List Mgmt. OFFICIAL: Dangerfield + Pick 50 for Picks 9, 28 and Dean Gore

[geelong_crazy26]

So if you are not giving up a 1st rounder nor a decent player, how are you planning to land Dangerfield?

Simple

Danger makes it clear he will not commit to any other club .This means he will not train hard or commit himself to the sides game plan .

Geelong make a huge 2 year deal .

No club will pay someone over $1 million a year for a player who will not commit .

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

Nope , no chance .

This deal has to make Geelong a much better side , that's the whole point of it , no point for us to do a deal that doesn't make us better.

If a deal cant be done were Geelong come out as winners than he walks out of Adelaide who get nothing in return and we try our luck in the draft. Nothing in return for Tippet and Dangerfield is a disaster for Adelaide.

There is still a chance of Geelong offering Dangerfield a 2 year deal that is too much for Adelaide too much .

If you are willing to pay Dangerfield more than selwood & Hawkins combined, then go for it. Remember, Afc were willing to pay danger approximately $400k more than the cats & have left players unsigned so we have capacity to match a big offer, so you need a buddy-like deal to blow us out of the park.

The cats are not going to get a deal that is much better for them than Adelaide for 2 reasons. Afc won't accept way unders - only little unders... & nor will Ken Wood.

This is how trades work - you need to give up value to get value. They are not designed to be mostly 1 way!

If the cats are not reasonable - which I seriously doubt, given they have courted the Dangerfields & wouldn't want to back out - then another Victorian team will come to the party for one of the gun players of the Afl.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

Simple

Danger makes it clear he will not commit to any other club .This means he will not train hard or commit himself to the sides game plan .

Geelong make a huge 2 year deal .

No club will pay someone over $1 million a year for a player who will not commit .

Danger can't say such things as the Afl would fine him big time for attempting to influence the draft like others have attemptwe before.

Brisbane & Melbourne have already said they would pick him up in a heart beat. Won't happen though, as danger won't risk going to Brisbane as then he would be further away from moggs.

 

[geelong_crazy26]

Danger can't say such things as the Afl would fine him big time for attempting to influence the draft like others have attemptwe before.

Brisbane & Melbourne have already said they would pick him up in a heart beat. Won't happen though, as danger won't risk going to Brisbane as then he would be further away from moggs.

Please show me the AFL rule that says a player must commit to their football club ? he is just being upfront and honest by saying I don't want to play for anyone but Geelong , if you take me I cant commit .No AFL rule is broken at all.In fact it is the decent thing to do , this way Melbourne and the Lions don't waste an early draft pick on him

History suggest that when players go to a new club they go for less than what they are worth .This is for 3 reasons .

1.Clubs do not want a player on their list who cant commit.
2.The players association has lots of power to influence the AFL , who has an extreme amount of power over all 18 clubs .If Danger does not get to Geelong Adelaide should be very worried .
3.The club wants to look after their players , Adelaide clearly has an issue with keeping their players happy, not letting Dangerfield go to Geelong would send them a clear message that the club they play for has no concern for them at all.

 

[geelong_crazy26]

If you are willing to pay Dangerfield more than selwood & Hawkins combined, then go for it. Remember, Afc were willing to pay danger approximately $400k more than the cats & have left players unsigned so we have capacity to match a big offer, so you need a buddy-like deal to blow us out of the park.

The cats are not going to get a deal that is much better for them than Adelaide for 2 reasons. Afc won't accept way unders - only little unders... & nor will Ken Wood.

This is how trades work - you need to give up value to get value. They are not designed to be mostly 1 way!

If the cats are not reasonable - which I seriously doubt, given they have courted the Dangerfields & wouldn't want to back out - then another Victorian team will come to the party for one of the gun players of the Afl.

Given the players Geelong just moved on at the end of this year , I doubt very much that Adelaide have as much room in the salary cap as Geelong .All we have to do is offer him a large 2 year contract .

Do you think that Dangerfield wants the club he is going to being spending the rest of his career at to give up much for him ? no he wants them to be as strong as possible .He simply has to say to Adelaide its Geelong or I go into the draft and you get nothing .

At the end of the day Geelong has the leverage and the simple fact is that unless Geelong can come out as clear winners than whats the point of us doing this trade ? we may as well just take our chances in the draft .

I am also very confident that the players association will have a talk to the AFL, who will than have a talk with Adelaide who will than totally back down.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

Please show me the AFL rule that says a player must commit to their football club ? he is just being upfront and honest by saying I don't want to play for anyone but Geelong , if you take me I cant commit .No AFL rule is broken at all.In fact it is the decent thing to do , this way Melbourne and the Lions don't waste an early draft pick on him

History suggest that when players go to a new club they go for less than what they are worth .This is for 3 reasons .

