Confirmed Daniel Rioli - Traded with picks 51, 61, 70 & 76 to GC for picks 6 & 26

[The Goon]

Richmond are very much a motivated seller.
They are a sh1t team holding up the ladder and will be for some time.
They have an opportunity to get paid well overs for a HBF.
Richmond will hold the door open for Rioli and wave goodbye with a smile on their faces.

Baker, Rioli, Bolton, Graham. Good to see they are a loyal bunch down at Tigerland.

Club is in trouble so it is time to jump ship.

I'll wave as we pass you by on the ladder. It wont be for a few years, but it will be ... oh ... so ... sweet.

 

[juss]

Everyone has their opinions, my read on Wayne Campbell's comments are he's doubling down on their want for him. I think that increases our leverage and I reckon we'll end up getting overs for him. Doesn't read like they're going to mess around much, Hardwick wants him, they've committed to him, we should get a pretty good offer.

 

[The Goon]

Yes, this is true.

Richmond desperately need young talent through the door, and the best way to do it in this case is shed some players that have significant value on the market.

It's sad for supporters who (rightly) laud the players for their contributions, I get that. Nobody wants to see these type of players go and likely excel elsewhere, but taking the emotion out of it, it's absolutely the right way to go about it IMO.



See point above. You have a motivated buyer and a club looking at regenerating.

I think it's pretty clear they're motivated sellers. Otherwise the club would've just shut it down given his contract situation, as many other clubs have and do.



Because I live and breathe my friend, I live and breathe.

You are reframing things in ways that ignore reality. Richmond are well aware that to lose so many experienced players will have a massive detrimental affect on wins and finance.

Yes, given the situation we are a motivated seller, that does not mean we will sell for less than market value, or market value+. Market value includes contract status, value to the receiving team, stability and continuity, etc, etc, etc.

At the end of the day losing as many quality players as we are likely to do this year means we will be looking for a commensurate payout. No payout, no deal.

 

[A Bit Dusty]

Of course. But it's important to put those comments into context - the club is feeding the media a narrative they want amplified.

And Richmond want it known that these players want out but they won't come cheaply. Which is fine, it's what they should say, but I think it's pretty obvious that the club is a very motivated seller.

They are obviously not going to say "we want Daniel out" or "we're dangling Daniel in front of potential suitors for picks" or even "we recognize we need to bring young talent in the door and recognize this is the way to do it en masse".

Do that and there'd likely be significant pushbank from all corners and rightly so. Supporters and members wouldn't be happy and the media would have a field day, even though I reckon most recognize it's exactly what is happening.

It's all about controlling the narrative.

I really can't believe how far off the mark you are it's quite comical...

 

[Jeremias]

You are reframing things in ways that ignore reality.

Am I? What is this so-called "reality" that I have seemingly ignored? Because everything in the remainder of your post I have already addressed.

Richmond are well aware that to lose so many experienced players will have a massive detrimental affect on wins and finance.

Richmond won 2 games this season.

They have already said goodbye to Martin, Grimes and Pickett, will likely lose all of Rioli, Baker and Bolton, and there is a chance they also lose Graham and Lynch.

Are you suggesting they will win less than 2 games in 2025?

I note the following will still be on the list...

Vlastuin
Prestia
Taranto
Short
Hopper
Balta
Nankervis
McIntosh; and
Broad

...and subsequently counter that with a little more luck on the injury front - plus the addition of some top tier youth - you could well match that without too much difficulty in 2025.

Yes, given the situation we are a motivated seller, that does not mean we will sell for less than market value, or market value+. Market value includes contract status, value to the receiving team, stability and continuity, etc, etc, etc.

I'm glad you agree that your club is a motivated seller - something that I thought was pretty straightforward.

However I never said anything about market value. From the outset I simply said that neither club will walk away from this deal, ie. a fair outcome will be reached.

At the end of the day losing as many quality players as we are likely to do this year means we will be looking for a commensurate payout. No payout, no deal.

Sure. I don't believe anyone has said otherwise. Literally nobody has suggested Richmond don't have a level of control over these deals, nor that they will be in a position where they're going to be forced to accept a return significantly under their valuation.

 

[Jeremias]

I really can't believe how far off the mark you are it's quite comical...

Thank you.

Any part in particular you disagree with? And do you have the eloquence to put into writing as to why?

 

[The Goon]

Am I? What is this so-called "reality" that I have seemingly ignored? Because everything in the remainder of your post I have already addressed.



Richmond won 2 games this season.

They have already said goodbye to Martin, Grimes and Pickett, will likely lose all of Rioli, Baker and Bolton, and there is a chance they also lose Graham and Lynch.

Are you suggesting they will win less than 2 games in 2025?

I note the following will still be on the list...

