Looking to the draft...

[WALL-e]

It is possible, with how very very good this 2012 draft is, with such high end guns, that Kennedy will slip to our pick (which isn't likely to be all that high anyway) due to his lack of height to play midfield in the AFL. Regardless of his unbelievable skill and athletic attribute, small mids/small forwards don't go top 5 (see Rioli), regardless of their talent.

Regardless, it's safe to say we'll get a gun with our first pick next year, everyone will.

 

[WALL-e]

Andrew McLeod Board.

Is that before or after we pick up Hird with pick 70 odd in the draft?

If only it were that easy these days.

 

[cammo6556]

It is possible, with how very very good this 2012 draft is, with such high end guns, that Kennedy will slip to our pick (which isn't likely to be all that high anyway) due to his lack of height to play midfield in the AFL. Regardless of his unbelievable skill and athletic attribute, small mids/small forwards don't go top 5 (see Rioli), regardless of their talent.

Regardless, it's safe to say we'll get a gun with our first pick next year, everyone will.

It is possible, yes, but its a gamble. Why not snare him this year AND grab a gun in the first round next year?

 

[srv23]

Is that before or after we pick up Hird with pick 70 odd in the draft?

If only it were that easy these days.

But doesn't that in some way support the argument of going hard at one of these kids. Recruiting is so much more precise these days that it's pretty hard for a seriously good players to slip too far. There are some exceptions and examples of absolute guns who slip past the first round (eg Fyfe) but not may top 10 picks turn out to be super duds these days. Therefore if our recruting team are good, then we should have a fair idea of which of these highly rated kids are going to be guns.

Would we (in hindsight) give up Vince and a first rounder for say Murphy, Gibbs, Heppel, Martin, Trengove, Kreuzer, NicNat? Hell - Port offerred Melbourne pick 8 and 9 for pick 2 just to get their hands on Trengove...and Melbourne said no..

I don't know the answer but it really depends on how highly these kids are rated by our recruting team.

 

[cammo6556]

Is that before or after we pick up Hird with pick 70 odd in the draft?

If only it were that easy these days.

talent identification has come a long long way

 

[johnnypanther]

looks like you guys won't be players in the u17 mini draft




http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/118480/default.aspx

If the asking price is truly too high then all the other clubs won't deal for him either.

I think it is somewhat irrelevant what GWS actually want.

The way i understood the 17yo mini-draft auction system to work is that GWS can auction 4 selections over 2 years hence for example if we assume that they will offer 2 selections this time around then they go to the 2 Clubs with the highest bids in order and then those clubs select in that order.
Consequently, it may not matter so much what GWS's asking price is - it is more a matter of being one of the 2(in this example) highest bidders.
GWS will auction all 4 selections over the 2 year period otherwise they receive nothing.

I actually think that Port have an excellent chance of getting one of those picks since they appear willing to offer up virtually anyone on their list.

 

[WALL-e]

It is possible, yes, but its a gamble. Why not snare him this year AND grab a gun in the first round next year?

If all the chatter is accurate, GWS don't want picks. Especially for this draft.

So we'd then have to trade them a player who is good enough for what they want, AND who wants to go to GWS. Who is this player? Vince? They probably don't want damaged goods. It would be a player like Scott Thompson, like Jacobs, like Dangerfield. Players we NEED, and player who probably don't want to reside in Blacktown.

This is a LOT more difficult to organise than those on BF make it seem.

 

[cammo6556]

If all the chatter is accurate, GWS don't want picks. Especially for this draft.

So we'd then have to trade them a player who is good enough for what they want, AND who wants to go to GWS. Who is this player? Vince? They probably don't want damaged goods. It would be a player like Scott Thompson, like Jacobs, like Dangerfield. Players we NEED, and player who probably don't want to reside in Blacktown.

This is a LOT more difficult to organise than those on BF make it seem.

I dunno about you, but I wouldnt get all princess-y about earning $2000000 over 3 years for having to play football and live in Sydney.

Lets face it, they dont have to live in Blacktown. In fact, why would they? I sure as hell wouldnt live in the suburb I work...

 

[WALL-e]

But doesn't that in some way support the argument of going hard at one of these kids. Recruiting is so much more precise these days that it's pretty hard for a seriously good players to slip too far. There are some exceptions and examples of absolute guns who slip past the first round (eg Fyfe) but not may top 10 picks turn out to be super duds these days. Therefore if our recruting team are good, then we should have a fair idea of which of these highly rated kids are going to be guns.

