Mitch McGovern (please read OP)

[jackster83]

Straight swap for Ryan Burton

We need less Burton's not more.

 

[Mego Red]

Straight swap for Ryan Burton

That isn't enough for us.

 

[HARKER]

Went looking for this draft tampering joke over on the Blues board, couldn’t find it.

Did however find another joke. Half of them think they’re getting Gov for 25, Shiel and Gaff all the while keeping Pick 1.

It's actually not a joke given it emanates form a respectable poster.
It may ultimately be proven not to be right, but I can almost guarantee it wasn't set up as a joke.

We should hear from McGovern within days and if not, there may be something else brewing behind the scenes.
Carlton very confident, but we all but had Travis Cloke a few years ago also. Nothing is done until it's done.

 

[Apsaalooke]

Unless he was tied to a tree naked and molested by a bear in the woods, carlton supporters are deluted thinking we've somehow breached his contract, some of them are definitely living in hope though

Sending him to Carlton would be a crueller punishment than anything we’ve done to him involving trees and bears

 

[Opine]

Don't be so simple. Our contract with him is the same structure and intent as every other player contract in the AFL. If it's not enforceable, then it's a total league problem, not an Adelaide problem.

Are you inviting me to respond?

Absolutely, looking forward to it.

Ok i’ll try to be less simplistic.

Many of the opinions expressed in here concern the issue of dealing in good faith; some of you believe that SOS’s handling of the Gibbs trade was done in bad faith and want retribution; reports about MM’s dissatisfaction at the way his contract was handled, imply that the Crow’s negotiated in bad faith; others have pointed to the possibility that MM’s agent acted in bad faith by feeding the media with false speculation; whilst others, including myself, have speculated that the player himself might be acting in bad faith, by wanting out of an agreement that he willingly entered into.

Rightly or wrongly, i’ve interpreted Barrett’s comment as implying that that the Crow’s acted in bad faith; both in the way they negotiated MM’s deal, and in their handling of the player’s welfare.

What is your interpretation of Barrett’s comment?

 

[1990crow]

Ok i’ll try to be less simplistic.

Many of the opinions expressed in here concern the issue of dealing in good faith; some of you believe that SOS’s handling of the Gibbs trade was done in bad faith and want retribution; reports about MM’s dissatisfaction at the way his contract was handled, imply that the Crow’s negotiated in bad faith; others have pointed to the possibility that MM’s agent acted in bad faith by feeding the media with false speculation; whilst others, including myself, have speculated that the player himself might be acting in bad faith, by wanting out of an agreement that he willingly entered into.

Rightly or wrongly, i’ve interpreted Barrett’s comment as implying that that the Crow’s acted in bad faith; both in the way they negotiated MM’s deal, and in their handling of the player’s welfare.

What is your interpretation of Barrett’s comment?

That Barrett is a flog who shouldn’t be listened to. He has an agenda and using his comments to come to this board is inflammatory and trolling.

 

[Bicks]

Ok i’ll try to be less simplistic.

Many of the opinions expressed in here concern the issue of dealing in good faith; some of you believe that SOS’s handling of the Gibbs trade was done in bad faith and want retribution; reports about MM’s dissatisfaction at the way his contract was handled, imply that the Crow’s negotiated in bad faith; others have pointed to the possibility that MM’s agent acted in bad faith by feeding the media with false speculation; whilst others, including myself, have speculated that the player himself might be acting in bad faith, by wanting out of an agreement that he willingly entered into.

Rightly or wrongly, i’ve interpreted Barrett’s comment as implying that that the Crow’s acted in bad faith; both in the way they negotiated MM’s deal, and in their handling of the player’s welfare.

What is your interpretation of Barrett’s comment?

What don't you get, nobody on this board gives a shit what you, Barrett or any other sundry Carlton supporter thinks. MM will get to Carlton IF we get recompensed to our satisfaction, what has transpired in the past will not make one iota of difference, end of story, over and out.

 

[GreyCrow]

What is your interpretation of Barrett’s comment?

That Colin Young is feeding him Colin Youngs interpretation. This interpretation has CY riding a white horse.

