- Sep 12, 2013
- 5,219
- 5,356
- AFL Club
- Sydney
No, these ones:my “detailed” claims. That Sydney was wanted joe and talked to him before he nominated and didn’t talk to Essendon.
1. Sydney made assurances to Daniher.They targeted a contracted player, no doubt made assurances to him they would make true trade to convince him to nominate which they couldn’t follow through on. Obviously had no discussions with Essendon about how much they valued him or what it would take to make a trade prior to trade week. Total incompetence.
2. That they made these assurances to convinces him to nominate them.
3. Sydney targeted Daniher (I know you back peddled on this later, but a player coming to a team with a desire to be traded to them isn't the team targeting the player)
4. The discussions or lack thereof between the teams.
Again 'You don't think' or asking if someone is naive to think something isn't a basis for anything.You honestly are naive enough to think that joe nominated Sydney without talking to his friend and mentor who happens to be ceo of the club? If any of Barrett’s nonsense can be believed joe showed up at harleys house in a hood and wearing a hat and only told Essendon about it after he knew he’d been spotted. He was desperate to leave Essendon walking into this meeting. You believe Harley when he says that they didn’t discuss joe coming to Sydney? I guess then you also believed joe when he said just a couple of months the only way he wouldn’t be at Essendon next year is if we didn’t want him. People lie. You must be incredibly naive if you don’t recognise this.
Right, so you're back to square 1: You made it up.So, my source? The capacity for critical thought. Give it a try
Last edited: