No Oppo Supporters Re-signing Tex, Danger and Sloane *** Crows Only ***

[little graham]

T


At the end of the day, either he will want to build the team culture at the AFC and push for a premiership, or he'll be about Patrick.

Last year our midfield group had no inclination to protect Patrick. Evidently that was Sandersons fault because he couldn't "coach". I agree with what you say, but as a result of the exedous we've had (variety of reasons). If danger goes it will be perceived as a culture thing. News ltd in Adelaide can't wait for that.

If he wants to go home, I can't blame him for that. It will smash this club. I now look back on what Williams did with Nick Stevens alot differently. At the very least they maintained pride. At some point the club has to come first.

 

[BrissyCrow]

Not intended to be a neutral stance I suspect the coach is being asked questions like "is Patty worth keeping at $1m/year? Is he worth being kept at $1.2m/year if it becomes necessary?" Obviously the involvement will be something greater than "is he worth keeping? how good is he?"

I'd say heavily involved - but won't be making the final decision.

This how I see his involvement as well

 

[BrissyCrow]

We will be a basket case club if he leaves. This is the defining moment in our club. We will forever be raided if he goes. If we're having a good year by the half way mark and he doesn't sign, he should not play. No distractions on the club that way.

I don't think the club will be a basket case but I do believe that nearly every supporter will be....me included

 

[Matman23]

I think we will retain Dangerfield and Sloane but loose Douglas in doing it. Unfortunately.

 

[crowsup]

I have tried to look at it in different ways but I still came out with the conclusion that it will be all for Patrick. It will have nothing to do with wether Paddy likes the club or not.
Put it this way:
1) Paddy likes what he sees in round 12 of next season. The club is in the top 4-6, they are playing good footy, it looks like the club is heading toward premiership. If not 2015, maybe 2016. Paddy re-signs because it looks like he will be successful.
2) Round 12 season 2015, the club is not doing very well. Maybe success is not as assured as Paddy would like. Geelong makes him a good financial offer. The money is too good to refuse. Paddy leaves the club.
Both scenarios are looking at Paddy's wants. Whether it is success or money.
If Danger has been playing at being reluctant to re-sign to force the club into making some changes to make the club better and more successful, he has definitely succeeded. The club has made enormous changes since last year. So, if he re-sign with the club (at a fair retainer), he proves that he does have the club at heart. If he does not re-sign with club, provided the club offers him a fair remuneration, regardless of where the club is at in round 10-14 next season, then he is being very selfish and looking after himself alone. If the later is the case, good riddance to him. Good luck to him with his next club.
I will still follow my team.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

I believe we should and will start from Walsh's 'team first' mentality and a belief that in the context of the salary cap this means that to build a retain a squad capable of competing for flags that everyone has to accept a discount (say 5-15%) compared to their market value. This is the model that I think Geelong, Hawthorn and Sydney have used in the past decade and 'proved' that it works. However Sydney have now departed from that to make exceptions for 'special cases' and it sounds like Geelong are preparing to.

I think we should be saying to Danger that we recognise your market value is ~$1.0-1.2M per season but we would be doing ourselves (and you) a disservice if we offered you that much as it is inconsistent with the salary cap template we've got for success.

I think Danger himself would intuitively know that the more Geelong offer him the less their ability to create the environment for success that he has said he craves. That's why I've said before that I don't think Geelong can trump our offer in terms of both money and likelihood of success - perhaps one but not both...which makes his decision very hard.

I think we should be willing to pay what a top club would (ie. under top market value)... as opposed to matching what say a bottom club (like Melbourne/Saints) would offer, given that could hinder success with cap pressure.

Confident Danger would prefer success over extra $'s, as he will already be one of the better paid players & would prefer to be known as a successful player than best player in a lower team... so main issue is AFC need to show that they are a decent team early next year.

 

[dylan123]

If Geelong is considered a top club then I believe they'll be able to offer him more then we could given the age of their stars who will retire shortly.

Lets say for example Geelong offer him 1.2mill but we match it, does that really benefit us? What I mean by that is if they're offering that money, then it would suggest he's interested in leaving so by matching it how will that help us? I assume by matching it and him then leaving means we won't receive the compensation we would have if he left via the free agency (correct me if I'm wrong here). He'd then be forced to the draft in which, if we finished higher than Geelong, they'll get him that way without us being able to do anything about it. So are there any benefits to matching an offer to Dangerfield during the free agency period if he hasn't signed with us by then (given he'll know what our offer is by then).

I remain confident he'll stay but at the same time, it wouldn't come as a shock if he left given the sort of offers I expect him to receive from other clubs.

 

[conVINCEd]

If we match a free agency offer to Danger, we have the option of trading him. If that falls through he goes to the draft.

I still think he'll stay. I believe in Walsh's Philosophies.

 

[dylan123]

If we match a free agency offer to Danger, we have the option of trading him. If that falls through he goes to the draft.