How can/did the AFC act in bad faith? (many are taking this as gospel so I would like to know how they obtained this belief)

If Colin Young , one of the industrys better managers, also signed off on this contract then the AFC are smarter than the time we kept our Tippet emails

 

[Elite Crow]

That Barrett is a flog who shouldn’t be listened to. He has an agenda and using his comments to come to this board is inflammatory and trolling.

And Barrett today said he thinks he’s worth a second rounder but Adelaide are going to want a lot more than that, there was nothing else mentioned that we would have to take less.

 

[Opine]

What don't you get, nobody on this board gives a shit what you, Barrett or any other sundry Carlton supporter thinks. MM will get to Carlton IF we get recompensed to our satisfaction, what has transpired in the past will not make one iota of difference, end of story, over and out.

I was responding to a specific request by one of your own board members; but I hear you. .

 

[jackster83]

I was responding to a specific request by one of your own board members; but I hear you. .

Not sure if you're aware, but our club has been engaged in an ongoing war with CrocMedia for some time. That covers people like Hutchy, McClure, Barrett and Rucci. That's why we aren't interested in anything they have to say.

 

[beartoo]

Seems we have an annual shitfest with Carltank supporters. Why don't we dedicate an annual thread to these w***ers and keep their bs out of other threads?

 

[Crowked]

And Barrett today said he thinks he’s worth a second rounder but Adelaide are going to want a lot more than that, there was nothing else mentioned that we would have to take less.

Also said Carlton are very keen to get done, and he believes it will get done.

Just a warning to Carlton fans. Bend over and brace yourselves, there is quite a large pineapple coming your way.

 

[I_Was_There]

Also said Carlton are very keen to get done, and he believes it will get done.

Just a warning to Carlton fans. Bend over and brace yourselves, there is quite a large pineapple coming your way.

At the rate they keep coming on here, we are going to need all of Queensland's pineapples to stop their sh1te.

 

[Mego Red]

Not sure if you're aware, but our club has been engaged in an ongoing war with CrocMedia for some time. That covers people like Hutchy, McClure, Barrett and Rucci. That's why we aren't interested in anything they have to say.

How dare you forget Kane.

 

[Cap]

How dare you forget Kane.

Now we are in for it!

 

[Morning_Fog]

Ok i’ll try to be less simplistic.

Many of the opinions expressed in here concern the issue of dealing in good faith; some of you believe that SOS’s handling of the Gibbs trade was done in bad faith and want retribution; reports about MM’s dissatisfaction at the way his contract was handled, imply that the Crow’s negotiated in bad faith; others have pointed to the possibility that MM’s agent acted in bad faith by feeding the media with false speculation; whilst others, including myself, have speculated that the player himself might be acting in bad faith, by wanting out of an agreement that he willingly entered into.

Rightly or wrongly, i’ve interpreted Barrett’s comment as implying that that the Crow’s acted in bad faith; both in the way they negotiated MM’s deal, and in their handling of the player’s welfare.

What is your interpretation of Barrett’s comment?

If the Adelaide Crows acted in ‘bad faith’ towards Mitch McGovern in regards to his 2018/2021 contract and Damien Barrett knew about it, he would have written an article or gone on The Footy Show or Triple M and chucked the Crows under the bus already.

He would not sit on this information for a rainy day. It would have been exposed straight away as he knew someone else would beat him to the punch first.

You are talking complete crap.

 

[GROTTO]

Ok i’ll try to be less simplistic.

Many of the opinions expressed in here concern the issue of dealing in good faith; some of you believe that SOS’s handling of the Gibbs trade was done in bad faith and want retribution; reports about MM’s dissatisfaction at the way his contract was handled, imply that the Crow’s negotiated in bad faith; others have pointed to the possibility that MM’s agent acted in bad faith by feeding the media with false speculation; whilst others, including myself, have speculated that the player himself might be acting in bad faith, by wanting out of an agreement that he willingly entered into.

Rightly or wrongly, i’ve interpreted Barrett’s comment as implying that that the Crow’s acted in bad faith; both in the way they negotiated MM’s deal, and in their handling of the player’s welfare.

