Carey to Essendon?

[King Crow]

Originally posted by Rooboy 96


They must be dumb arses if they think they were going to get him cheap...

You must be a dumb arse if you think you will get alot for him

You will be very dissapointed with the end trade no doubt, I look forward to your club bashing late october.

Will you be posting it on this board, or the north board?

 

[Rooboy 96]

Originally posted by King Crow


You must be a dumb arse if you think you will get alot for him

You will be very dissapointed with the end trade no doubt, I look forward to your club bashing late october.

Will you be posting it on this board, or the north board?

I aint an Adelaide fan so there will be no club bashing from me... I will enjoy seeing the look on your CEO when Carey signs with Essendon...

 

[Dave]

Originally posted by Rooboy 96
I aint an Adelaide fan so there will be no club bashing from me... I will enjoy seeing the look on your CEO when Carey signs with Essendon...

Me too!!!!!

 

[Shinboners]

Originally posted by ok.crows

It is devastating in terms of the "saleability" of your club. You had "the King" and ended up with nothing. Great management, that ... **NOT**. You'd end up looking like incompetent fools or worse, mismanagers. Devastating in terms of trying to attract backers for your club.

So let me get this straight - we'll get backers simply due to our ability to get a draft pick for Carey? You mean it has nothing to do with how we perform on the field or the club's ability to deliver benefits to potential sponsors?

Yes, the real substance is this - Crows know Kangaroos position. Exactly. Through their own direct experience, they know it. The Crows have precedent. The Crows would like carey, but have already shored up their position publically on this "we aren't going to trade the Crown jewels". A strong signal there, they know their position and their strength is ... we don't have to trade.

So you've now moved from stating that in a trade, clubs need a "strong position and concealed hands" which you further state that "neither club has either" to now saying that the Crows know EXACTLY the Roos position - which I would have thought would've been a strong hand. Will you kindly make up your mind on whether the Crows have an advantage or not?

And you've ignored the point that the Crows aren't going to publically say, "We'll move heaven and earth to get Carey". It's just spin doctoring and it will come from both the Crows and the Roos. And you've ignored my point about the Roos also having experience in the trading of a big name with the Colbert and Bell deals where we were on the "purchasing" side (Colbert) and the "selling" side (Bell) of the deal. So the Roos have a precedent for action just like the Crows have.

By the way, the original reason why this thread was started was the rumour that Essendon would make a play for Carey. If that is true, then Adelaide's position is weakened because they will have a competitor for Carey's services (and if the rumour is true, I don't think Carey will turn down the chance to play with the Dons - ok.crows, I'm not sure if you've ever heard of Essendon, but they're a pretty good club over here in Victoria). If Essendon make a bid, then the Crows won't know the Roos position until the Roos let the Crows know what the Dons bid is - otherwise, how can the Crows match it? It then becomes an auction for Carey's services between the two clubs.

After all the Crows finished 4th this year - Careyless - and they remain on the improve. They don't have to trade if the price is not right - and the price I refer to here is not the $$$ price, but the cost in trade terms.

I don't disagree with that at all. However, in the same way that I reckon Carey can deliver a flag to the Crows, I also think that Carey can do the same for Essendon. And we are talking Essendon, not someone like Richmond or Sydney. Essendon still have a strong list, and if you add Carey to that, I reckon you can start inscribing "Essendon" onto next year's premiership trophy.

For Kangaroos, the $$$ are just an additional worry that Crows don't have.

Kangaroos are almost in a position where they have to take a draft pick for Carey in order to offload some $$$ in player payments.

That doesn't make any sense. Carey won't be on our list next season, so how does he affect our player payments? Someone will take his place on the list and it will likely be some kid picked up in the draft. However, it's irrelevant if the kid is picked up via the Carey trade or from another trade. The only way that Carey is an issue is if we get a high draft pick from trading him (either from Essendon or Adelaide), or in case of Carey going into the pre-season draft, we miss out on a high draft pick and we get some other kid through our (lower) normal picks.

 

[Dave]

Originally posted by ok.crows
Misquote, I would say - all that I recall saying on that topic was that the ACCC were looking into it, which they were.

Originally posted by ok.crows
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Dave


Really? The competition did not have the right to decide where finals would be played? Amazing.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Not according to the law, no.

