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

[PAdman]

It's stealing. Because the service was given consensually at the time thus not rape. however there was a prior agreement to pay for the rendered service which is yet to be satisfied. It's the same as not paying your gardener after he comes by.

what? no it's actually rape by law and will be prosecuted as such

 

[Natho]

Nice little pick up

 

[Suma Magic]

Surely the Saints organised us a Hooker to distract us while they helped themselves to some Brown?

That touted Cripps, 25, 26 deal would have been one of the worst trades in history (for the Saints). If that's true I would have been happy to accept it.

 

[Galileo9]

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.

you would get rid of cripps because, lets face it, he isnt really a required player. nice to have him, but really not a pressing requirement.

brown was required. he was essential. we have no other tall defenders.

as for crap about hooker above, you approached him by sounds of things and essendon were shopping him around. did we approach hooker first? hardly the same thing. but then again, to saints, a no is same as yes so i can see why there was confusion and still is.

 

[zero]

there is nothing wrong with the way the saints approached brown. thats how it works. you contact his management or vice versa, he talks to the player, they sort out a deal, then you approach his current club to work out a trade. nothing untoward or unethical happened.

the problem was the saints failed to secure a trade. thats all. some of their fans can whinge about the eagles refusing to just bend over and take their shitty trade offer, they can whine about oh how you are mistreating brown, oh the humanity, but its not up to the eagles to just give the saints a KPD, its up to the saints to satisfy the eagles on the trade table if they are trying to dislodge a contracted player.

which they failed to do, apparently because they left it too late

its stupidity to get on your high horse about clubs, players and management approaching each other and trying to work trade deals and player contracts during the trade period.

FFS thats exactly what its for.

 

[greennick]

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.

Big difference between the two. We approached Hooker though Essendon and from all reports they were for the deal, however he didn't want to come play backup. You approached Brown through his agent, made a large offer, however we didn't want to trade him and you didn't even come up with an appropriate deal till the last hour of a 3 week trade period.

 

[zero]

Big difference between the two. We approached Hooker though Essendon and from all reports they were for the deal, however he didn't want to come play backup. You approached Brown through his agent, made a large offer, however we didn't want to trade him and you didn't even come up with an appropriate deal till the last hour of a 3 week trade period.

i didnt make any offer greenick ;-)

and there really isnt

the saints approached browns management first, then tried to broker a deal, maybe the eagles or saints approached essendon informally first, it really doesent matter. the exact order of communication between management, player, and clubs coming to the shared state of trying to facilitate a trade means exactly 3/5ths of **** all.

the whole point of the period is for these types of deals to be done. there are a million conversations during this period, between list managers, agents, players. most of them come to nothing. to pick out one conversation or another from the noise and to claim that this one unethical and that one isnt is a stupid waste of time

threatening to go into the draft is distasteful but its not unethical. the last genuinely unethical thing i have seen during the trade period was mal micheal pretending to retire so the lions would tear up his contract and then immediately signing up to essendon. that was dodgy as ****.

 

[The_Reaper]

Scored his 300th goal for West Coast today.

 

[the harry]

Feels one like who hasn't dropped their standards like some other senior players. Constantly covering the ground.

Glad we've kept him.

 

[ROYAL EAGLE]

Feels one like who hasn't dropped their standards like some other senior players. Constantly covering the ground.

Glad we've kept him.

He is so much noticeable now with his chasing when Noah Long and Owies don't chase

 

[Deepthroat]

Last season. Enjoy it.