1.Clubs do not want a player on their list who cant commit.
2.The players association has lots of power to influence the AFL , who has an extreme amount of power over all 18 clubs .If Danger does not get to Geelong Adelaide should be very worried .
3.The club wants to look after their players , Adelaide clearly has an issue with keeping their players happy, not letting Dangerfield go to Geelong would send them a clear message that the club they play for has no concern for them at all.

I'm overseas so don't have my usual access, but will tag Vader who is usually good with Afl legislation.

It is illegal for a player or his manager to attempt to manipulate the draft & put of clubs. The manager would be deregistered for starters.

Brett Chalmers tried it to get to the pies & ended up being fined $30k & banned from going to the pies for 3 years.

There is no chance of danger going into the draft & attempting to manipulate it. This is crazy talk!

The aflpa have come out & said they support clubs matching a rfa to get reasonable trade value - Paul Marsh just only debunked this theory of yours.

Ken wood will be watching any trade carefully, so no chance of it being significantly lopsided as he would reject it.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

Given the players Geelong just moved on at the end of this year , I doubt very much that Adelaide have as much room in the salary cap as Geelong .All we have to do is offer him a large 2 year contract .

Do you think that Dangerfield wants the club he is going to being spending the rest of his career at to give up much for him ? no he wants them to be as strong as possible .He simply has to say to Adelaide its Geelong or I go into the draft and you get nothing .

At the end of the day Geelong has the leverage and the simple fact is that unless Geelong can come out as clear winners than whats the point of us doing this trade ? we may as well just take our chances in the draft .

I am also very confident that the players association will have a talk to the AFL, who will than have a talk with Adelaide who will than totally back down.

I just mentioned the aflpa's Paul Marsh has said it is quite within afc's rights to match a rfa to get better value... So forget the Aflpa pressure theory as it doesn't exist.

I have no doubt the cats have more cap space than Adelaide as we only have about $1.5M pa available to match any Dangerfield offers.

The question is do you want to offer Dangerfield more than selwood & Hawkins combined? Your administration so far have suggested no & would prefer to stick to their strict structure. I doubt they will change their mind.

Remember danger is going to the cats for less money for family reasons.

 

[geelong_crazy26]

I'm overseas so don't have my usual access, but will tag Vader who is usually good with Afl legislation.

It is illegal for a player or his manager to attempt to manipulate the draft & put of clubs. The manager would be deregistered for starters.

Brett Chalmers tried it to get to the pies & ended up being fined $30k & banned from going to the pies for 3 years.

There is no chance of danger going into the draft & attempting to manipulate it. This is crazy talk!

The aflpa have come out & said they support clubs matching a rfa to get reasonable trade value - Paul Marsh just only debunked this theory of yours.

Ken wood will be watching any trade carefully, so no chance of it being significantly lopsided as he would reject it.

All comments from Pauls Marsh that I am aware of regarding FA have been about the eligibility being reduced down to 6 years , which basically means the clubs cant match .In fact he seems very strongly in favour of players being able to move around more easily .

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/a...-for-free-agents/story-fni5f22o-1227054476387
http://www.smh.com.au/sport/aflpa-b...at-to-players-trade-veto-20150617-ghqi2x.html

Straight-shooting in his assessment, Marsh underlined his opinion that "there's almost a view that the clubs think they own the players. And this whole thought that, 'We put all this time into developing players, and we should be able to keep them for as long as we want them,' it just doesn't work that way.

"We think some of the clubs have this view that the players may have too much say, and too much power, in terms of their ability to move.

"If you make it so that players can't move, or if players can be moved on like is being proposed here, where is the incentive to create a better working environment within your club? That's actually been one of the real positives we've seen from free agency



Dangerfield is not manipulating the draft at all , clubs can still pick him up its just that he will not be able to commit to them . Brett Charlmers said he was not goin to leave the state of south Australia , Dangerfield wouldn't go that far .He is just saying My heart wouldn't be in this club , I cant give my all.

 

[geelong_crazy26]

I just mentioned the aflpa's Paul Marsh has said it is quite within afc's rights to match a rfa to get better value... So forget the Aflpa pressure theory as it doesn't exist.

I have no doubt the cats have more cap space than Adelaide as we only have about $1.5M pa available to match any Dangerfield offers.

The question is do you want to offer Dangerfield more than selwood & Hawkins combined? Your administration so far have suggested no & would prefer to stick to their strict structure. I doubt they will change their mind.

Remember danger is going to the cats for less money for family reasons.

over the next 2 years yes , than reduce it for the following 4 years.

