News NWM stays at Saints (Will Faulkner wrong about being crows bound)

[stavro#4]

BTW I just realised this was the port board and not general board.

So, I mean everything I’m saying with complete respect here.

 

[bomberclifford]

Anything else in this scenario are fantasy. Majority of stkilda supporters would applaud the club standing firm then bending over to facilitate a player leaving us and getting to where they want to go on the cheap.

I get this and support it. While many in the AFL saw what we did with Nick Stevens in 2003 as foolish and dumb, from a Port supporter's perspective it was great. Our club was being strong-armed by Collingwood, our opponent in the 2003 Prelim, to give up one of our best midfielders for not much in return. We stood firm, got nothing and Stevens went to Carlton. We all know what happened then in 2004.

Having said that, my read is that clubs are reticent to play hardball like that these days. Mine, yours and the rest are all playing it safe when it comes to cordial relations with player managers etc.

IF NWM says he wants to come to Port, a deal will be done and neither Port supporters or Saints supporters will be happy about what was paid. Which is the true test of fairness.

 

[stavro#4]

SOS is not Mark Williams and this is not 2003. Saint Kilda will damage whatever brand they have if they go scorched earth on NWM. This will ultimately be where Saint Kilda fold, and take what could well be unders, but it will keep the reputation of the club in tact so as to not scare the industry including players and their player managers.

The club already has a reputation.

 

[stavro#4]

I get this and support it. While many in the AFL saw what we did with Nick Stevens in 2003 was foolish and dumb, from a Port supporter's perspective it was great. Our club was being strong-armed by Collingwood, our opponent in the 2003 Prelim, to give up one of our best midfielders for not much in return. We stood firm, got nothing and Stevens went to Carlton. We all know what happened then in 2004.

Having said that, my read is that clubs are reticent to play hardball like that these days. Mine, yours and the rest are all playing it safe when it comes to cordial relations with player managers etc.

IF NWM says he wants to come to Port, a deal will be done and neither Port supporters or Saints supporters will be happy about what was paid. Which is the true test of fairness.

Yes and again, if he wants to leave I’m sure you’ll stump up what’s required.

I’m purely pointing out that it’s not going to be the cents in the dollar deal that we keep getting told it is. It’s going to have to involve more than what your fanbase is telling us.

 

[EskimoPAFC]

I believe he remains for 2 years.

But the point I’m making is that he lives and plays with 2 of his best mates already

It isn’t new for him.

It comes down to family and likely the knowledge that a deal is just going to be very hard to do between clubs.

For sure but it certainly makes a difference to which club he goes to if he does come back to SA for a start.

 

[EskimoPAFC]

I get this and support it. While many in the AFL saw what we did with Nick Stevens in 2003 was foolish and dumb, from a Port supporter's perspective it was great. Our club was being strong-armed by Collingwood, our opponent in the 2003 Prelim, to give up one of our best midfielders for not much in return. We stood firm, got nothing and Stevens went to Carlton. We all know what happened then in 2004.

Having said that, my read is that clubs are reticent to play hardball like that these days. Mine, yours and the rest are all playing it safe when it comes to cordial relations with player managers etc.

IF NWM says he wants to come to Port, a deal will be done and neither Port supporters or Saints supporters will be happy about what was paid. Which is the true test of fairness.

I just can't see how we could give up anything here I'd be unhappy with.

 

[EskimoPAFC]

Yes and again, if he wants to leave I’m sure you’ll stump up what’s required.

I’m purely pointing out that it’s not going to be the cents in the dollar deal that we keep getting told it is. It’s going to have to involve more than what your fanbase is telling us.

We don't have anything. You can't get blood from a rock.

 

[davesnothere]

Yes and again, if he wants to leave I’m sure you’ll stump up what’s required.

I’m purely pointing out that it’s not going to be the cents in the dollar deal that we keep getting told it is. It’s going to have to involve more than what your fanbase is telling us.

