Mega Thread Delist/Trade/Draft Supermegaultrathread - Now Starts A Long Offseason

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
HarryPotter-Shock.gif


Hermione-Granger-Cheers-During-Quidditch-Match.gif




Sorry..... couldn't help it.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Work colleague jsut came and showed me a facebook page saying that Trade Radio had reported Gaff had requested a trade to Geelong. Twitter search appears to show it's crap. Gave me a heartattack though

Naitawhoey strikes again?
 
Hearing the news of Griffen asking to be traded it's a shame his only nominated GWS, imagine how good we could be with Griffin, exactly the type we need in the midfield.
 
All these players going to GWS and Suns plays into our favour a little. Getting in Griffin for the Giants etc means that the salary cap with start hurting and we can swoop in next year to collect Coniglio and other WA boys.
 
From what I've read next years draft is looking to be having more depth in the midfield department, so agree with those that saying we should be trying the Coniglio for 11 play now.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

So with Dogs playing hard ball, and saying "they have no intention of indulging in ryan's request" do they really plan on keeping him at the club, against his wishes? Surley that can't end well for either party.
 
I would definitely have given something like what the dees gave up for Garlett. That was basically a freebie.

The Demons will hand over picks 61 and 79 to Carlton for Garlett, while they will get back the Blues' pick 83.
 
So with Dogs playing hard ball, and saying "they have no intention of indulging in ryan's request" do they really plan on keeping him at the club, against his wishes? Surley that can't end well for either party.
Has happened before. Bit different to the Beams situation in that there's not an emotional reason tied to him wanting to leave - it seems as though he's just not happy with the coach.
 
All these players going to GWS and Suns plays into our favour a little. Getting in Griffin for the Giants etc means that the salary cap with start hurting and we can swoop in next year to collect Coniglio and other WA boys.
But that would make more sense to try now. Cogs would know his opportunities will be more limited next year, and as you say it would free up the GWS cap space.
 
So with Dogs playing hard ball, and saying "they have no intention of indulging in ryan's request" do they really plan on keeping him at the club, against his wishes? Surley that can't end well for either party.

I would get what I could for him.
You have to laugh though. They offer up their Brownlow medalist as steak knives in the Jones trade to Carlton but cry fowl when Griffen wants to leave.
 
Has happened before. Bit different to the Beams situation in that there's not an emotional reason tied to him wanting to leave - it seems as though he's just not happy with the coach.

Happened to us with Brown, Swans with O'Keefe a few years back now. But I don't think either of those had the depth of ill-feeling that there seems to be between the Dogs and Griffen. Hard to see him playing for the Dogs next year after today.
 
I know we did the same with Brown a few years back, but this situation is completely different. Brown was on the outer, not getting games, Griffen is the bloody captain!! I guess it's like when Judas left, we were never going to stop him, but still were able to get something out of it.
 
And the bombs keep dropping. Now the Sydney Swans have reportedly been told by the AFL they are unable to trade any players into the club this year or in 2015 unless they agree to bring an immediate end to the Cost of Living Allowance, according to the The Age.
The directive reportedly restricts the Swans from recruiting any free agents - restricted or unrestricted - until the end of 2017.
"We're not happy about it, we don't understand it and we'll continue to talk to them about it. We think we're being penalised for complying with AFL rules," Swans CEO Andrew Ireland said.
"The only way we've been able to recruit players in the past is by losing other players and creating enough salary cap space to bring players in, like every other club.
"We haven't broken any rules, we've complied with the AFL's rules and this is their rule. The only reason players have received COLA is because the AFL has said we have to pay it.
"It wasn't optional. We argued for it and we believed we should have kept it, but in the end they put the rule in place and we had to comply
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top