Michael Hibberd

[Dr Whoooooooo]

The new CBA will offset any ballooning contracts.

Don't mind paying a premium for a truly good KPP

I dont disagree with that logic and why I said weeks ago if I had to frame a market where he would be next year ... I had

Hurley ....

Essendon 50%
Melbourne 40%
Others Primarily led by Tigers 10%

Hibberd ....

Melbourne 80%
Essendon 20%

Compensation is the key .... not "fairness" for Essendon.

 

[Andy_Mac]

Christian Salem hasnt locked down a spot in a Melbourne best 22 whilst Hibberd would be one of the better half back flankers in the comp and in a team fighting for a finals spot should we have all of the #12 playing

Seriously??

The bombers are bottom 4 with or without the "#12"

 

[foj1]

The time to be an unrestricted FA due to the WADA rubbish has long passed.

You are wrong pal
Any of the 12 would be granted unrestricted free agent status if they so desired as they were exposed to an unsafe workplace
I do not believe any player or more importantly manager would go down this path as Essendon officials would remember it and make future business difficult

 

[Nuggs Bunny]

You are wrong pal
Any of the 12 would be granted unrestricted free agent status if they so desired as they were exposed to an unsafe workplace
I do not believe any player or more importantly manager would go down this path as Essendon officials would remember it and make future business difficult

No player would go down such a path because it only hurts their former team mates and their supporters, neither of which have done anything deserving of said treatment. Hird, Little, Robson, Evans, Dank, Robinson, Thompson, etc. al. are all long gone.

 

[Duckworth]

Seriously??

The bombers are bottom 4 with or without the "#12"

Comfortably beat Melbourne with a team of top -ups.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Sweet Jesus]

You are wrong pal
Any of the 12 would be granted unrestricted free agent status if they so desired as they were exposed to an unsafe workplace
I do not believe any player or more importantly manager would go down this path as Essendon officials would remember it and make future business difficult

These players have been banned for 12 months but if they don't toe the line, Essendon will be mean to them? Really? If the players leave, what power would Essendon have thereafter over that player?

On the other hand, if Essendon end up holding players hostage having already failed so egregiously in their duty of care, they risk being judged by every single person in football.

The Bombers forfeited the right to make demands a while back. They've done well to re-sign the players they have but if any player wants to go, Essendon will have to suck it up and thank James Hird.

 

[MarkJohnson#1]

These players have been banned for 12 months but if they don't toe the line, Essendon will be mean to them? Really? If the players leave, what power would Essendon have thereafter over that player?

On the other hand, if Essendon end up holding players hostage having already failed so egregiously in their duty of care, they risk being judged by every single person in football.

The Bombers forfeited the right to make demands a while back. They've done well to re-sign the players they have but if any player wants to go, Essendon will have to suck it up and thank James Hird.

Not sure you need to patronise someone with basically the same opinion as you, albeit far less sensationalist. Essendon have mentioned ad nauseam that if players want to leave they won't stand in their way, which every poster on here understands.

I think if you read the post again he is referring to the relationship between club and managers. Despite some of us thinking of player managers as carrying out an Ari Gold style ruthless approach to business, they still need to maintain an amicable relationship with club officials. If they tried to head down the DFA route when not required it will leave a sour taste in everyone's mouth.

I think you will find if players want to leave they will avoid this at all costs and opt for a trade where both parties are satisfied.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Not sure you need to patronise someone with basically the same opinion as you, albeit far less sensationalist.

You're not the 'tone police'.

My post was perfectly straightforward. Nothing rummy about it.

I don't accept that Essendon have any kind of special veto power or moral authority to hold over anyone.

I think if you read the post again he is referring to the relationship between club and managers. Despite some of us thinking of player managers as carrying out an Ari Gold style ruthless approach to business, they still need to maintain an amicable relationship with club officials. If they tried to head down the DFA route when not required it will leave a sour taste in everyone's mouth.

See above.

Essendon can be as sour as they like. Who cares?

I think you will find if players want to leave they will avoid this at all costs and opt for a trade where both parties are satisfied.

Yeah, that might also happen. Although I doubt Essendon would be 'satisfied' to lose a player like Hurley. If they get sweet FA compensation for him, that may actually be the best outcome beyond keeping him.

I'm not precluding or guaranteeing any outcome. I'm saying Essendon have zero power in this situation because of their past failures. They've done well to re-sign the players they have but if push comes to shove, they have no leverage. The suggestion that people are going to be cowed by some imagined retribution from the Bombers is fanciful.

 

[Jobe Watson]

I'm not precluding or guaranteeing any outcome. I'm saying Essendon have zero power in this situation because of their past failures.

Are you just making things up?

Essendon have extensive power. Both Hibberd and Hurley are under contract and they can't just walk away for nothing because, as player manager Adam Ramanauskus has already said (which has also been repeated multiple times on this forum) the deadline for Essendon players having the power to break their contract as a result of the WorkSafe ruling has passed. No player exercised this option. Now, if they want to leave, Essendon won't stand in their way; most clubs don't stop players from leaving if they truly want a trade. But that's vastly different from having "zero power".

