List Mgmt. List Management 2024-25

[Jojay]

This is factually incorrect. He made it clear he wanted no part of being at Port Adelaide - which is why the Club pathetically folded on the deal.

He wanted no part of being at Port Adelaide? So when did this falling out happen? He still looked pretty invested in the showdown (his last game).

 

[Lambot]

This is factually incorrect. He made it clear he wanted no part of being at Port Adelaide - which is why the Club pathetically folded on the deal.

I do not blame him after our pathetic tribunal and appeal showings.

Dan, although he asked for the hell out of here, is still more Port than Davies, Cripps, Hinkley and Koch

 

[Schulzenfest]

Did he forget he was contracted? There are many disgraceful individuals associated with this trade, too many to list.

And this isn't just a bad deal in isolation, but it makes us a target for future bad deals. If god forbid Zac Butters asks out next year, whichever club he nominates will just put one first rounder on the table and wait for us to take it with some late pick swaps thrown in. Why wouldn't they? We've proven we'll fold under pressure.

We literally couldn't have had more leverage. Three years left on his contract, didn't nominate a club, said he was willing to stay if no deal got done. We still folded. If we'll fold in that situation, there's no situation we won't fold in.

 

[Chewy316]

He wanted no part of being at Port Adelaide? So when did this falling out happen? He still looked pretty invested in the showdown (his last game).

He wanted no part of being at Port next year. He has no problem per se with the Club, he just wants to be in Melbourne with his partner.

I have made it clear I believe his stance is pathetic given she is a "client services manager" (codeword for admin office worker) who could do plenty of her job remotely from Adelaide, and there were no extenuating family circumstances that warranted a move on compassionate grounds. They could have easily revisited this trade in 12 months time.

 

[Jojay]

And this isn't just a bad deal in isolation, but it makes us a target for future bad deals. If god forbid Zac Butters asks out next year, whichever club he nominates will just put one first rounder on the table and wait for us to take it with some late pick swaps thrown in. Why wouldn't they? We've proven we'll fold under pressure.

We literally couldn't have had more leverage. Three years left on his contract, didn't nominate a club, said he was willing to stay if no deal got done. We still folded. If we'll fold in that situation, there's no situation we won't fold in.

Just wait until the feeding frenzy for Burgman next year

 

[Waspy79]

Its going to happen again with Bergman in 25 and Butters in 26.
We're going to get reamed on both occasions.
Bookmark this comment

I’ve been saying for a while the SA clubs need a retention allowance and/or academies, WA clubs probably do too. None of these 4 clubs are going anywhere, they are footy wastelands given the ever growing population in the eastern states cities and the growing player registrations and northern clubs academies.

 

[Jojay]

Its going to happen again with Bergman in 25 and Butters in 26.
We're going to get reamed on both occasions.
Bookmark this comment

Yep the precedent set today is shocking. The likes of Hinkley, Davies et al will probably be gone but the damage inflicted could last a generation.

 

[Coobk001]

How many spots do we have or will we have by the end of this?

Can we even split pick 13?

Right now we've delisted/traded 4:
Dixon, McKenzie, McCallum and Houston.

We've also recruited 4:
Lukosius, Richards, R Atkins, L Evans

So we need to cut to use any picks.

With 13, 29, 36, 50, you'd think we will look to use at least 4.

So depending on what happens with Soldo, it feels to me like we'll cut:
Narkle, F Evans, K Marshall and/or Scully

I personally would give Boak the extra year, and from here the only other move you could imagine is a shuffle of Clurey and/or Jackson to the rookie list.


At the end of the period we could look something like:

OUT	Dixon	F Evans	Narkle	Houston	K Marshall	Scully	McKenzie	McCallum
IN	Lukosius	Richards	R Atkins	L Evans	Pick 13	Pick 29	Pick 36	Pick 50	CAT B - Benny Barrett

You'd have to say we will enter the new year slightly stronger. Importantly with the SANFL recruiting rules, we may improve our development environment for our kids too.

