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

[6BTS]

Correct has his said he would nominate, please show me the link, and not Robo's statement, a lnk where he is quoted as saying he will enter the draft? I think everyone read Robo's article a laughed

I couldn't get over that article. His profession is "Journalist", but completely failed to sight even 1 trivial source. I'm really disappointed in the article and I'm really disappointed in the editor letting it go out in public like that. Really bad journalism all round. This is the sort of article that is written based on gut feel because if he actually had a source, he would have put it in just like all professional journalists do.

 

[baldandbroke]

Apparently, according to Fox, we should trade a C grade player for an A grade player and a first round pick upgrade while also taking the compensation.

That would make sense, if the A grade player they listed was actually an A grade player.
<snip>

I think Gregson is going to be A Grade.

 

[baldandbroke]

marty can you please explain to me why you felt that PD owed the crows an early warning of his intentions
as it seems clubs want to look after themselves and not the player
the henderson situation was a joke
the crows and cats seem to be in better talks
the afl needs to do the right thing and we can all move on

I'm not marty, but the AFL doesn't need to do anything.

 

[Strangled Cat]

We would have him for two years then he leaves as a UFA, with compensation provided, do you understand the rules, or like you dont read what the parties are stating. I now your board stuggles to understand the RFA rules, maybe its best for you to be there and talk absolute crap!

Adelaide still gets a compo pick if he leaves in two years time as an unrestricted free agent. Learn the rules before posting.

Yep, fair cop and while I do know the rules including that one, that was just a rare brain fart on my part. But since pick #14 is practically nothing in the minds of all and sundry on here, and you're all supremely confident about getting two first rounders as well as at least one quality player from Geelong, would it be worth keeping Danger for two additional years if it meant losing a first round draft pick and a quality player?

 

[marty36]

if thats ade position geelong should just slap a two year 1.4 mil deal on him

Not according your coach, you will keep him in pay structure and negotiate a deal. Knowing PD has declared a fair deal for both parties

Geelong get Patrick! What is Adelaides fair deal?

Selwood = 2 1st rounders and a quality player
Pendelbuy = 2 1st Rounders and a quality player
Fyfe = 2 1st roundwers and a quality player

Can you see what a fair deal looks like, you know PD has asked for it!

 

[Mahlepi]

Not according your coach, you will keep him in pay structure and negotiate a deal. Knowing PD has declared a fair deal for both parties

Geelong get Patrick! What is Adelaides fair deal?

Selwood = 2 1st rounders and a quality player
Pendelbuy = 2 1st Rounders and a quality player
Fyfe = 2 1st roundwers and a quality player

Can you see what a fair deal looks like, you know PD has asked for it!

fyfe, selwood are level above danger
danger has only wone b&f at the crows and is not even the crows captain
so by your logic1 1st round and a player

 

[Strangled Cat]

We all would love to bring the compensation pick into play as it means we need one less 1st rounder off you and the trade becomes a hell of a lot easier. Problem is we cant swap a fourth rounder for pick 9 what needs to be swapped for pick 9 needs to be of equal value for the 6 millionth time Ken Woods has stated compo deals are in isolation. Another deal will be looked at and it needs to equivelant which if you have half a brain means we dont come out of the second deal we could have without PD being involved as it will be a break even . So thanks for the pick 14 pick from compo. Dont you realise how the AFL dont allow for dodgy deals and the fact this case is so bloody high profile every other club in the AFL will be watching it and waiting for a precedent to be set so they can refer back to it in the future and flaunt the rules. Woods will be so bloody careful as will the clubs it will be painful to watch.

Its a trade or nothing, youre right two first rounders is a bare minimum a lot would say a player aswell which could be justified as I have no doubt that is what you would want for Selwoood or the Pies would want for Pendelbury, getting back to the fair compensation PD has publicly stated.

Go back and read what I said. I never said anything about dodgy side deals - I was referring to the AFL giving Adelaide an additional COMPENSATION PICK at the end of the first round. That would require Adelaide to not match.

 

[marty36]

fyfe, selwood are level above danger
danger has only wone b&f at the crows and is not even the crows captain
so by your logic1 1st round and a player

Yeah whatever on Selwood I bararck for the Crows so I will be biased and you Geelong, Im pretty damn sure if you asked a Collingwood supporter we both know what the answer would be, but lets leave that one alone

Is PD better than Pendelbury? what will treloar be traded for and Im pretty damn sure he is better than him.

