Crows 2014

Talk on the national game

Re: Crows 2014

Postby JK » Fri Sep 19, 2014 8:02 pm

the joker wrote:
whufc wrote:
the joker wrote:Makes sense danger meeting clarko in melbourne during the week. Because you wouldn't have thought that clarko would want to talk about international rules in the lead up to prelim


Or danger going to the hawks at end of contract
hawks don't have the cap for danger.


Wouldn't be so sure. Franklin gone, Mitchell, Hodge, Lake, Sewell, Hale, maybe Burgoyne all to be gone within a season or 2.
FUSC
User avatar
JK
Coach
 
 
Posts: 37364
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2005 10:11 am
Location: Coopers Hill
Has liked: 4438 times
Been liked: 2984 times
Grassroots Team: SMOSH West Lakes

Re: Crows 2014

Postby whufc » Fri Sep 19, 2014 8:06 pm

JK wrote:
the joker wrote:
whufc wrote:
the joker wrote:Makes sense danger meeting clarko in melbourne during the week. Because you wouldn't have thought that clarko would want to talk about international rules in the lead up to prelim


Or danger going to the hawks at end of contract
hawks don't have the cap for danger.


Wouldn't be so sure. Franklin gone, Mitchell, Hodge, Lake, Sewell, Hale, maybe Burgoyne all to be gone within a season or 2.


Yep Hawks will have plenty of cap room!!! And with Mitchell, Hodge, Sewell and Burgoyne potentially gone they will be in need of a gun midfielder
RIP PH408 63notoutforever
User avatar
whufc
Coach
 
 
Posts: 27453
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 10:56 am
Location: Blakeview
Has liked: 5564 times
Been liked: 2519 times
Grassroots Team: BSR

Re: Crows 2014

Postby the joker » Fri Sep 19, 2014 8:32 pm

whufc wrote:
JK wrote:
the joker wrote:
whufc wrote:[quote="the joker"]Makes sense danger meeting clarko in melbourne during the week. Because you wouldn't have thought that clarko would want to talk about international rules in the lead up to prelim


Or danger going to the hawks at end of contract
hawks don't have the cap for danger.


Wouldn't be so sure. Franklin gone, Mitchell, Hodge, Lake, Sewell, Hale, maybe Burgoyne all to be gone within a season or 2.


Yep Hawks will have plenty of cap room!!! And with Mitchell, Hodge, Sewell and Burgoyne potentially gone they will be in need of a gun midfielder[/quote]dangers going no where.
I love vegatarian food. It goes great with steak.
User avatar
the joker
Assistant Coach
 
 
Posts: 4680
Joined: Wed May 09, 2007 4:09 pm
Has liked: 33 times
Been liked: 58 times

Re: Crows 2014

Postby HH3 » Mon Sep 22, 2014 4:28 pm

Someone at work just told me Ruciuto just said they wouldn't be against trading Danger??

What would they think they'd accomplish by doing that?
I TOLD YOU SO

2013/14 NFL Tipping Comp Champion
User avatar
HH3
Coach
 
Posts: 11641
Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2008 2:14 pm
Has liked: 3301 times
Been liked: 2432 times
Grassroots Team: North Haven

Re: Crows 2014

Postby gadj1976 » Mon Sep 22, 2014 4:31 pm

HH3 wrote:Someone at work just told me Ruciuto just said they wouldn't be against trading Danger??

What would they think they'd accomplish by doing that?


He needs to shut up.
User avatar
gadj1976
Coach
 
 
Posts: 9142
Joined: Mon Jan 22, 2007 1:57 pm
Location: Sleeping on a park bench outside Princes Park
Has liked: 795 times
Been liked: 849 times

Re: Crows 2014

Postby heater31 » Mon Sep 22, 2014 4:34 pm

HH3 wrote:Someone at work just told me Ruciuto just said they wouldn't be against trading Danger??

What would they think they'd accomplish by doing that?



Given the state of the club currently I wouldn't be discounting anything at this point in time
User avatar
heater31
Moderator
 
 
Posts: 16521
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:42 am
Location: the back blocks
Has liked: 525 times
Been liked: 1259 times

Re: Crows 2014

Postby stan » Mon Sep 22, 2014 4:37 pm

gadj1976 wrote:
HH3 wrote:Someone at work just told me Ruciuto just said they wouldn't be against trading Danger??

What would they think they'd accomplish by doing that?


He needs to shut up.

