- Jun 28, 2013
- 31,799
- 48,012
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
ABC again said we have benefitted more than any other club. I urge a mass SMS:
'Ken sick of it
'Ken sick of it
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
LIVE: St Kilda v Western Bulldogs - 7:30PM Thu
Squiggle tips Saints at 51% chance -- What's your tip? -- Team line-ups »
YepWe got Frawley, we lost Franklin. Melbourne got a better compensation pick.
We also lost Suckling, Ellis, Young and Murphy.
That's the sum of our FA involvement, no?
Singled out as the team who has done well from free agency. Mark McClure said itI'm happy to get on and sms but not without knowing exactly what has been said.
Link to the specific show?
We lost Franklin, Suckling, Young, and Murphy. Campbell Brown also left as a start-up concession to Gold CoastWe got Frawley, we lost Franklin. Melbourne got a better compensation pick.
We also lost Suckling, Ellis, Young and Murphy.
That's the sum of our FA involvement, no?
Yep, definitely a free kick to Hawthorn there. Why don't they just come out and say we owe our threepeat to free agency?We lost Franklin, Suckling, Young, and Murphy. Campbell Brown also left as a start-up concession to Gold Coast
We lose Ellis as a delisted free agent
We gained Frawley
We gained Simpkin as a delisted free agent
We used our compensation pick from Campbell Brown to pick up David HaleYep, definitely a free kick to Hawthorn there. Why don't they just come out and say we owe our threepeat to free agency?
1. I understand the Hawks have acquired much of their imported talent through shrewd trading and drafting
2. The point I was making was that regardless of how they go about it, were they to end up with both Mitchell and O'Meara, through whatever means, a significant number of people in football, and I suspect people running the game, would see that as further evidence that the draft had veered away from the intent it was supposed to have, which is to help poorer-performing clubs.
Hi Rohan.Hi folks, You may or may not be aware I was asked to do a Q&A on here a couple of weeks back. I enjoyed it, and have been taking a look around various boards since.
I wish hadn't stumbled on to your post, "The Lemon", but seeing as I did, please allow me to make a few points.
1. I understand the Hawks have acquired much of their imported talent through shrewd trading and drafting, and as far as I'm concerned, good luck to them. I've actually spoken on air before about how people get wrong the extent to which they've benefited through free agency. They're a really well run club, and deserve all the success they get.
2. The point I was making was that regardless of how they go about it, were they to end up with both Mitchell and O'Meara, through whatever means, a significant number of people in football, and I suspect people running the game, would see that as further evidence that the draft had veered away from the intent it was supposed to have, which is to help poorer-performing clubs.
3. Do I agree with that view? No, I don't. Which is why I spent considerable time the other week arguing AGAINST David King's draft revamp proposal or the idea that Brisbane should get a priority pick. I believe this as I think the competition over the last couple of decades has given more teams a chance than ever before. In fact only three teams, Brisbane, Melbourne and St Kilda, haven't played finals at all in the last three years. Only two teams (barring GWS and GC) haven't played in an AFL grand final, and 11 clubs have shared the 26 flags in the AFL era.
4. So, basically, you've taken me saying Hawthorn getting that pair of players would spark a draft revamp as meaning I think it SHOULD spark a draft revamp. Which I don't.
5. But even if I did think that, which, just to be perfectly clear once again for your benefit, "Lemon", I DON'T, how does that justify calling someone who has an alternative view a FC? (and yes, I understand what campaigner is a euphemism for)
6. Hope that clears things up for you. Can I also say at this point, I think there's some great discussion on these boards. Unfortunately, "Lemon", your contribution wasn't part of that. Hope at some stage you can learn to actually (a) listen properly, (b) conduct a civil debate, and (c) try expanding your vocabulary.
Cheers,
Rohan
Hi folks, You may or may not be aware I was asked to do a Q&A on here a couple of weeks back. I enjoyed it, and have been taking a look around various boards since.
I wish hadn't stumbled on to your post, "The Lemon", but seeing as I did, please allow me to make a few points.
1. I understand the Hawks have acquired much of their imported talent through shrewd trading and drafting, and as far as I'm concerned, good luck to them. I've actually spoken on air before about how people get wrong the extent to which they've benefited through free agency. They're a really well run club, and deserve all the success they get.
2. The point I was making was that regardless of how they go about it, were they to end up with both Mitchell and O'Meara, through whatever means, a significant number of people in football, and I suspect people running the game, would see that as further evidence that the draft had veered away from the intent it was supposed to have, which is to help poorer-performing clubs.
3. Do I agree with that view? No, I don't. Which is why I spent considerable time the other week arguing AGAINST David King's draft revamp proposal or the idea that Brisbane should get a priority pick. I believe this as I think the competition over the last couple of decades has given more teams a chance than ever before. In fact only three teams, Brisbane, Melbourne and St Kilda, haven't played finals at all in the last three years. Only two teams (barring GWS and GC) haven't played in an AFL grand final, and 11 clubs have shared the 26 flags in the AFL era.
