BangWhere are * at with #9 & Kako?
Assuming Houston not happening would they trade 9 for F1 & 34?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
BangWhere are * at with #9 & Kako?
Assuming Houston not happening would they trade 9 for F1 & 34?
For a start, he'd be able to clear D50Houston is 186cm. How is he addressing a need for us?
Shouldn't Saad and McGovern be doing this already?For a start, he'd be able to clear D50
But don`t forget that Rome wasn`t built in a day........but then again every dog has it`s day!!!...
Strike while the iron's hot
Who Dares Wins
Dont put all your eggs in one basket, and
NEVER LOOK A GIFT HORSE IN THE MOUTH !!
A cynic might say that if he does that he's not playing to our game planFor a start, he'd be able to clear D50
And we also know All Roads Lead to Rome.But don`t forget that Rome wasn`t built in a day........but then again every dog has it`s day!!!
But apparently Coll will get away with 13 + Richard’s. Make it make sense.It's not "a F1 and a bit extra" though. Port are asking for two firsts with at least one being in this years draft. By accounts, we are at least asking Gold Coast for pick 13 for F1 and F2, so already this is not "a bit extra" that is significant in itself. Port will then want more than just pick 13.
In 12 months Houston will be rising 29 - let him go to Collingwood and be in the next wave of their ageing list demographic.
Trading him in for the capital being suggested denudes a club of the ability to replace him.
Like with BS article about Owies contract demands, is it possible some of these articles are a bit of gamesmanship?Giants hold firm on tall, Blues pair set to stay, Demon in limbo
Check out all the latest trade news from around the Leaguewww.afl.com.au
Bang
Shhhhhh ... let them find that out after they've drafted himNot sure why, i dont think Kako is rated that high for them to be worried.
but didn`t Kouta once say "it all sounds Greek to me" or maybe that was Aphrodite.......And we also know All Roads Lead to Rome.
For one, I modified my message before he posted to clarify what I was seeking in terms of a worthwhile discussion, but secondly this isn't the first time they've come at me with a short essay built off a largely faulty premise.Although true Jim was condescending
I feel like Kako isn't in the mix until at least 12, but really I would rate him 15-25.Where are * at with #9 & Kako?
Assuming Houston not happening would they trade 9 for F1 & 34?
Interesting looking at the top 10 in our B&F:
5 of the 10 were top 15 picks (Cripps, Walsh, Weiters, Mckay, Curnow)
4 of the 10 were value trades (Newman, Hewett, Acres, Kennedy)
1 of the 10 another draftee (TDK)
None of our high profile trade targets (Gov, Saad, Cerra, Williams) featured.
SOS negotiation 101
Under the Family Law Act Richmond have priority access to all abused children - they want to go there because the Tigers don't beat anyone.We should get O’Farrell under the father / son provisions of the Family Law Act 1975 - full custody to the father’s football team is in the child’s best interest…
And we also know All Roads Lead to Athens.
Adopted children and biological children are treated equally under the law, so it would require a specific provision in the AFL rules to exclude adopted children - though that could arguably be implied given the purpose of father-son (and daughter) rules being to recognise the familial history with the club. Might there be different answers for children adopted young as opposed to someone adopted a la the Blindside scenario or a more extreme variant thereon? What about a biological child never known to the father and perhaps the identity of the father never previously disclosed to the child? A bit of a minefield, but as it stands it seems to me that in the absence of something express in the AFL rules around father-son (and daughter) recruiting the starting position is that adopted and unrecognised children qualify. The only clear protection against a blatant ex-player-adopt-a-junior-player rort would be the general prohibitions on tampering with the draft - but of course this is the AFL so ex-post-facto makey-uppy would come as no surprise.I like your thinking Redman…
Same thing was said about cerra. dont think cerra is a top 3 kick in our team even when fit.He'd instantly become our best kick of the ball. Something we've been lacking.
Ain’t that the truth. We have NFI how to create space to kick in to. Many of our reputed poor kicks are actually good kicks. When you factor in looking up the ground, calculating the angles of oppo defenders etc rather than just being aware player x will be cutting in, while player y will lead up and big player z will present to the wing for the fall back dump. Or similar. It has long irked me that too often clubs have their running patterns set and immediately enacted while we rely on individuals own “creativity”.Same thing was said about cerra. dont think cerra is a top 3 kick in our team even when fit.
This 'good kick' stuff is right - but I think less important than having a good kick to take. We just don't have anyone to kick to half the time.
And tackles hard, is a 2 way player, has pace and can run on a wing. That said I would not be over-paying for him. Try and get pick 13 for a reasonable price - even pay overs - and this would probably force Collingwood out of the race or force them to give more, the choice would then be us or North and I don't mind strengthening North as much as I do the Pies, especially as their best years are still a few years off. If the price is too stiff we go to the draft with 12 and 13 or whatever they end up being which in this draft is a strong hand to go with and hopefully another pick in between them and Ben Campo with Lucas late or rookie.He'd instantly become our best kick of the ball. Something we've been lacking.
We were close to a test case with Jason Horne-Francis, it would have been interesting.Adopted children and biological children are treated equally under the law, so it would require a specific provision in the AFL rules to exclude adopted children - though that could arguably be implied given the purpose of father-son (and daughter) rules being to recognise the familial history with the club. Might there be different answers for children adopted young as opposed to someone adopted a la the Blindside scenario or a more extreme variant thereon? What about a biological child never known to the father and perhaps the identity of the father never previously disclosed to the child? A bit of a minefield, but as it stands it seems to me that in the absence of something express in the AFL rules around father-son (and daughter) recruiting the starting position is that adopted and unrecognised children qualify. The only clear protection against a blatant ex-player-adopt-a-junior-player rort would be the general prohibitions on tampering with the draft - but of course this is the AFL so ex-post-facto makey-uppy would come as no surprise.