Player Watch Nathan Freeman

[Mr Bombastic]

And not money related

He would definitely be getting more money at the saints, but I don't believe that's the only reason he is leaving. It has been said numerous times that Saints appeal to him as he could get a game pretty easily there, where he may have to fight for a spot at Collingwood. Maybe he has problems with the administration? Buckley gave him a whack tonight so that's possible as well.

 

[Crazy Tails]

On Footy Classified they had a brief bit from Bucks where he suggested that Freeman had issues that he would take to StKilda with him that he would still have to deal with.

Hmmmmmm.............

It was certainly taken by the FC panel to be non football related.

He definitely didn't pump up his trade value that's for sure. Usually love Bucks media work but I'm not sure those comments help anyone.

Should have just trotted out the Hine line which was "Given the significant investment in Nathan, we will be exploring trade scenarios that are in the best interests of Collingwood".

 

[Kirby]

We are about to rookie list 2 players that won't see any action for a year and with even more non Football related issues based on far more than just innuendo.

hmmmmm indeed

But does that matter? They are not "leaving" and it was definitely a clip.

I'd say motivated by the insinuations by the Freeman camp that his injury was mismanaged. He's doing what Clarko would do.

 

[PieBeast]

Also based on Bucks' comments it's fairly obvious the Club's inadequate (IMO) offer to Nathan was partly based on us not being completely happy with him.

And given the rumours that the feeling is mutual both parties are clearly doing what's best for them at this stage of the proceedings.
Might be a good idea we all move on, just a thought anyway..

 

[davywap]

And of course no sane person would ever want to leave collingwood if wasn't for money.
Any type of a successful career there would set you up for life

I realise there may be other reasons to leave Collingwood, but why would he want to go to St Kilda for anything other than money? It's not like he'd be going there to play in premierships

 

[PieBeast]

But does that matter? They are not "leaving" and it was definitely a clip.

I'd say motivated by the insinuations by the Freeman camp that his injury was mismanaged. He's doing what Clarko would do.

Yeah sounds like a bit of a tit for tat stuff and it's not me it's you.

But at the end of the day it's clear we didn't value Nathan to the extent we do Keeffe and Thomas, despite the supposed off filed issues.
So these off field issues can not be used as a valid explanation of what happened.
Not passing judgement by the way.

 

[davywap]

We are about to rookie list 2 players that won't see any action for a year and with even more non Football related issues based on far more than just innuendo.

hmmmmm indeed

2 players who however have proven they can play at 1st level, Freeman hasn't even shown anything in the magoos yet.

 

[PieBeast]

2 players who however have proven they can play at 1st level, Freeman hasn't even shown anything in the magoos yet.

Correct but at the same time he's shown enough for us to draft him at #10 and didn't bring shame to us either.

 

[doodles98]

Do we have to keep going over this:

Freeman is more a "Commodity" than an "Employee". To an AFL club he is little more than a resource that is part of their product. When a club no longer feels he is "profitable" as a commodity, they will spit him out. Clubs use players only for their own benefit (and vice-versa, players only use clubs for their own benefit as well).

Freeman's time at the club whilst injured has little to do with the club "sticking by him", it was the club recognising it's investment, and wanting to get returns from it. If at any point a club thought an injury would be career ending, I garauntee they would be "encouraging" someone to retire (or to do so when their contract ends).

Additionally, this is a job with a very limited career length - its basically a maximum of 10-12 years of money earning potential, except that most players won't get anywhere near that. On top of that, as someone who spent his first two years injured, Freeman would be acutely aware that this career can also come to an end at any point. I would say it could be as high as a 50-50 chance that this next contract he signs may end up being hist last one. Without going through the numbers, my guess is that the future for players who don't play a game in their first 2 seasons isn't particularly rosy.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with Freeman doing what is best for himself and his family - and there is also absolutely nothing wrong with the Club doing what is best for them. (because lets be honest - that is what Clubs always do).

Not to diminish too much the "human" side of clubs and football, but make no mistake that this is about big business - for both clubs and players.

