Jesse Hogan Contract Negotiations (Titus O'Reilly)

Remove this Banner Ad

Snuffaluphagus said:
Pretty sure the scenario is as follows (if Mr Freo isn't full of it):
1) Jesse legitimately unsure
2) Melbourne want an answer and know if he left, they could get shafted next year.
3) Ross and Co want Jesse now and realise he may decide to stay, godfather offer has been presented to get Melbourne seriously thinking about being proactive and send him our way.

Dont suppose you want to give anymore information on the "sauce"
Click to expand...
I can't. It'll probably come out in time, always does
 
Freo Shark said:
It will be painful whomever the player is. Its more a Weller variety. Dont know what other currency we have, dont think Tucker has maybe Langdon.
Click to expand...
While I want Hogan pretty badly, I dont think i would be willing to give up possibly two top 10 picks and a good young player. It would have to be steak knives. And while I think we can get about pick 28 from GC for Barlow, I would be... ok with 2 1sts and Barlow since he cant be involved in our next push unfortunately
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Freo said:
I have a very reliable source (does that sound like Hagdorn?) the club has offered this year's and next year's 1st plus a player for Hogan.
Click to expand...
I think there's a reason why Barlow, MDB and Clarke haven't been offered contracts. The club are planning on getting JH and front loading his contract for the first year which will give them plenty of cash to pay Fyfe in '18. Those out of contract will be offered whatever salary cap space is left over.
 
Demons09 said:
Lol at the delusion on the Melbourne board it's hit Essendon levels.
Click to expand...
Certainly entertaining the idea that some trade could involve Fyfe is delusional. If Fyfe leaves (which I think pretty unlikely) it will be to one of the big four: Pies / Essendon / Carlton / Hawthorn. The supporters of the other Vic sides though imagine that their tiny loss making club to somehow outrank all the 'interstate' clubs because history, perhaps grudgingly accepting Sydneys status, and that therefor a marquee player like Fyfe would consider them a viable option. It also seems to be an attitude shared by supporters of big Melbourne clubs and a large % of the Melbourne footy media as well.
The sooner AFL and Vic AFL community finally accepts that 3 of Melbourne / North / Dogs / Saints (and, lets face it, Richmond) are relegated to the VFL where they belong, and balance the geography of the comp, the better off we'll all be.
 
Paracleet said:
There are some twins brothers right in front of us who do that. In-between carping about umpires all game every game. These guys are probably close to 60 too, so much resentment. I feel sorry for them. Except when I've been drinking when they just fill with suppressed rage.
Click to expand...
We may sit very close to each other. Near the Billy Walker room?
 
Freo said:
I have a very reliable source (does that sound like Hagdorn?) the club has offered this year's and next year's 1st plus a player for Hogan.
Click to expand...

Unless we can get a first round back somehow I don't think we can use next years 1st.

Unless Mayne ends up as a end of first round pick 19.
 
TheLastCall said:
Unless we can get a first round back somehow I don't think we can use next years 1st.

Unless Mayne ends up as a end of first round pick 19.
Click to expand...
The rules are actually really vague but it never says you cant do it, just that if you dont use the first round picks, there will be restrictions. I think its more about stopping you from trading more after you have breached the rule, not before, if that makes sense
 
I can see this all blowing up in our face. This is the deal that more or less got Judd to Carlton.

In fact pick 3 was involved, pick 20 and kennedy. For us it'll be pick 3, pick 10ish and probably one of our young blokes.
The maths just doesn't add up - is anybody on board with this if there's even an ounce of truth to the suggestion?

Lets be real here, this sort of deal could cripple the club moving forward. We aren't even contending.
 
I assume the AFL don't sign off on a trade that means a club would be out of the first round two years in a row. No penalty, the just don't let it happen.
 
JohnW said:
I assume the AFL don't sign off on a trade that means a club would be out of the first round two years in a row. No penalty, the just don't let it happen.
Click to expand...
Who is to say we cant trade into the first round next year? The AFL wouldn't be able to make a call on penalties until after trade period
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Paracleet said:
Certainly entertaining the idea that some trade could involve Fyfe is delusional. If Fyfe leaves (which I think pretty unlikely) it will be to one of the big four: Pies / Essendon / Carlton / Hawthorn. The supporters of the other Vic sides though imagine that their tiny loss making club to somehow outrank all the 'interstate' clubs because history, perhaps grudgingly accepting Sydneys status, and that therefor a marquee player like Fyfe would consider them a viable option. It also seems to be an attitude shared by supporters of big Melbourne clubs and a large % of the Melbourne footy media as well.
The sooner AFL and Vic AFL community finally accepts that 3 of Melbourne / North / Dogs / Saints (and, lets face it, Richmond) are relegated to the VFL where they belong, and balance the geography of the comp, the better off we'll all be.
Click to expand...

