- Feb 20, 2018
- AFL Club
If you don't understand what I was trying to say, then I'm not sure what to tell you, lol. Perhaps respond to the whole argument, rather than just selecting one line you don't like.If you think that's what i'm saying... i really don't know what to tell you
I'll clarify again. If you're simultaneously stipulating that he has mental health issues, whilst stating that we're exploiting the situation by not offering purported 'fair value', then you're trying to have both sides of the argument.
You can't say that Steven has mental health issues, whilst playing the 'big bad wolf Geelong' card, and then say that we're exploiting your club because of his need to get home.
Real exploitation would have been saying 'you can have Pick 93, and pay more than half his salary, because he'll retire anyway and doesn't want to go anywhere else'...and then it coming out later that we counselled Steven to say that he'll retire so we didn't have to pay a thing in draft picks or salary.
As it stands, we offered a lower pick, due to us paying the vast majority of his salary. That was already explained as the sticking point, as both clubs didn't want to pay a large amount of his salary. We ended up footing the bill, at the cost of you getting a negligible draft pick (which is still more than the Hawks paid for Patton who is 3 years younger and physically fit right now; as I pointed out earlier).
You need to understand, that there are several moving cogs involved in this deal. Brad Hill, Zac Smith, Steven, salary, draft picks etc. You acting liking it's just us getting a 'freebie' because we only gave up Pick 58, is disingenuous given that you've failed to mention the aforementioned in your argument.
If St Kilda had of held him, it would have been no different to GC holding Ablett to his contract, whilst his sister had documented issues that he needed to be home for - something they haven't been panned for despite the eventual outcome (nor should they). You had every right to hold him, but it was mutually agreed by all parties (once Brad Hill nominated you guys on big money), that he would come to Geelong. The sticking point was the salary, which is why it took so long for negotiations to go through.
For the record, I pushed for Jack to remain all year, if he was comfortable to return to St Kilda. I thought that was the best outcome for all concerned. You're speculating and sensationalizing, given that no-one has said anything bad about St Kilda possibly holding Jack to his contract (if that had of happened). As it stands, everyone got what they want and you're still here acting like we're the bad guys. Despite the fact that we're paying a big enough portion of his salary, that it allowed you to get Brad Hill, Zak Jones and Dougal Howard through the door on big money.
As I said before, it's done.