Vlastuin
Prestia
Taranto
Short
Hopper
Balta
Nankervis
McIntosh; and
Broad

...and subsequently counter that with a little more luck on the injury front - plus the addition of some top tier youth - you could well match that without too much difficulty in 2025.



I'm glad you agree that your club is a motivated seller - something that I thought was pretty straightforward.

However I never said anything about market value. From the outset I simply said that neither club will walk away from this deal, ie. a fair outcome will be reached.



Sure. I don't believe anyone has said otherwise. Literally nobody has suggested Richmond don't have a level of control over these deals, nor that they will be in a position where they're going to be forced to accept a return significantly under their valuation.

I think you don't get it. We are arguing that we will get overs here, based on contract status and buyer need (or desire), and every previous similar trade.

Being a motivated seller doesn't change that, which (correct me if I'm wrong), you seem to be arguing.

 

[THE_GUN]

Just about a given #7 is going to be the trade
Now how much salary does GC want paid will be the what determines the extra's they throw in

Richmond are going to make out like bandits for a soon to be 28 year old HBF
but surprisingly the GC fans are fine and its other supporters that have issue's with this trade

 

[Jeremias]

I think you don't get it. We are arguing that we will get overs here, based on contract status and buyer need (or desire), and every previous similar trade.

Being a motivated seller doesn't change that, which (correct me if I'm wrong), you seem to be arguing.

Which previous similar trades are you referencing?

You will be well compensated, but yes I believe given Richmond’s situation you likely will not get as much as you otherwise may have.

 

[The Goon]

Which previous similar trades are you referencing?

You will be well compensated, but yes I believe given Richmond’s situation you likely will not get as much as you otherwise may have.

You are positioning this as a buyer's market. It's not, it's a sellers market. The fact that there is mutual interest does not mean that the buyers interest overrides the sellers, if the seller has something the buyer wants. Especially in a limited market.

 

[Jeremias]

You are positioning this as a buyer's market. It's not, it's a sellers market. The fact that there is mutual interest does not mean that the buyers interest overrides the sellers, if the seller has something the buyer wants. Especially in a limited market.

I'll ask again, which previous trades are you referencing that dictate you will get overs for Rioli?

 

[The Goon]

I'll ask again, which previous trades are you referencing that dictate you will get overs for Rioli?

If you can’t concede that a contracted, wanted player will attract a premium in a trade we’re done.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Jeremias]

If you can’t concede that a contracted, wanted player will attract a premium in a trade we’re done.

I've already said a number of times you will be well compensated for the player.

I'll ask again, which which previous trades are you referencing that dictate you will get overs for Rioli?

And another question whilst I've got you here, why are you so reluctant to answer what is a relatively straightforward question?

 

[Iva Bigun]

L

Am I? What is this so-called "reality" that I have seemingly ignored? Because everything in the remainder of your post I have already addressed.



Richmond won 2 games this season.

They have already said goodbye to Martin, Grimes and Pickett, will likely lose all of Rioli, Baker and Bolton, and there is a chance they also lose Graham and Lynch.

Are you suggesting they will win less than 2 games in 2025?

I note the following will still be on the list...

Vlastuin
Prestia
Taranto
Short
Hopper
Balta
Nankervis
McIntosh; and
Broad

...and subsequently counter that with a little more luck on the injury front - plus the addition of some top tier youth - you could well match that without too much difficulty in 2025.



I'm glad you agree that your club is a motivated seller - something that I thought was pretty straightforward.

However I never said anything about market value. From the outset I simply said that neither club will walk away from this deal, ie. a fair outcome will be reached.



Sure. I don't believe anyone has said otherwise. Literally nobody has suggested Richmond don't have a level of control over these deals, nor that they will be in a position where they're going to be forced to accept a return significantly under their valuation.

you're wasting your time, the blind can’t see

 

[tigerwill]

I'll ask again, which previous trades are you referencing that dictate you will get overs for Rioli?

Freo got pick 2 from GC for Weller.. Would that be overs?
Kelly to WC. Hill from Freo to StK. some handy deals there.

 

[Rich01]

I'll ask again, which previous trades are you referencing that dictate you will get overs for Rioli?

It’s all relative.
What you or I think is overs for a player is simply what one club is willing to pay for them.

Theres on average two busts per year in the top ten picks. They are valuable but aren’t rolled gold guarantees that some seem to think they are.

Thats why some clubs prefer the proven output of a player. Particularly if they see them as a key to ultimate success. Which I’m sure Hardwick is seeing with Rioli (and ironically he saw with Hopper and Taranto).

 

[Jeremias]

Freo got pick 2 from GC for Weller.. Would that be overs?

Absolutely, though I will say I don't remember the specifics re: contract status, and Freo's situation at the time.

Kelly to WC. Hill from Freo to StK. some handy deals there.

Kelly left Geelong after they finished top of the ladder and made a preliminary final. They did not want to lose him, and he was out of contract.