No need for the lengthy dissertation. If you had made a literal comprehension of my post (rather than your constructive one), you would have seen I was simply pointing out (to Kappa, not you) that there's a difference when it comes to leaving a normal job and leaving an AFL club for money... and especially after providing such poor return on investment (reason irrelevant). People will be really pissed when you do this at a footy club because people are passionate about their footy clubs. So expect nothing else!! Football clubs tend to have a bit more passion attached to them than normal workplaces. This is what I was pointing out. It seems you don't understand this but you did want to spend a lot of your time telling me all the stuff I know already and was not addressing in my post. (the stuff about players and clubs doing what's best for themselves.)

 

[jmac70]

Also based on Bucks' comments it's fairly obvious the Club's inadequate (IMO) offer to Nathan was partly based on us not being completely happy with him.

And given the rumours that the feeling is mutual both parties are clearly doing what's best for them at this stage of the proceedings.
Might be a good idea we all move on, just a thought anyway..

It's unlikely anyone is going to move on until the trade is completed.

 

[Mr Bombastic]

Yeah sounds like a bit of a tit for tat stuff and it's not me it's you.

But at the end of the day it's clear we didn't value Nathan to the extent we do Keeffe and Thomas, despite the supposed off filed issues.
So these off field issues can not be used as a valid explanation of what happened.
Not passing judgement by the way.

There's a clear difference between Keeffe and Thomas' off field issues though. Lachlan and Josh on cocaine in the off season compared to what ever Freeman was doing while injured during the season.

 

[jmac70]

There's a clear difference between Keeffe and Thomas' off field issues though. Lachlan and Josh on cocaine in the off season compared to what ever Freeman was doing while injured during the season.

How can you say there is a clear difference when we don't know the full story about Keeffe and Thomas OR what Freeman was doing during the season?

 

[Mr Bombastic]

How can you say there is a clear difference when we don't know the full story about Keeffe and Thomas OR what Freeman was doing during the season?

Just my opinion, we will never know the full story of any of those boys, all we can do is speculate with what we have been given.

 

[jmac70]

Just my opinion, we will never know the full story of any of those boys, all we can do is speculate with what we have been given.

I get that but to say there is a clear difference is just making things up.

 

[76woodenspooners]

Just to clarify, I do generally agree with your premise, and I was taking a "black-and-white" approach to this, but it is more as a response to people calling Freeman a "money grubbing heck" amongst other things. A lot of this thread seems to be ripping into a kid because he is not saying "No" to an extra $150k per year - and I think that is being incredibly unfair.

True ... But we don't know the real circumstances.

For the most part, I think players do want to stay with their teammates and stay loyal to their clubs, but there is a limit to that "loyalty". A lot of the guys who left for more money did so for close to double (or more) than their original salaries. You are not a "money grubbing heck" for doing that - you are an intelligent human being who, if you take into consideration all the factors into making your decision, are probably doing the best thing for yourself and your family.
From reports the original offers to Freeman were something like 300k/yr vs 150k/yr - he would be stupid to not at least consider that... and everybody else would do the same thing.

Connors has categorically denied the $300Kpa ... And I believe him.

Only a third of AFL players get $300Kpa or more, and it's hard to imagine that any of the 18 clubs could justify making Freeman one of those players.

Now if the difference wasn't as significant, then I reckon most players would prefer to stay... unless there is some other reason they want to leave (as you listed). But we aren't talking about a small difference in pay here - we are talking about a massive difference. (And lets be honest - although our "conditional contract" would look attractive if someone was playing every game - for someone in Freeman's position, this would look very hard to achieve at this point).

We do know that there is a big gap between what Collingwood and StKilda are offering Freeman (Connors has said such) but heck, if it was $130K versus $170K (for example) ... That would fall under the definition of a big gap.

 

[PieBeast]

There's a clear difference between Keeffe and Thomas' off field issues though. Lachlan and Josh on cocaine in the off season compared to what ever Freeman was doing while injured during the season.

