Daisy's Legacy

Remove this Banner Ad

At the moment it is still raw for many.

Ultimately, once he's finished playing for the scum, I'll think of him as a guy that played well in our premiership year and left to play for our most bitter rival for more money. That is his perogative and I'm not saying it's right or wrong but that will be his legacy.

Many can play the card about players who we have brought in and double standards but we support Collingwood and not other clubs, so it's quite natural to be biased towards it. Will those same posters support Thomas while he's playing for carlton? I doubt it. That's also a double standard.
 
I'll answer any questions about Dale Thomas' legacy in 4 years time when his career, and contract expires at the Scum.

Until then he doesn't exist to me (except when we play against his new team).

In 4 years time he will be a flag hero again, but he's done what you simply don't do, HE CHOSE CARLTON.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Anticipating re-salvaging of Nick Davis' reputation soon, give me a break.
 
Old Spice said:
Anticipating re-salvaging of Nick Davis' reputation soon, give me a break.
Click to expand...
It is interesting though Spicey, what did he do that Pebbles didn't do and for exactly the same reasons?

Hey don't get me wrong, I understand we are all one-eyed but that doesn't necessarily mean we've had our brains lobotomized does it?
We can view similar situations and see them for what they are.
 
Baltimore Jack said:
It is interesting though Spicey, what did he do that Pebbles didn't do and for exactly the same reasons?

Hey don't get me wrong, I understand we are all one-eyed but that doesn't necessarily mean we've had our brains lobotomized does it?
We can view similar situations and see them for what they are.
Click to expand...


People can certainly do it, but they shouldn't expect to be held in high esteem either. Those are the wages of sin. There's always a cost.
 
Baltimore Jack said:
Shaw had a contract, he couldn't be traded unless he agreed to go

There is no difference
Click to expand...
Wrong. Contracts can be terminated against a players will, the only thing a player is entitled to is the amount of money the contract states. As soon as the club decided they wanted to trade Shaw, the only way he could have stayed would be if he pleaded with Buckley to stay and changed his mind. No player would do that if they held currency and their coach doesn't want them.
 
mattys123 said:
I'll answer any questions about Dale Thomas' legacy in 4 years time when his career, and contract expires at the Scum.

Until then he doesn't exist to me (except when we play against his new team).

In 4 years time he will be a flag hero again, but he's done what you simply don't do, HE CHOSE CARLTON.
Click to expand...


He won`t last 4 years, his ankle will collapse like the Berlin Wall well before then
 
Ed D said:
Wrong. Contracts can be terminated against a players will, the only thing a player is entitled to is the amount of money the contract states. As soon as the club decided they wanted to trade Shaw, the only way he could have stayed would be if he pleaded with Buckley to stay and changed his mind. No player would do that if they held currency and their coach doesn't want them.
Click to expand...
You have moved the discussion on to a totally different point.
Happy to discuss that with you if you like
 
Baltimore Jack said:
You have moved the discussion on to a totally different point.
Happy to discuss that with you if you like
Click to expand...

OK so bringing it back on topic, Shaw has been quoted that his preference was to stay and was upset when the club told him that they wanted to trade him. Daisy on the other hand wanted to chase money and was in talks with other clubs before Collingwood made their final decision. I don't know how they're the same?
 
I've got a few viewpoints on this.

1) I whole heartedly believe that MM was a big part in his decision to go to Carlton.

2) I will give him shit in round 7 because that's footy and he deflected to our biggest rival. He had the opportunity to stay at our club on a fair salary but decided against it, so that's life.

3) Footy is a job, if I got offered a significant amount more to go to another company and do the same thing I would strongly consider.

4) I'm glad Collingwood didn't decide to match the offer, and over pay him just for the sake of keeping him.
 
Ed D said:
OK so bringing it back on topic, Shaw has been quoted that his preference was to stay and was upset when the club told him that they wanted to trade him. Daisy on the other hand wanted to chase money and was in talks with other clubs before Collingwood made their final decision. I don't know how they're the same?
Click to expand...
I don't know if Daisy was talking to other clubs, but I take your word for it.

But so what, White was talking to us (assuming the media can be believed) before Sydney had made a decision on him
Pebbles certainly was, because he has said so publicly. Sydney were desperate to keep him and offered him far better terms than we did.
My point is this, Daisy did nothing out of the ordinary and he did nothing that we haven't done in getting players to our club.

Shaw at the time was contracted to us, regardless of any future decision we might decide to make about that.
He therefore must have agreed to go.
That is the rule.
Daisy also made exactly the same decision to go.