The competition has many customers (footy followers) spread across Australia.

It is not legal (without extenuating circumstances) to offer some of your customers a service but to exclude others.

Originally posted by ok.crows
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by hotpie


Moron,

If you bothered to read the thread you will see I agree it is an unfair situation.

My point has been that legally you don't have a leg to stand on. This needs to be resolved by the AFL offering adequate compensation to all parties who would lose out financially by moving the game from the MCG, especially AFL and MCC Members.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Moron.

There are indeed legal "legs" to stand on and they are being persued right now.

That sure looks like a legal opinion to me.

 

[Royal Blue And White]

Originally posted by Shinboners


I don't disagree with that at all. However, in the same way that I reckon Carey can deliver a flag to the Crows, I also think that Carey can do the same for Essendon. And we are talking Essendon, not someone like Richmond or Sydney. Essendon still have a strong list, and if you add Carey to that, I reckon you can start inscribing "Essendon" onto next year's premiership trophy.

So true........Im gonna put a few $$ on whichever club Carey goes to to win the flag next year........

 

[ok.crows]

Originally posted by Dave








That sure looks like a legal opinion to me.

Sure it is, but it wasn't mine. I was quoting it from TV & radio reports.

 

[Royal Blue And White]

Originally posted by King Crow


Please explain....

Excuse Me?

 

[Shinboners]

Originally posted by King Crow

Will you be posting it on this board, or the north board?

Speaking of the North board, we're really missing ok.crows and his posts. And speaking of missing, that is what ok.crows seems to have done once he couldn't explain how Rehn with 2 knee reconstructions and doing an on-field job in the ruck which puts pressure on his knees carries the same injury risk as Wayne Carey who has soft tissue injuries that can be managed by an adjustment to the way he plays the game (ie. stop crashing through packs and concentrate on making leads and reading the play). However, to be fair to ok.crows, after getting tripped up on contract law, he might now be wary about giving an opinion on medical matters.

Oh, and there was that bit about how Rehn is just as much a champion player as Carey, but we'll let that slide due to your reasoning that it was the fault of the Victorian media.

 

[Dave]

Originally posted by ok.crows
Sure it is, but it wasn't mine. I was quoting it from TV & radio reports.

But you didn't say that at the time, you simply said "it was illegal", meaning Shinboners didn't misquote you at all

 

[ok.crows]

Originally posted by Shinboners

So let me get this straight - we'll get backers simply due to our ability to get a draft pick for Carey? You mean it has nothing to do with how we perform on the field or the club's ability to deliver benefits to potential sponsors?

No. You have backers already. Mazda for example (zoom zoom). The Kangaroos are renowned for having sparse support, and if the likes of Mazda see you dropping the ball on management issues as well, you could lose sponsors.

So you've now moved from stating that in a trade, clubs need a "strong position and concealed hands" which you further state that "neither club has either" to now saying that the Crows know EXACTLY the Roos position - which I would have thought would've been a strong hand.

Sorry I have confused you. Firstly, it was you not I who drew an analogy with poker hands and bluffing ... remember "play the game" from you?

Secondly, the Crows have the strong hand because Kangaroos hand is weak ... it is revealed. Kangaroos after all are trying to get a trade here just as much as are Crows. I should have thought all this was obvious.

Will you kindly make up your mind on whether the Crows have an advantage or not?

It is perfectly clear to me that Crows have the strong bargaining position. So sorry that you got confused about it.

And you've ignored the point that the Crows aren't going to publically say, "We'll move heaven and earth to get Carey". It's just spin doctoring and it will come from both the Crows and the Roos. And you've ignored my point about the Roos also having experience in the trading of a big name with the Colbert and Bell deals where we were on the "purchasing" side (Colbert) and the "selling" side (Bell) of the deal. So the Roos have a precedent for action just like the Crows have.

The Colbert and Bell deals bare far less resemblence to Kangaroos position with regard to the Carey trade. The Crows position on the Rehn trade is far more similar to Kangaroos circumstances now. Kangaroos have not been on "that side" of the table before (recently) - where they are trying to get a decent trade for an aging (but highly credentialled) player with limited years left and who most definitely is not going to play for Kangaroos any more. Crows have the precedent on being in that position, but Kangaroos don't AFAIK.