Brutal :eek:
 
Paracleet said:
Certainly entertaining the idea that some trade could involve Fyfe is delusional. If Fyfe leaves (which I think pretty unlikely) it will be to one of the big four: Pies / Essendon / Carlton / Hawthorn. The supporters of the other Vic sides though imagine that their tiny loss making club to somehow outrank all the 'interstate' clubs because history, perhaps grudgingly accepting Sydneys status, and that therefor a marquee player like Fyfe would consider them a viable option. It also seems to be an attitude shared by supporters of big Melbourne clubs and a large % of the Melbourne footy media as well.
The sooner AFL and Vic AFL community finally accepts that 3 of Melbourne / North / Dogs / Saints (and, lets face it, Richmond) are relegated to the VFL where they belong, and balance the geography of the comp, the better off we'll all be.
Click to expand...

Harsh, and the latter part will never happen, but agree with the sentiment.
 
Paracleet said:
The supporters of the other Vic sides though imagine that their tiny loss making club to somehow outrank all the 'interstate' clubs because history, perhaps grudgingly accepting Sydneys status, and that therefor a marquee player like Fyfe would consider them a viable option. The sooner AFL and Vic AFL community finally accepts that 3 of Melbourne / North / Dogs / Saints (and, lets face it, Richmond) are relegated to the VFL where they belong, and balance the geography of the comp, the better off we'll all be.
Click to expand...
They're not that tiny though these days hey. Melbourne, Bulldogs and Saints have 38-39k in members, North have 45k and Richmond 72k. If I was a member of the Bulldogs, given their prospects for the foreseeable, I'd be thinking they'd be a viable destination club for a marquis player like Fyfe regardless of history.
 
Andy Brennan said:
It should've been the gold coast kangaroos and greater Western bulldogs, would've helped sort the issue out. The afl was just too hungry for the extra dollars having an extra game a week brings
Click to expand...

In fairness, the AFL gave it a shot in the late '90s/early '00s. The powers that be pushed to trim the Melbourne teams. Remember the whole Kangas to GC attempt? From a clinical objective point of view, it was clearly the best thing to do. But the clubs dug their heals in and the AFL didn't push through as they could have if they really wanted to.

Now we're stuck with this lopsided competition really basically forever. With the TV rights and 'equalisation' pumping money into what were struggling clubs (and really they still do in some ways), those 'lesser clubs' are bedded in now. Many would say for the good of the game, but really, the inbalance is still one of many fundamental flaws in the AFL comp.
 
PapaJ said:
In fairness, the AFL gave it a shot in the late '90s/early '00s. The powers that be pushed to trim the Melbourne teams. Remember the whole Kangas to GC attempt? From a clinical objective point of view, it was clearly the best thing to do. But the clubs dug their heals in and the AFL didn't push through as they could have if they really wanted to.

Now we're stuck with this lopsided competition really basically forever. With the TV rights and 'equalisation' pumping money into what were struggling clubs (and really they still do in some ways), those 'lesser clubs' are bedded in now. Many would say for the good of the game, but really, the inbalance is still one of many fundamental flaws in the AFL comp.
Click to expand...

They should have told them to get ****ed and forced it. If there's ever a tassie team it better be a relocated tin rattler
 
There's much knob measuring that would happen prior to trade week and even more so during trade week.

Fair enough, that we've offered a big deal to Hogan. We need to convince him this is the place to be and that he's genuinely wanted. However, it could all be a bluff. Similar to GC offering Fyfe a huge deal. If either happen to land their player they probably think 'Okaaaay, paid overs, but we have our man I guess'.

In my mind this is all part of the game. Then when next year roles about, if Hogan is at all serious of leaving Melbourne then we are well and truly in the box seat as we showed great interest the year before.

Lobb is another one. We've flopped out our dongs with rumoured $750k deals, but he likely had zero intention of leaving... until we did in fact flop it out. That doubt creates speculation and 7% of the time speculation becomes fact as the interest builds and the player starts thinking 'hmmmm... win 4 premierships in next 5 years at GWS or get paid like a mofo'.

Finally, we've had the last 16 players reject our advances, so my maths tells me that 7% is BANG ON due soon!
 
Cobbler said:
There's much knob measuring that would happen prior to trade week and even more so during trade week.

Fair enough, that we've offered a big deal to Hogan. We need to convince him this is the place to be and that he's genuinely wanted. However, it could all be a bluff. Similar to GC offering Fyfe a huge deal. If either happen to land their player they probably think 'Okaaaay, paid overs, but we have our man I guess'.

In my mind this is all part of the game. Then when next year roles about, if Hogan is at all serious of leaving Melbourne then we are well and truly in the box seat as we showed great interest the year before.

Lobb is another one. We've flopped out our dongs with rumoured $750k deals, but he likely had zero intention of leaving... until we did in fact flop it out. That doubt creates speculation and 7% of the time speculation becomes fact as the interest builds and the player starts thinking 'hmmmm... win 4 premierships in next 5 years at GWS or get paid like a mofo'.

Finally, we've had the last 16 players reject our advances, so my maths tells me that 7% is BANG ON due soon!
Click to expand...

Cam Mccarthy was very flattered by our advances until his dad said no and grounded him
 
Freo88 said:
Who is to say we cant trade into the first round next year? The AFL wouldn't be able to make a call on penalties until after trade period
Click to expand...

You traded last years, and maybe this years, that's the part that wouldn't be allowed. Sure trade next years, and last years is done,that would be fine. But you couldn't include this years, with out trading in another 1st round pick for this year.

This is not based on fact, just from what I have read (not official rules etc).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top