jenny61_99
Premium Platinum
Well, one of us is going to be disappointed.
-
Mobile App Discontinued
Due to a number of factors, support for the current BigFooty mobile app has been discontinued. Your BigFooty login will no longer work on the Tapatalk or the BigFooty App - which is based on Tapatalk.
Apologies for any inconvenience. We will try to find a replacement.
Oppo Camp Dangerfield's Gone (Zero tolerance to trolling) - READ THREAD LINKED IN OP BEFORE POSTING
- Thread starter Tex Support
- Start date
- Tagged users None
🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.
- Moderator
- #6,277
I recon if Geelong were offering a 2 year deal worth 2.5 million, we won't be matching that.
I think the Crows would be fine taking the compo pick if Geelong actually offered Dangerfield a substantial offer, but the current state of play where Geelong are reportedly offering 800k a year is a joke and the Crows in my opinion have a duty to match that laughable offer to protect the integrity of restricted free agency.
Yeah it's great to have a "Premiership Model" that allows you to pay players unders to improve your list ... except when the rest of the comp doesn't work that way.
Big Gazoongas
Cancelled
LOL, so he's saying the AFL will "tamper" with the RFA process??
Wasn't he nicknamed Spud in his playing days....I wonder why!!
Log in to remove this Banner Ad
- Moderator
- #6,280
At the moment it is working because Danger will go there for the home factor and Selwood will go there because of his brother, but in the long term they're not going to nab many high profiled free agents when other clubs will be prepared to offer more coin.
Free agency is slowing changing the game and the clubs with pay structures (we have one similar to Geelong) will have trouble keeping ahead of the curve because all free agency does is drive down the contract price of the bottom end of the list and inflate the top end.
Apparently AFL pressure is Vic Media now. Surprisingly Barrett says we should match. Hutchi says we shouldn't because he is a Geelong supporter, I imagine if it was Hawthorn Danger was marked to go to I think his tune would change. I think a lot of people including the AFL would actually like to see how RFA works with a matched offer. The rules were put in place and it would be one reason why the AFL are reluctant to put better compensation on the table. If clubs keep not matching, pressure continues to build on clubs to not match due to all the precedents. The AFL world needs a matched deal.
Frawley has a vested interest though because his nephew benefited from RFA without Melbourne matching.
Frawley is consistently wrong on most things. He offers shallow opinions that appeal to casual observers of the game. He's a spud.
How does that spud have a career in media? Genuine simpleton he is.
One after 12 and one before 14...
Pdub
Norm Smith Medallist
Matching "no matter what" is dumb and risky, we only match if we can, if we are prepared for him to accept the offer and stay. If we match something we can't afford and danger decides to stay rather than seek a trade we suddenly have massive salary cap issues. If they pay more than we can afford, good on them that is what RFA is all about, we take the compensation.
- Moderator
- #6,288
Hutchy is so biased in relation to Dangerfield going to Geelong, he actually gets his knickers in a twist as soon as anyone brings up any notion of Adelaide matching.
I know he supports Geelong, but the way I've seen him emotionally react (far more than normal) to this situation seems to suggest that he actually has some personal vested interest in this.
Last edited:
- May 26, 2013
- 25,089
- 36,758
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Liverpool FC
All this talk about weak drafts. It's a crap shoot. Tom Boyd was to have been a walk up Coleman Medallist the way he was talked up. Heck, James Aish was a can't miss...
Yes there can be a few more talls in one draft than another, but in the end with first rounders it always comes down to picking the player you think is best for the position you need, develop well and hope for the best.
Eg Maybe 2008 was a weak draft, but we found Sloane at 44, the Cats found Motlop at 39
Yes there can be a few more talls in one draft than another, but in the end with first rounders it always comes down to picking the player you think is best for the position you need, develop well and hope for the best.
Eg Maybe 2008 was a weak draft, but we found Sloane at 44, the Cats found Motlop at 39
- May 26, 2013
- 25,089
- 36,758
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Liverpool FC
Which is bullshit given Mark Evans has already said the Crows can match
Good hair.
TexForPM
Premiership Player
In your unfavourable potential trade offer smartarse
Edit:
Actually, you aren't trying to trade our 1st round... Good on you
You're still a smartarse
Last edited:
Don Muraco
Club Legend
I think you have answered your own question.
🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.
agree with you , the weakness of this draft is over rated , there may be less obvious talent after pick 25 but there is still talent and the pointy end is v strong
Got a bad feeling that we're gonna get screwed and not match for some reason
- Nov 14, 2007
- 48,269
- 26,740
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
Port flogs would be shaking their heads I would reckon.....
Retired from Hawthorn, or should I say pushed?
However do we need him in terms of type of player?
Similar threads
- Poll