I still think he'll stay. I believe in Walsh's Philosophies.

I just can't see how that will work though.

Again, using Geelong as an example, we match it and then try to trade Dangerfield. Dangerfield can just decline any other club we try and get a trade with and Geelong are hardly going to put up anything much more than we'd receive given the cost they'd be paying to get him as a 'free agent' and could again do so once he goes to draft assuming they have a pick before ours (the only thing that stops that from working for any club/player in that situation).

 

[Kerleys Ghost]

If we match a free agency offer to Danger, we have the option of trading him. If that falls through he goes to the draft.

I still think he'll stay. I believe in Walsh's Philosophies.

In Walsh we trust...

Wait, what am I doing? That's stupid.

 

[Jeffcrowe]

I think we will retain Dangerfield and Sloane but loose Douglas in doing it. Unfortunately.

I reckon this is a massive possibility and while prefer to keep dougy if he had an over inflated bid and left it would help replenish list organically with an extra top draft pick to offset tippettgate or help get Aish. Option A preferred is that they all stay but this is next best option of the rest as dougy 28 next year?

 

[Cleric]

If we match a free agency offer to Danger, we have the option of trading him. If that falls through he goes to the draft.

I still think he'll stay. I believe in Walsh's Philosophies.

We wont do that. No club has matched another offer. Our club will piss on about how we dont want someone who wants to be somewhere else. We dont have the balls to do it.

 

[Golumless]

We wont do that. No club has matched another offer. Our club will piss on about how we dont want someone who wants to be somewhere else. We dont have the balls to do it.

Becomes a question of worth... should danger get an offer <1m for 5, i'd match... would you match 9 mil for 7 though (random big deal numbers)?

 

[Samcro24]

We wont do that. No club has matched another offer. Our club will piss on about how we dont want someone who wants to be somewhere else. We dont have the balls to do it.

I'd suggest its less about balls, more about weighing up the probability of getting nothing.

Given that Tippett got to Sydney via the PSD over GWS, I'd say matching offers is pretty pointless. Seems clear that the player will get to their intended destination one way or another.

 

[Bacon8]

We wont do that. No club has matched another offer. Our club will piss on about how we dont want someone who wants to be somewhere else. We dont have the balls to do it.

So who does have the balls?

 

[Geoffa32]

So who does have the balls?

 

[Pugsley]

So who does have the balls?

Rundle Mall.

 

[DD#23]

Last year our midfield group had no inclination to protect Patrick. Evidently that was Sandersons fault because he couldn't "coach". I agree with what you say, but as a result of the exedous we've had (variety of reasons). If danger goes it will be perceived as a culture thing. News ltd in Adelaide can't wait for that.

If he wants to go home, I can't blame him for that. It will smash this club. I now look back on what Williams did with Nick Stevens alot differently. At the very least they maintained pride. At some point the club has to come first.

our midfield had no inclination to protect ANYONE - it's a hangover from the Craig "perceived pressure" era and as you correctly pointed out it was not stamped out by Sando.

 

[DD#23]

I'd suggest its less about balls, more about weighing up the probability of getting nothing.

Given that Tippett got to Sydney via the PSD over GWS, I'd say matching offers is pretty pointless. Seems clear that the player will get to their intended destination one way or another.

given that Tippett got to Sydney via the PSD over GWS, I'd say that GWS's talent scouts are far far better than Sydney's.

 

[JPetro83]

Any news on Sloane? 5AA seem to think he will sign before Xmas. ..

 

[Elite Crow]

Any news on Sloane? 5AA seem to think he will sign before Xmas. ..

For Port?

 

[rezagun]

I think we will retain Dangerfield and Sloane but loose Douglas in doing it. Unfortunately.

Would not suprise me if this happens. Douglas will have to take a pay cut and might already have lucrative offers to join victorian clubs like richmond, hawthorn, collingwood and carlton. Like Danger alot could hinge on his relationship with phil walsh and the first half of the season.

 

[Paladin]

Would not suprise me if this happens. Douglas will have to take a pay cut and might already have lucrative offers to join victorian clubs like richmond, hawthorn, collingwood and carlton. Like Danger alot could hinge on his relationship with phil walsh and the first half of the season.

Why will he need to take a pay cut? You don't think Noble can manage our squad under the salary cap? Douglas has never shown an inkling of interest to leave or hold out for a pay day.

 

[MRB37]

I think we will retain Dangerfield and Sloane but loose Douglas in doing it. Unfortunately.

Eh, I wouldn't be crying in my beer if we lost him. I like Dougie, but he's a B grader.

 

[Cleric]

Becomes a question of worth... should danger get an offer <1m for 5, i'd match... would you match 9 mil for 7 though (random big deal numbers)?

It also makes it more a question of wether he should have been traded last year. When people crap on about how it wasnt such a risk not to trade him because we could match the offer or send him to the draft they just have their hand on it.