Traded Jake Carlisle [traded w/ #23 and #44 for #5, #24 and Craig Bird]

[Falchoon]

Should've gone to Hawthorn after all. At least there he'll have some chance of success.

he's coming from a very low base

 

[Jesse Custer]

This still going? Ok then...

 

[Lance Uppercut]

s**t thread is s**t

 

[dlanod]

It strikes me as counter-productive to keep bumping the thread if you're complaining about it still going...

 

[Donakebab]

It strikes me as counter-productive to keep bumping the thread if you're complaining about it still going...

Morbid curiosity. Like a horrible car crash, you know it's bad but you just can't look away.

 

[Jade]

Very interesting note;

At the members forum last night, a member posed a question as to why Essendon had 'again' be fined by the AFL for breaching the Anti-Doping code. I don't know if any of you recall the incident in question, but here's a link for anyone interested:

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2015-10-05/essendon-among-four-clubs-fined-for-asada-breach

The answer, given by Rob Kerr, was revealing. He said, very pointedly, that when players go on end of season leave, they are required to do a post season medical, and then attend the administration office to let the club know where they are going and when so that this information can be passed on to ASADA.

Whilst not mentioning Carlisle by name, he 'spat' (for lack of a better word), that a player that had 'quit the club', didn't show for either of these requirements; and the inference was very clear that it WAS Carlisle. Worth noting that Carlisle WAS still under contract at this time, and was obligated to complete these requirements.

In addition, Kerr thanked Hawthorn by name when discussing our off season activities and then stated, and I quote, that 'St Kilda attempted to stitch us up'.

These two pieces of information reaffirmed for me two facts that I thought were reasonably obvious even at the time:

1) Carlisle is an incredibly unprofessional person.
2) St Kilda acted like rank amateurs, and were deliberately attempting to 'under' a deal.

Absolutely deserving of each other. If I was a betting man I dare say in several years this deal is going to be looked at VERY harshly by St Kilda fans.

 

[rumply]

Agree Jade, I have almost no doubt that Carlisle will * this up big time, & I do feel for those genuine Saints fans that only wanted to see a fair deal done here.

 

[burningdwarf]

Very interesting note;

At the members forum last night, a member posed a question as to why Essendon had 'again' be fined by the AFL for breaching the Anti-Doping code. I don't know if any of you recall the incident in question, but here's a link for anyone interested:

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2015-10-05/essendon-among-four-clubs-fined-for-asada-breach

The answer, given by Rob Kerr, was revealing. He said, very pointedly, that when players go on end of season leave, they are required to do a post season medical, and then attend the administration office to let the club know where they are going and when so that this information can be passed on to ASADA.

Whilst not mentioning Carlisle by name, he 'spat' (for lack of a better word), that a player that had 'quit the club', didn't show for either of these requirements; and the inference was very clear that it WAS Carlisle. Worth noting that Carlisle WAS still under contract at this time, and was obligated to complete these requirements.

In addition, Kerr thanked Hawthorn by name when discussing our off season activities and then stated, and I quote, that 'St Kilda attempted to stitch us up'.

These two pieces of information reaffirmed for me two facts that I thought were reasonably obvious even at the time:

1) Carlisle is an incredibly unprofessional person.
2) St Kilda acted like rank amateurs, and were deliberately attempting to 'under' a deal.

Absolutely deserving of each other. If I was a betting man I dare say in several years this deal is going to be looked at VERY harshly by St Kilda fans.

So Carlisle is a terrible, dodgy individual and the deal is going to be shocking for us, but if we offered any less we were acting like rank amateurs?

 

[cartel]

So Carlisle is a terrible dodgy individual and the deal is going to be shocking for us, but if we offered any less we were acting like rank amateurs?

You know that argument makes sense. Leigh Matthews said Carlisle for pick 5 was a good deal, haven't you heard?

Not sure anyone at Essendon can describe anybody else in the AFL as unprofessional when they're coming from that cesspit of cheating.

 

[Jade]

So Carlisle is a terrible, dodgy individual and the deal is going to be shocking for us, but if we offered any less we were acting like rank amateurs?

Is Jake an unprofessional bloke? Yes, most certainly.

Were your blokes acting like teenage virgins getting their first handful of chest plumpers? Yes, yes you were.

 

[aussierulesrules]

I love it how they're having a go at us for trying to get him for "unders" when they were demanding pick 5 for him when they all supposedly knew what a "horrible unprofessional individual" he is, who their leadership group "wanted gone".

These potential character/intelligence etc issues were exactly why many of us believed he wasn't worth as much as he would have been had there been no questionmarks, just like how Harley Bennell went for much, much less than he otherwise would have been traded for if there weren't known issues there.

With all this taken into account there is no way he was worth pick 5 straight up (what Essendon demanded all the way through- ie. overs) and Essendon did bloody well to get as much as they did for him, something I think we only did because we wanted to show potential tradees in the future that we could get the deal done even if it meant paying "overs" a bit.

Essendon are just bloody lucky that news story didn't go to air one night earlier.

 

[Periphery]

I love it how they're having a go at us for trying to get him for "unders" when they were demanding pick 5 for him when they all supposedly knew what a "horrible individual" he is, who their leadership group "wanted gone".

These potential character/intelligence etc issues were exactly why many of us believed he wasn't worth as much as he would have been had there been no questionmarks, just like how Harley Bennell went for much, much less than he otherwise would have been traded for if there weren't known issues there.