My Shinboners, you are getting very confused indeed aren't you?

By the way, the original reason why this thread was started was the rumour that Essendon would make a play for Carey. If that is true, then Adelaide's position is weakened because they will have a competitor for Carey's services (and if the rumour is true, I don't think Carey will turn down the chance to play with the Dons - ok.crows, I'm not sure if you've ever heard of Essendon, but they're a pretty good club over here in Victoria). If Essendon make a bid, then the Crows won't know the Roos position until the Roos let the Crows know what the Dons bid is - otherwise, how can the Crows match it? It then becomes an auction for Carey's services between the two clubs.

According to reports here, Essendon have denied making any bid for Carey. But even if they do, Essendon's chances are weakened by Carey's stated position. Kangaroos cannot enter into a trade deal that Carey does not agree to. That makes it considerably easier for Kangaroos to go with Adelaide than with Essendon.

However, if Essendon are indeed making a bid, and it is a very attractive offer to the Kangaroos in terms of trade, and Kangaroos can get Carey to agree (there is the rub, relationship there I have heard isn't too smooth) then Adelaide can simply walk away from the whole thing and they have lost nothing. If the trade comes at an exhorbitant cost (in player terms) then it is just not worth it ... in exactly the same way that Hawthorn fans right now question if the Rehn trade was worth it in the final wash up.

I don't disagree with that at all. However, in the same way that I reckon Carey can deliver a flag to the Crows, I also think that Carey can do the same for Essendon. And we are talking Essendon, not someone like Richmond or Sydney. Essendon still have a strong list, and if you add Carey to that, I reckon you can start inscribing "Essendon" onto next year's premiership trophy.

I believe Essendon are over-rated. They had a very good period but still only managed one flag from that period. In order to get a flag next year, Essendon will need to bolster their midfield stocks (particularly if rumours concerning Hird have even the smallest amount of substance) and find a ruck division from somewhere. They won't be able to do either if they give away the earth trying to snatch Carey - and even if they get Carey it won't solve their real problems. I think that expending enough in trade value to obtain Carey would considerably weaken Essendon's prospects next year, not improve them.

IMO Carey is a much better fit into Crows current structure & strengths than he is into Essendon's.

That doesn't make any sense. Carey won't be on our list next season, so how does he affect our player payments? Someone will take his place on the list and it will likely be some kid picked up in the draft. However, it's irrelevant if the kid is picked up via the Carey trade or from another trade. The only way that Carey is an issue is if we get a high draft pick from trading him (either from Essendon or Adelaide), or in case of Carey going into the pre-season draft, we miss out on a high draft pick and we get some other kid through our (lower) normal picks.

Carey won't affect your player payments next year, other than freeing up some cap by not being there. But Kangaroos need at lot of cap space seeing that they are only spending what 92.5% or something? of the cap. The issue here is who Kangaroos get in trade for Carey - Kangaroos will have to offer that player an acceptable deal or Kangaroos can't have him. So if Crows were to offer Johnson (for example) in trade for Carey - can the Kangaroos afford to take Johnson? - can they offer Johnson an acceptable contract? This is where a draft pick is preferable to Kangaroos - the player you get out of it is going to cost you a lot less of cap space.

 

[ok.crows]

Originally posted by Dave


But you didn't say that at the time, you simply said "it was illegal", meaning Shinboners didn't misquote you at all

Fair enough I suppose, but I thought I was clear enough in the context of the discussion at the time. We were talking about the ACCC investigation, brought about by Mike Rann & state lawyers raising a question over the legality of the MCC contract. It was their opinion that I was trying to convey second-hand.

Surely you didn't think I just thought all that up by myself?

If you did then clearly I will have to be a lot more explicit in my posts, as clearly you get very confused very easily. Unfortunately that means a lot more words for readers to wade through - are you sure you want that Dave?

 

[Dave]

Originally posted by ok.crows
Fair enough I suppose, but I thought I was clear enough in the context of the discussion at the time. We were talking about the ACCC investigation, brought about by Mike Rann & state lawyers raising a question over the legality of the MCC contract. It was their opinion that I was trying to convey second-hand.