4. So, basically, you've taken me saying Hawthorn getting that pair of players would spark a draft revamp as meaning I think it SHOULD spark a draft revamp. Which I don't.
5. But even if I did think that, which, just to be perfectly clear once again for your benefit, "Lemon", I DON'T, how does that justify calling someone who has an alternative view a FC? (and yes, I understand what campaigner is a euphemism for)
6. Hope that clears things up for you. Can I also say at this point, I think there's some great discussion on these boards. Unfortunately, "Lemon", your contribution wasn't part of that. Hope at some stage you can learn to actually (a) listen properly, (b) conduct a civil debate, and (c) try expanding your vocabulary.
Cheers,
Rohan
So... are you going to join some of your less distinguished colleagues and turn these threads into stories?Hi folks, You may or may not be aware I was asked to do a Q&A on here a couple of weeks back. I enjoyed it, and have been taking a look around various boards since.
I wish hadn't stumbled on to your post, "The Lemon", but seeing as I did, please allow me to make a few points.
1. I understand the Hawks have acquired much of their imported talent through shrewd trading and drafting, and as far as I'm concerned, good luck to them. I've actually spoken on air before about how people get wrong the extent to which they've benefited through free agency. They're a really well run club, and deserve all the success they get.
2. The point I was making was that regardless of how they go about it, were they to end up with both Mitchell and O'Meara, through whatever means, a significant number of people in football, and I suspect people running the game, would see that as further evidence that the draft had veered away from the intent it was supposed to have, which is to help poorer-performing clubs.
3. Do I agree with that view? No, I don't. Which is why I spent considerable time the other week arguing AGAINST David King's draft revamp proposal or the idea that Brisbane should get a priority pick. I believe this as I think the competition over the last couple of decades has given more teams a chance than ever before. In fact only three teams, Brisbane, Melbourne and St Kilda, haven't played finals at all in the last three years. Only two teams (barring GWS and GC) haven't played in an AFL grand final, and 11 clubs have shared the 26 flags in the AFL era.
4. So, basically, you've taken me saying Hawthorn getting that pair of players would spark a draft revamp as meaning I think it SHOULD spark a draft revamp. Which I don't.
5. But even if I did think that, which, just to be perfectly clear once again for your benefit, "Lemon", I DON'T, how does that justify calling someone who has an alternative view a FC? (and yes, I understand what campaigner is a euphemism for)
6. Hope that clears things up for you. Can I also say at this point, I think there's some great discussion on these boards. Unfortunately, "Lemon", your contribution wasn't part of that. Hope at some stage you can learn to actually (a) listen properly, (b) conduct a civil debate, and (c) try expanding your vocabulary.
Cheers,
Rohan
Thanks Rohan.Hi folks, You may or may not be aware I was asked to do a Q&A on here a couple of weeks back. I enjoyed it, and have been taking a look around various boards since.
I wish hadn't stumbled on to your post, "The Lemon", but seeing as I did, please allow me to make a few points.
1. I understand the Hawks have acquired much of their imported talent through shrewd trading and drafting, and as far as I'm concerned, good luck to them. I've actually spoken on air before about how people get wrong the extent to which they've benefited through free agency. They're a really well run club, and deserve all the success they get.
2. The point I was making was that regardless of how they go about it, were they to end up with both Mitchell and O'Meara, through whatever means, a significant number of people in football, and I suspect people running the game, would see that as further evidence that the draft had veered away from the intent it was supposed to have, which is to help poorer-performing clubs.
3. Do I agree with that view? No, I don't. Which is why I spent considerable time the other week arguing AGAINST David King's draft revamp proposal or the idea that Brisbane should get a priority pick. I believe this as I think the competition over the last couple of decades has given more teams a chance than ever before. In fact only three teams, Brisbane, Melbourne and St Kilda, haven't played finals at all in the last three years. Only two teams (barring GWS and GC) haven't played in an AFL grand final, and 11 clubs have shared the 26 flags in the AFL era.
4. So, basically, you've taken me saying Hawthorn getting that pair of players would spark a draft revamp as meaning I think it SHOULD spark a draft revamp. Which I don't.
5. But even if I did think that, which, just to be perfectly clear once again for your benefit, "Lemon", I DON'T, how does that justify calling someone who has an alternative view a FC? (and yes, I understand what campaigner is a euphemism for)
6. Hope that clears things up for you. Can I also say at this point, I think there's some great discussion on these boards. Unfortunately, "Lemon", your contribution wasn't part of that. Hope at some stage you can learn to actually (a) listen properly, (b) conduct a civil debate, and (c) try expanding your vocabulary.
Cheers,
Rohan