Would we (in hindsight) give up Vince and a first rounder for say Murphy, Gibbs, Heppel, Martin, Trengove, Kreuzer, NicNat? Hell - Port offerred Melbourne pick 8 and 9 for pick 2 just to get their hands on Trengove...and Melbourne said no..

I don't know the answer but it really depends on how highly these kids are rated by our recruting team.

talent identification has come a long long way

I'm in agreeance with this, my point more bing that you don't get those sweet ass McLeod deals anymore.

Say 2007 draft, we give up pick 10 and Vince, we'd probably snare Melbournes pick #3. We still select Dangerfield as our top two (Kruezer & Cotchin) are off the board. God forbid we actually rater Morton or Palmer....

That's a bit harsh those as our 2007 and 2008 drafts saw us select 'half sneakie' first rounders.

So 2009, we trade up our first and Vince and probably get pick 3, maybe 4. Hope like hell we rated Martin high, because is our first (Talia) AND Vince worth Morabito or Cunnington? We'll see.

 

[WALL-e]

I dunno about you, but I wouldnt get all princess-y about earning $2000000 over 3 years for having to play football and live in Sydney.

Lets face it, they dont have to live in Blacktown. In fact, why would they? I sure as hell wouldnt live in the suburb I work...

Money IS a massive factor. And you'll see that will cause a couple of defections, but they will have to overpay more than GC did.

You saw how much GC had to pay its players, now that's living on the sunny beach, couple of minutes walk to training and games, can go out and get loose witha plethora of good looking ladies, can seep into obscurity if you desire. GC is a sweet place to live.

Sydney is expensive. You either live in a less than desirable suburb, or you commute 1-2 hours each way per day and pay madssive overs for your house and countless bucks in travel.

 

[johnnypanther]

If all the chatter is accurate, GWS don't want picks. Especially for this draft.

So we'd then have to trade them a player who is good enough for what they want, AND who wants to go to GWS. Who is this player? Vince? They probably don't want damaged goods. It would be a player like Scott Thompson, like Jacobs, like Dangerfield. Players we NEED, and player who probably don't want to reside in Blacktown.

This is a LOT more difficult to organise than those on BF make it seem.

Very difficult - but nevertheless the fact remains that our bid only need be higher than others.

There is universal agreement that we lack elite players in our team and here is a possible opportunity to get one.....its a matter of trading.

We lament that we cannot persuade elite players to come to Adelaide via a trade, yet this may be such an opportunity. Of course, we have to offer something good to be in the game.

The fact that Kennedy as a 17yo cant play for us in 2012 is largely irrelevant (no different from Dangerfield and others previously), but he has been described as a white Cyril Rioli and i'm sure that Rendell's assessment of his talent would be on the ball.

I personally would have no problems trading players such as Vince or Thompson, if that is what was required to secure an elite (possibly/probably) player to our Club.
We dont get these opportunities much.

 

[cammo6556]

Money IS a massive factor. And you'll see that will cause a couple of defections, but they will have to overpay more than GC did.

You saw how much GC had to pay its players, now that's living on the sunny beach, couple of minutes walk to training and games, can go out and get loose witha plethora of good looking ladies, can seep into obscurity if you desire. GC is a sweet place to live.

Sydney is expensive. You either live in a less than desirable suburb, or you commute 1-2 hours each way per day and pay madssive overs for your house and countless bucks in travel.

Why does anyone live there at all then? Sounds horrible!

Cmon, adelaide is boring
Melbourne you are under the microscope constantly
Perth has heat

There's something wrong wherever you look. The $$$ should be good enough for these people to overlook the locational shortcomings. It's not as though they have been shipped off to the front lines. They have a desirable job that pays well. You go where the work is...

 

[L_Maximus]

I think Rendell has done a pretty good job in his time at AFC. I trust his judgement, and if he doesn't think Kennedy is worth what GWS are asking for, then I back his decision.

Howl me down for entrusting our club blindly, but he does this for a job, whereas I suspect most people here are merely armchair experts.

 

[cammo6556]

I think Rendell has done a pretty good job in his time at AFC. I trust his judgement, and if he doesn't think Kennedy is worth what GWS are asking for, then I back his decision.