 

[x_les_x]

He wanted no part of being at Port next year. He has no problem per se with the Club, he just wants to be in Melbourne with his partner.

I have made it clear I believe his stance is pathetic given she is a "client services manager" (codeword for admin office worker) who could do plenty of her job remotely from Adelaide, and there were no extenuating family circumstances that warranted a move on compassionate grounds. They could have easily revisited this trade in 12 months time.

fmd if this is true can we go from a no dickheads policy to a no simp policy

 

[Waspy79]

I do not blame him after our pathetic tribunal and appeal showings.

Dan, although he asked for the hell out of here, is still more Port than Davies, Cripps, Hinkley and Koch

I told Richardson via email that Port’s stance on the Houston ban was weak. Richardson wrote back suggesting it was better to focus on the finals series instead. This sounds eerily similar to some messaging from Richardson’s BigFooty proxy - Chewy. Houston might have been rather helpful against the Swans kicking out of defense instead of the fossilized shin of Travis Joke.

 

[JUSTWORK]

This is factually incorrect. He made it clear he wanted no part of being at Port Adelaide - which is why the Club pathetically folded on the deal.

All the more reason the club should have tell him to go to North. It is totally inexcusable we let a contracted player strong arm us into taking a lesser offer.

 

[all seeing eye]

All the more reason the club should have tell him to go to North. It is totally inexcusable we let a contracted player strong arm us into taking a lesser offer.

Player manager is who pulls the strings, power has been lost by clubs.

 

[johnnysix]

I told Richardson via email that Port’s stance on the Houston ban was weak. Richardson wrote back suggesting it was better to focus on the finals series instead. This sounds eerily similar to some messaging from Richardson’s BigFooty proxy - Chewy. Houston might have been rather helpful against the Swans kicking out of defense instead of the fossilized shin of Travis Joke.

Distracting you from what you think is a bad trade by asking you to focus on the finals series?

 

[Launchpad McQuack]

Melbourne were like Dr. Schultz in Django Unchained. Made an offer so ludicrous (from their pov) that Port had to consider it. At that point Houston was gone and we're sitting here wondering how we were swindled of our consecutive 2xAA leader.

It'll be interesting to see if this tactic is coordinated by Victorian clubs in future to dislodge seemingly entrenched players at non-Victorian clubs.

 

[Waspy79]

And this isn't just a bad deal in isolation, but it makes us a target for future bad deals. If god forbid Zac Butters asks out next year, whichever club he nominates will just put one first rounder on the table and wait for us to take it with some late pick swaps thrown in. Why wouldn't they? We've proven we'll fold under pressure.

We literally couldn't have had more leverage. Three years left on his contract, didn't nominate a club, said he was willing to stay if no deal got done. We still folded. If we'll fold in that situation, there's no situation we won't fold in.

The altering of the Creed to include reference to making the community proud was the day the footy club died. Decisions like facilitating this Houston trade to his club of choice all stem back to this moment of madness. The world has gone woke, the world is a joke. I look forward to yelling angrily at more clouds as I get older. Not much makes sense to me these days, particularly not this footy club I no longer resonate with.

 

[Waspy79]

Distracting you from what you think is a bad trade by asking you to focus on the finals series?

View attachment 2143249

Fella I told Richardson to take the league on in a court of law after the tribunal upheld the Houston ban. The decision remains an absolute disgrace in the context of other recent decisions, but the advice from the CEO was to let it go as focus on the upcoming finals series was important. We now also need to move on from Daniel Houston for eternity and will be asked to do so in a way that makes the Port community proud.

 

[Jello_B]

This is factually incorrect. He made it clear he wanted no part of being at Port Adelaide - which is why the Club pathetically folded on the deal.

Why? I get the gf thing but the language you are using is that there was some sort of relationship issue between Houston and us. Is this correct? And if so since when and why?

