List Mgmt. Welcome Jamie Cripps (traded with Pick 46 for Picks 41+44 in 2012)

[DarrenR]

Thrilled that we got him, thrilled that we kept Brown and didn't bend over to St Kilda.

You did. Just hooker didn't want to play for you.

 

[sTeeL]

You did. Just hooker didn't want to play for you.

Thats a triple win in my eyes anyway. Who would want hooker?

 

[DarrenR]

Judging by your avatar , you.

 

[Keys]

You did. Just hooker didn't want to play for you.

Because he'd be leaving a club where his game time was likely to be much better than it would be at west coast. Why would he leave

 

[DarrenR]

So it's fine for you to lure a contracted player who didn't want yo play for you as his conditions would worsen but terrible for the saints to lure brown who did want to play for us and would get game time and more money ?
Interesting take on player welfare and ethics.

 

[Forward Press]

So it's fine for you to lure a contracted player who didn't want yo play for you as his conditions would worsen but terrible for the saints to lure brown who did want to play for us and would get game time and more money ?
Interesting take on player welfare and ethics.

Firstly, the fact that the Saints had the temerity to approach a contracted player in Brown would sort of give us license to hunt down a replacement KPD.

Secondly, there are so many conflicting reports and mere speculation that we cannot really be sure which side is correct.

Thirdly, the Saints can get f***ed and should learn to take 'no' for an answer. Because the one thing we can be clear on is that our recruiting staff (Vozzo and O'Brien) have insisted throughout the whole three weeks that Brown was never on the table, and then according to The Age, you only came up with a decent offer in the last hour of trading. So much for playing fair eh?

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/brown-to-stay-in-west-saints-trade-cripps-20121026-28b76.html

 

[DarrenR]

So he was never on the table until he was ???
I personally think that it should be against the rules to approach contracted players. Carlton collingwood have always done it and Geelong made it an art form this year.
You also had the ' temerity '.

 

[Forward Press]

So he was never on the table until he was ???
I personally think that it should be against the rules to approach contracted players. Carlton collingwood have always done it and Geelong made it an art form this year.
You also had the ' temerity '.

So you are saying that St Kilda were also unethical to approach one of our contracted players? Great!

What about the other two points? I can cite the Hun one too. And also the afl.com.au one. Take your pick. I personally am of the opinion that it wasn't us that was deceitful in this case.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/150322/default.aspx

 

[greennick]

Yeah, if Saints had come up with that offer early (either Cripps + 25 + 26 or Cripps + 16), then I'm sure Brown would be a Saint.

I don't think it is that bad of a thing for the deal not to go through though. They're not going to win a premiership next year and could do with the pile of first and second round draft picks they have. We're in premiership mode, so needed Brown for backup and will at least get a year now to get a few new draftees up to speed. So, even if he leaves next year, we'll still get something and will be in a better position with our depth.

 

[southcoast]

Geez St Kilda supporters are being precious about the whole Brown/Cripps thing aren't they!

Suggest they go and check the respective team lists to see who went where and who stayed where.

Could be a long summer at this rate.

 

[BradWCE]

So somebody is lying. Determining who is lying has no effect on anything of importance now that the deal didn't go through anyway. I couldn't care less about it.

 

[Forward Press]

So somebody is lying. Determining who is lying has no effect on anything of importance now that the deal didn't go through anyway. I couldn't care less about it.

Well, it's clear that the West Coast recruiting team insisted throughout the trade period that Brown was 'off the table'.

The St Kilda recruiting team have come up with plenty of different stories as to what really happened in their efforts to secure Brown.

Which one is more likely?

But yes, either way tough shit. Brown is on the West Coast list for 2013. St Kilda can try again next year.

 

[DarrenR]

To address the first point you say if something unethical is to done to you , that you have license to do it to a third party. Even though brown wanted to come and would play and hooker didn't want to come and would not get game time. Both involved luring a contracted player , only your approach was unwelcome and rebuffed. At least it could be argued the saints had the players interests at heart while you could not.
Is there some doubt that the deal with brown was signed contingent upon you getting hooker ? Hooker would only be approached if brown was going. You approached hooker so obviously that was so.
Swings and roundabouts. We were in three gfs and are rebuilding. You are on the upswing. Wasn't too long ago you guys came second last. Funny how quickly humility evaporates. The wheel will turn.