 

[thegerman]

If you are willing to pay Dangerfield more than selwood & Hawkins combined, then go for it. Remember, Afc were willing to pay danger approximately $400k more than the cats & have left players unsigned so we have capacity to match a big offer, so you need a buddy-like deal to blow us out of the park.

The cats are not going to get a deal that is much better for them than Adelaide for 2 reasons. Afc won't accept way unders - only little unders... & nor will Ken Wood.

This is how trades work - you need to give up value to get value. They are not designed to be mostly 1 way!

If the cats are not reasonable - which I seriously doubt, given they have courted the Dangerfields & wouldn't want to back out - then another Victorian team will come to the party for one of the gun players of the Afl.

Doesn't that say something, that after 8 years he wants to return home, on far less pay than market value?

The AFL better be scrambling behind the scenes, as this looks very nasty for them.

 

[thegerman]

I just mentioned the aflpa's Paul Marsh has said it is quite within afc's rights to match a rfa to get better value... So forget the Aflpa pressure theory as it doesn't exist.

I have no doubt the cats have more cap space than Adelaide as we only have about $1.5M pa available to match any Dangerfield offers.

The question is do you want to offer Dangerfield more than selwood & Hawkins combined? Your administration so far have suggested no & would prefer to stick to their strict structure. I doubt they will change their mind.

Remember danger is going to the cats for less money for family reasons.

Marsh said that did he. He's quoted as saying, 'We put all this time into developing players, and we should be able to keep them for as long as we want them,' it just doesn't work that way.

"We think some of the clubs have this view that the players may have too much say, and too much power, in terms of their ability to move".

I don't see in this quote, or anything in the media that points to the AFLPA saying the crows are within their rights full stop. He's saying, getting their compensation; he didn't say fair or equal compensation.

I have no doubt it would have had the additional statement that clubs think they own players. Which appears to be happening in your mind.

 

[dazbroncos]

Abblett? Could Geelong have matched the salary GC were offering?

And if you believe that the GC money was purely GC money and not AFL subsided then you are…. well…. I 'd have to ban myself…

Go Catters

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

Marsh said that did he. He's quoted as saying, 'We put all this time into developing players, and we should be able to keep them for as long as we want them,' it just doesn't work that way.

"We think some of the clubs have this view that the players may have too much say, and too much power, in terms of their ability to move".

I don't see in this quote, or anything in the media that points to the AFLPA saying the crows are within their rights full stop. He's saying, getting their compensation; he didn't say fair or equal compensation.

I have no doubt it would have had the additional statement that clubs think they own players. Which appears to be happening in your mind.

If you Google "Paul Marsh Dangerfield" you will get a link to his 5aa interview only put up a day ago so it is current aflpa thinking. He mentions that he hopes the crows get fair compensation for Dangerfield & ok for Afc to match a rfa. He also mentioned both clubs tend to be reasonable traders so he hoped a deal would be reached easily. Suggest you listen as it debunks the theory that the aflpa are against rfa's & matching.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

All comments from Pauls Marsh that I am aware of regarding FA have been about the eligibility being reduced down to 6 years , which basically means the clubs cant match .In fact he seems very strongly in favour of players being able to move around more easily .

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/a...-for-free-agents/story-fni5f22o-1227054476387
http://www.smh.com.au/sport/aflpa-b...at-to-players-trade-veto-20150617-ghqi2x.html

Straight-shooting in his assessment, Marsh underlined his opinion that "there's almost a view that the clubs think they own the players. And this whole thought that, 'We put all this time into developing players, and we should be able to keep them for as long as we want them,' it just doesn't work that way.

"We think some of the clubs have this view that the players may have too much say, and too much power, in terms of their ability to move.

"If you make it so that players can't move, or if players can be moved on like is being proposed here, where is the incentive to create a better working environment within your club? That's actually been one of the real positives we've seen from free agency



Dangerfield is not manipulating the draft at all , clubs can still pick him up its just that he will not be able to commit to them . Brett Charlmers said he was not goin to leave the state of south Australia , Dangerfield wouldn't go that far .He is just saying My heart wouldn't be in this club , I cant give my all.

You really need to research the draft rules as this is fantasy thinking.

Once danger goes into the draft he is committing to whatever club drafts him. If he refuses to go to say Brisbane, the Afl will come down hard.

If what you suggested was possible, there would be all sorts of manipulation going on working against the Afl's principles.

I have given the detail in my last post of the Paul Marsh interview only a day ago, where he speaks specifically about Dangerfield, so more relevant than your old quote. Suggest you listen.

 

[Leeds17]

You really need to research the draft rules as this is fantasy thinking.

Once danger goes into the draft he is committing to whatever club drafts him. If he refuses to go to say Brisbane, the Afl will come down hard.

If what you suggested was possible, there would be all sorts of manipulation going on working against the Afl's principles.

