SA Footy

bennymacca wrote:It doesn’t send a very good message to their currently playing list either.

Most clubs are about filling a need - north seem to be trying to fill the lack of a star - no matter who that player is

The current list must be looking on thinking "Can't we have some of that coin? I mean, you've got $8m to burn over the next 7 years, can I have some of that?"

This year they went after Gaff, Polec and Hall. All outside run with not a tackle between them.Before that, De Goey, power forward. Before that, Martin, mid/foward. Before that, Kelly, mid.

Dutchy wrote:

Brodlach wrote: I reckon it’s more using the Roos to get money from their original club than actually wanting to go there.

And that's actually a win for us also

Im gonna bite and ask you to explain the rationale behind this! how is a player that you want, not coming to you, a win for the Roos?

I can see how some more cash is a win for the player.

I can at a stretch see how you could say that this is a minor loss for his current club as they've had to pay a bit more to keep him

But i can't see how the Roos win? !

Yep it seems to be a scattergun approach, waving the chequebook around

Maybe that also shows why players don’t seem to be going there

mots02 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Brodlach wrote: I reckon it’s more using the Roos to get money from their original club than actually wanting to go there.

And that's actually a win for us also

Im gonna bite and ask you to explain the rationale behind this! how is a player that you want, not coming to you, a win for the Roos?

If the roos force the home club to pay overs, the home club now has less money for their remaining players, weakening them in the process. A weakened opposition is a win for the roos.

mots02 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Brodlach wrote: I reckon it’s more using the Roos to get money from their original club than actually wanting to go there.

And that's actually a win for us also

Im gonna bite and ask you to explain the rationale behind this! how is a player that you want, not coming to you, a win for the Roos?

Ever been to an auction or bidded for something on ebay?

The more your competitor pays for this deal is the less they can pay for the next one.

Dutchy wrote:

mots02 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Brodlach wrote: I reckon it’s more using the Roos to get money from their original club than actually wanting to go there.

And that's actually a win for us also

Im gonna bite and ask you to explain the rationale behind this! how is a player that you want, not coming to you, a win for the Roos?

Ever been to an auction or bidded for something on ebay?

The more your competitor pays for this deal is the less they can pay for the next one.

#ardenlogic

Booney wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

mots02 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:
And that's actually a win for us also

Im gonna bite and ask you to explain the rationale behind this! how is a player that you want, not coming to you, a win for the Roos?

Ever been to an auction or bidded for something on ebay?

The more your competitor pays for this deal is the less they can pay for the next one.

#ardenlogic

Except for when the current competitor that you made pay up is not your competitor for the next one because they already have what they want in the bag!

North "We missed out on Martin"

Richmond "We kept Martin"

North "Ok, we'll get the next one"

Dutchy wrote:

mots02 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Brodlach wrote: I reckon it’s more using the Roos to get money from their original club than actually wanting to go there.

And that's actually a win for us also

Im gonna bite and ask you to explain the rationale behind this! how is a player that you want, not coming to you, a win for the Roos?

Ever been to an auction or bidded for something on ebay?

The more your competitor pays for this deal is the less they can pay for the next one.

Booney wrote:North "We missed out on Martin"

Richmond "We kept Martin"

North "Ok, we'll get the next one"

North "and we made them pay overs so they won't be able to get the next one..... ''insert evil mastermind laugh''

Richmond ''we're pleased to announce the signing of Tom Lynch"

mots02 wrote:

Booney wrote:North "We missed out on Martin"

Richmond "We kept Martin"

North "Ok, we'll get the next one"

North "and we made them pay overs so they won't be able to get the next one..... ''insert evil mastermind laugh''

Richmond ''we're pleased to announce the signing of Tom Lynch"

AFL: "I'm sorry Richmond, you've left us no choice but to impose a 3 year trade ban".

Sydney/North in unison: "HA! That'll teach ya!"

Like that will happen to the AFL darlings

MW wrote:Like that will happen to the AFL darlings

Too much salt will increase your blood pressure, mate.

valleys07 wrote:

MW wrote:Like that will happen to the AFL darlings

Too much salt will increase your blood pressure, mate.

nah nothing to do with 2017 what I mean is with 100,000 members after winning a GF they will be looked after forever now!

MW wrote:

valleys07 wrote:

MW wrote:Like that will happen to the AFL darlings

Too much salt will increase your blood pressure, mate.

nah nothing to do with 2017 what I mean is with 100,000 members after winning a GF they will be looked after forever now!

Only a few thousand more than you blokes, surely you get looked after too?

bennymacca wrote:It doesn’t send a very good message to their currently playing list either.

Most clubs are about filling a need - north seem to be trying to fill the lack of a star - no matter who that player is

I think you are probably right about your Gaff gaffe not being inside your top 20 dumbest comments. Mainly through sheer weight of numbers.

If you can name a player on that list, that wouldn't improve any team in the league, then you are a bigger muppet than we already know.

Hannebury is the only one you would now question but not the 2015 version.

I'd be more pissed off if I found out we weren't going after elite players solely because it looks bad to numpty opposition supporters. Despite the fact we end up in the same position as 16 other clubs.

Booney wrote:

MW wrote:

valleys07 wrote:

MW wrote:Like that will happen to the AFL darlings

Too much salt will increase your blood pressure, mate.

nah nothing to do with 2017 what I mean is with 100,000 members after winning a GF they will be looked after forever now!

Only a few thousand more than you blokes, surely you get looked after too?

Now THERE is the salt

Zelezny Chucks wrote:

bennymacca wrote:It doesn’t send a very good message to their currently playing list either.

Most clubs are about filling a need - north seem to be trying to fill the lack of a star - no matter who that player is

I think you are probably right about your Gaff gaffe not being inside your top 20 dumbest comments. Mainly through sheer weight of numbers.

If you can name a player on that list, that wouldn't improve any team in the league, then you are a bigger muppet than we already know.

Hannebury is the only one you would now question but not the 2015 version.

I'd be more pissed off if I found out we weren't going after elite players solely because it looks bad to numpty opposition supporters. Despite the fact we end up in the same position as 16 other clubs.

WHAM!

Rumours are he was at Brad Scotts house last week with Ziebell and then said yep he was coming. Tim Gossage was messaging a few Eagles players and they said he was gone as he told them. Brad Scott said at the B&F that they had some exciting news to announce in 2 days. Gaff then went to see his father and obviously he is on the mend and i guess said stay with West coast so he re-signed

hollywood7477 wrote:Rumours are he was at Brad Scotts house last week with Ziebell and then said yep he was coming. Tim Gossage was messaging a few Eagles players and they said he was gone as he told them. Brad Scott said at the B&F that they had some exciting news to announce in 2 days. Gaff then went to see his father and obviously he is on the mend and i guess said stay with West coast so he re-signed

WCE vs North going to be an interesting match up next year...