List Mgmt. OFFICIAL: Dangerfield + Pick 50 for Picks 9, 28 and Dean Gore

Status
Not open for further replies.

1970crow

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Jun 7, 2011
Posts
26,706
Likes
27,442
Location
alice springs
AFL Club
Adelaide
Ok. All great points.

Thus, given that perspective and that all of Murda, Gregson, Cocky, Gore, REad, Guthrie, Mots et al have ALL just re-signed contracts ( accepting this is a sign of happiness at GFC) can we declare it reasonable to assume that regardless of AFC potential requests, none of these names will be involved in ANY trades as part of the PD deal.

Just so we can stop 25% of the bullshit angst going back and forth.

Trading picks - sure talk that up as potential. But the contracted player stuff needs to cease.

Reasonable?


Go Catters
Agree. I posted the same on our board. Unless one of your blokes puts up their hand, then no one will be leaving and certainly not as part of this trade, if it eventuates. What I said that is not complimentary, but relevant is that you're no longer flush with superstars at the top of their game taking unders. This means there's not a lot of guys playing 2's that would command good value if leaving for greater opportunity. So it will be picks only and best I reckon we could hope for would be this and next year's first rounders. I'm not sure what more we coukd expect to get, upgrade of 3rd and 4th rounders perhaps.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

1970crow

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Jun 7, 2011
Posts
26,706
Likes
27,442
Location
alice springs
AFL Club
Adelaide
im not talking about trading - im taking about value and relative scale. There is a difference.

GO Catters
The primary difference is that compo is mandated and fixed by the AFL. if we match it will be a good faith negotiation between the clubs. There's more consistency in result with trading due to the to and fro. Compo creates ridiculous results like GAJ, Buddy and Frawley.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

strauchnyy

Club Legend
Joined
Aug 17, 2009
Posts
2,465
Likes
4,023
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Geelong
Crows supporters need to understand that if there is a trade (if), crows are not going to get fair value.

It's not going to be, nor should it be fair value.

Why?

Well we hold all the bargaining power, the team losing the player NEVER wins the trade, danger is out of contract, has nominated geelong in isolation/will ONLY play for us. There are other reasons but I could go on forever.

Because of the above and given danger will only play for geelong, all we HAVE to offer is something a little better than the comp pick (14). Nothing more as crows are in no position to get more.

So in terms of a trade, I'd start with 9 but eventually move to throw in 2016 R2 with 9. However given our need for picks, if be willing to forgo 9 + 2016 R1 for a R2 this year back our way.

Again, it's not FV, but it's better than 14. Crows won't throw him in the draft if we offer the above. They are not that stupid, or as stupid as their fans who clearly don't understand the situation.

If we give up more than what I've said, it'll mean we are incompetent. I doubt hocking and wells are incompetent.
 

Turbocat

Premium Platinum
Joined
Dec 10, 2003
Posts
35,913
Likes
31,480
Location
Newtown
AFL Club
Geelong
I wasn't being serious about Cockatoo. I'm just mocking Cats fans in here that think we won't be matching, and that a deal hasn't already been brokered. 2 first rounders and a player (who I don't know at this stage - Gregson, Murdoch, Gore?).
What would happen do you feel if Geelong supporters set out to mock Crows supporters on their board... be nice or go home
 

FAITH

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Sep 29, 2007
Posts
27,185
Likes
16,173
Location
Going For The Treble: *LFC EPL; *LFC UCL; *AFC AFL
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Socceroos-LFC-Crows-Adel.United
Crows supporters need to understand that if there is a trade (if), crows are not going to get fair value.

It's not going to be, nor should it be fair value.

Why?

Well we hold all the bargaining power, the team losing the player NEVER wins the trade, danger is out of contract, has nominated geelong in isolation/will ONLY play for us. There are other reasons but I could go on forever.

Because of the above and given danger will only play for geelong, all we HAVE to offer is something a little better than the comp pick (14). Nothing more as crows are in no position to get more.

So in terms of a trade, I'd start with 9 but eventually move to throw in 2016 R2 with 9. However given our need for picks, if be willing to forgo 9 + 2016 R1 for a R2 this year back our way.