If Hurley wants to leave, fine. A top 5 pick or a first round pick + best 22 player thanks... but he's not leaving anyway so the point is moot. Hibberd might leave, we'll get a 2nd round pick back from Melbourne and the world will keep spinning.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Essendon have extensive power. Both Hibberd and Hurley are under contract and they can't just walk away for nothing because, as player manager Adam Ramanauskus has already said (which has also been repeated multiple times on this forum) the deadline for Essendon players having the power to break their contract as a result of the Workplace ruling has passed.

We'll see how that pans out.

As I said, I'm not precluding or guaranteeing any outcome, merely refuting the suggestion that people would for some reason be scared to play hardball for fear of retaliation. I don't think Essendon carry a very big stick here – or any stick at all.

If Hurley wants to leave, fine. A top 5 pick or a first round pick + best 22 player thanks...

I suggest Essendon could find themselves accepting less.

and the world will keep spinning.

That's reassuring.

 

[Obeanie1]

Those are two separate things, surely.

We are discussing the trade value of Essendon players convicted of drug taking and therefore have spent 12 months out of the game, in this instance Hibbard. Both issues IMO reduce the trade value of a player. You don't get one without the other in Essendon's case.

I did say the elite Essendon players such as Heppell would not be effected as much but I expect a Hibbard's trade value would be.

 

[Obeanie1]

That's factored in, which brings him into a pick around the late 20's early 30's.

My initial post was responding to someone who wanted a first round pick, 10 to 15. A 30% discount brings you into the mid second round.

Late 20's to mid 30's is about right. But not a first round pick.

 

[MarkJohnson#1]

You're not the 'tone police'.

My post was perfectly straightforward. Nothing rummy about it.

I don't accept that Essendon have any kind of special veto power or moral authority to hold over anyone.

See above.

Essendon can be as sour as they like. Who cares?

Yeah, that might also happen. Although I doubt Essendon would be 'satisfied' to lose a player like Hurley. If they get sweet FA compensation for him, that may actually be the best outcome beyond keeping him.

I'm not precluding or guaranteeing any outcome. I'm saying Essendon have zero power in this situation because of their past failures. They've done well to re-sign the players they have but if push comes to shove, they have no leverage. The suggestion that people are going to be cowed by some imagined retribution from the Bombers is fanciful.

Thanks for proving my point. Maybe your arrogance is getting in the way of your ability to think clearly.

We all agree that if the players want to leave they can, and they will, and Essendon won't stand in their way. The point being made was that they won't leave on bad terms and request to leave as a DFA to the club of their choice but rather initiate a trade where both parties are happy. We have all agreed this will be the case.

Time to jog on, champ.

 

[Benny Don]

We are discussing the trade value of Essendon players convicted of drug taking and therefore have spent 12 months out of the game, in this instance Hibbard. Both issues IMO reduce the trade value of a player. You don't get one without the other in Essendon's case.

I did say the elite Essendon players such as Heppell would not be effected as much but I expect a Hibbard's trade value would be.

Look at it this way, many players have done season long injuries and have come back to play at their best, these boys aren't injured, they are having a 9 month break, if anything they'll come back feeling great and raring to do a longer pre season, They'll be fine.

 

[carnthedons]

My initial post was responding to someone who wanted a first round pick, 10 to 15. A 30% discount brings you into the mid second round.

Late 20's to mid 30's is about right. But not a first round pick.

Think it entirely depends on what the first round pick is. If it's 17 or 18 that's very different to 1 or 2 obviously and is entirely dependent on the team in question. If it's the dees and their 2nd round pick is 24-25ish then that feels about right. Were it Sydney and they had pick 18, that's more appropriate than 36 for example (maybe other pick swaps). This obsession with which round of the draft a pick is in when there are on average 18 per round (academies/FS impact this) is ridiculous.

 

[LB#16]

You are wrong pal
Any of the 12 would be granted unrestricted free agent status if they so desired as they were exposed to an unsafe workplace
I do not believe any player or more importantly manager would go down this path as Essendon officials would remember it and make future business difficult

No, Pal, the time to lodge that has long passed.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

We are discussing the trade value of Essendon players convicted of drug taking and therefore have spent 12 months out of the game, in this instance Hibbard. Both issues IMO reduce the trade value of a player.

A year out of the game, sure. The Wada finding – the "conviction", as you say – not really.

A greater consideration is whether Essendon are in a position to play hardball should a player want to leave.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Thanks for proving my point. Maybe your arrogance is getting in the way of your ability to think clearly.

Look at this ridiculous canned response.

We all agree that if the players want to leave they can, and they will, and Essendon won't stand in their way. The point being made was that they won't leave on bad terms and request to leave as a DFA to the club of their choice but rather initiate a trade where both parties are happy. We have all agreed this will be the case.

