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

[Bay62]

It's also about applying pressure to Geelong and the fans. They have invested so much, they can not lose Dangerfield now.

Let's play unsociable off-field footy

 

[CoolCat75]

Lets say assume that Adelaide will accept 2 first round picks for PD. Not ideal for you but better that just 14. Now lets work backwards and find a solution that doesn't break AFL rules. I think the key might be Adelaides list. A previous Adelaide poster mentioned that Adelaide will probably 4 move off the list this year (including PD) and you'll upgrade one Rookie.
Let's say that Adelaide trades R2 2016 for Curtly Hampton (GWS need picks for Academy kids) and delists another player. Net effect is you are only taking 3 draft picks. So Adelaide and Geelong agree they don't match, get compensation pick 14 and you have 13 + 14 to start with. If Geelong could trade 9 to Adelaide, then the rest of their picks are not needed.

So the trade is Geelong pick 9 for Adelaide 31, 49, 67 and Rnd 3 2016 (as an example, assuming same ladder position and subject to extra FA picks for other clubs).

According to http://www.afl.com.au/staticfile/AFL Tenant/AFL/Files/biddingsystemfeedback.pdf, this is a swap of value 1469 points with 1247. I think that's close enough for the AFL and Ken Wood to pass.

Net result is that Adelaide trade away 3 picks they wouldn't use this year anyway (31,49,67), and lose R3 2016. Adelaide now has added 2 x R1 draft picks (9,13,14) for 2015 and Geelong get some middle/late draft picks they need for this year. Geelong and Adelaide are reasonable clubs and this is a close to win-win you will get for losing a star player.

 

[Smithtastic33]

Why would they do that?

I'm sure Geelong is aware of our approach and intentions. That's all that is necessary.

The only reason the AFC would do that would be to put media pressure on them if they aren't being reasonable, which I doubt is the case (particularly at this early stage).

I don't know, maybe to help crows fans feel better. Silly I know but it gets very depressing every year when you lose a player and get stuff all in return.

 

[The Sloane Ranger]

Public pressure on Geelong never hurts. They're expected to get Danger, they're going to look like idiots if they don't get him.

However timing needs to be right

If discussions are moving in the right direction making a public statement now would just add unhealthy tension

 

[TexForPM]

Brownlow night my GF says is that Dangerfields Wife?
I said: No. His fiance

she said: Edited - keep it classy please!

 

[Brentmeister]

Lets say assume that Adelaide will accept 2 first round picks for PD. Not ideal for you but better that just 14. Now lets work backwards and find a solution that doesn't break AFL rules. I think the key might be Adelaides list. A previous Adelaide poster mentioned that Adelaide will probably 4 move off the list this year (including PD) and you'll upgrade one Rookie.
Let's say that Adelaide trades R2 2016 for Curtly Hampton (GWS need picks for Academy kids) and delists another player. Net effect is you are only taking 3 draft picks. So Adelaide and Geelong agree they don't match, get compensation pick 14 and you have 13 + 14 to start with. If Geelong could trade 9 to Adelaide, then the rest of their picks are not needed.

So the trade is Geelong pick 9 for Adelaide 31, 49, 67 and Rnd 3 2016 (as an example, assuming same ladder position and subject to extra FA picks for other clubs).

According to http://www.afl.com.au/staticfile/AFL Tenant/AFL/Files/biddingsystemfeedback.pdf, this is a swap of value 1469 points with 1247. I think that's close enough for the AFL and Ken Wood to pass.

Net result is that Adelaide trade away 3 picks they wouldn't use this year anyway (31,49,67), and lose R3 2016. Adelaide now has added 2 x R1 draft picks (9,13,14) for 2015 and Geelong get some middle/late draft picks they need for this year. Geelong and Adelaide are reasonable clubs and this is a close to win-win you will get for losing a star player.

So the net result is that Adelaide basically get one first rounder?
Lol

 

[KrissCross]

Yep, I'd prefer we got nothing and in doing so send him and other clubs a very strong message we will not be dictated to.

It's Geelong responsibility to find a suitable trade. They have known for months that they could have to createw a trade. It's not the crows responsibility to accept less to simply satisfy Geelong and Dangerfield. They are a direct rival, why are we considering giving them a free kick from the goal square.