With all this taken into account there is no way he was worth pick 5 straight up (what Essendon demanded all the way through) and Essendon did bloody well to get as much as they did for him, something I think we only did because we wanted to show potential tradees in the future that we could get the deal done even if it meant paying "overs" a bit.

BUT WE ARE SUCH AN AMATEUR ORGANISATION THAT CANT GET ANY GOOD TRADES DONE.

*Ignores all of our previous trade activity that went without a hitch and the fact that Essendon is a notoriously hard club to trade with*

Clearly the Saints were the problem.

 

[aussierulesrules]

Is Jake an unprofessional bloke? Yes, most certainly.

Were your blokes acting like teenage virgins getting their first handful of chest plumpers? Yes, yes you were.

Do you realise how contradictory you're being here?

If he's so "unprofessional" and so-on, it significantly reduces his trade value, just as Bennell's issues did him, yet you think that we were the ones offering "unders", but you guys somehow weren't demanding "overs", which is just as bad?

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!

 

[Jade]

I love it how they're having a go at us for trying to get him for "unders" when they were demanding pick 5 for him when they all supposedly knew what a "horrible individual" he is, who their leadership group "wanted gone".

These potential character/intelligence etc issues were exactly why many of us believed he wasn't worth as much as he would have been had there been no questionmarks, just like how Harley Bennell went for much, much less than he otherwise would have been traded for if there weren't known issues there.

With all this taken into account there is no way he was worth pick 5 straight up (what Essendon demanded all the way through) and Essendon did bloody well to get as much as they did for him, something I think we only did because we wanted to show potential tradees in the future that we could get the deal done even if it meant paying "overs" a bit.

To clarify, I'm not having a go at St Kilda for offering unders exactly.

You had nothing else to give, it was the only compensation you could part with that would get the deal done.

You don't have to bend over straight away and hand it over, but it became reasonably apparent fairly early in the piece that

a) The saints didn't actually have a proper plan to extract him and;
b) you very deliberately tried to force an unders trade that was quickly going south BECAUSE of you.

That's why I keep referring to the Saints as amateurs - you were so woefully unable to function and negotiate at a professional level.

 

[Jade]

Do you realise how contradictory you're being here?

If he's so "unprofessional" and so-on, it significantly reduces his trade value, just as Bennell's issues did him, yet you think that we were the ones offering "unders", but you guys somehow weren't demanding "overs", which is just as bad?

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!

No, it's not contradictory in the slightest.

Essendon were willing to keep Carlisle. He wouldn't be the first player than needs to be heavily managed. Gold Coast didn't want Bennell.

 

[aussierulesrules]

To clarify, I'm not having a go at St Kilda for offering unders exactly.

You had nothing else to give, it was the only compensation you could part with that would get the deal done.

You don't have to bend over straight away and hand it over, but it became reasonably apparent fairly early in the piece that

a) The saints didn't actually have a proper plan to extract him and;
b) you very deliberately tried to force an unders trade that was quickly going south BECAUSE of you.

That's why I keep referring to the Saints as amateurs - you were so woefully unable to function and negotiate at a professional level.

That is such one-eyed crap. Dodoro stated on day one of the trade period that you "weren't interested in any 3rd or 4th party deals" and that you were only willing to accept pick 5, which clearly suggests that we had suggested bringing in some other clubs to get the sort of deal that ended up going through done, but Dodo wouldn't budge on his "overs" demand, or work with us on any 3 or 4 way deals and that's why it ended up dragging on as long as it did.

Had he been more willing to work with us from day one in a 3 or 4 way deal, the deal most likely would have been done much sooner, but he was clearly being his usual self and making it as hard for us as he could and so we had to go off and try and get a more suitable pick by ourselves, which is a much harder thing to do and that's why it took a lot longer for it to get done.

I don't disagree that we would have been trying to get him for "unders", which is what tends to happen with almost every trade when someone is out of contract and nominates one club, but lets not kid ourselves that you guys weren't likewise trying to get "overs" for him, by demanding pick 5 for someone who you supposedly all knew was "damaged goods".

You were trying to sell damaged goods at full price and yet you're still trying to make us out as the "bad guys" here, because we tried to get them cheaply.

Your club's propaganda machine (I mean PR team) really do deserve a pay rise!

 

[Jade]

You were trying to sell damaged goods at full price and yet you're still trying to make us out as the "bad guys" here, because we tried to get him cheaply. Your club's propaganda machine (I mean PR team) really do deserve a pay rise!

There are two possible scenarios here:

1) St Kilda actually ARE the 'bad guys'.
2) The 'proganda machine' is making you look that way.

Either way I'm happy to be honest.

 

[cartel]

I don;t think anybody apart from BF Essendon flogs think St Kilda are the bad guys in this scenario.

 

[aussierulesrules]

There are two possible scenarios here:

1) St Kilda actually ARE the 'bad guys'.
2) The 'proganda machine' is making you look that way.

Either way I'm happy to be honest.

Says a lot, actually.

 

[Periphery]

That's why I keep referring to the Saints as amateurs - you were so woefully unable to function and negotiate at a professional level.

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

 

[Jade]

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

I'd be more inclined to question your club if I was you.

 

[Periphery]

I'd be more inclined to question your club if I was you.

Said an Essendon supporter.

 

[Saintt]

Won't care when we're giving Essendon another 100+ point belting next year.

 

[King_Steele]

Said an Essendon supporter.

Zing

 

[Jade]

Said an Essendon supporter.

Indeed. An Essendon supporter that has questioned his club at length.