I don't see that as even remotely similar to the Rioli situation.

Hill leaving Fremantle is closer to the mark. Finished well down the ladder in 2019, but from memory they were pretty dirty he wanted out. I think there was also a family element there, but could be wrong.

 

[Jeremias]

It’s all relative.

Not really. The poster I asked the question of was adamant Richmond will get overs for Rioli because others have in "every previous similar trade".

I was just wanting clarification on which trades are deemed similar, because I see clear differences to most of the other examples that tigerwill kindly took the time to offer.

 

[The Goon]

Not really. The poster I asked the question of was adamant Richmond will get overs for Rioli because others have in "every previous similar trade".

I was just wanting clarification on which trades are deemed similar, because I see clear differences to most of the other examples that tigerwill kindly took the time to offer.

There you go. Although adamant is the wrong phrase- show me where I was “adamant”.

I thought it was bleeding obvious and didn’t need to be wasted time.

Pedant.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Jeremias]

There you go. Although adamant is the wrong phrase- show me where I was “adamant”.

I thought it was bleeding obvious and didn’t need to be wasted time.

Pedant.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

You said it will happen because it has in "every previous similar trade". What would you call that, if not adamant?

And now you say you didn't bother giving me specific examples because...it was bleeding obvious?

Right...

 

[The Goon]

You said it will happen because it has in "every previous similar trade". What would you call that, if not adamant?

And now you say you didn't bother giving me specific examples because...it was bleeding obvious?

Right...

Well yes, it is bleeding obvious. And no, that is not adamant - go look up the definition.


Sheesh.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Rich01]

Not really. The poster I asked the question of was adamant Richmond will get overs for Rioli because others have in "every previous similar trade".

I was just wanting clarification on which trades are deemed similar, because I see clear differences to most of the other examples that tigerwill kindly took the time to offer.

So where do you see similarities in recent trades?

 

[Jeremias]

Well yes, it is bleeding obvious. And no, that is not adamant - go look up the definition.


Sheesh.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I know the definition. So am I correct in saying the trades generously put forward by a fellow Tigers supporter are the ones you are referring to?

So where do you see similarities in recent trades?

Honestly, I'm not sure I can think of one in recent times. I'll have a bit more of a think. Maybe there is one, maybe there isn't.

Of the trades mentioned earlier, one is completely different, one has some similarities, and the other I can't remember the exact details.

By the way, to make it absolutely clear again - in no way is this a criticism of Richmond (they're doing the right thing) and I'll reiterate that I am not suggesting you're not going to get a good return for Rioli (or Bolton), I just think it's a very unique situation.

 

[The Goon]

I know the definition. So am I correct in saying the trades generously put forward by a fellow Tigers supporter are the ones you are referring to?



Honestly, I'm not sure I can think of one in recent times. I'll have a bit more of a think. Maybe there is one, maybe there isn't.

Of the trades mentioned earlier, one is completely different, one has some similarities, and the other I can't remember the exact details.

By the way, to make it absolutely clear again - in no way is this a criticism of Richmond (they're doing the right thing) and I'll reiterate that I am not suggesting you're not going to get a good return for Rioli (or Bolton), I just think it's a very unique situation.

I suggest you go look up the definition again, because if you think you’re using the word correctly you are wrong.

And no, I just think it’s obvious that a contracted player, wanted by their current club, that has been approached by another club, will always go for over their actual ‘value’. You have offered no discussion or argument to the contrary, other than asking me for examples. That’s it. Not sure why you think I said or suggested anything else, or why it is in any way controversial.

Let me be clear - I’m not interested in searching out specific trades so you can pedantically point out differences. You’ve already conceded to another poster that these examples exist. Stop being boring.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Jeremias]

I suggest you go look up the definition again, because if you think you’re using the word correctly you are wrong.

I'm good, thanks. But I appreciate why you're bizarrely trying to argue semantics.

And no, I just think it’s obvious that a contracted player, wanted by their current club, that has been approached by another club, will always go for over their actual ‘value’. You have offered no discussion or argument to the contrary, other than asking me for examples.

You sure? I've said exactly why I believe it is different to any other case that I can remember, and I've invited you to give me examples of trades of a similar nature - which you've said you have in your back pocket (note - before you say "I DIDN'T SAY THEY'RE IN MY POCKET!!!", it's an expression).

Which you're bizarrely reluctant to do because...reasons.

I'll be clear for you again. I don't recall a club at the bottom of the ladder, with seemingly very little quality youth coming through and a clear need for more, having 2 contracted players of such value wanting out.

That’s it. Not sure why you think I said or suggested anything else, or why it is in any way controversial.

I don't think you've said anything controversial. I think perhaps you didn't expect me to ask you for these examples, and now you can't think of any so you're trying to turn it back on me.