 

[marty36]

Go back and read what I said. I never said anything about dodgy side deals - I was referring to the AFL giving Adelaide an additional COMPENSATION PICK at the end of the first round. That would require Adelaide to not match.

Thats just stupid. We have been over how they caculate a compo pick on $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ and age. Buddy was worth one, enough said! What contract did Buddy get?

 

[Mahlepi]

Yeah whatever on Selwood I bararck for the Crows so I will be biased and you Geelong, Im pretty damn sure if you asked a Collingwood supporter we both know what the answer would be, but lets leave that one alone

Is PD better than Pendelbury? what will treloar be traded for and Im pretty damn sure he is better than him.

marty you have first pick who do you take
fyfe, selwood, danger, pendles

for me it would be
fyfe
selwood
danger
pendles

in that order

 

[douglyzia]

Would Adelaide be happy with Danger for two years more and then lose him for nothing?

How many ****ing times must it be stated that Adelaide still get a compo pick if Dangerfield stays in Adelaide leaves via non-restricted FA in two years? So we would not "lose him for nothing" if that were the case. Why do people keep saying this shit over and over again?

And let me state my position again. I have no desire for Dangerfield to remain at the Crows for a further two years. Too much water has gone under the bridge.

 

[6BTS]

The AFL need to piss off the compensation pick or make it fairer. For example, I understand that when you have struggling clubs like Brisbane and Carlton, you can't go denying them of the best player(s) available in the draft to prop up a team that makes finals but lost their best player. So why don't the AFL give 2 compensation picks over a 2 year period? Or 3 over a 3 year period? Make the compensation seem more fitting for the player that a club is losing to free agency and there would be a lot less squawking about it. The compensation system is grossly inadequate and either needs to be pissed off all together or a fairer system needs to take its place.

The AFLPA has too much power, how they can demand free agency and restricted free agency, but still allow players to have a say in if and where they get traded is unbelievable to me. If the players want free agency, they give up the right to deny trades or to only agree to be traded to a club of their choice. If that seems unfair, they can do what the NBA does and include trade clauses in their contracts which require financial compensation if they are traded. Only the minority of players would get to have that clause.

This crap could be done a whole lot better than it is done now. This Dangerfield situation proves the AFL's system is a joke and needs fixing, but in true AFL style, they'll do things their own way because apparently if you get something kinda right, that's okay. No other professional sporting body runs their competitions that way with a "close enough is good enough" mentality.

 

[1990crow]

if thats ade position geelong should just slap a two year 1.4 mil deal on him

Except your not going to. How many times are you going to have to be told this before you get it?

 

[brent-83]

Go back and read what I said. I never said anything about dodgy side deals - I was referring to the AFL giving Adelaide an additional COMPENSATION PICK at the end of the first round. That would require Adelaide to not match.

A 1st and end of 1st simply isn't enough given his restricted status. Adelaide wouldn't just roll over for 9 & 20 or so when it can quite easily go for a 1st this year and next. I think Danger is worth 2 1sts and a reasonable player, but in the end it wouldn't surprise me if that is where the compromise part comes in and Adelaide just get the 2 1sts.

 

[marty36]

The AFL need to piss off the compensation pick or make it fairer. For example, I understand that when you have struggling clubs like Brisbane and Carlton, you can't go denying them of the best player(s) available in the draft to prop up a team that makes finals but lost their best player. So why don't the AFL give 2 compensation picks over a 2 year period? Or 3 over a 3 year period? Make the compensation seem more fitting for the player that a club is losing to free agency and there would be a lot less squawking about it. The compensation system is grossly inadequate and either needs to be pissed off all together or a fairer system needs to take its place.

The AFLPA has too much power, how they can demand free agency and restricted free agency, but still allow players to have a say in if and where they get traded is unbelievable to me. If the players want free agency, they give up the right to deny trades or to only agree to be traded to a club of their choice. If that seems unfair, they can do what the NBA does and include trade clauses in their contracts which require financial compensation if they are traded. Only the minority of players would get to have that clause.

This crap could be done a whole lot better than it is done now. This Dangerfield situation proves the AFL's system is a joke and needs fixing, but in true AFL style, they'll do things their own way because apparently if you get something kinda right, that's okay. No other professional sporting body runs their competitions that way with a "close enough is good enough" mentality.