Howl me down for entrusting our club blindly, but he does this for a job, whereas I suspect most people here are merely armchair experts.

Of course we are armchair experts. Nobody here (to my knowledge) works for the AFC...

I just can't trust them blindly anymore. You can do what you like, but I figure being negative, you are either proven right or pleasantly surprised.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Is that before or after we pick up Hird with pick 70 odd in the draft?

If only it were that easy these days.

Picking up McLeod wasn't easy.

We had to give up a player who would have been the second best CHF in our history (after Klug) to do it.

Fortunately an ACL at Freo and then another one at NM saved us from making any comparisons.

Wellman for Jarman.

Would we choose to give up two quality players now?

The reason we don't attract any decent players through trading is because we don't want to hurt our players feelings by shopping them around.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

I think Rendell has done a pretty good job in his time at AFC. I trust his judgement, and if he doesn't think Kennedy is worth what GWS are asking for, then I back his decision.

Howl me down for entrusting our club blindly, but he does this for a job, whereas I suspect most people here are merely armchair experts.

We're not comparing our club with us.

We're comparing them with the other clubs, who are their competition.

 

[WALL-e]

Picking up McLeod wasn't easy.

We had to give up a player who would have been the second best CHF in our history (after Klug) to do it.

Fortunately an ACL at Freo and then another one at NM saved us from making any comparisons.

Wellman for Jarman.

Would we choose to give up two quality players now?

The reason we don't attract any decent players through trading is because we don't want to hurt our players feelings by shopping them around.

We made out like bandits in both trades, regardless of injuries.

I do believe we would trade players, but players have to agree to be traded, see Daniel Bradshaw. We'd approach players, and enquire if they hold interest in being traded, such as Sellar last year.

If we are comparing us with other teams, what other teams are pulling in superstar trades by throwing big name players?

There are very few Judd type trades ever and when there are it's usually a young unestablished player back to homestate plus an early pick/s.

Player for play trades are usually the scrap heap types, ala Grigg for Houli.

This isn't an easy process, it's not NBA Live or Madden when we can pull triggers at will. If the player doesn't want to be traded, and you can't convince them.....you're screwed. I honestly believe we should be more aggressive, as you do, but it's a hard process. You first have to engage interest from a potential player, then you have to sort out what potential contract will be and adjust your list management accordingly assessing the viability of the contract over the short and long term given the expected increase and decreases in other contracts, you then have to guage interst of opposing club to play ball, how much do they want, players, picks that interest them etc, you then need to gauge any potential players from your team that will be included, are they interested to leave etc etc etc, you have to analyze the effect of moving said player will have on your long term list balance and development, you then need to convince them that the potential is right for them, you then discuss the trade with opposition teams and spend all your time doing back and forths, once you finally have a deal in place the agents for both players (who have been breaking balls the whole was as well) then have to sort out contracts and be HAPPY with what the new teams will offer.

ALL these things need to be done to pull off a trade, superstar trades don't happen often because no one wants to allow one to leave and they all make it as difficult as possible. It's hard work and trading is very young and a developing process in AFL. Who should we have gone after last year?

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

We decided to enter the trade game last season and - hey presto - we got Sam Jacobs and Richard Tambling. Two good players who have time on their side and will add to our line up long term, assuming we aren't too stupid to play them as we currently are.

What changed? Why did we pick up players last season and not others? Our attitude is what changed.

If the cost is Bernie Vince and our first rounder for Kennedy, would we do it? I think we should. It's a crap draft apparently, the presence of GWS shunts our pick even further down the list, Vince is 26 with dodgy knees and was dropped this season. He seems to be out of favour with us for unfathomable reasons, but there you go.

I'd do the trade. Who cares that Kennedy can't play in 2012. Are we going to make finals next season? Only a fool would predict we would. He is going to play for us from 2013-2025. Surely that outweights a 2012 absence? He's an SA kid so he's not going to get constant 'come home' overtures from interstate.

As for no significant trades... Tarrant, Kennedy (WCE), Jolly, Mumford, Burgoyne and Gibson are at or near AA level. Below that you have Kennedy (Syd), Mattner, Schneider, Hudson, Schulz, McGlynn, Shaw, Ray, Warnock, Ball... not stars but significant contributors, many of whom will give years of service to their new clubs. They aren't just seeing out their final contract in a new home. And I only went back the last few seasons.

