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

[vinum coupe]

It may need some tweaking with exchange of some later picks, but Aish doesnt have the same currency as he did when they picked him.

Correct. Which is why I think Brisbane may release pick 20 for Jansen if they are getting 9 for Aish.

This is painful. We are all speculating as we don't even know Geelong ( or someone else's offer)
And probably won't know for 2 weeks.

 

[Large 1]

Thats the same thing that could happen in any trade. But it doesnt happen in trades. There is no way Danger is going to put himself into the PSD and maybe end up in Brisbane on a 6 year deal. Please, show yourself some respect and dont say silly shit.
Your just pissed you aint gonna get him for free.
Just think about this, 1 day left to go in trade week, Geelong are trying to act like big men, and the PSD comes up as an option. Then Collingwood say to him, hey Paddy, we can get a deal done for you and we will actually pay you 1.2 mill a year.
So he is paid 400k a year more to drive an extra 40 minutes to training each day.
In a fukcin heartbeat.
Your going to be really dissapointed when your club does one of these deals that your so set on that they wont.

BOOM! Spot on. Could not have said it better myself.

 

[Captain Furious]

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 **** 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.

An anonymous expert?! In ascertaining trade value? Why would you need to be anonymous? Oh...if you were spouting complete garbage like one of the top 3 players in the whole comp is worth pick 9 and a 2nd rounder. Sure it wasn't Chris Scott?

Maybe there's a more concrete example of Danger's value in Melbourne's offer of pick 2 & 3 last year.

And how is matching shafting Geelong? Do you understand what Restricted Free Agent means and why it's in place? So as not to shaft the club who's star player wants to leave.

 

[Archie87]

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 **** 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" 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.

 

[xazos79]

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 **** 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]

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]

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]

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)

 

[CrowsAlways83]

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.

 

[catman2006]

My firm belief is that if Geelong offers draft picks alone, they won't get Danger.

Certainly the mix will be interesting to what we can offer as opposed to what you want

 

[WheresGroomgone]

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.

 

[DJ75]

Cyril 4 Danger

Not even remotely interested.

 

[Captain Furious]

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.

 

[Wood_Duck]

Geelong sources have been saying it all year. You just ignored it because your sources said he was staying etc. Geelong are full of it etc.

This bit is true.

 

[CrowsAlways83]

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]

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.

 

[WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot]

Question guys.
Would this be regarded as better than a compo pick.?

Aish and pick 20

How are you getting Aish? Personally I'd still want more than that.

 

[Wood_Duck]

If Geelong trade away all of the currency they need to secure Danger in a fair trade, then I would reckon its highly likely Danger will accept our matched FA offer.

 

[Tex Support]

Not even remotely interested.

It was a joke.

 

[Strangled Cat]

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.

 

[DJ75]

It was a joke.

I know, I just don't rate Cyril that highly.

 

[hazard]

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.

 

[radiojake]

... people are still talking about all of this?

 

[Wood_Duck]

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]

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...