Tippett's Gone - READ RULES BEFORE POSTING

[cmndstab]

The thing is, there's an actual point that should have been made instead. Our list is in good shape, so the penalty won't hurt as much as it could. We have less need to bring in new players than, say, Carlton did. We can offset the penalty somewhat by not needing to refresh our list that badly.

Crouch's place on our list adds to this argument as well, but he isn't an argument by himself.

 

[PyroCrow]

When you look in your afl record guide to 2012, no where does it mention Crouch as a "IN:" to the list. He didn't come onto the list until this offseason. He was not eligible to play ANY football in 2012.

Actually that isn't correct

 

[Elite Crow]

No he's going to claim "homesick" ....put himself in the draft and not speak to any other club or do any medicals

But seriously could be a player trade if Gorringe doesn't get opportunities this year

Too scared he will get to Port to risk that.

But we would have to give up quality with no picks to barter with.

 

[*PAF]

Actually that isn't correct

http://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/afl...f-brisbane-lions/story-e6frf3e3-1226288284466

Crouch looked at home in his first AFL outing with 13 disposals.

Read more: http://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/afl-premiership/adelaide-crows-continue-their-undefeated-start-to-the-afl-nab-cup-with-thumping-of-brisbane-lions/story-e6frf3e3-1226288284466#ixzz2FlLzz0Yk

 

[Sanders]

When you look in your afl record guide to 2012, no where does it mention Crouch as a "IN:" to the list. He didn't come onto the list until this offseason. He was not eligible to play ANY football in 2012.

I realise we brought him in last year, so we're still at a net loss of 4 draft picks, but he's 2012 new recruit with the rights to him secured in 2011 according to the AFL rules. I'm not trying to spin it as some how making up for our loss of picks, I'm just stating facts.

It was up to us what we did with Danger, which is completely different to Crouch. Danger still played 2 games in 2008.

They're not facts & yes it is spin.

The only fact is this: no matter what we did in 2012 he was already ours. we owned his playing rights. Not had an option, or anything. Owned, paid for signed & delivered. We gave up 2011 first round & our future compo pick.

The draft we selected him in was held in 2011, we gave up no assets in 2012

There is no argument.

 

[Sanders]

You have stated this before and you are wrong again imo.

So you keep saying

Brown was easily rated a top 20 pick (crows said around the mark for their pick at 10 but you have to discount that somewhat)

Well if the crows said that he must have been a first round pick, we'd never spin.

Got anything to suggest its true?
Something from shifter, quayle, phantom's, afl articles pre draft etc?

Because i don't believe it

So your getting Crouch a top 5 prospect for pick 10. Great deal then and even better in hindsight - without seeing his career play out yet.

Only if we accept your premise on Brown, and I don't. I think he was largely an unknown, not a top 20 pick as we spun

 

[Hank93]

They're not facts & yes it is spin.

The only fact is this: no matter what we did in 2012 he was already ours. we owned his playing rights. Not had an option, or anything. Owned, paid for signed & delivered. We gave up 2011 first round & our future compo pick.

The draft we selected him in was held in 2011, we gave up no assets in 2012

There is no argument.

I'VE ALREADY ACKNOWLEDGED THAT!

I'm stating under AFL rules he was not on our senior list this season. He did not come onto our list until the 2012 off season. He is a 2012 recruit, with the rights secured in 2011. Thats it.

http://www.bordermail.com.au/story/1067708/tambling-safe-but-one-crow-to-be-cut/

Brad Crouch, recruited in last year's 17-year-old mini-draft (2011), will come onto the list as a "traded" player (in 2012), and cannot count as one of the club's compulsory three draft picks.

This is the third time I'll say this. This is NOT making up for losing our picks.

We already had him locked away before this saga started, so it shouldn't be used as spin by the club. I'm just saying he is essentially a 2012 recruit, as he came onto the senior list in this off season (officially), and he was not permitted to play any Premiership matches in 2012, which is entirely different to Dangerfield.

Its a loophole hole under the rules the club can exploit as spin, which they've clearly done so.

 

[Hank93]

Actually that isn't correct

I think you're clutching at straws if you're trying to legitimise a NAB cup game in the alice springs as a reason to suggest his circumstances are different to Dangerfield from 2007.

He couldn't play any premiership games in 2012, Patrick was able to in 2008, and he did playing two matches.

 

[Sanders]

He couldn't play any premiership games in 2012, Patrick was able to in 2008, and he did playing two matches.

Why do you think that matters?

What year did we draft Crouch?
What year did we trade for the pick used to select him?

 

[Sanders]

I'VE ALREADY ACKNOWLEDGED THAT!

I'm stating under AFL rules he was not on our senior list this season. He did not come onto our list until the 2012 off season. He is a 2012 recruit, with the rights secured in 2011. Thats it.

http://www.bordermail.com.au/story/1067708/tambling-safe-but-one-crow-to-be-cut/



View attachment 8822

This is the third time I'll say this. This is NOT making up for losing our picks.

We already had him locked away before this saga started, so it shouldn't be used as spin by the club. I'm just saying he is essentially a 2012 recruit, as he came onto the senior list in this off season (officially), and he was not permitted to play any Premiership matches in 2012, which is entirely different to Dangerfield.