 

[Waspy79]

And this isn't just a bad deal in isolation, but it makes us a target for future bad deals. If god forbid Zac Butters asks out next year, whichever club he nominates will just put one first rounder on the table and wait for us to take it with some late pick swaps thrown in. Why wouldn't they? We've proven we'll fold under pressure.

We literally couldn't have had more leverage. Three years left on his contract, didn't nominate a club, said he was willing to stay if no deal got done. We still folded. If we'll fold in that situation, there's no situation we won't fold in.

I’d like to agree with you, but putting aside when clubs have held players under contract, when was the last time a player that wanted out contracted or not did not land at the club they nominated?

I can probably answer that question myself. Soldo

 

[Duckimus Prime]

I’d like to agree with you, but putting aside when clubs have held players under contract, when was the last time a player that wanted out contracted or not did not land at the club they nominated?

I can probably answer that question myself. Soldo

Josh Dunkley not getting to Essendon in 2020.
Tom Papely not getting to Carlton and Joe Daniher not getting to Sydney in 2019.

 

[rainwizard39]

He wanted no part of being at Port next year. He has no problem per se with the Club, he just wants to be in Melbourne with his partner.

I have made it clear I believe his stance is pathetic given she is a "client services manager" (codeword for admin office worker) who could do plenty of her job remotely from Adelaide, and there were no extenuating family circumstances that warranted a move on compassionate grounds. They could have easily revisited this trade in 12 months time.

What was with all that tough talk from the club then? We heard all year Port were dealing through his manager and made it clear what was required to let him go, and they were outraged by Carlton’s offer, yet the club still folded anyway.

I just don’t understand why Port seemed so powerless when the actual negotiations started.

 

[JUSTWORK]

Player manager is who pulls the strings, power has been lost by clubs.

Especially the clubs that are piss weak.

 

[Waspy79]

Josh Dunkley not getting to Essendon in 2020.
Tom Papely not getting to Carlton and Joe Daniher not getting to Sydney in 2019.

Nope these players were held under contract, please re-read my post.

 

[Revan11]

This is factually incorrect. He made it clear he wanted no part of being at Port Adelaide - which is why the Club pathetically folded on the deal.

I can't understand how we folded on the deal, when there were other deals available. No one was forcing us to do anything. We couldve also held on another day.

 

[cmpower]

West Coast must not value pick 3 that highly or value whoever they’ll take at 12, or at least a combination of Baker and the player they take at 12.

On face value, that’s not the best deal. Especially given they could have waked baker to the draft and got Owies as a DFA.

I’m guessing they’ll go with local product Bo Allen

 

[Chewy316]

All the more reason the club should have tell him to go to North. It is totally inexcusable we let a contracted player strong arm us into taking a lesser offer.

The North offer was even worse than the deal Port accepted.

Why? I get the gf thing but the language you are using is that there was some sort of relationship issue between Houston and us. Is this correct? And if so since when and why?

He burned the bridge during the trade period in particular over the last 24 hours. Not going to elaborate any further than that.

Not that I think the Club should have let him go - it's not as if he could have gone anywhere, certainly wouldn't retire and stay in Melbourne had the Club kept him on their books.

What was with all that tough talk from the club then? We heard all year Port were dealing through his manager and made it clear what was required to let him go, and they were outraged by Carlton’s offer, yet the club still folded anyway.

I just don’t understand why Port seemed so powerless when the actual negotiations started.

Port's philosophy has long been if a player wants out, don't bother keeping them here.
Forget all of the Houston talk about how he was prepared to stay at Port if a deal couldn't get done. That is absolute BS.

They folded - there's no other way to describe it.

I can't understand how we folded on the deal, when there were other deals available. No one was forcing us to do anything. We couldve also held on another day.

Carlton weren't offering anything more than 12 or 14, and by the end of this saga, Carlton were no longer interested. Voss wanted to get a deal done - but their list manager was never convinced.

North's offer was pick 13 (on traded from the Gold Coast) and a late round sweetener. In the end, Port got the best deal on offer, despite it still being a shitty one.