So you didn't agree with them?

Surely you didn't think I just thought all that up by myself?

Not being a qualified physcologist I wouldn't dream of presuming to know the thoughts that rattle around inside your head Mark.

If you did then clearly I will have to be a lot more explicit in my posts, as clearly you get very confused very easily.

Not at all. I am not the one claiming to be mis-quoted.

Unfortunately that means a lot more words for readers to wade through - are you sure you want that Dave?

I lived with it on usenet, I'm sure I can cope with it here.

 

[Royal Blue And White]

Originally posted by ok.crows


No. You have backers already. Mazda for example (zoom zoom). The Kangaroos are renowned for having sparse support, and if the likes of Mazda see you dropping the ball on management issues as well, you could lose sponsors.




Sorry I have confused you. Firstly, it was you not I who drew an analogy with poker hands and bluffing ... remember "play the game" from you?

Secondly, the Crows have the strong hand because Kangaroos hand is weak ... it is revealed. Kangaroos after all are trying to get a trade here just as much as are Crows. I should have thought all this was obvious.



It is perfectly clear to me that Crows have the strong bargaining position. So sorry that you got confused about it.



The Colbert and Bell deals bare far less resemblence to Kangaroos position with regard to the Carey trade. The Crows position on the Rehn trade is far more similar to Kangaroos circumstances now. Kangaroos have not been on "that side" of the table before (recently) - where they are trying to get a decent trade for an aging (but highly credentialled) player with limited years left and who most definitely is not going to play for Kangaroos any more. Crows have the precedent on being in that position, but Kangaroos don't AFAIK.

My Shinboners, you are getting very confused indeed aren't you?



According to reports here, Essendon have denied making any bid for Carey. But even if they do, Essendon's chances are weakened by Carey's stated position. Kangaroos cannot enter into a trade deal that Carey does not agree to. That makes it considerably easier for Kangaroos to go with Adelaide than with Essendon.

However, if Essendon are indeed making a bid, and it is a very attractive offer to the Kangaroos in terms of trade, and Kangaroos can get Carey to agree (there is the rub, relationship there I have heard isn't too smooth) then Adelaide can simply walk away from the whole thing and they have lost nothing. If the trade comes at an exhorbitant cost (in player terms) then it is just not worth it ... in exactly the same way that Hawthorn fans right now question if the Rehn trade was worth it in the final wash up.



I believe Essendon are over-rated. They had a very good period but still only managed one flag from that period. In order to get a flag next year, Essendon will need to bolster their midfield stocks (particularly if rumours concerning Hird have even the smallest amount of substance) and find a ruck division from somewhere. They won't be able to do either if they give away the earth trying to snatch Carey - and even if they get Carey it won't solve their real problems. I think that expending enough in trade value to obtain Carey would considerably weaken Essendon's prospects next year, not improve them.

IMO Carey is a much better fit into Crows current structure & strengths than he is into Essendon's.



Carey won't affect your player payments next year, other than freeing up some cap by not being there. But Kangaroos need at lot of cap space seeing that they are only spending what 92.5% or something? of the cap. The issue here is who Kangaroos get in trade for Carey - Kangaroos will have to offer that player an acceptable deal or Kangaroos can't have him. So if Crows were to offer Johnson (for example) in trade for Carey - can the Kangaroos afford to take Johnson? - can they offer Johnson an acceptable contract? This is where a draft pick is preferable to Kangaroos - the player you get out of it is going to cost you a lot less of cap space.

I think you have too much time on your hands.......This is rubbish

 

[Gonzo]

Originally posted by ok.crows


No. You have backers already. Mazda for example (zoom zoom). The Kangaroos are renowned for having sparse support, and if the likes of Mazda see you dropping the ball on management issues as well, you could lose sponsors.

SNIP

However, if Essendon are indeed making a bid, and it is a very attractive offer to the Kangaroos in terms of trade, and Kangaroos can get Carey to agree (there is the rub, relationship there I have heard isn't too smooth) then Adelaide can simply walk away from the whole thing and they have lost nothing. If the trade comes at an exhorbitant cost (in player terms) then it is just not worth it ... in exactly the same way that Hawthorn fans right now question if the Rehn trade was worth it in the final wash up.