Um yeah he does. After this bloke was part of the gang of 5, to say he could be traded..........well played Riccutio. Well played.
Read my reply. It is directed at you because you have double standards
User avatar
stan
Coach
 
 
Posts: 15221
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2005 8:53 am
Location: North Eastern Suburbs
Has liked: 88 times
Been liked: 1253 times
Grassroots Team: Goodwood Saints

Re: Crows 2014

Postby HH3 » Mon Sep 22, 2014 4:37 pm

Im sure thats probably gonna help make up his mind about staying or leaving after next year if they dont trade him.
I TOLD YOU SO

2013/14 NFL Tipping Comp Champion
User avatar
HH3
Coach
 
Posts: 11641
Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2008 2:14 pm
Has liked: 3301 times
Been liked: 2432 times
Grassroots Team: North Haven

Re: Crows 2014

Postby stan » Mon Sep 22, 2014 4:44 pm

HH3 wrote:Im sure thats probably gonna help make up his mind about staying or leaving after next year if they dont trade him.

Love they wat Riccutio is going about his business at the moment.
Read my reply. It is directed at you because you have double standards
User avatar
stan
Coach
 
 
Posts: 15221
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2005 8:53 am
Location: North Eastern Suburbs
Has liked: 88 times
Been liked: 1253 times
Grassroots Team: Goodwood Saints

Re: Crows 2014

Postby MW » Mon Sep 22, 2014 4:58 pm

I have no problem with what Roo said. If it's ok for the player to not committ (even if it's just verbally in the media) then why not the club.
MW
Coach
 
 
Posts: 12914
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2005 8:55 pm
Has liked: 2581 times
Been liked: 1822 times

Re: Crows 2014

Postby HH3 » Mon Sep 22, 2014 5:01 pm

MW wrote:I have no problem with what Roo said. If it's ok for the player to not committ (even if it's just verbally in the media) then why not the club.


Coz the player isnt out of contract til the end of NEXT season. Roos talking about trading him this year. Imagine if Danger said "im gonna leave after next season" He'd be dogging the club in their eyes. There'd be talk of not playing him coz he's not committed to the club, yadda yadda.
Last edited by HH3 on Mon Sep 22, 2014 5:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I TOLD YOU SO

2013/14 NFL Tipping Comp Champion
User avatar
HH3
Coach
 
Posts: 11641
Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2008 2:14 pm
Has liked: 3301 times
Been liked: 2432 times
Grassroots Team: North Haven

Re: Crows 2014

Postby stan » Mon Sep 22, 2014 5:01 pm

MW wrote:I have no problem with what Roo said. If it's ok for the player to not committ (even if it's just verbally in the media) then why not the club.

Because the club is trying to convince the said player to stay. Its not a onr size fits all rule.
Read my reply. It is directed at you because you have double standards
User avatar
stan
Coach
 
 
Posts: 15221
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2005 8:53 am
Location: North Eastern Suburbs
Has liked: 88 times
Been liked: 1253 times
Grassroots Team: Goodwood Saints

Re: Crows 2014

Postby stan » Mon Sep 22, 2014 5:02 pm

HH3 wrote:
MW wrote:I have no problem with what Roo said. If it's ok for the player to not committ (even if it's just verbally in the media) then why not the club.


Coz the player isnt out of contract til the end of NEXT season. Roos talking about trading him this year. Imagine if Danger said "im gonna leave after next season" He'd be dogging the club in their eyes. There'd be talk of not playing him coz he's not committed to the club, yadda yadda.

Yeah and that.
Read my reply. It is directed at you because you have double standards
User avatar
stan
Coach
 
 
Posts: 15221
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2005 8:53 am
Location: North Eastern Suburbs
Has liked: 88 times
Been liked: 1253 times
Grassroots Team: Goodwood Saints

Re: Crows 2014

Postby MW » Mon Sep 22, 2014 5:04 pm

stan wrote:
HH3 wrote:
MW wrote:I have no problem with what Roo said. If it's ok for the player to not committ (even if it's just verbally in the media) then why not the club.


Coz the player isnt out of contract til the end of NEXT season. Roos talking about trading him this year. Imagine if Danger said "im gonna leave after next season" He'd be dogging the club in their eyes. There'd be talk of not playing him coz he's not committed to the club, yadda yadda.

Yeah and that.


And what if we get another Tippett situation when 12 months earlier we could of traded him? Once bitten twice shy for the Crows me thinks
No player bigger than the club
MW
Coach
 
 
Posts: 12914
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2005 8:55 pm
Has liked: 2581 times
Been liked: 1822 times

Re: Crows 2014

Postby MW » Mon Sep 22, 2014 5:06 pm

stan wrote:
MW wrote:I have no problem with what Roo said. If it's ok for the player to not committ (even if it's just verbally in the media) then why not the club.

Because the club is trying to convince the said player to stay. Its not a onr size fits all rule.


