HH3 wrote:Ok, so if Geelong are serious, they should offer the longest term deal they're comfortable with, because I doubt the Crows would try to match that. Its a big risk on a guy that doesnt wanna be there.
its a paper exercise, he wont stay at the club anyway, but it will just give them the bargaining power for a trade
Wedgie wrote:Geelong have Kelly, Johnno, Stokes, Rivers and McIntoshs salaries minus Motlops increase to deal with. Adelaide have Dangerfields current salary minus several increased offers this year in re-signs. If Geelong wanted to the Crows wouldn't be able to even get close to Geelongs offer. That's common sense and obvious. But as mentioned the Cats pay structure throws a spanner in that. They could pay Selwood more and up Dangers offer that way but traditionally Geelong are one of the fairer clubs to deal with in transfers and because of this I think a reasonably fair trade will be made despite the fact Geelong could score him for nothing.
yeah agree that geelong are usually pretty good operators with this sort of stuff.
With the crows having 18 months to prepare i still dont reckon geelong will make an offer that the crows couldnt match.
I know that games arent won in the media, but Geelong would kick some PR goals if they offered up a halfway decent trade instead of being pricks about it (even though they are entitled to, not saying that)
Isn't it all meant to be done during the trade period?
Only if you believe the Easter Bunny and Father Christmas pay income tax.
I know they do deals behind the scenes, but is it technically legal? And is that why its all "my source told me" sort of stuff instead of actually being announced.
Isn't it all meant to be done during the trade period?
Only if you believe the Easter Bunny and Father Christmas pay income tax.
I know they do deals behind the scenes, but is it technically legal? And is that why its all "my source told me" sort of stuff instead of actually being announced.
Agreements can be made as long as nothing has been signed, putting pen to paper is the illegal bit. Seems that the Crows, Geelong and Danger have all verbally agreed to the deal and are just waiting for the trade period to start.
Would love to know what Dangerfield and his camp would want. Caro ( if she can be believed, and I think quite often she can ) thinks Dangerfield's camp would prefer Adelaide to just let him walk. I highly doubt that will happen.
You don't let a player of his ilk walk scott free, or, for pick #15 ( +/- )
Booney wrote:Would love to know what Dangerfield and his camp would want. Caro ( if she can be believed, and I think quite often she can ) thinks Dangerfield's camp would prefer Adelaide to just let him walk. I highly doubt that will happen.
You don't let a player of his ilk walk scott free, or, for pick #15 ( +/- )
would have thought danger wouldnt really care, thats between the clubs.
Danger has been a great servant of the club, in a weird sense I respect him more even though it is almost certain he leaves my club because of how he has handled himself. Honestly no animosity whatsoever, assuming he goes to Geelong that is
HH3 wrote:Is it allowed to be done yet? Isn't it all meant to be done during the trade period?
Only if you believe the Easter Bunny and Father Christmas pay income tax.
I know they do deals behind the scenes, but is it technically legal? And is that why its all "my source told me" sort of stuff instead of actually being announced.
Agreements can be made as long as nothing has been signed, putting pen to paper is the illegal bit. Seems that the Crows, Geelong and Danger have all verbally agreed to the deal and are just waiting for the trade period to start.
Well yes, and no.
Clubs can contact player agents enquiring about contracted players, but it's "meant" to be that agents can't table something to the player until the end of the season. It's clearly not the case.
Booney wrote:Would love to know what Dangerfield and his camp would want. Caro ( if she can be believed, and I think quite often she can ) thinks Dangerfield's camp would prefer Adelaide to just let him walk. I highly doubt that will happen.
You don't let a player of his ilk walk scott free, or, for pick #15 ( +/- )
would have thought danger wouldnt really care, thats between the clubs.
Danger has been a great servant of the club, in a weird sense I respect him more even though it is almost certain he leaves my club because of how he has handled himself. Honestly no animosity whatsoever, assuming he goes to Geelong that is
I think he, being him, would. If Adelaide play hard ball it "could" be seen as them not sending him off with their best wishes. ie - We know you're leaving, we'll match the offer regardless and make it harder for Geelong to get you.
Booney wrote:Would love to know what Dangerfield and his camp would want. Caro ( if she can be believed, and I think quite often she can ) thinks Dangerfield's camp would prefer Adelaide to just let him walk. I highly doubt that will happen.
You don't let a player of his ilk walk scott free, or, for pick #15 ( +/- )
would have thought danger wouldnt really care, thats between the clubs.
Danger has been a great servant of the club, in a weird sense I respect him more even though it is almost certain he leaves my club because of how he has handled himself. Honestly no animosity whatsoever, assuming he goes to Geelong that is
Same feelings I had with Ablett.
Armchair expert wrote:Such a great club are Geelong
Booney wrote:Would love to know what Dangerfield and his camp would want. Caro ( if she can be believed, and I think quite often she can ) thinks Dangerfield's camp would prefer Adelaide to just let him walk. I highly doubt that will happen.
You don't let a player of his ilk walk scott free, or, for pick #15 ( +/- )
would have thought danger wouldnt really care, thats between the clubs.
Danger has been a great servant of the club, in a weird sense I respect him more even though it is almost certain he leaves my club because of how he has handled himself. Honestly no animosity whatsoever, assuming he goes to Geelong that is
Same feelings I had with Ablett.
Yep, you certainly can't question the commitment both of these blokes ( and Buddy ) showed to the cause despite pretty well knowing they were on the move.
Lachie Henderson, Lewis Jetta and several others could learn from this.
Booney wrote:Would love to know what Dangerfield and his camp would want. Caro ( if she can be believed, and I think quite often she can ) thinks Dangerfield's camp would prefer Adelaide to just let him walk. I highly doubt that will happen.
You don't let a player of his ilk walk scott free, or, for pick #15 ( +/- )
would have thought danger wouldnt really care, thats between the clubs.
Danger has been a great servant of the club, in a weird sense I respect him more even though it is almost certain he leaves my club because of how he has handled himself. Honestly no animosity whatsoever, assuming he goes to Geelong that is
Same feelings I had with Ablett.
yeah agree, even though Ablett was for different reasons ($$$).
I dont really mind any player leaving if they are open and honest about the reasons.
Booney wrote: Yep, you certainly can't question the commitment both of these blokes ( and Buddy ) showed to the cause despite pretty well knowing they were on the move.
Lachie Henderson, Lewis Jetta and several others could learn from this.
I wouldn't rate Buddy's integrity in the same echelon as Paddy or Gazza's.
Booney wrote:Would love to know what Dangerfield and his camp would want. Caro ( if she can be believed, and I think quite often she can ) thinks Dangerfield's camp would prefer Adelaide to just let him walk. I highly doubt that will happen.
You don't let a player of his ilk walk scott free, or, for pick #15 ( +/- )
would have thought danger wouldnt really care, thats between the clubs.
Danger has been a great servant of the club, in a weird sense I respect him more even though it is almost certain he leaves my club because of how he has handled himself. Honestly no animosity whatsoever, assuming he goes to Geelong that is
Same feelings I had with Ablett.
yeah agree, even though Ablett was for different reasons ($$$).
I dont really mind any player leaving if they are open and honest about the reasons.
Ablett had achieved everything he could at Geelong, I respect him for leaving a winning culture to try and promote the game in a rugby populated region, the AFL wanted him to go and I bet it was bloody hard for him to make that decision, of course they were going to have to throw treasure chests at him as a carrot, without him, the Suns would probably have folded already.
Browny25 wrote:I know its going to happen, and i'll be shattered
Better to of had and lost than to of never had at all.
This is why I don't agree with the AFL drafting system, there's no real fix but sooner or later players will want to go home.
I was at the pub so im not sure if i heard correctly, but did they say on Friday night that there was more victorians in the crows team than there was in the Hawks team? It was some stat like that.
Booney wrote: Yep, you certainly can't question the commitment both of these blokes ( and Buddy ) showed to the cause despite pretty well knowing they were on the move.
Lachie Henderson, Lewis Jetta and several others could learn from this.
I wouldn't rate Buddy's integrity in the same echelon as Paddy or Gazza's.
Integrity on the field, you can't question. He played the year right out.
With all this talk about it, can they stage manage it through and not announce it until after the Brownlow.....then, would Dangerfield want Grand Final week to be about him / Geelong / Adelaide?
I think they should announce it now, nobody would question him going to or being at the BnF or the Brownlow as an Adelaide Crow. Technically, he is a Crow until October 31 regardless.
Booney wrote: Yep, you certainly can't question the commitment both of these blokes ( and Buddy ) showed to the cause despite pretty well knowing they were on the move.
Lachie Henderson, Lewis Jetta and several others could learn from this.
I wouldn't rate Buddy's integrity in the same echelon as Paddy or Gazza's.