SNIP

Let's say Carey goes to Essendon (for a pick/player/whatever):

So explain how North's management look incompetent, lose sponsors etc but Adelaide walks away looking all fine and dandy after failing to secure a player that can deliver them a premiership??

Also bear in mind that Carey didn't play with North this year and won't play there ever again, so the club has already gone through the process of "losing him for nothing" - he's gawn, the club have moved on!!

 

[ok.crows]

Originally posted by Shinboners


Speaking of the North board, we're really missing ok.crows and his posts. And speaking of missing, that is what ok.crows seems to have done once he couldn't explain how Rehn with 2 knee reconstructions and doing an on-field job in the ruck which puts pressure on his knees carries the same injury risk as Wayne Carey who has soft tissue injuries that can be managed by an adjustment to the way he plays the game (ie. stop crashing through packs and concentrate on making leads and reading the play). However, to be fair to ok.crows, after getting tripped up on contract law, he might now be wary about giving an opinion on medical matters.

Oh, and there was that bit about how Rehn is just as much a champion player as Carey, but we'll let that slide due to your reasoning that it was the fault of the Victorian media.

Sigh, what a tool you are Shinboners.

If you are going to argue a point, get the opposition viewpoint correct first, then argue against that.

I stated my reason for posting on the North board, which was to get the view of North fans. That you gave me, thankyou. I'm not going to argue your view on your board - it is your board so that would hardly be appropriate now would it?

I never once (intended to) say that Rehn was the equivalent player to Carey. What I said (and I thought I was perfectly clear on this) was that the Rehn trade was similar. Trade value has only a passing relation to the past form & capability of players. After all, some rather ordinary players manage somehow to fall into lucrative deals whereas others (often the ones loyal to clubs) end up on far less due to an reluctance to leave. I had heard that M. Voss this year was a chance to take a substantial pay cut for example - and Essendon players talked about the same thing after their great year in 2000. How was any of that justifiable based on their form?

Anyway, the value of a player in trade depends on the trading position. We have a trade position after all where low draft picks (which will probably get you an untried youngster who probably won't get a game for 18 months) can be worth more than a proven performer in the peak of his career.

So - Rehn was an aging key position player (ruckman) with probably two years left. He was one of (if not the) best in that position in his prime. He had endured injury during his career and was a bit of a doubtful proposition, but had just got through a year OK so was probably OK to go. He fit very well into Hawthorn's need at that time. He was definitely not going to play for Crows the next year.

Those are the factors of similarity with the Rehn trade, and they are numerous. The fact that Carey was a better player in years past has very little bearing on the trade position in comparison to those factors listed above.

 

[hotpie]

Originally posted by ok.crows


Fair enough I suppose, but I thought I was clear enough in the context of the discussion at the time. We were talking about the ACCC investigation, brought about by Mike Rann & state lawyers raising a question over the legality of the MCC contract. It was their opinion that I was trying to convey second-hand.

Surely you didn't think I just thought all that up by myself?

I argued with you at the time that you were being sold a story by your SA politicians and that the particular case had no legal merit. Not once did you say "Somebody told me this and that" - you stated your opinions as your own.

You can't sit back now and say "that wasn't my opinion I was quoting somebody else!". How can anybody trust what you have to say if you don't even have the guts to admit when you lose an argument?

 

[ok.crows]

Originally posted by Gonzo


Let's say Carey goes to Essendon (for a pick/player/whatever):

So explain how North's management look incompetent, lose sponsors etc but Adelaide walks away looking all fine and dandy after failing to secure a player that can deliver them a premiership??

Also bear in mind that Carey didn't play with North this year and won't play there ever again, so the club has already gone through the process of "losing him for nothing" - he's gawn, the club have moved on!!

My but people are getting very confused aren't they?

Kangaroos look brilliant if they can get a great trade and get carey to Essendon. Especially since Essendon will have been sold a pup - Carey won't be a panacea for them.

Kangaroos management will have dropped the ball if Carey ends up in the draft - yet somehow this threat of action seems viable to Kangaroos fans on this board. It isn't really a viable course of action for Kangaroos management - they look stupid if they let it happen.

 

[Royal Blue And White]

Originally posted by ok.crows


My but people are getting very confused aren't they?