Its a loophole hole under the rules the club can exploit as spin, which they've clearly done so.

He is either a 2011 or 2012 recruit, not both as claimed above.

Nothing to do with loopholes

 

[Paladin]

So you keep saying




Well if the crows said that he must have been a first round pick, we'd never spin.

Got anything to suggest its true?
Something from shifter, quayle, phantom's, afl articles pre draft etc?

Because i don't believe it



Only if we accept your premise on Brown, and I don't. I think he was largely an unknown, not a top 20 pick as we spun

Shifter rated Brown as a late first round pick. GWS were going to sign him if they didn't trade him to us he wasn't going to be in the draft. Not too fussed if you believe it or not.

 

[Hank93]

He is either a 2011 or 2012 recruit, not both as claimed above.

Nothing to do with loopholes

Yes there is. We secured the rights to him 2011, but he didn't come onto the list until 2012.

The Crows can claim, under the AFL rules, that he's a 2012 recruit.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2012-11-01/afl-club-list-lodgement-one.default?

All AFL clubs were required to submit club lists to the AFL today by 2pm, in preparation for next month’s NAB AFL Draft, to be held on Thursday November 22 at the Gold Coast.

Please find detailed the additions and deletions to each club Primary List since the conclusion of the 2012 Toyota AFL Premiership Season. Please note that the selection order for the 2012 NAB AFL Draft is not finalised until the second list lodgement period is concluded on Thursday November 15.

ADELAIDE CROWS FOOTBALL CLUB (On this, what the hell is up with us being referred to as the Adelaide Crows Football Club?!?!)

Additions
Brad Crouch, GWS Trade Incentive
Angus Graham, Traded From Richmond

Deletions
Michael Doughty, Retired
Chris Knights, Free Agent
Brad Symes, Delisted

Just an additional comment inserted there in regards to the official name of the club

 

[Hank93]

Why do you think that matters?

What year did we draft Crouch?
What year did we trade for the pick used to select him?

You said there was no difference between Danger's and Crouch's circumstances. Clearly there is, as one couldn't play any premiership games, and the other could and did.

 

[cmndstab]

I still can't understand where the confusion is coming from.

Yes, Crouch is a new recruit in 2013.

No, it doesn't make up in any way for having lost our picks, since had we kept them we'd have him as well anyway.

It seems pretty simple to me...

 

[WaynesWorld19]

Too scared he will get to Port to risk that.

But we would have to give up quality with no picks to barter with.

I he doesn't get opportunities this year ...his draft value won't be too high

trade a mid for a tall KPP .....trade what we have excess of for want we're scarce in (KPP)

 

[Hank93]

I still can't understand where the confusion is coming from.

Yes, Crouch is a new recruit in 2013.

No, it doesn't make up in any way for having lost our picks, since had we kept them we'd have him as well anyway.

It seems pretty simple to me...

Bingo.

 

[Sanders]

You said there was no difference between Danger's and Crouch's circumstances. Clearly there is, as one couldn't play any premiership games, and the other could and did.

I used the words: meaningful difference

And there isn't any significant or meaningful difference. Both were drafted, and weren't going to be available until the following year.

Crouch trained with us all year and was immersed in full time professionalism, he has a full year of development under his belt.

Danger did a bit of training with us in gis school holidays.

Also Brad Crouch does not even have a 2012 draft pick #. He is not listed as a 2012 pick of any kind

Even elevated rookies get a sham draft pick number.

 

[Hank93]

I used the words: meaningful difference

And there isn't any significant or meaningful difference. Both were drafted, and weren't going to be available until the following year.

Crouch trained with us all year and was immersed in full time professionalism, he has a full year of development under his belt.

Danger did a bit of training with us in gis school holidays.

Also Brad Crouch does not even have a 2012 draft pick #. He is not listed as a 2012 pick of any kind

Even elevated rookies get a sham draft pick number.

How many times do I have to say this, Danger played two games in 2008. Crouch played none and wasn't allowed to.

Its technicalities anyway what we're discussing, and I agree with you in regards to the "does it make up for losing picks?" argument.

 

[Sanders]

How many times do I have to say this, Danger played two games in 2008. Crouch played none and wasn't allowed to.

As many times as you like, doesn't make no difference

technicalities anyway what we're discussing, and I agree with you in regards to the "does it make up for losing picks?" argument.

Its not even technical. He's not a 2012 player

 

[DREAM TEAM BUFF]

I still can't understand where the confusion is coming from.

Yes, Crouch is a new recruit in 2013.

No, it doesn't make up in any way for having lost our picks, since had we kept them we'd have him as well anyway.

It seems pretty simple to me...

You hit the nail on the head cmndstab

 

[FR0GGY]

Bets on 30 000 posts first or 1 millions views?

 

[WAG]

Bets on 30 000 posts first or 1 millions views?

My money is on 30,000 posts!

 

[WAG]

Bets on 30 000 posts first or 1 millions views?

My money is on 30,000 posts!

 

[WAG]

Bets on 30 000 posts first or 1 millions views?

My money is on 30,000 posts!

 

[DREAM TEAM BUFF]

My money is on 30,000 posts!

Only because you posted 3 times