Yep a clear difference.
Rumours about him getting on the cans and I'll even allow the possibility of harder stuff not that I'm aware of it, opposed to besmirching our Club's name by being busted for using a banned substance with the best explanation being admission to illicit drugs use.

Not sure this backs up the point you're trying to make or achieves the opposite though.

 

[Mr Bombastic]

I get that but to say there is a clear difference is just making things up.

Surely you are nitpicking? You don't think there is a difference between a couple of blokes getting on some cocaine during the off season break compared to the Freeman situation?

 

[jmac70]

Surely you are nitpicking? You don't think there is a difference between a couple of blokes getting on some cocaine during the off season break compared to the Freeman situation?

I don't know what any of the players were doing so I prefer not to offer an opinion. All I know is that Freeman has asked to be traded.

 

[TheGreatGrundy]

No need for the lengthy dissertation. If you had made a literal comprehension of my post (rather than your constructive one), you would have seen I was simply pointing out (to Kappa, not you) that there's a difference when it comes to leaving a normal job and leaving an AFL club for money... and especially after providing such poor return on investment (reason irrelevant). People will be really pissed when you do this at a footy club because people are passionate about their footy clubs. So expect nothing else!! Football clubs tend to have a bit more passion attached to them than normal workplaces. This is what I was pointing out. It seems you don't understand this but you did want to spend a lot of your time telling me all the stuff I know already and was not addressing in my post. (the stuff about players and clubs doing what's best for themselves.)

I like your avatar. What is it? Or he?

Freeman will forever carry the collective hatred of 10's of 1000's of angry Collingwood supporters on his 'Triple-treat' striped Saint's-back. The weight will drag upon his legs and tear his tender hammies again. Just bide you time, bite your tongue and wait for the 'ping!'.

 

[Robroy22]

And of course no sane person would ever want to leave collingwood if wasn't for money.


So if it wasn't for the money (cough cough).....why didn't the saints just offer him a game and an incentive based contract?
Surely he'd have gone just to get a game?

 

[doodles98]

We are about to rookie list 2 players that won't see any action for a year and with even more non Football related issues based on far more than just innuendo.

hmmmmm indeed

Good point. We rookie Keefe and Thomas, neither of whom are stars, but we won't consider two stars in Bennell or even Carlysle because they have behavior/attitude issues.

 

[Mick39]

The interview was interesting. Buckley questioned Freeman's character obviously.

My question is to Derek Hine. A massive part of recruiting is character testing, how could Derek get it so wrong on Freeman.

 

[Mr Bombastic]

Yep a clear difference.
Rumours about him getting on the cans and I'll even allow the possibility of harder stuff not that I'm aware of it, opposed to besmirching our Club's name by being busted for using a banned substance with the best explanation being admission to illicit drugs use.

Not sure this backs up the point you're trying to make or achieves the opposite though.

You are right, my point however was in regards to LK and JT doing what they needed to do during the season to make sure they were fit and available to play every game (As far as I know I don't recall these two getting into any sort of trouble during the season), opposed to Freeman who allegedly has not.
For what it's worth I wouldn't take Thomas and Keeffe back.

 

[jmac70]

Good point. We rookie Keefe and Thomas, neither of whom are stars, but we won't consider two stars in Bennell or even Carlysle because they have behavior/attitude issues.

I don't agree with the club's decision to rookie Keeffe and Thomas but I assume they know more about what happened than is in the public domain.

 

[davywap]

Correct but at the same time he's shown enough for us to draft him at #10 and didn't bring shame to us either.

all valid, but in the end it's about playing football foremost I reckon. After all of Didak's indiscretions it would've been understandable to offload him (as several media knobs said we would) but I definitely wanted him to stay because we knew he could play, and if he rehabilitated somewhat he'd be valuable and that turned out to be true. Hopefully the club sees that with the suspended pair and that's why they are being kept, I'd say Thomas at least is definitely worth forgiving and persisting with.
Besides it doesn't seem like we have a choice with Freeman.