List Mgmt. Dan Houston requests trade to Victoria - will stay if deal can't be done

[Rash]

Latest news after deal fell over:

 

[davesnothere]

The annoying part is that he’s under contract to play with Port. We should be dictating the terms of his move to Victoria, not Houston

We are.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[JUSTWORK]

Has until today to pick his side - otherwise North withdraw their offer.

Any chance North up their offer?
Not so much the offer to Houston, rather to Port to get us to tell Houston it’s North or Nothing.

 

[pastmyprimus]

We are.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

If we were, I think the deal with North would already have been done.

 

[jac147]

The Atkins factor I hope?

 

[Launchpad McQuack]

How does that trade even make it to board level for approval/rejection?

 

[MrMeaner]

Don't read too much into "the Houston camp" stuff. Dan is likely disengaged from the negotiation, apart from telling his management his preference and signing off on the personal terms of any deal. "The Houston camp" is Connors posturing and signalling. That posture may have an effect after this trade period but Paul has shittalked us before and still will need to deal with us on behalf of other clients.

 

[Capital Power]

I guess ultimately it's the downside of having an AFL-controlled board, who will act firstly in the AFL's best interests.

 

[GoPorts]

There's no feeling about it. It's definately a crap deal for us. We're giving up a 2*AA in his prime for a flakey tall who isn't best 22 at GCS and on over 1mil a year, a guy who's main selling point is that he's probably better than Jed and the honour of paying an absolute POS $500k to play reserves football

 

[Bump Bailey]

No. He stays. Collingwood will have a real deal up by lunchtime or he's at North or stays.

I'm Dan's management I'm putting a midday deadline on Collingwood having a deal done or its off to North. I don't think Dan really wants back at Port despite saying he was ok with it.

He never ever wanted to stay.

That was just lip service, like everything else we get from this club.

All along we've heard "Dan is happy to stay unless Port get looked after in a trade" then all of a sudden we're almost about to pull the trigger on a colossal **** up of a trade that needs to be vetoed by our board.

All in the interest of appeasing the guy and not only getting him home, but to his preferred destination that will make a finals rivals much stronger.

 

[Brian McGee]

Starting to think that the Atkins part of the trade was actually our list managers wanting steak knives for our f1 instead of a salary dump. It feels like they actually wanted him and see his acquisition as a positive.

 

[Hammer#8]

'Happy to stay if a deal can't get done'

'OK Dan, you don't wanna play for North and a deal can't get done otherwise'

Shut the Penske file George.

 

[pastmyprimus]

I think Cripps knows the current offer to Port is insufficient but the Board wants the credit for appearing strong. No surprise given the number of times the Board has caved to Hinkley

 

[Festerz]

I guess ultimately it's the downside of having an AFL-controlled board, who will act firstly in the AFL's best interests.

Err, that would be a breach of their fiduciary responsibilities and illegal.

 

[Ford Fairlane]

I doubt the board has say over trades but once people realised we were taking on Atkins AND giving up an F1 the fury directed at Koch online and Richardson by email and AA in general would have prompted them into action. No one wants to be Tsar Nicholas II and his family.

 

[FrankDrebin]

How does that trade even make it to board level for approval/rejection?

Thats the worrying thing. How can you trust the list management team, I mean they collectively thought bringing in Rory Atkins was a positive asset. Ridiculous.

 

[Ford Fairlane]

I guess ultimately it's the downside of having an AFL-controlled board, who will act firstly in the AFL's best interests.

You realise that statement is completely disconnected with what has been reported?

 

[Ford Fairlane]

Thats the worrying thing. How can you trust the list management team, I mean they collectively thought bringing in Rory Atkins was a positive asset. Ridiculous.

They don't always realise the depth of supporter feeling toward certain players. I think Cripps is usually a good operator but that was tone deaf, especially as it gave us no visible benefit. It looked like we were recruiting a player just for the sanfl team. If it had been Rosas it would have been less inflaming.

 

[68vette]

Err, that would be illegal.

Have you read The Boys Club by Michael Warner?

The AFL is all about cover ups, shonky deals and scandals.

 

[C4[2]Yo`DooR]

media is now running with “Port forcing Dan to the Roos”

 

[Papa G]

media is now running with “Port forcing Dan to the Roos”

Good.

 

[gbear]

Has until today to pick his side - otherwise North withdraw their offer.

So either he goes to North or he stays.

 

[gbear]

media is now running with “Port forcing Dan to the Roos”

The dumb****s in the Victorian mafia media can go get ****ed!

 

[gbear]

The annoying part is that he’s under contract to play with Port. We should be dictating the terms of his move to Victoria, not Houston

The media are ignoring this important fact!

 

[jac147]

I would be surprised if Dan is personally across the details of any trade suggestion.

His management would rubber stamp it (for optics and because they want an increased salary and longer contract from Collingwood).

Fair enough, but once ‘the deal’ was released by the media Dan would have said “oh no, that won’t work”.

 

[MrMeaner]

I don't have much faith in most levels of the club at the moment but I do not think they thought taking Atkins was anything other than necessary to get the GC part of the deal through.

On the other hand, if we trade him in, I firmly believe Hinkley will play him at the expense of a younger player.