I will actually defend the AFL here. It is an incredably difficult job to make rules in an effort to even out the comp and to have the AFLPA through there two cents in makes it even harder. Then you have Northern State clubs that are more important to the comp ATM than southern states on population alone where 60% of australia's population live. So unfortunatly they need a lick to give them supporters thus getting more supporters and better market share, Power supporters talk about being a club no AFL franchise is a club, its a business needing to be fed by market share, I think its sort of gone a little away from footy as we know it, similar to that of American sport, its now entertainment first and foremost. Man, look at the Powesr home day entertainment there is a franchise that has embraced the entertainment, no longer going down to your local before the game, getting there just as the ball is bounced, different times.

 

[Jack McKraken]

I would think something like this would get the deal done easily and quickly: Cats give up first round this and next year, and send Jansen up to Brisbane. We use Jansen as currency for Redden/Mayes/Aish and will obviously have to send something else to Brisbane to make that happen (second rounder/third rounder?)

cats should be happy as they aren't forcing any player or who doesn't want to go. We get reasonable compensation.

 

[jackster83]

A 1st and end of 1st simply isn't enough given his restricted status. Adelaide wouldn't just roll over for 9 & 20 or so when it can quite easily go for a 1st this year and next. I think Danger is worth 2 1sts and a reasonable player, but in the end it wouldn't surprise me if that is where the compromise part comes in and Adelaide just get the 2 1sts.

Geelong need to get a third club involved.

Do a deal with Brisbane that results in us netting pick 9 and Redden for Danger.

 

[Red mist]

Fyfe
Danger
Pendles
Selwood

 

[marty36]

Geelong need to get a third club involved.

Do a deal with Brisbane that results in us netting pick 9 and Redden for Danger.

I agree, there players that we would want are simply untouchable so it does look like getting to that position, would love to see if a deal that can be constructed with Redden or Aish plus picks

 

[Mego Red]

The pick swap last year was a fair trade. I'm not sure how many times people need to be reminded of that. We ended up with a better player in the first round than Geelong and we got a 12 pick upgrade in the second round.

Yeah. We WON last year's trade. That is probably Feenix's least sensible post for a while.

 

[Danoz]

Fyfe
Danger
Pendles
Selwood

Exactly right.

 

[Bicks]

Fyfe
Pendles
Danger
Selwood

 

[Strangled Cat]

Thats just stupid. We have been over how they caculate a compo pick on $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ and age. Buddy was worth one, enough said! What contract did Buddy get?

What Dangerfield said could be interpreted as an overall concept that he wishes Adelaide would get fair comp from the AFL. Until he comes out and says he wants Adelaide to receive fair compensation "from Geelong" then his comments can't be used for the basis of any argument as the context is the too ambiguous.

Melbourne got pick #3 for Frawley whose contract was only worth half the term and the cash of Buddy's. The system is a joke and the AFL is corrupt. If the situation looks like it will get effing ugly, the AFL can and will step in however they see fit to do so. Geelong got an additional pick for Ablett. Whilst that wasn't Free Agency and Gaz is a better player than Danger, "extenuating circumstances" is a line that can cover a vast array of issues.

 

[Danoz]

You know, it's almost like GFC supporters feel like since they are at a starting point of paying zero (i.e. AFC not matching a RFA bid), that they don't need to pay fair value. That the trade they will end up with will cost less due to starting from a lower point.

Let's say I'm selling a car, and the car is worth $10k. Someone comes in and offers $1k. Just because they offered less, doesn't mean I'll accept less than whatever is the least I'll take. The least I'll take is decided only by me, and how weak or strong I am in my convictions.

AFC will have a value they believe PD is worth, GFC will too. The resulting trade will come out somewhere in between the two values, regardless of how low GFC start or how high AFC start.

When I sell my car, I push it's value; low km's, full service history, new tyres, etc. PD's value is more subjective, but in the end will be measured by a combination of his contract value and the players/picks traded. Nobody here knows what that will be.

 

[Strangled Cat]

A 1st and end of 1st simply isn't enough given his restricted status. Adelaide wouldn't just roll over for 9 & 20 or so when it can quite easily go for a 1st this year and next. I think Danger is worth 2 1sts and a reasonable player, but in the end it wouldn't surprise me if that is where the compromise part comes in and Adelaide just get the 2 1sts.

If Adelaide were offered #14 and #20 (roughly) for Danger as compensation picks by the AFL, do you think Adelaide would still match? I don't.