It's a risk-reward business. Our tolerance to risk is exceptionally low. In fact the majority of trades we have been involved in have actually been instigated by players wanting to leave, which is amazing. We are reactive, not proactive.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Just spotted your edit

I honestly believe we should be more aggressive, as you do, but it's a hard process. You first have to engage interest from a potential player, then you have to sort out what potential contract will be and adjust your list management accordingly assessing the viability of the contract over the short and long term given the expected increase and decreases in other contracts, you then have to guage interst of opposing club to play ball, how much do they want, players, picks that interest them etc, you then need to gauge any potential players from your team that will be included, are they interested to leave etc etc etc, you have to analyze the effect of moving said player will have on your long term list balance and development, you then need to convince them that the potential is right for them, you then discuss the trade with opposition teams and spend all your time doing back and forths, once you finally have a deal in place the agents for both players (who have been breaking balls the whole was as well) then have to sort out contracts and be HAPPY with what the new teams will offer.

ALL these things need to be done to pull off a trade, superstar trades don't happen often because no one wants to allow one to leave and they all make it as difficult as possible. It's hard work and trading is very young and a developing process in AFL. Who should we have gone after last year?

Yes it's hard. All this would be fine IF our competitors weren't improving their lists through trading. But they are, so it isn't valid. It's hard for everyone. Some do, some don't.

We don't.

 

[WALL-e]

We decided to enter the trade game last season and - hey presto - we got Sam Jacobs and Richard Tambling. Two good players who have time on their side and will add to our line up long term, assuming we aren't too stupid to play them as we currently are.

What changed? Why did we pick up players last season and not others? Our attitude is what changed.

If the cost is Bernie Vince and our first rounder for Kennedy, would we do it? I think we should. It's a crap draft apparently, the presence of GWS shunts our pick even further down the list, Vince is 26 with dodgy knees and was dropped this season. He seems to be out of favour with us for unfathomable reasons, but there you go.

I'd do the trade. Who cares that Kennedy can't play in 2012. Are we going to make finals next season? Only a fool would predict we would. He is going to play for us from 2013-2025. Surely that outweights a 2012 absence? He's an SA kid so he's not going to get constant 'come home' overtures from interstate.

As for no significant trades... Tarrant, Kennedy (WCE), Jolly, Mumford, Burgoyne and Gibson are at or near AA level. Below that you have Kennedy (Syd), Mattner, Schneider, Hudson, Schulz, McGlynn, Shaw, Ray, Warnock, Ball... not stars but significant contributors, many of whom will give years of service to their new clubs. They aren't just seeing out their final contract in a new home. And I only went back the last few seasons.

It's a risk-reward business. Our tolerance to risk is exceptionally low. In fact the majority of trades we have been involved in have actually been instigated by players wanting to leave, which is amazing. We are reactive, not proactive.

First off, I do believe there was a change in stance of being more 'pro-active' in recruiting from other clubs last year, this I believe to be in part due to Nobes being set up as List Manager to help bridge the gap between coaches and recruiters. A good first step.

Off those first group of players you've listed, only one was a player for player (Kennedy WCE), in which case he was attached to picks and was himself a young player. I wasn't argueing the lack of players, more the lack of ability to trade players for players.

On the actual ability to get any of them......which of those players would have come here? Kennedy was given a 'push' to go home, Tarrant (or his bedroom partner) wanted back to Vic, Jolly wanted back to Vic, Mumford got a MASSIVE pay packet (we were still housing big name contracts at that stage), Burgs wanted out of SA and I have no idea on Gibson, while he's a solid player I wouldn't bend much to have him tbh.

The next group, with the exclusion of Warnock (homesick) and Ball (opportunity sick and a 'cheeky' contract set up with the Pies), Shaw does some good things, the rest are players we don;t like on this board. Douglas and Symes types.

I just hope we continue to look for potential homesick players, get in the ear of opportunity starved played (like we did VERY aggressively with Walker) and look at our ability to involve outr players 'delicately'.

On Kennedy, Tom Swift was perhaps the best 16 year old in the champs the year he played. Food for thought when offering up big carrots. I still think we'll be pro-active in attacking that ability to access him, we're still eligible to participate and hopefully GWS get some sence of reality and we can talk. We tried to nibble at Jack Viney as well (unfortunately we had NFI Todd wanted out )

Just spotted your edit

Yes it's hard. All this would be fine IF our competitors weren't improving their lists through trading. But they are, so it isn't valid. It's hard for everyone. Some do, some don't.

