- Apr 5, 2016
- 7,255
- 16,322
- AFL Club
- Western Bulldogs
- Other Teams
- Boston Celtics
Uncalled for insults on the main board are mature.Lol Whatever you tell yourself troll.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Uncalled for insults on the main board are mature.Lol Whatever you tell yourself troll.
Uncalled for insults on the main board are mature.
I'm actually not. I don't think people genuinely care about GWS enough to warrant the same discussions about those particular creations. The proof is in, well, the questioning really, people don't talk about them, generally speaking the reasoning behind not talking about something is exactly that, a lack of care, but sure, keep reaching!Yes your insults when you started trolling his club were uncalled for.
How do you like it when an Essendon or Richmond supporter calls your club a minnow club? You're basically doing the same thing.
We used to have an individual like you in our supporters on here.Uncalled for insults on the main board are mature.
Whatley, Riewoldt and Murphy think an out of contract Tim Kelly should be forced to go to Freo if it gets Geelong higher picks - with Nick Riewoldt being the stronger advocate of it out of the 3.
Do you think Nick Riewoldt would think the same would apply with St Kilda's approach to Brad Hill (or any other Victorian 'go home' scenario)?
Surely according to this logic Freo should be free to shop a contracted Brad around to the highest bidder in Victoria (I don't agree)?
I'm interested to hear Where and When do you think players should be able to nominate a club or not?
Tim Kelly is the only player I think I have heard the national media make these sort of suggestions on to this extent where the player shouldn't be able to nominate.
I am guessing this is because some feel the burden of proof is stronger on him to prove the genuineness of his need (special needs children) - although actual genuine need being the reason a player can't nominate as opposed to non-need giving a player greater rights is a pretty shaky proposition...
What scenarios have merit and which don't - topic doesn't necessarily have to be about Tim Kelly, can apply to Shiel, Hill or whatever scenario.
well your a bit defensive are you?Kelly is not a Free agent. A deal must be struck for him to get to West Coast, the anti Freo stance has me baffled and clouds the whole "go home factor". Fremantle can make the deal immediately, they have a top 10 pick and no matter what that nob end Ralph says, Geelong are not accepting pick 14 and 23. (Would they like to throw Jack Petruccelle in for good measure?) The Eagles have to find a top 10 pick. Tim Kelly is now an All Australian who might even be more decorated before this season ends. Geelong have every right to play hard ball and receive the very best deal for a great player who will play for the Eagles for the next 5 or 6 years at his peak.
Tell me about it. Think of the Saints fans that have unleashed their verbal venom towards Freo and Ross Lyon in the past 8 yearsUncalled for insults on the main board are mature.
Players have too much power. The "I want to go to my home state but only to one specific team" is a load of s**t. Can't wait for the day clubs can trade players wherever they want.
AFL fans have this bizarre ownership mentality when it comes to players.
We have this stupid system where a player can complete their contract but still be completely hamstrung when it comes to career choices; Either their club is willing to trade them or there's the lottery of going back in to the draft where they can end up anywhere.
Any player that's finished their contract should be a "free agent" and be allowed to move to any club they want. Can't wait for the day it happens.
It seems that when Free Agency came in that it also made it easier for contracted players to choose another specific club and end up there if they wanted to so bad. Like it was a culture shift across the board to make player movement easy regardless of the situation.
The AFL simply just need to bring a pick a state and not a club rule. Seems the easiest way and Free Agency is the reward later on for easier movement. Perhaps inadvertently it’ll force players to stick to contracts more as there won’t be that easy of an out available.
As for Kelly (and any player wanting to go home and doesn’t qualify for FA) it should be to the highest bidder that Geelong sees fit.
1. If the club is assisting a player to go home for compassionate grounds it is far too rich for the player to strictly nominate what club they move to. The player can declare a preference, not much more.
2. Clubs that entice players to come to them but fail to pay the price at the trade table and leave that player hanging should get a reputation. Player managers should warn players that club "X" is known to hang potential recruits out to dry.
I can see it now. Kelly wants to get to West Coast, Geelong don’t like the picks offered. The AFL then offers Geelong a top 5 pick as a concession.The whole thing is crying out for a reactive rule change from the AFL.
Players nominating clubs isn't an issue worth doing anything about 50 weeks of the year, so it's pointless to do pretend it's suddenly important come October trade period.
Clubs hate it and fans likewise but the players call the shots. Is AFLPA president Patrick Dangerfield going to come out in support of Geelong FC or Kelly?
I can see it now. Kelly wants to get to West Coast, Geelong don’t like the picks offered. The AFL then offers Geelong a top 5 pick as a concession.
As an aside, maybe players whether returning to Victoria or another state could stop lying? Don’t play a bulls**t ‘homesick’ card but then say ‘I only want to play for that club.’ Why not just say ‘I want to leave Geelong and play for the Eagles at the completion of my contract.’ Why does there have to be some bulls**t, soap opera, sob story attached?
It makes the general population think of AFL players as a bunch of soft, ungrateful sooks that don’t appreciate the fortunate position they are in.
I can see it now. Kelly wants to get to West Coast, Geelong don’t like the picks offered. The AFL then offers Geelong a top 5 pick as a concession.
As an aside, maybe players whether returning to Victoria or another state could stop lying? Don’t play a bulls**t ‘homesick’ card but then say ‘I only want to play for that club.’ Why not just say ‘I want to leave Geelong and play for the Eagles at the completion of my contract.’ Why does there have to be some bulls**t, soap opera, sob story attached?
It makes the general population think of AFL players as a bunch of soft, ungrateful sooks that don’t appreciate the fortunate position they are in.
Because AFL fans have been conditioned to believe that Players owe their entire careers to the club that drafted them and are pieces of s**t mercenaries if they ever want to leave. If player movements became more frequent and accepted then you'll get more honesty from the players.
Clubs dont own players. They rent them.
Good players through genetics and hard work make themselves more valuable than other players. The clubs play a small part in development. Why do people think just because a club chooses that player in a draft that club then automatically 'owns' the rights to dictate where the player works for their career.
Im sorry but its downright dumb to think that way.
What if a club does the wrong thing by a player. He's a gun but they stuff up medically, or he doesnt get on with the coach, or they dont value him at true market value?
He decides to go and wants to go to a club with a reputation as having great medical programs like the Hawks. Or to a big club like Collingwood. Or to the club wiling to pay more for his services.
You are suggesting he doesnt get a choice because the club he didnt choose when drafted, who doesnt rate his value as high as another or stuffed him around medically should choose where he ends up.........to get a draft pick or two slightly better.
Really? Just think about that a bit more.
No THE JUDD did not do thatWell in Kelly’s case it is probably true - weren’t many other clubs lining up to get him on board.
In his case he should be trying to repay that by getting them the best deal possible.
Something that Juddy tried to do when he left West Coast from memory.
Well in Kelly’s case it is probably true - weren’t many other clubs lining up to get him on board.
In his case he should be trying to repay that by getting them the best deal possible.
Something that Juddy tried to do when he left West Coast from memory.