AFL Club
Geelong
Other Teams
Sunderland & Penrith
I see you don't understand the AFL rules around fair trades. The AFL last week came out and said this sort of thing won't be allowed. Look up Veale deal for further information.
For the integrity of the comp that type of deal cant happen and first questions is can the crows match the Cats offer I suspect given the state of crows list they should be able too...
 

rezagun

Premiership Player
Joined
Nov 21, 2014
Posts
4,678
Likes
8,275
AFL Club
Adelaide
How is being pregnant an extraordinary situation? Not having a go at you or anything (sorry if that is how the first part comes across), but I fail to see why PD or society would thinks being pregnant is extraordinary.

People have been doing it for millions of years, heck all our mothers were pregnant at one point. I myself have got two kids.

Its an amazing thing, a miraculous thing even, but extraordinary? Nah!

(Sorry that is probably less about football and more of a general rant about how some people seem to think THEIR lives are so out of the ordinary)
Pregnant with triplets..
 
Joined
Mar 26, 2014
Posts
265
Likes
466
AFL Club
Adelaide
Key point being somewhere in the middle, not bang in the middle. The discussions are giving me major deja vu from the Paddy Ryder deal last year, I'm seeing dozens of identical comments, just with a different last name. Two key differences being Danger isn't contracted, and wasn't the subject of experimental pharmaceuticals (which didn't earn Essendon much goodwill from neutral supporters).

Port supporters were arguing that a first round pick was enough (16 or 17) and we'd get him for free if Essendon didn't play ball.

Essendon supporters countered that he was contracted, that he was worth a first round pick and an A-grader (Wines or Wingard) and would play no footy at all in 2015 if Port didn't play ball.

Obviously in the end it was much closer to Port's wishes than Essendon's (17 + 37).

99% of the time, the player gets to go where they want (lol Nick Stevens), and the original club's supporters are left feeling pretty burned. This will not be a win for your club, but you will have many opportunities to turn the tables and maybe even come out ahead from free agency. You might even pick up a gun in 2016, think Rich, Masten, or Hooker.
They really are a deluded lot down there lol.
 

Cap

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Jul 27, 2004
Posts
29,483
Likes
13,023
Location
*cough*
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Norwood
I propose a banket ban on all cats supporters.

Nothing good is going to come from discussion over the next month, actually I doubt there will be discussions at all, just rubbish and tripe that will make most threads unbearable.
 
Top Bottom