Exactly this...Cats need to either take a hit in the salary cap (by offering overs) or take a hit in losing draft picks/players.
All the speculation of them wanting him for nothing sounds true when you listen to Scott talk.
Very interested to see how it plays out

 

[big78sam]

Lets say assume that Adelaide will accept 2 first round picks for PD. Not ideal for you but better that just 14. Now lets work backwards and find a solution that doesn't break AFL rules. I think the key might be Adelaides list. A previous Adelaide poster mentioned that Adelaide will probably 4 move off the list this year (including PD) and you'll upgrade one Rookie.
Let's say that Adelaide trades R2 2016 for Curtly Hampton (GWS need picks for Academy kids) and delists another player. Net effect is you are only taking 3 draft picks. So Adelaide and Geelong agree they don't match, get compensation pick 14 and you have 13 + 14 to start with. If Geelong could trade 9 to Adelaide, then the rest of their picks are not needed.

So the trade is Geelong pick 9 for Adelaide 31, 49, 67 and Rnd 3 2016 (as an example, assuming same ladder position and subject to extra FA picks for other clubs).

According to http://www.afl.com.au/staticfile/AFL Tenant/AFL/Files/biddingsystemfeedback.pdf, this is a swap of value 1469 points with 1247. I think that's close enough for the AFL and Ken Wood to pass.

Net result is that Adelaide trade away 3 picks they wouldn't use this year anyway (31,49,67), and lose R3 2016. Adelaide now has added 2 x R1 draft picks (9,13,14) for 2015 and Geelong get some middle/late draft picks they need for this year. Geelong and Adelaide are reasonable clubs and this is a close to win-win you will get for losing a star player.

I can see where you are coming from but it is still WAY off balance It's about the absolute minimum we'd accept (2 first rounders). Geelong get a huge win here but Adelaide at least aren't reamed. The only issue is that Adelaide also lose their 2nd and 3rd round picks next year. We could use that 2nd round pick this year (31) for Hampton if we weren't going to give it to you.

Why would we do a trade that is a huge win for Geelong (and not a complete reaming for us) when we could push hard for a better deal. If you look at the precedents for top players (even uncontracted ones), it's a straight 2 first round picks minimum. There's never been 2nd and 3rd rounder going back the other way.

I'd also want a player swap of Mackay/Wright for Murdoch (or something similar) in there. Geelong's player payment structure means they can't afford to pay danger 1.2 million. If they were willing to pay PD $800k and take an extra $400k for a useless player like Mackay that would 1 -allow GFC to keep to their structures and 2 - would allow Adelaide to free up that 400k for someone that is more useful than an inanimate carbon rod.

 

[Croweater23]

However timing needs to be right

If discussions are moving in the right direction making a public statement now would just add unhealthy tension

This.

 

[Red mist]

1. AFL brings in trading of future draft picks for 2015.
2. AFL denies priority picks to Brions and Carlolton.
AFL are all over this deal.

 

[CoolCat75]

So the net result is that Adelaide basically get one first rounder?
Lol

No, you get 2 first rounders. 9 from Geelong and 14 from the AFL.

 

[marty36]

No, you get 2 first rounders. 9 from Geelong and 14 from the AFL.

And give up four picks? Would prefer two from Geelong and give up nutta

 

[The Sloane Ranger]

No, you get 2 first rounders. 9 from Geelong and 14 from the AFL.

This is how I think it will pan out

 

[CoolCat75]

And give up four picks? Would prefer two from Geelong and give up nutta

My point was that you might only need 3 ND picks this year. So you are giving up 3 later picks you don't need, but Geelong do.

 

[Brentmeister]

No, you get 2 first rounders. 9 from Geelong and 14 from the AFL.

Yes but to get pick 9 you're suggest we have to give up a bunch of picks worth nearly as much as Pick 9.

The means the net value we gain from the trade is the Pick 14 compo and a little bonus "222 points" (the points difference you suggest in your hypothetical trade) which is equivalent to Pick 54.

So no, we don't want Pick 14 and Pick 54 for Danger, we want your two first rounders next year. Cheers.

 

[AusTerran]

Lets say assume that Adelaide will accept 2 first round picks for PD.

*sigh*
Then goes on about how Geelong really on lose Pick 9 in a weak draft for Danger... That the AFL will not let happen anyway.

 

[Jeffcrowe]

Lets say assume that Adelaide will accept 2 first round picks for PD. Not ideal for you but better that just 14. Now lets work backwards and find a solution that doesn't break AFL rules. I think the key might be Adelaides list. A previous Adelaide poster mentioned that Adelaide will probably 4 move off the list this year (including PD) and you'll upgrade one Rookie.
Let's say that Adelaide trades R2 2016 for Curtly Hampton (GWS need picks for Academy kids) and delists another player. Net effect is you are only taking 3 draft picks. So Adelaide and Geelong agree they don't match, get compensation pick 14 and you have 13 + 14 to start with. If Geelong could trade 9 to Adelaide, then the rest of their picks are not needed.