I have not heard the quote from Roo, but from reports it was not a blanket "we are considering trading Dangerfield" he just did not committ to not trading him. Crows would be stupid not to look at offers.
MW
Coach
 
 
Posts: 12914
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2005 8:55 pm
Has liked: 2581 times
Been liked: 1822 times

Re: Crows 2014

Postby HH3 » Mon Sep 22, 2014 5:14 pm

MW wrote:
stan wrote:
MW wrote:I have no problem with what Roo said. If it's ok for the player to not committ (even if it's just verbally in the media) then why not the club.

Because the club is trying to convince the said player to stay. Its not a onr size fits all rule.


I have not heard the quote from Roo, but from reports it was not a blanket "we are considering trading Dangerfield" he just did not committ to not trading him. Crows would be stupid not to look at offers.


What would they be hoping to pick up? Isn't he supposed to be one of the clubs best players, and possible future captain?

I would've thought they'd throw all their support behind him and putting in every effort to keep him long term, instead of gambling on a different player, or draft picks that could be busts.
I TOLD YOU SO

2013/14 NFL Tipping Comp Champion
User avatar
HH3
Coach
 
Posts: 11641
Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2008 2:14 pm
Has liked: 3301 times
Been liked: 2432 times
Grassroots Team: North Haven

Re: Crows 2014

Postby MW » Mon Sep 22, 2014 5:23 pm

HH3 wrote:
MW wrote:
stan wrote:
MW wrote:I have no problem with what Roo said. If it's ok for the player to not committ (even if it's just verbally in the media) then why not the club.

Because the club is trying to convince the said player to stay. Its not a onr size fits all rule.


I have not heard the quote from Roo, but from reports it was not a blanket "we are considering trading Dangerfield" he just did not committ to not trading him. Crows would be stupid not to look at offers.


What would they be hoping to pick up? Isn't he supposed to be one of the clubs best players, and possible future captain?

I would've thought they'd throw all their support behind him and putting in every effort to keep him long term, instead of gambling on a different player, or draft picks that could be busts.


That is what Roo has been quoted as saying, they are going to put the things around the team (not just him) to win premierships, and with that they expect Danger to sign.
MW
Coach
 
 
Posts: 12914
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2005 8:55 pm
Has liked: 2581 times
Been liked: 1822 times

Re: Crows 2014

Postby stan » Mon Sep 22, 2014 6:41 pm

MW wrote:
stan wrote:
HH3 wrote:
MW wrote:I have no problem with what Roo said. If it's ok for the player to not committ (even if it's just verbally in the media) then why not the club.


Coz the player isnt out of contract til the end of NEXT season. Roos talking about trading him this year. Imagine if Danger said "im gonna leave after next season" He'd be dogging the club in their eyes. There'd be talk of not playing him coz he's not committed to the club, yadda yadda.

Yeah and that.


And what if we get another Tippett situation when 12 months earlier we could of traded him? Once bitten twice shy for the Crows me thinks
No player bigger than the club

What your also paying Dangerfield outside the cap?
Read my reply. It is directed at you because you have double standards
User avatar
stan
Coach
 
 
Posts: 15221
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2005 8:53 am
Location: North Eastern Suburbs
Has liked: 88 times
Been liked: 1253 times
Grassroots Team: Goodwood Saints

Re: Crows 2014

Postby MW » Mon Sep 22, 2014 8:09 pm

probably :roll:
the bit about being able to trade him before he walks was what I was eluding too
MW
Coach
 
 
Posts: 12914
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2005 8:55 pm
Has liked: 2581 times
Been liked: 1822 times

Re: Crows 2014

Postby bennymacca » Mon Sep 22, 2014 9:05 pm

MW wrote:
stan wrote:
MW wrote:I have no problem with what Roo said. If it's ok for the player to not committ (even if it's just verbally in the media) then why not the club.

Because the club is trying to convince the said player to stay. Its not a onr size fits all rule.


I have not heard the quote from Roo, but from reports it was not a blanket "we are considering trading Dangerfield" he just did not committ to not trading him. Crows would be stupid not to look at offers.


i heard it this arvo, he basically said he would never say never with regards to trading anyone, but he wants to create an environment where players want to stay.

seemed fair enough to me tbh, blown out of proportion
User avatar
bennymacca
Coach
 
 
Posts: 15028
Joined: Wed May 06, 2009 12:22 pm
Has liked: 2253 times
Been liked: 1803 times
Grassroots Team: Freeling

PreviousNext

Board index   Football  AFL

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Pseudo, tigerpie and 13 guests

Around the place

Competitions   SANFL Official Site | Country Footy SA | Southern Football League | VFL Footy
Club Forums   Snouts Louts | The Roost | Redlegs Forum |