We don't.

I think I did an analysis of out trade activity a while back that showed we have been above par in terms ofactivity under Rendell.

Even with that in mind, we've tried to get good players too. Tried Griffen, McKenzie, Walker and will continue to do so. I think it can be frustrating to see good players on other teams, but we can't just get them here becuase we're willing to pay a lot or trade a lot.

 

[Vader]

We decided to enter the trade game last season and - hey presto - we got Sam Jacobs and Richard Tambling. Two good players who have time on their side and will add to our line up long term, assuming we aren't too stupid to play them as we currently are.

I think it was more motivated by the fact that GC had all the draft picks, leaving bugger all for the rest of us to choose from. It was easier to get the talent through trading than it was through drafting.

As for no significant trades... Tarrant, Kennedy (WCE), Jolly, Mumford, Burgoyne and Gibson are at or near AA level. Below that you have Kennedy (Syd), Mattner, Schneider, Hudson, Schulz, McGlynn, Shaw, Ray, Warnock, Ball... not stars but significant contributors, many of whom will give years of service to their new clubs. They aren't just seeing out their final contract in a new home. And I only went back the last few seasons.

Lets look at those shall we..

Tarrant - only wanted to go to Collingwood
Kennedy - was a reluctant part of the Judd trade.
Jolly - only wanted to go to Collingwood
Mumford - may have been available if we'd approached him (who knows), but at the time we had a full roster of ruckmen
Burgoyne - wanted out of Port, I'm not sure he would have ever entertained the idea of playing for the team up the road.
Gibson - Was seen at the time as being a far lesser player than the ones we already had (and rightly so).

So.. of the top liners you've listed, only Mumford might have been a possibility - and we already had his position covered abundantly.

Now to the others..
Kennedy, McGlynn, Shaw - cost Sydney nothing, would be nothing but another list clogger, keeping us stuck in the 2008 timewarp if we'd chased them.
Mattner & Hudson - both left Adelaide, why did you bother listing them?
Schneider - could have been useful at the time, given our shortage of small forwards, ultimately nothing more than a list clogger though.
Ray - Widely considered to be useless at the Dogs, why would we have wanted him?
Warnock - only wanted to go to a Victorian team.
Ball - only wanted to go to Collingwood.
Schulz - Was a dead man walking who went to the only club prepared to throw him a lifeline, credit where it's due - he's turned out to be 10x the player he was at Richmond.

There's nothing there that I regret us not chasing - and most of them weren't available to us anyway. At best, we'd have a bunch of list cloggers keeping us stuck in 2008.

What we need (and needed) is elite talent, especially in the midfield. There's been very little of that going around, other than Judd - who only wanted to go back to Victoria (and subsequently chose Carlton when he saw the cardboard money on offer).

 

[L_Maximus]

As for no significant trades... Tarrant, Kennedy (WCE), Jolly, Mumford, Burgoyne and Gibson are at or near AA level. Below that you have Kennedy (Syd), Mattner, Schneider, Hudson, Schulz, McGlynn, Shaw, Ray, Warnock, Ball...

Carl

If I'm not mistaken, at least 8 of the players mentioned actually wanted out of their original club. The majority coming from those you listed as significant trades (bar Kennedy)?

How many of these players would have considered coming to AFC? Not many I would say. So what could we have done better?

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

I think it was more motivated by the fact that GC had all the draft picks, leaving bugger all for the rest of us to choose from. It was easier to get the talent through trading than it was through drafting.

Lets look at those shall we..

Tarrant - only wanted to go to Collingwood
Kennedy - was a reluctant part of the Judd trade.
Jolly - only wanted to go to Collingwood
Mumford - may have been available if we'd approached him (who knows), but at the time we had a full roster of ruckmen
Burgoyne - wanted out of Port, I'm not sure he would have ever entertained the idea of playing for the team up the road.
Gibson - Was seen at the time as being a far lesser player than the ones we already had (and rightly so).

So.. of the top liners you've listed, only Mumford might have been a possibility - and we already had his position covered abundantly.