Again, it's not FV, but it's better than 14. Crows won't throw him in the draft if we offer the above. They are not that stupid, or as stupid as their fans who clearly don't understand the situation.

If we give up more than what I've said, it'll mean we are incompetent. I doubt hocking and wells are incompetent.
it'd be more fun sending him into the draft see what happens, but it wont happen a trade will get done.
 

AM

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Aug 18, 2006
Posts
21,025
Likes
17,488
Location
Here there and everywhere
AFL Club
Geelong
And despite danger doing all this and playing his heart out
We will screw over the club he wants to get to

These are moments where clubs set up their legacy

Bundy wanted to go we let him for an unders deal

The crows need to stop referring to phil as the afl supported them immensely. When it's their turn to show some respect the rhetoric is lets screw them.

There was no need for this, given the inevitable outcome.
It's a given that a contracted player gives his 'heart' to his football club.

The Crows would be derelict in their duty to other players, staff and supporters if they didn't attempt to extract the best trade deal they can. We would expect nothing less if the roles were reversed.

As for your professed inside knowledge canvassed throughout this and other threads, I don't buy it now nor did I under your previous usernames. The club is very circumspect about sensitive information much to the chagrin of many of us on the outside. It operates on a need-to-know basis. You don't have to be a professed insider to know that. There are assistance coaches at our club who would not know the current state of play regarding the Dangerfield negotiations. The coach indicated on 774 yesterday even he wasn't across the full state of affairs. In his case that would be by choice no doubt.

Negotiations of this nature are all about the parties concerned focusing on their interests and in so doing attempting to arrive at a solution as unemotionally as possible using objective standards. Fairly sure that's what is going on.
 

manboob

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Feb 11, 2009
Posts
28,075
Likes
34,782
AFL Club
Geelong
Other Teams
#rompingwins
it'd be more fun sending him into the draft see what happens, but it wont happen a trade will get done.
You'd really be happy come round 1 of next season with the realisation that your best player is no longer in your side and you got nothing for him. Trust me you won't be.
 

chris9753

Senior List
Joined
Aug 23, 2009
Posts
245
Likes
406
AFL Club
Geelong
Adelaide won't match and despite much blustering will settle for pick 14.

Why?

1) clubs aren't fools and if they trade ....this pick (provided by the afl) will be lost. Both clubs will want to keep this in play.
2) the cats aren't desperate for PD in the next two years. The best I see them doing next year is making the 8 and top 4 the year after. If all goes to plan their premiership window will open again in 2018. The cats will be desperate for PD then but he will then be an unrestricted free agent. The risk is he may not want to come but if it saves us two first round draft picks it is a risk worth taking.
3) contrary to some information above my interpretation of restricted free agency is if they choose to match the intent of the rule is to keep him at the club .....not to encourage trading to either his nominated club or another. The Adelaide choice is either accept pick 14 or pay $800,000 plus per year for 2 years to a player who doesn't want to be there and who will likely leave at the end of that period. Tough but you win some and loose some. They won on Betts but will loose on this. Them's the rules ....swings and round-a-bouts.
4) Great player but he's played around 150 games, maybe 100 good ones left at best. Geelong (or Adelaide) aren't fools. What realistically is his value for the two years before he becomes unrestricted? A first round may not be far off the mark. The fact that it's mid/later first round is a reflection on Adelaide's ladder position not his value.
5) might be tough on PD having to stay in SA for another 2 years but for 800,000 plus per year and then going where I wanted I'd do it .....I'm not sure if my heart would be in it or if it would be good for the team. Would Adelaide want this?

Pick 14 and no match it will be!
 

Jeffcrowe

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Sep 28, 2014
Posts
13,307
Likes
15,319
AFL Club
Adelaide
Adelaide won't match and despite much blustering will settle for pick 14.

Why?

