Mitch Brown (WCE) asks for trade to St Kilda

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.

Log in to remove this ad.

Fairly emphatic from our list manager I would have thought

Mitch did tell us that [he wanted to be traded to St Kilda] in discussions with his manager Liam Pickering on Saturday, but we told the manager then what I am telling you now and that is that Mitch is a contracted player and very much a required player and we see him as an important part of our future. We see him playing for us for the next six years and more,'' West Coast list manager Craig Vozzo said.
 
Fairly emphatic from our list manager I would have thought
Has a club ever blatantly held a player to ransom like this?
I can understand they keep him if we don't come up with a suitable trade but this seems stubborn and selfish. They expect commitment and loyalty from the player...but its a 2 way street.
 
Has a club ever blatantly held a player to ransom like this?
I can understand they keep him if we don't come up with a suitable trade but this seems stubborn and selfish. They expect commitment and loyalty from the player...but its a 2 way street.

Generally that is what a contract is - a commitment.

He is contracted - there is no obligation for us to trade him whatsoever.

2013 trade period may be a different kettle of fish of course
 
Keeping a player that doesn't want to be there is fraught with danger. Yes it may have happened successfully before (o'keefe) but usually once your mind is made up you are mentally gone.
 
Keeping a player that doesn't want to be there is fraught with danger. Yes it may have happened successfully before (o'keefe) but usually once your mind is made up you are mentally gone.

How is that any different to St Kilda refusing to trade Cripps unless Brown is part of the deal?

Are the saints holding Cripps to ransom?

WC are simply asking a player to fulfill a contract - that is hardly holding them to ransom.
 
How is that any different to St Kilda refusing to trade Cripps unless Brown is part of the deal?

Are the saints holding Cripps to ransom?

WC are simply asking a player to fulfill a contract - that is hardly holding them to ransom.
We arent refusing to trade cripps. He is going to leave the club anyway whether we like it or not, we are just wanting a suitable trade
 
We arent refusing to trade cripps. He is going to leave the club anyway whether we like it or not, we are just wanting a suitable trade

If the article is to be believed - you will refuse to trade Cripps unless it involves Brown.

I said this tongue in cheek on our board - but i'm sure if you offer up Dal Santo and Pick 13 we'll change our tune on Brown. So our refusal to trade Brown is simply one of making sure it is suitable if it does occur.

The difference is Brown is contracted and an important part of our long term plans - so what is suitable to WC is going to be a whole lot more than his displayed output.

The Saints are adamant they will only do a deal for Cripps if it involves Brown and they are prepared to lose Cripps in the national draft for nothing if they cannot finalise a deal.
 
I hope we only let Brown go if serious overs are presented. But now that pick 12 is out of the equation, this is doubtful.

And although I'm a fan of Cripps, a straight swap between the two is by no means equitable. I do hope we aquire him by other means however.
 
Has a club ever blatantly held a player to ransom like this?
I can understand they keep him if we don't come up with a suitable trade but this seems stubborn and selfish. They expect commitment and loyalty from the player...but its a 2 way street.

lol then offer your Goddard compo pick and save the poor soul.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Brown is KP size, ready to go but contracted. Cripps is a promising outside running mid out of contract.

Brown + 17 + 38

for

Cripps + 13 + 34?????????

I really hope you are joking. In what world would a injury prone player who isn't in your best 22 warrant this trade? Actually I hope you're not joking, you're just a ****ing idiot
 
I don't see a deal getting done now for Brown, he is under contract and they have dug their heels in. I think next year though he will walk and the Eagles will get little or nothing for him and suddenly need a Glass replacement.
 
I really hope you are joking. In what world would a injury prone player who isn't in your best 22 warrant this trade? Actually I hope you're not joking, you're just a ******* idiot

How rude.
 
I really hope you are joking. In what world would a injury prone player who isn't in your best 22 warrant this trade? Actually I hope you're not joking, you're just a ******* idiot

If he was out of contract he wouldn't be worth much, that's for sure.

But not looking like any chance of a trade. Saints should be able to get a defender elsewhere for a better deal I think anyway.
 
Mitch brown to saints for cripps + pick 34 (correct me if I'm wrong) and raph Clarke as a sweetener
 
This whole approach by St Kilda, is it even legal? I am sure approaching a player under contract and looking to do a deal was punishable, let alone having them demand a trade to one club only for a bargain price. Complete BS by the Saints. Poor tactics by the Saints who are coming off as amatuerish bullies. Tell them to get flogged Vozzo.
 
Mitch brown to saints for cripps + pick 34 (correct me if I'm wrong) and raph Clarke as a sweetener

It would be sweeter if you kept him. I would call him a spud but that would be an insult to potatoes
 
I don't see a deal getting done now for Brown, he is under contract and they have dug their heels in. I think next year though he will walk and the Eagles will get little or nothing for him and suddenly need a Glass replacement.

Whats the difference between Wellingham being uncontracted and Brown next year being uncontracted?

If we will get little or nothing for him next year why arent we getting Wellingham for little or nothing this year?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top