Now to the others..
Kennedy, McGlynn, Shaw - cost Sydney nothing, would be nothing but another list clogger, keeping us stuck in the 2008 timewarp if we'd chased them.
Mattner & Hudson - both left Adelaide, why did you bother listing them?
Schneider - could have been useful at the time, given our shortage of small forwards, ultimately nothing more than a list clogger though.
Ray - Widely considered to be useless at the Dogs, why would we have wanted him?
Warnock - only wanted to go to a Victorian team.
Ball - only wanted to go to Collingwood.
Schulz - Was a dead man walking who went to the only club prepared to throw him a lifeline, credit where it's due - he's turned out to be 10x the player he was at Richmond.

There's nothing there that I regret us not chasing - and most of them weren't available to us anyway. At best, we'd have a bunch of list cloggers keeping us stuck in 2008.

What we need (and needed) is elite talent, especially in the midfield. There's been very little of that going around, other than Judd - who only wanted to go back to Victoria (and subsequently chose Carlton when he saw the cardboard money on offer).

Drivel, as always.

We learned with Mattner what can occur if a club is proactive in seeking out another player.

The players listed above may not have come to us. Which doesn't matter, they aren't the only good players in the competition. What other players out there would consider a move Mattner-style if targeted specifically?

Heck, you said yourself if GC weren't around we probably wouldn't have got Jacobs.

You don't know what opportunities exist unless you explore all of them. They don't fall in our lap. Create, instigate, seek out.

What is interesting is that if you look at all the clubs the players listed above now play for, they are all around the mark or have been the last few years.



Edit: I think I've figured your approach to posting. You don't want to get the point. Because the point often reflects badly on the club and on your opinions.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

First off, I do believe there was a change in stance of being more 'pro-active' in recruiting from other clubs last year, this I believe to be in part due to Nobes being set up as List Manager to help bridge the gap between coaches and recruiters. A good first step.

Off those first group of players you've listed, only one was a player for player (Kennedy WCE), in which case he was attached to picks and was himself a young player. I wasn't argueing the lack of players, more the lack of ability to trade players for players.

On the actual ability to get any of them......which of those players would have come here? Kennedy was given a 'push' to go home, Tarrant (or his bedroom partner) wanted back to Vic, Jolly wanted back to Vic, Mumford got a MASSIVE pay packet (we were still housing big name contracts at that stage), Burgs wanted out of SA and I have no idea on Gibson, while he's a solid player I wouldn't bend much to have him tbh.

The next group, with the exclusion of Warnock (homesick) and Ball (opportunity sick and a 'cheeky' contract set up with the Pies), Shaw does some good things, the rest are players we don;t like on this board. Douglas and Symes types.

I just hope we continue to look for potential homesick players, get in the ear of opportunity starved played (like we did VERY aggressively with Walker) and look at our ability to involve outr players 'delicately'.

On Kennedy, Tom Swift was perhaps the best 16 year old in the champs the year he played. Food for thought when offering up big carrots. I still think we'll be pro-active in attacking that ability to access him, we're still eligible to participate and hopefully GWS get some sence of reality and we can talk. We tried to nibble at Jack Viney as well (unfortunately we had NFI Todd wanted out )

What the **** are you muppets on about? Do mods share the same brain?

Why do you keep looking at the list of players and saying Which ones of these should we have got? None of them? Some of them? Who gives a ****?

The point is that trades happen, and other clubs improve as a result. The traded players aren't from this exclusive list of the Only Players Who Would Eva Consider A Trade.

All they are is a list of players who were traded.

I think I did an analysis of out trade activity a while back that showed we have been above par in terms ofactivity under Rendell.

Even with that in mind, we've tried to get good players too. Tried Griffen, McKenzie, Walker and will continue to do so. I think it can be frustrating to see good players on other teams, but we can't just get them here becuase we're willing to pay a lot or trade a lot.

Yes, some of our players got the shits and wanted to leave and forced us unwillingly to the trade table. I'm sure that makes our bottom line very good. Go us, how proactive.

 

[Vader]

You don't know what opportunities exist unless you explore all of them. They don't fall in our lap. Create, instigate, seek out.

And you think the AFC don't invest huge resources into doing just this? Just looking back at recent years, we've seen them chase Griffen, A Walker & McKenzie - and those are just the ones we know about.

I have no doubt at all the Rendell & crew are working feverishly behind the scenes to do exactly what you're asking - it's just that we don't always hear about it, especially when the negotiations fail.