 

[southcoast]

^How do you go at Christmas time when you don't get the gift you want?

 

[Forward Press]

You readily admit we only approached Hooker because Brown was being poached.

If your club had not expressed an interest in a contracted player, we certainly would not care to approach Hooker.

So I'd argue the swings and roundabouts bit your lot on the ass this time.

If you want to get into a tit-for-tat about our respective clubs' success - bear in mind that the tally is 3 to 1, and that you are on the West Coast board.

 

[BradWCE]

Well, it's clear that the West Coast recruiting team insisted throughout the trade period that Brown was 'off the table'.

The St Kilda recruiting team have come up with plenty of different stories as to what really happened in their efforts to secure Brown.

Which one is more likely?

But yes, either way tough shit. Brown is on the West Coast list for 2013. St Kilda can try again next year.

I agree, us stating from the very beginning that Brown was going nowhere and then at the end still stating that we had no intention of trading him makes more sense to me than what the others are saying. Again though, it makes no difference to the final outcome.

 

[DarrenR]

I am aware that I am on your board and have been respectful. I actually don't mind the eagles. I'm not too keen on the pies blues and dons.
I sincerely believe that if cripps were contracted and wanted to leave we would facilitate it. We could have dealt with the dockers if we wanted but we wanted him to go where he wanted.

 

[DarrenR]

For what it's worth I don't rate brown that highly. Not worth 25 and 26 in my opinion. You can sneer at our back line as much as u like but just two seasons ago they were the best of all time statistically. All we need is a FB which will happen sooner rather than later.

 

[Forward Press]

I am aware that I am on your board and have been respectful. I actually don't mind the eagles. I'm not too keen on the pies blues and dons.
I sincerely believe that if cripps were contracted and wanted to leave we would facilitate it. We could have dealt with the dockers if we wanted but we wanted him to go where he wanted.

I thought your lot negotiated with the Dockers but they weren't as interested?

I'd also sincerely believe that if we couldn't satisfy a club that used a first round pick just two years ago for a contracted player in Cripps, that you would have held firm and hoped that in 2013 he would change his mind. It's when you're dealing with an uncontracted player that the leverage is with the interested club.

For what it's worth I don't rate brown that highly. Not worth 25 and 26 in my opinion. You can sneer at our back line as much as u like but just two seasons ago they were the best of all time statistically. All we need is a FB which will happen sooner rather than later.

Your back line was pretty decent two years ago, sure. But you have a need for a KPB now and Brown would've helped. If you weren't willing to part with enough to satisfy West Coast, then that's the way these things are. What a player is worth to one club does not always coincide with their worth to another club.

 

[flamingEMBERS]

approaching a contracted player should be seen as draft tampering.

 

[DarrenR]

Agreed. We shouldn't have approached brown, nor you guys hooker

 

[sTeeL]

Ban this idiot please. Stupidity and repetitiveness should be against board rules.

 

[Eagle87]

Agreed. We shouldn't have approached brown, nor you guys hooker

Are you serious? I'm hoping you're trolling otherwise you are a complete ****ing idiot.

Brown was contracted. St Kilda approached Brown directly (through his manager) and presented him with a new contract and then approached West Coast after rocking the boat and directly approaching a contracted player.

West Coast, in considering the possibility of trading Brown in the event of an outstanding offer, approached Essendon during the trade period and asked if they were interested in trading a player. Essendon spoke to the player who said no. That's how the trade period works. And it's completely different to tapping up a contracted player outside the trade period and behind his clubs back.

As I said, you're either trolling or you're a ****ing idiot.

 

[Miguel Sanchez]

I sincerely believe that if cripps were contracted and wanted to leave we would facilitate it. We could have dealt with the dockers if we wanted but we wanted him to go where he wanted.

Obvious differences there - Cripps plays a position that's much more easy to replace and St Kilda aren't gearing up for a premiership tilt in 2013.

 

[Forward Press]

Agreed. We shouldn't have approached brown, nor you guys hooker

You can approach a contracted player. It is however pretty dubious if this was done without going through the club first.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but your lot approached Brown's management before us, and we approached Essendon first to ask for permission to speak to Hooker.