So the trade is Geelong pick 9 for Adelaide 31, 49, 67 and Rnd 3 2016 (as an example, assuming same ladder position and subject to extra FA picks for other clubs).

According to http://www.afl.com.au/staticfile/AFL Tenant/AFL/Files/biddingsystemfeedback.pdf, this is a swap of value 1469 points with 1247. I think that's close enough for the AFL and Ken Wood to pass.

Net result is that Adelaide trade away 3 picks they wouldn't use this year anyway (31,49,67), and lose R3 2016. Adelaide now has added 2 x R1 draft picks (9,13,14) for 2015 and Geelong get some middle/late draft picks they need for this year. Geelong and Adelaide are reasonable clubs and this is a close to win-win you will get for losing a star player.

Out of all the 'take the compo' trade scenarios I find this the best one and most likely to pass draft integrity test given your calculations with the points

Us accepting this ( the club , not the supporters) prob depends on who our trade targets are and what we need in terms of currency to get the trades done

I'd call something like this a possibility if initial trade talks break down

 

[Jeffcrowe]

Yes but to get pick 9 you're suggest we have to give up a bunch of picks worth nearly as much as Pick 9.

The means the net value we gain from the trade is the Pick 14 compo and a little bonus "222 points" (the points difference you suggest in your hypothetical trade) which is equivalent to Pick 54.

So no, we don't want Pick 14 and Pick 54 for Danger, we want your two first rounders next year. Cheers.

Remembering however that after the 2nd round you don't really want to be in this draft real value of pick 9 is much more ....let the cats fill their list with 3rd and 4th round for this draft and we will stay at pointy end


I think it all depends on our trade targets and whether we can use picks 13 and 14 for 2 players
in trades and take pick 9 to the draft because we like someone there

Having said all this still feels like a sweetener needed ....

 

[AFC3000]

Yeah I don't agree that a bunch of picks 30+ are equal to pick 9 even if their points value adds up. With good drafting I would much rather one top 10 player than 3 average players.

 

[arsene wenger1]

No, you get 2 first rounders. 9 from Geelong and 14 from the AFL.

If we get 9 from geelong doubt we'd end up with the compo

 

[latinoheat]

Out of all the 'take the compo' trade scenarios I find this the best one and most likely to pass draft integrity test given your calculations with the points

Us accepting this ( the club , not the supporters) prob depends on who our trade targets are and what we need in terms of currency to get the trades done

I'd call something like this a possibility if initial trade talks break down

But we are giving up round 2 2016 pick. I don't like it. We gain pick 9, pick 14, lose danger and a 2nd round pick 2016. So effectively Geelong only give up pick 9 for danger . Other first round pick is afl compo, which means the other 16 teams suffer....

 

[footy4ever]

Brownlow night my GF says is that Dangerfields Wife?
I said: No. His fiance

she said: She looks like a bitch

I said: No comment

meeeeoooow! Hiss!

 

[Smithtastic33]

You know what hurts most?

The fact he is going to a club who has won 3 flags in 10 years.

AFL is supposed to be about creating an equalisation where evert=yone has ups and downs and then they recruit a top 3 player for close to bugger all.

It wouldn't hurt so much if he was going to a Richmond, St Kilda or Western Bulldogs who havn't had a flag in umpteen years.

But 3 flags in 10 years and they are crying they have to do a fair trade. They can trade fairly or lose him.

 

[Cronin]

You know what hurts most?

The fact he is going to a club who has won 3 flags in 10 years.

AFL is supposed to be about creating an equalisation where evert=yone has ups and downs and then they recruit a top 3 player for close to bugger all.

It wouldn't hurt so much if he was going to a Richmond, St Kilda or Western Bulldogs who havn't had a flag in umpteen years.

But 3 flags in 10 years and they are crying they have to do a fair trade. They can trade fairly or lose him.

But we are on the decline

 

[Sanders]

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/afl-warns-clubs-on-shady-deals-20150916-gjoao5.html

Ken has made it very very clear

"Wood also wrote that free agency exchanges needed to be in isolation and could not be tied to any other trade between clubs."

Secondary deals that weigh in a teams favor, I dont think Kenny is that stupid to say oh well thats between them isnt it!

What's he going to do?

Nothing. That's why he's huffing and puffing now to pretend he's got some say here

After all, is he going to say that Adelaide and Geelong can't trade because there is a free agency transaction involved? No way

Is he going to demand that we can only trade if we match???

Is he going to demand we have to lose if we trade with Geelong?

Do we have to lose if there is a 3 way trade to both other teams?!

Is it ok if we sequence in a certain way?

Is he going to substitute his view of a player's worth to the market?

No, he's not. He's going to strip off, Netflix and chill with himself