That's how they are the same
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Old Spice said:
Anticipating re-salvaging of Nick Davis' reputation soon, give me a break.
Click to expand...
Nick Davis isn't a premiership player but I know I don't need to tell you that. FWIW I happened to find myself side by side with Nick Davis at the SCG in August this year......I still see him as Collingwood.....same as Choco Williams!
 
Too p****d off with Daisy to get involved in any discussion. All the times next year they ask him about Collingwood and anything he says will be analysed to death and used to beat up some preconceptions and it's going to be a pain. Loved him to death at the Pies, but right now he's dead to me.
 
I'll remember him as a great player for us who was a joy to watch at his best. We used his currency to our advantage, if what we get for the compensation pick becomes a ten year player then that is his legacy. For mine I reckon he let himself down a bit with some of his media comments, no one likes a smartass.
 
I've heard it said by Dale Thomas, Travis Cloke, Buddy Franklin, as well as a number of 'expert' journalists and commentators: 'The players wanted Free Agency and we have to get used to players moving"

If I (and maybe we) don't like it, why do we have to get used to it? And what I don't like is the perception that 'fairness' and freedom for players to negotiate better agreements for themselves has come at the expense of loyalty. Could we not have come up with a better way?

When I think of legacies, I think about all the kids who threw their #13 Collingwood jumpers away, or their #23 Hawthorn jumpers, or whatever number Kurt Tippett was at Adelaide etc. That's a legacy, too. I'm thrilled that Daisy helped us win a premiership, but what am I to tell my kids today? Loyalty is only worthwhile so long as the $$ are right. I mean, does Daisy or Buddy really 'need' an extra $500,000 - their post football lives will probably go okay, regardless. Would it hurt the competition much if clubs and players put loyalty back on the pedestal it deserves to be on? And let me be clear, players and clubs are responsible in equal measure.

Daisy's legacy will be acknowledged, as it should. The legacy of FA is another thing altogether.
 
Ed D said:
Shaw was traded by the club and wanted to stay, Daisy sought out FA, so no, it's not similar.
Click to expand...

If Heath wanted to stay, he would have. He was contracted, and the rules prevent trading a player who doesn't want to leave.

Dale Thomas also wanted to stay, however the offer to him wasn't appropriate. So he left.
 
Love all the premiership players who have left expect Daisy

His whole attitude during the contract negotiations were disgraceful and I stand by that the last straw was the comments about kids pulling the jumper out of the bin

Will be remembered as a traitor and a broken down Carlton player
 
His legacy is tainted. There's no doubting this. Jumping ship to the bitterest of arch enemies is evidence enough without talking about contracts and dollars.

Whilst time will slowly heal everything, bringing all back into equilibrium and he will always be a premiership player with the club, I suspect he won't ever be mentioned in the same breathe as Collingwood champions such as Dane Swan or a Scott Pendlebury or Travis Cloke.
 
76woodenspooners said:
I don't agree with that at all.

Walsh was always saying that he wanted Daisy to stay and thought he would.

And there's no reason to think that the club would not have signed him for the right price.

Daisy was a champion, to be sure. But he's barely played a decent game in 18 months. He's injured his ankle three times. To pay $700K per year out of the salary cap for four years for such a player is madness.

We would have been insane to even go within a ballpark of that, let alone match it. And pick 11 just made the decision obvious.

And Daisy would have been pretty nuts himself to knock back that kind of deal from Carlton.
Click to expand...
I have no animosity toward Daisy.
He was a great player for the Pies and I loved watching him play.
Nothing wrong with him having a personal relationship with Mick either.
He is the one who has to live with running out in navy blue.
 
partylikeits1990 said:
Now that the dust has settled on Daisy's departure, my own - previously negative - thoughts on his legacy at the Collingwood Football Club are starting to change. I think that the level of hate and vitriol that has been directed towards him is unfair since he didn't necessarily want to leave the club.

During this interview in Nova FM
when his contract negotiations were in full swing, Daisy clearly states that he has no preference between Bucks or Malthouse as coach, that he wants to be fairly paid and implies that he is willing to accept less than his value on the open market to remain with the club.

It seems clear now that the Club wanted to let him go in order to secure early picks in this years draft.

Sure he has to talk up his commitment to the Blues to justify the huge paypacket he is getting over there but is that such a huge crime considering what he has given to our great Club? Let us reflect again on this great moment in Collingwood history
and give Daisy a break!
Click to expand...

Thank god we didn't sign him back then, he would have been demanding $700,000 + and he can't even get his body right to play a season anymore. It would have killed us long term.
 
I really worry about what will happen to the relationship between Carlton and Collingwood supporters if Daisy doesn't turn out to be the superstar player they've paid for?

They might hate us even more? :eek:

Mick might lose his job over it? :eek:

Carlton might put an end to their policy of recruiting Collingwood cast-offs? :p
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Daisy's Legacy

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top