A comparable deal for an out of contract player?

A deal will get done.

Saints won’t like it. You don’t win on an out of contract player. Never happened never
will happen.

Port won’t like it much but we can wear it .

NWM is not a possession. Saints do not own him. Free will exists.

 

[stavro#4]

For sure but it certainly makes a difference to which club he goes to if he does come back to SA for a start.

We don't have anything. You can't get blood from a rock.

First point - I didn’t realise Adelaide was an actual option. It’s either port or the saints in my eyes.

Second point - this is the entire point every stkilda fan has debated to death or tried to respectfully make clear with power fans.

SOS is our list manager. I literally just posted that player managers think he is a c U next Tuesday.

You’ll have to trade players to get the required currency. I can’t see how you get it done otherwise now that Bergman has signed and isn’t the centrepiece of a deal. Which has to be a strong consideration in him taking a 2 year deal to stay.

 

[stavro#4]

A comparable deal for an out of contract player?

I understand he is OOC mate.

But there isn’t a threat of a draft or free agency to get to port. It just can’t happen

Which means you need to trade.

 

[Waspy79]

I understand he is OOC mate.

Which means you need to trade.

The same applies to Saint Kilda matey, else it would be likely he walks an angry man and the club gets nothing.

 

[stavro#4]

The same applies to Saint Kilda matey, else it would be likely he walks an angry man and the club gets nothing.

Ok. Mate respectfully I’ve pointed out how he can’t get to port via the draft, unless you know a way I don’t?

West coast North Richmond etc all have a plethora of cap space they would use instantly for Nas.

 

[bomberclifford]

Yes and again, if he wants to leave I’m sure you’ll stump up what’s required.

I’m purely pointing out that it’s not going to be the cents in the dollar deal that we keep getting told it is. It’s going to have to involve more than what your fanbase is telling us.

And it will involve a lot less than 'Butters + first round pick' or 'Bergman + Berry + Future 1st' which are two that spring to mind from the D&T board in the past week.

I'd also recommend checking certain posters history when they post something outrageous. Sometimes it's an intentional wind up.

 

[Waspy79]

Ok. Mate respectfully I’ve pointed out how he can’t get to port via the draft, unless you know a way I don’t?

West coast North Richmond etc all have a plethora of cap space they would use instantly for Nas.

Why would Saint Kilda let NWM walk for no compensation when at a minimum a future first would be on the table? Could NWM be talked into a return to the mighty SAINTS? Possibly, no one knows. Probably time to end the speculation as it is pointless.

 

[EskimoPAFC]

First point - I didn’t realise Adelaide was an actual option. It’s either port or the saints in my eyes.

Second point - this is the entire point every stkilda fan has debated to death or tried to respectfully make clear with power fans.

SOS is our list manager. I literally just posted that player managers think he is a c U next Tuesday.

You’ll have to trade players to get the required currency. I can’t see how you get it done otherwise now that Bergman has signed and isn’t the centrepiece of a deal. Which has to be a strong consideration in him taking a 2 year deal to stay.

Yep but we don't have non-required players to trade, that's the thing. We can't just force players to go, they have to accept it. If you look at our list there isn't the value in the tradeable players. Its why Bergman made so much sense, but he's staying now.

I mean we have Berry + F1, but I don't think anybody would suggest that's actually a fair deal.

If we'd held on to Houston for a year rather than letting him go for no reason at all this would all be so much easier.

 

[Pt Augusta Power]

Not really sure how anyone can confidently say what price we will set for Nasiah.

Facts are he doesn’t get to SA unless we get satisfied via a trade. Yes he is OOC but he wouldn’t get past Westcoast/Richmond/north let alone us in the draft.

Anything else in this scenario are fantasy. Majority of stkilda supporters would applaud the club standing firm then bending over to facilitate a player leaving us and getting to where they want to go on the cheap.