The other point that was being made – which you appear to have conveniently ignored – was that people would forego the DFA route out of fear of reprisals from Essendon. That, in my view, is fanciful – a deluded reaction to the reality of Essendon's diminished power.

Players might well eschew DFA status and leave via trade instead. I'm not ruling that out. But it sure as hell won't be because they're cowed by the prospect of retaliation from Essendon.

Time to jog on, champ.

Another buffoonish catchphrase. Can I pull your string to see what other ones you've got cued?

Did you travel into the future from 1998? Maybe you'll tell me to 'talk to the hand' next.

 

[MarkJohnson#1]

Look at this ridiculous canned response.

The other point that was being made – which you appear to have conveniently ignored – was that people would forego the DFA route out of fear of reprisals from Essendon. That, in my view, is fanciful – a deluded reaction to the reality of Essendon's diminished power.

Players might well eschew DFA status and leave via trade instead. I'm not ruling that out. But it sure as hell won't be because they're cowed by the prospect of retaliation from Essendon.

Another buffoonish catchphrase. Can I pull your string to see what other ones you've got cued?

Did you travel into the future from 1998? Maybe you'll tell me to 'talk to the hand' next.

You've got your own opinion which you're entitled to but you're ignoring the true reason why if players left they would go down the amicable trade path.

Feel free to gloss over reality to suit your own theory though, if it makes you feel good...

 

[Sweet Jesus]

You've got your own opinion which you're entitled to

Phew. That's a relief.

you're ignoring the true reason why if players left they would go down the amicable trade path.

Are you saying the "true reason" is they're scared of reprisals from Essendon?

If so, I'm sorry but that's complete rubbish.

Feel free to gloss over reality to suit your own theory though, if it makes you feel good...

Who's glossing over anything?

If the above is in fact what you're arguing, it's delusional.

 

[MarkJohnson#1]

Phew. That's a relief.

Are you saying the "true reason" is they're scared of reprisals from Essendon?

If so, I'm sorry but that's complete rubbish.

Who's glossing over anything?

If the above is in fact what you're arguing, it's delusional.

Being scared of reprisals is a sensationalist way of putting it. They would understand that the best course of action would be to facilitate a trade if they want out and would realise it would be a messy affair to go down the DFA route when they don't need to. Essendon have made it abundantly clear they won't stand in their way if they want to leave so why would they create disharmony by enforcing a delisting?

If you don't understand that then it is you who is glossing over reality.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Being scared of reprisals is a sensationalist way of putting it.

Does it misrepresent the original comment?

I don't think so.

They would understand that the best course of action would be to facilitate a trade if they want out and would realise it would be a messy affair to go down the DFA route when they don't need to.

Sure, if Essendon play nice. If there's a mutually agreeable outcome, then so be it. I've never ruled that out.

But if there's any kind of stalemate between the player, Essendon and a second club, Essendon's position is the weakest. No one's going to blink because they're scared of Essendon taking the gloves off or "making future business difficult". Essendon will be the ones sucking it up.

Essendon have made it abundantly clear they won't stand in their way if they want to leave so why would they create disharmony by enforcing a delisting?

Well, that depends what Essendon expect in return, doesn't it?

They might not 'stand in the way' but they might want two first-rounders in exchange and the other club might decide that's unreasonable and the player might decide he definitely still wants to leave. Then what happens?

I'll tell you what doesn't happen: the player and his preferred destination club don't shit their pants and change their minds because they're scared of Essendon. More likely, the Bombers end up accepting less than they wanted or it gets messy.

If you don't understand that then it is you who is glossing over reality.

What does that even mean?

My point is straightforward. No one is going to be coerced into taking a different course of action by the prospect of Essendon throwing their weight around. That's a non-factor.

 

[blured]

As a midfielder yeah.

Facts are that Hibberd was spoken about as being close to the All Australian squad as a defender which is what this discussion is about.

When Bernie is spoken in the same breath, then we might have an argument.

As it stands, Hibberd is a better defender than Vince. Period/

opinion isnt fact

 

[foj1]

No, Pal, the time to lodge that has long passed.

It's not about timelines it's about morality and fairness.
Any Essendon player who has been affected can get a free ride- not one has.
Our club seriously stuffed up and the players have been most affected- not you or me or any Essendon supporter. Your post makes me wonder if you really understand this.
Perhaps you need to watch the Hal Hunter four corners piece to remind yourself timelines are irrelevant.
I am as one eyed Essendon as you get but we have five months more to endure asada-wads talk.

 

[The Bomb]

I want to keep Hibberd and so does the club, but heard Melbourne will offer a 1st round pick to keep everyone involved happy.
I thought it was a joke when I heard Melbourne would offer a 2nd round pick for Melksham, but it was correct.
Now I don't know what to think regarding Hibberd.