What is your interpretation of Barrett’s comment?

 

[Mego Red]

Look, I'll say it.

I'd be happy with 11 and 24.

I get they'd slide back in the draft once PPs etc are in there, but that seems okay, and I don't have the energy to do PP math.

Then I'd try to do 19 and 24 for Sydney's 13 and 31.

Then I'd move next year's first rounder to GCS for the WCE pick 16.

That'd leave you with 7, 11, 13, 15, 16, 31 and 37.

You'd move some of the firsts on to move up in the draft, but you'd end up with 5 good picks, no matter what.

Edit: that Sydney trade doesn't work as they'd need points, so maybe we add 37 and get 67 from them.

 

[Red mist]

Ok i’ll try to be less simplistic.

Many of the opinions expressed in here concern the issue of dealing in good faith; some of you believe that SOS’s handling of the Gibbs trade was done in bad faith and want retribution; reports about MM’s dissatisfaction at the way his contract was handled, imply that the Crow’s negotiated in bad faith; others have pointed to the possibility that MM’s agent acted in bad faith by feeding the media with false speculation; whilst others, including myself, have speculated that the player himself might be acting in bad faith, by wanting out of an agreement that he willingly entered into.

Rightly or wrongly, i’ve interpreted Barrett’s comment as implying that that the Crow’s acted in bad faith; both in the way they negotiated MM’s deal, and in their handling of the player’s welfare.

What is your interpretation of Barrett’s comment?

Barrett makes comment to line his pocket from clickbait. Enough said. If and when the clubs start actually want to say something they will. Till then stop filling the area with vigorous wank.

 

[Morning_Fog]

Look, I'll say it.

I'd be happy with 11 and 24.

I get they'd slide back in the draft once PPs etc are in there, but that seems okay, and I don't have the energy to do PP math.

Then I'd try to do 19 and 24 for Sydney's 13 and 31.

Then I'd move next year's first rounder to GCS for the WCE pick 16.

That'd leave you with 7, 11, 13, 15, 16, 31 and 37.

You'd move some of the firsts on to move up in the draft, but you'd end up with 5 good picks, no matter what.

Edit: that Sydney trade doesn't work as they'd need points, so maybe we add 37 and get 67 from them.

You clearly work in an environment with ridiculously larger and unmonitored budgets that are easily passes.

To say, 11 and 24 is good enough shows you do need to squeeze every cent out of your budget.

 

[spenze]

Would they do the trade before trade week then?

It would be great if they could, then the Carlton supporters could go back to their board and WW and EC could get to loving each other like brothers

 

[1970crow]

Ok i’ll try to be less simplistic.

Many of the opinions expressed in here concern the issue of dealing in good faith; some of you believe that SOS’s handling of the Gibbs trade was done in bad faith and want retribution; reports about MM’s dissatisfaction at the way his contract was handled, imply that the Crow’s negotiated in bad faith; others have pointed to the possibility that MM’s agent acted in bad faith by feeding the media with false speculation; whilst others, including myself, have speculated that the player himself might be acting in bad faith, by wanting out of an agreement that he willingly entered into.

Rightly or wrongly, i’ve interpreted Barrett’s comment as implying that that the Crow’s acted in bad faith; both in the way they negotiated MM’s deal, and in their handling of the player’s welfare.

What is your interpretation of Barrett’s comment?

Its a nothing comment. Your comment regarding the enforceability of an AFL standard playing contract is what I'm following up on. Explain how it's not enforceable. Try to avoid using the term 'bad faith'. Or at least identify how it relates to the contract being voidable.

 

[Large 1]

except gibbs then came out and said publicly that he is more than happy to stay at carlton for another year lets just see if MM says the same if a trade doesnt happen

Ask yourself, if Gibbs was so happy to stay at Carlton why did he request to leave the year after?

 

[GROTTO]

Just remember Crows posters, how painfully irrelevant Carlton have become in Victoria, its rather embarrassing.

I would actually rate every team has gone passed Carlton in the last 10 years or so. Imagine being at rock bottom for all those years.

Hell even the Saints played 2 grand finals.