1) clubs aren't fools and if they trade ....this pick (provided by the afl) will be lost. Both clubs will want to keep this in play.
2) the cats aren't desperate for PD in the next two years. The best I see them doing next year is making the 8 and top 4 the year after. If all goes to plan their premiership window will open again in 2018. The cats will be desperate for PD then but he will then be an unrestricted free agent. The risk is he may not want to come but if it saves us two first round draft picks it is a risk worth taking.
3) contrary to some information above my interpretation of restricted free agency is if they choose to match the intent of the rule is to keep him at the club .....not to encourage trading to either his nominated club or another. The Adelaide choice is either accept pick 14 or pay $800,000 plus per year for 2 years to a player who doesn't want to be there and who will likely leave at the end of that period. Tough but you win some and loose some. They won on Betts but will loose on this. Them's the rules ....swings and round-a-bouts.
4) Great player but he's played around 150 games, maybe 100 good ones left at best. Geelong (or Adelaide) aren't fools. What realistically is his value for the two years before he becomes unrestricted? A first round may not be far off the mark. The fact that it's mid/later first round is a reflection on Adelaide's ladder position not his value.
5) might be tough on PD having to stay in SA for another 2 years but for 800,000 plus per year and then going where I wanted I'd do it .....I'm not sure if my heart would be in it or if it would be good for the team. Would Adelaide want this?

Pick 14 and no match it will be!
Keep believing what you want to believe but nothing coming out of club suggesting we won't match

Only chance is for you to pay danger above market rate $1.2 M +which doesn't look like happening

We have our cap stocked and open with matt crouch and similar off contract until danger deal is done
 

Jeffcrowe

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Sep 28, 2014
Posts
13,307
Likes
15,319
AFL Club
Adelaide
I can't believe how feral some crows supporters are being over the matter, I can't say I've ever seen so much hate & vitriol coming outta their mouths...

Abusing the Geelong Football Club & their supporters for no reason.
Not abusing the GFC itself , they are fair minded and good to deal with
 

Reg Hickey

Club Legend
Joined
May 29, 2006
Posts
1,747
Likes
678
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Geelong
Crows supporters need to understand that if there is a trade (if), crows are not going to get fair value.

It's not going to be, nor should it be fair value.

Why?

Well we hold all the bargaining power, the team losing the player NEVER wins the trade, danger is out of contract, has nominated geelong in isolation/will ONLY play for us. There are other reasons but I could go on forever.

Because of the above and given danger will only play for geelong, all we HAVE to offer is something a little better than the comp pick (14). Nothing more as crows are in no position to get more.

So in terms of a trade, I'd start with 9 but eventually move to throw in 2016 R2 with 9. However given our need for picks, if be willing to forgo 9 + 2016 R1 for a R2 this year back our way.

Again, it's not FV, but it's better than 14. Crows won't throw him in the draft if we offer the above. They are not that stupid, or as stupid as their fans who clearly don't understand the situation.

If we give up more than what I've said, it'll mean we are incompetent. I doubt hocking and wells are incompetent.
The problem with giving up our first rounder both this year and next, is that the AFL rules state that every club must use at least two first round draft picks every four years. So it restricts what we can do with our 2017 first rounder - we'd have to use it. That's a risk we'd have to consider.
 

thegerman

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Jun 2, 2006
Posts
10,805
Likes
11,839
Location
Point Cook
AFL Club
Geelong
Other Teams
Supersonics, Greenbay
It's a given that a contracted player gives his 'heart' to his football club.

The Crows would be derelict in their duty to other players, staff and supporters if they didn't attempt to extract the best trade deal they can. We would expect nothing less if the roles were reversed.

As for your professed inside knowledge canvassed throughout this and other threads, I don't buy it now nor did I under your previous usernames. The club is very circumspect about sensitive information much to the chagrin of many of us on the outside. It operates on a need-to-know basis. You don't have to be a professed insider to know that. There are assistance coaches at our club who would not know the current state of play regarding the Dangerfield negotiations. The coach indicated on 774 yesterday even he wasn't across the full state of affairs. In his case that would be by choice no doubt.

Negotiations of this nature are all about the parties concerned focusing on their interests and in so doing attempting to arrive at a solution as unemotionally as possible using objective standards. Fairly sure that's what is going on.
Hate to say it, but believing what a club says in the media, yet opposing someone's view that has been on the money, is contradictory.

If we believe the populist items that are pushed by the clubs and AFL, we'd be the fools for it.

Whilst we may not all agree, when news comes about which is better than what the club is giving us, and turns out spot on, who are we to chastise this view?

BF would be boring otherwise.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom