MW wrote:Everyone knows no club will take a player that will not play for them. Pure and simple. They can beat their chest all they want. Unless Geelong want to be generous in all this and offer a trade rather than getting him for nothing, he walks.
I highly doubt the Crows would have sought out information but for this to go as far as it has im very surprised if there wasn't some truth to the story
Personally I reckon M would have spoken to D, his currently disgruntled at the club, knows his more than likely going to be traded and gives some thoughts to D
During tactic preps D mentions M told him some on info on Stringer and co and knowing the Crows history of integrity I highly doubt they told him not to discuss it.
You reckon Daniel pinned his brother down and demanded information? Western Bulldogs are sore losers mate pure and simple. Luke Beveridge has proven through the year he makes excuses for losses.
MW wrote:You reckon Daniel pinned his brother down and demanded information? Western Bulldogs are sore losers mate pure and simple. Luke Beveridge has proven through the year he makes excuses for losses.
No I'm saying Michael may have happily given information because of his situation at the Dogs
Booney wrote: Campo, under the circumstances of his appointment, was never going to be able to be a hard task master. There was no way he could come down on this group like a tonne of bricks, regardless of their form this year. As such he's been a soft touch, hardly invokes fear as a bloke who could deliver the old school spray. Mind you, I think that is few and far between in the modern game, analysis and training is the way to get players to lift not so much yelling and swearing, but I think a coach still needs to look like he has the ability to go tropo at any moment. Campo hardly puts the wind up anyone.
From what I've heard it's quite the opposite, has had to be calmed down a few times from giving too good a spray... Maybe he learnt a thing or 2 in his time at Carlton
MW wrote:Everyone knows no club will take a player that will not play for them. Pure and simple. They can beat their chest all they want. Unless Geelong want to be generous in all this and offer a trade rather than getting him for nothing, he walks.
I completely disagree. It's a Top 5 player in the league and you get him for nothing more than a PSD pick, you're taking that any day of the week.
Gary Lyon even said as much on Monday night, guaranteeing that Melbourne would snatch him up in a heartbeat - $800k price tag or not.
Dangerfield cares too much about his legacy and how he's viewed as a footballer to dog it for a year to make a point and everyone knows it. It's not like taking a nufty just interested in the pay cheque.
Players who are under contract or restricted free really shouldn't have any final say in where they end up via a trade. (If RFAs have offer sheets matched)
Only unrestricted free agents should have that right to pick their employer.
This current system of players being able to tell clubs who they must deal with is an absolute joke.
MW wrote:You reckon Daniel pinned his brother down and demanded information? Western Bulldogs are sore losers mate pure and simple. Luke Beveridge has proven through the year he makes excuses for losses.
No I'm saying Michael may have happily given information because of his situation at the Dogs
so tell me again how this is the crows' fault? Or you just trolling again?
jakovasaurus wrote:Players who are under contract or restricted free really shouldn't have any final say in where they end up via a trade. (If RFAs have offer sheets matched)
Only unrestricted free agents should have that right to pick their employer.
This current system of players being able to tell clubs who they must deal with is an absolute joke.
They should just adopt the NFL contract system, where if he's out of contract at the end of the season, he negotiates with clubs as a FA and his former club gets nothing.
Maybe adopt a "franchise tag" system too, which is where the club pays him the same as the top paid player at his position to keep him another year. Then he can go anywhere.
Compensation picks not only are advantageous to a club that can't keep a player, but disadvantages every other club after them in the draft.
jakovasaurus wrote:Players who are under contract or restricted free really shouldn't have any final say in where they end up via a trade. (If RFAs have offer sheets matched)
Only unrestricted free agents should have that right to pick their employer.
This current system of players being able to tell clubs who they must deal with is an absolute joke.
They should just adopt the NFL contract system, where if he's out of contract at the end of the season, he negotiates with clubs as a FA and his former club gets nothing.
Maybe adopt a "franchise tag" system too, which is where the club pays him the same as the top paid player at his position to keep him another year. Then he can go anywhere.
Compensation picks not only are advantageous to a club that can't keep a player, but disadvantages every other club after them in the draft.
By your model, the big clubs will just get stronger and the weak clubs weaker.
MW wrote:You reckon Daniel pinned his brother down and demanded information? Western Bulldogs are sore losers mate pure and simple. Luke Beveridge has proven through the year he makes excuses for losses.
No I'm saying Michael may have happily given information because of his situation at the Dogs
so tell me again how this is the crows' fault? Or you just trolling again?
If the Crows have got hold of this information and then used it you can guarantee the AFL at very least will fine the Crows.
jakovasaurus wrote:Players who are under contract or restricted free really shouldn't have any final say in where they end up via a trade. (If RFAs have offer sheets matched)
Only unrestricted free agents should have that right to pick their employer.
This current system of players being able to tell clubs who they must deal with is an absolute joke.
They should just adopt the NFL contract system, where if he's out of contract at the end of the season, he negotiates with clubs as a FA and his former club gets nothing.
Maybe adopt a "franchise tag" system too, which is where the club pays him the same as the top paid player at his position to keep him another year. Then he can go anywhere.
Compensation picks not only are advantageous to a club that can't keep a player, but disadvantages every other club after them in the draft.
By your model, the big clubs will just get stronger and the weak clubs weaker.
No they won't.
The salary cap would negate the top teams stockpiling players. The only way that could happen is if they all agree to take pay cuts to all play in one team.
What is seen in the NFL, is players chase the money. So teams that may not have a good roster, hence have room under the salary cap, can offer the big bucks.
You would see Melbourne chasing players, without the burden of having to trade picks with a team that the player isnt even contracted to.
The salary cap would negate the top teams stockpiling players. The only way that could happen is if they all agree to take pay cuts to all play in one team. What is seen in the NFL, is players chase the money. So teams that may not have a good roster, hence have room under the salary cap, can offer the big bucks. You would see Melbourne chasing players, without the burden of having to trade picks with a team that the player isnt even contracted to.
Which is exactly how Hawthorn have got Lake, Frawley etc to come into already successful teams.
Sydney with Franklin and Tippett, they've still signed Hannebery to a long term deal, why? Happy to take a pay cut to play in a strong team.
**** the NFL and it's systems. Completely different market, completely different sportsmen, **** me, the ego on some of those wankers over there.
The salary cap would negate the top teams stockpiling players. The only way that could happen is if they all agree to take pay cuts to all play in one team. What is seen in the NFL, is players chase the money. So teams that may not have a good roster, hence have room under the salary cap, can offer the big bucks. You would see Melbourne chasing players, without the burden of having to trade picks with a team that the player isnt even contracted to.
Which is exactly how Hawthorn have got Lake, Frawley etc to come into already successful teams.
Sydney with Franklin and Tippett, they've still signed Hannebery to a long term deal, why? Happy to take a pay cut to play in a strong team.
**** the NFL and it's systems. Completely different market, completely different sportsmen, **** me, the ego on some of those wankers over there.
Unfortunatly one of Andy D's legacies is that most things he did was copied straight from the NFL
That looks as if it still continuing
If it happened in the NFL 5 years ago it's no far from coming into the AFL soon
The salary cap would negate the top teams stockpiling players. The only way that could happen is if they all agree to take pay cuts to all play in one team. What is seen in the NFL, is players chase the money. So teams that may not have a good roster, hence have room under the salary cap, can offer the big bucks. You would see Melbourne chasing players, without the burden of having to trade picks with a team that the player isnt even contracted to.
Which is exactly how Hawthorn have got Lake, Frawley etc to come into already successful teams.
Sydney with Franklin and Tippett, they've still signed Hannebery to a long term deal, why? Happy to take a pay cut to play in a strong team.
**** the NFL and it's systems. Completely different market, completely different sportsmen, **** me, the ego on some of those wankers over there.
Unfortunatly one of Andy D's legacies is that most things he did was copied straight from the NFL
That looks as if it still continuing
If it happened in the NFL 5 years ago it's no far from coming into the AFL soon
The salary cap would negate the top teams stockpiling players. The only way that could happen is if they all agree to take pay cuts to all play in one team. What is seen in the NFL, is players chase the money. So teams that may not have a good roster, hence have room under the salary cap, can offer the big bucks. You would see Melbourne chasing players, without the burden of having to trade picks with a team that the player isnt even contracted to.
Which is exactly how Hawthorn have got Lake, Frawley etc to come into already successful teams.
Sydney with Franklin and Tippett, they've still signed Hannebery to a long term deal, why? Happy to take a pay cut to play in a strong team.
**** the NFL and it's systems. Completely different market, completely different sportsmen, **** me, the ego on some of those wankers over there.
All of those examples happened with the current system.
So you think it should stay the same? Or look at how other leagues do things to get ideas to improve our, IMO, shit system.
The salary cap would negate the top teams stockpiling players. The only way that could happen is if they all agree to take pay cuts to all play in one team. What is seen in the NFL, is players chase the money. So teams that may not have a good roster, hence have room under the salary cap, can offer the big bucks. You would see Melbourne chasing players, without the burden of having to trade picks with a team that the player isnt even contracted to.
Which is exactly how Hawthorn have got Lake, Frawley etc to come into already successful teams.
Sydney with Franklin and Tippett, they've still signed Hannebery to a long term deal, why? Happy to take a pay cut to play in a strong team.
**** the NFL and it's systems. Completely different market, completely different sportsmen, **** me, the ego on some of those wankers over there.
Unfortunatly one of Andy D's legacies is that most things he did was copied straight from the NFL
That looks as if it still continuing
If it happened in the NFL 5 years ago it's no far from coming into the AFL soon
Which part of the current AFL FA system resembles the NFL?
