Players intending to leave

[bennymacca]

I think the trade period should be longer and no negotiations should be made outside of the trade period.

Too much speculation is made during the season causing players to get side-tracked and supporters to get antsy towards their own and then draw conclusions once decisions are made.

Doing it this way will ensure players are playing with 100% commitment til the end to improve their dollar value.

negotiations will always be made outside of the trade period.

there was an awesome open mike with sydney's former ceo (i think). he was talking about talking to buddy franklin 18 months before he finally signed

[morell]

No.

Team continuity and culture overrides the benefits of one player being perceived to be better than another.

Of course you select them if they are in your best 22 for that match. If anyone thinks sacrificing a match ( in this instance a Grand Final ) is worth it to make a stance against a player on the move they're kidding themselves.

What happens if round 1 next year all the Port boys decide they aren't going to play because of the manner the club treated Jackson Trengove's departure?

Goes both ways. Clubs would have made decisions on players well before the player knows he's on the outer, some list management teams would have next years planned already.

Of course you pick them.

That's a very specific example of a player saying this on the eve of a GF. If so then sure, keep it under wraps and play him.

But if it's a case of it being round 12 and you've been informed. Nope. It's too destructive. You have to have people playing that want to be there

and the example that always gets brought up "but the clubs can do the same back to players" is nonsensical. Of course they bloody can. The club is always bigger than the individual.

[LMA]

No.

Team continuity and culture overrides the benefits of one player being perceived to be better than another.

Of course you select them if they are in your best 22 for that match. If anyone thinks sacrificing a match ( in this instance a Grand Final ) is worth it to make a stance against a player on the move they're kidding themselves.

What happens if round 1 next year all the Port boys decide they aren't going to play because of the manner the club treated Jackson Trengove's departure?

Goes both ways. Clubs would have made decisions on players well before the player knows he's on the outer, some list management teams would have next years planned already.

Of course you pick them.

Exactly, and what if they kick the winning goal of the GF after the siren and the whole state wants you to be Premier? Then you stay.

The whole state, you must be a Crows supporter

[tigerpie]

Whether to play him or not purely comes down to character.
Dangerfield knew he was off all year and played well.
If what we read regarding walkers pissedoffness, was it that lever lied to the leadership group re his intentions.
If that's the case then I get Adelaide's attitude.
Crows knew they would lose either lever or McGovern.
They got McGovern cheap and could play in defence so no biggy.

[Lightning McQueen]

The whole state, you must be a Crows supporter

Ease up Turbo!

[Booney]

No.

Team continuity and culture overrides the benefits of one player being perceived to be better than another.

Of course you select them if they are in your best 22 for that match. If anyone thinks sacrificing a match ( in this instance a Grand Final ) is worth it to make a stance against a player on the move they're kidding themselves.

What happens if round 1 next year all the Port boys decide they aren't going to play because of the manner the club treated Jackson Trengove's departure?

Goes both ways. Clubs would have made decisions on players well before the player knows he's on the outer, some list management teams would have next years planned already.

Of course you pick them.

That's a very specific example of a player saying this on the eve of a GF. If so then sure, keep it under wraps and play him.

But if it's a case of it being round 12 and you've been informed. Nope. It's too destructive. You have to have people playing that want to be there

and the example that always gets brought up "but the clubs can do the same back to players" is nonsensical. Of course they bloody can. The club is always bigger than the individual.

You're wrong. That is all.

[Lightning McQueen]

I think the trade period should be longer and no negotiations should be made outside of the trade period.

Too much speculation is made during the season causing players to get side-tracked and supporters to get antsy towards their own and then draw conclusions once decisions are made.

Doing it this way will ensure players are playing with 100% commitment til the end to improve their dollar value.

negotiations will always be made outside of the trade period.

there was an awesome open mike with sydney's former ceo (i think). he was talking about talking to buddy franklin 18 months before he finally signed

I do realize that, I'm just saying that they shouldn't.

[Psyber]

If the player is good enough, and is being professional and not putting in half-hearted performances out of petulance, it makes sense to continue to pick them in the team.

[Lightning McQueen]

Not sure where this goes but I'm going to miss the big fella despite burning me in fantasy footy year after year.

Loved his attack and endeavour.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2017-10-16/h ... -the-brink

[Dogwatcher]

Not sure where this goes but I'm going to miss the big fella despite burning me in fantasy footy year after year.

Loved his attack and endeavour.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2017-10-16/h ... -the-brink

That would be disappointing if he did finish up. I'm a big fan of the Mummy.
But it was obvious as the season progressed he was struggling. Play the way he does, it's gonna impact on longevity.