The media reports including from SA journos are saying 3 GOOD FRPs.

Unless players are included it’s hard to see how that materialises.

SA journos like Bickley, Sloane and Theo Doropoulis?

Yes they’d have a very different take on the trade if it were the crows involved.

 

[stavro#4]

Why would Saint Kilda let NWM walk for no compensation when at a minimum a future first would be on the table? Could NWM be talked into a return to the mighty SAINTS? Possibly, no one knows. Probably time to end the speculation as it is pointless.

Because the above scenario will never play out.

I think we can agree that it will be a trade or he stays. Which means there isn’t a PSD threat

And it will involve a lot less than 'Butters + first round pick' or 'Bergman + Berry + Future 1st' which are two that spring to mind from the D&T board in the past week.

I'd also recommend checking certain posters history when they post something outrageous. Sometimes it's an intentional wind up.

I think Butters for Nas straight up would probably have everyone walk away satisfied - no need for first rounders.

I don’t think Bergman is worth multiple firsts. He definitely hasn’t shown anywhere near the consistent level of Nasiah. So maybe it would be Bergman + Berry/FRP.

Point is that I’m not sure you are trading either player. So we are back to the, how the hell do you get this done discussion.

 

[stavro#4]

Yep but we don't have non-required players to trade, that's the thing. We can't just force players to go, they have to accept it. If you look at our list there isn't the value in the tradeable players. Its why Bergman made so much sense, but he's staying now.

I mean we have Berry + F1, but I don't think anybody would suggest that's actually a fair deal.

If we'd held on to Houston for a year rather than letting him go for no reason at all this would all be so much easier.

Which again is Ports issue. It’s not ours and again it lends more power to the rumours of a 2 year agreement with the saints and we do this again in 2027 when you have a better asset hand

 

[Duck Farmer]

The media reports including from SA journos are saying 3 GOOD FRPs.

By SA journos you mean Crows apologists, right?

 

[bomberclifford]

I think Butters for Nas straight up would probably have everyone walk away satisfied - no need for first rounders.

And here you are saying Port supporters are delusional. FFS.

 

[Duck Farmer]

I think Butters for Nas straight up would probably have everyone walk away satisfied - no need for first rounders.

LOL

 

[stavro#4]

SA journos like Bickley, Sloane and Theo Doropoulis?

Yes they’d have a very different take on the trade if it were the crows involved.

By SA journos you mean Crows apologists, right?

I think it was Matt Turner. So not sure who he sides himself with.

But similar articles were written in vic by Ralph and Clark. Jay has had a pretty close relationship to Ross for a number of years and was talking band 1 for Battle when others were talking end of first round.

 

[stavro#4]

And here you are saying Port supporters are delusional. FFS.

LOL

You have a bloke with 1 year left on his deal and big rumours he is coming back to Vic . I think you can see where saints supporters are coming from.

 

[EskimoPAFC]

I think Butters for Nas straight up would probably have everyone walk away satisfied - no need for first rounders.

Did lol hard at this. I'm assuming you're trolling in the same way that some of us have trolled with silly deals which is fair play to be honest

Which again is Ports issue. It’s not ours and again it lends more power to the rumours of a 2 year agreement with the saints and we do this again in 2027 when you have a better asset hand

Yep agree with this, its what I said as soon as Bergman re-signed. But like I said, every day that goes by that this doesn't get locked in place it does make me wonder.

We've been a very poorly run club for some time and have been destroyed at the draft table a few years in a row now despite holding all the cards eg. on the Houston or Esava trades. Its all based on our administration desperately trying to "prove everyone wrong" on Hinkley and being delusional enough to think he was just one missing piece away from a premiership. We gave up our future for not much at all which has put us in the situation we're in now. If we had a 2025 first or Houston this all gets done much easier.

 

[Powerade 08]

That phantom mod is a lunatic spammer list management roleplayer, and so is this guy.