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.