Kangaroos look brilliant if they can get a great trade and get carey to Essendon. Especially since Essendon will have been sold a pup - Carey won't be a panacea for them.

Kangaroos management will have dropped the ball if Carey ends up in the draft - yet somehow this threat of action seems viable to Kangaroos fans on this board. It isn't really a viable course of action for Kangaroos management - they look stupid if they let it happen.

Mate...What Gonzo said is correct...These are the feelings of the North supporters on this board....How can you presume to know what we are thinking?.....And enough of the insults, coz I think its becoming plainly clear to all reading this forum that you are the dill buddy.............

 

[Z_K]

Originally posted by ok.crows



Kangaroos management will have dropped the ball if Carey ends up in the draft - yet somehow this threat of action seems viable to Kangaroos fans on this board. It isn't really a viable course of action for Kangaroos management - they look stupid if they let it happen.

More stupid that if we swap him for Ben Marsh, a packet of twisties and a band-aid?

If you don't want to give up something we want for him, he won't play for you next year. Simple. You can finish 4th again.

 

[moomba]

Originally posted by ok.crows
Kangaroos management will have dropped the ball if Carey ends up in the draft - yet somehow this threat of action seems viable to Kangaroos fans on this board. It isn't really a viable course of action for Kangaroos management - they look stupid if they let it happen.

Kangaroos look incompetent if we give away Carey for less than what he is worth. We also issue an invitation to any club that would like to bend us over whenever a North player wants out. I am perfectly happy to lose Carey in the draft for nothing rather than get dudded in a deal. I don't think that will happen but the board will have my, and the majority of North supporters' support if it does.

Moomba

 

[Rooboy 96]

Originally posted by ok.crows

Kangaroos management will have dropped the ball if Carey ends up in the draft - yet somehow this threat of action seems viable to Kangaroos fans on this board. It isn't really a viable course of action for Kangaroos management - they look stupid if they let it happen.

you just don't get it ok.crows... 5 months ago Carey was never playing again... North lost their Captain and greatest player ever... we have already mourned the King's death... and as far as we are concerned... we have nothing to lose now... this years draft pick 14 will be equivilant to about pick 40 last year... so don't expect us to be happy with that... if you want him we expect a fair and reasonable price...

Johnson and your first pick... Johnson to Richmond for their first pick... very fair alround... would you really expect us to take less... Essendons first pick is earlier then yours... so if it is one first round pick... have a guess at whos we will take...

 

[moomba]

Originally posted by ok.crows

the factors of similarity with the Rehn trade, and they are numerous. The fact that Carey was a better player in years past has very little bearing on the trade position in comparison to those factors listed above.

There are factors of similarity, however there are big differences hat I have yet to see you address. I'll ask two questions.

1 - If you could have swapped Rehn of two years ago for Carey of today would you have made the deal?

2 - Do you think that the number 11 pick of two years ago has an equal value to the number 14 pick this year?

Moomba

 

[Rooboy 96]

Originally posted by moomba
but the board will have my, and the majority of North supporters' support if it does.

Moomba

already sent the email off to Mickey Aylett... fully agree..

 

[ok.crows]

Originally posted by hotpie


I argued with you at the time that you were being sold a story by your SA politicians and that the particular case had no legal merit. Not once did you say "Somebody told me this and that" - you stated your opinions as your own.

You can't sit back now and say "that wasn't my opinion I was quoting somebody else!". How can anybody trust what you have to say if you don't even have the guts to admit when you lose an argument?

Lets be clear here - I agreed with the position that Rann took. His opinion on it was my own as well. I was disappointed that the ACC didn't see it that way.

That is not what I am talking about here however. Here I was accused of offering legal opinion - when I had thought at the time I had made it clear I was attempting to convey a legal opinion offered by someone else - lawyers acting for Rann.

The question of legal merit is one for laywers & ACCC to debate over, not me. I can only report their position and side with what seems correct to me.

I don't say that "that wasn't my opinion I was quoting somebody else!" at all. All I am saying is that my opinion as I offered it on this board was not legal opinion (I didn't pay any lawyers to come up with it), but that Ranns was legal opinion.

I can't see where any of that has anything at all to do with guts.