I have given the detail in my last post of the Paul Marsh interview only a day ago, where he speaks specifically about Dangerfield, so more relevant than your old quote. Suggest you listen.

Marsh is happy for teams to match but ultimately he wants the player to get to where the player wants so if you guys match then demand overs the AFLPA and AFL will be putting pressure on no doubt.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Concussion]

Wow, geelong board is tolerant. I might have to visit more often.
Kane, you are very naïve if you think drafts aren't manipulated. If danger went to the draft, he would goto Geelong if that's where his nominated club is.
Why would any other club take a risk, when he has just left a club he loves after 7?? Years to move closer to family, it wouldn't make sense and all the arguments you make against are just hot air.
Adelaide would be mad not to trade with geelong with a compo pick available. Only the clubs will know what they are prepared to give and take. Should be interesting.

 

[Bring back Moloney]

You really need to research the draft rules as this is fantasy thinking.

Once danger goes into the draft he is committing to whatever club drafts him. If he refuses to go to say Brisbane, the Afl will come down hard.

If what you suggested was possible, there would be all sorts of manipulation going on working against the Afl's principles.

I have given the detail in my last post of the Paul Marsh interview only a day ago, where he speaks specifically about Dangerfield, so more relevant than your old quote. Suggest you listen.

It's is also "fantasy thinking" from YOU, if you believe that a Brisbane or a Carlton etc. would waste a top pick on a bloke they KNOW doesn't want to play for them. It's genuinely pointless to even be discussing these things, as it will not happen.

 

[thegerman]

If you Google "Paul Marsh Dangerfield" you will get a link to his 5aa interview only put up a day ago so it is current aflpa thinking. He mentions that he hopes the crows get fair compensation for Dangerfield & ok for Afc to match a rfa. He also mentioned both clubs tend to be reasonable traders so he hoped a deal would be reached easily. Suggest you listen as it debunks the theory that the aflpa are against rfa's & matching.

Yep, and the point is, did he say fair? Or did he say get "their"?

In all the direct quotes from the interview, I've never seen the statement "fair".

In all of this, you want equal trade, when nothing is in fact so.

 

[Brentmeister]

And if you believe that the GC money was purely GC money and not AFL subsided then you are…. well…. I 'd have to ban myself…

Go Catters

That's beside the point. Even if the AFL offered Gary a billion, it still comes back to the point that Geelong couldn't offer Gary as much, and therefore the comment from one of your comrades earlier that "we considered the offer made to Gary, decided not to match, then slapped him on the back and bid him farewell without complaint" was way off the mark.

So yes, I think you'll have to ban yourself!

 

[dazbroncos]

AFC takes FA compo.

GFC Gets:
Danger

AFC Gets:
#14.

GFC /AFC Trade:

GFC Loses: Pick 9, Rd 1 2016.

GFC Gains: Pick 14. Rd 2 2016 and Kerridge. ( outside AFC best 22 and mentioned by many AFC posters as trade bait)


AFC 2015 : Has 2 x Rd 1 - 9, 13
AFC 2016: Has 2 x Rd 1 picks.

GFC 2015: Pick 14
GFC 2016: No rd1, 2 x Rd2

Gets PD to GFC. AFC end up with 2 x RD 1 this year and 2 x Rd 1 next year. Lost PD and Kerridge.
AFL gets PD to where he wants and GFC gives up picks to get it done and loses trade value points in the process.

Leaves Crows with 4 x Rd1 picks over 2 years.
Go Catters

 

[Willo_]

Probably because you are the ones needing to come up with value for Dangerfield, not us!

Unfortunately for you guys you won't get value.

If you match it is simply about getting better value than the offered compo pick...

And for all the chest beating and who-hah at the moment, the player will end up where they nominate.

They always do thesedays

 

[Son_Of_God29]

You really need to research the draft rules as this is fantasy thinking.

Once danger goes into the draft he is committing to whatever club drafts him. If he refuses to go to say Brisbane, the Afl will come down hard.

If what you suggested was possible, there would be all sorts of manipulation going on working against the Afl's principles.

I have given the detail in my last post of the Paul Marsh interview only a day ago, where he speaks specifically about Dangerfield, so more relevant than your old quote. Suggest you listen.

If Danger goes to the Draft the only club that loses is Adelaide - Because Danger gets to leave for Nothing.

Geelong will still have there list and there young players along with an opportunity to gain Danger in the draft.

If another club drafts him all well and good that just means the another young player will be available at pick 9 & again the Crows lose as they had an opportunity to get pick 9 and possibly draft the player that slides to Geelong.

If Adelaide are going to jump up and down and demand more than GFC is willing to part with then he will be taken in the draft - therefore Adelaide lose again

It all comes down to the fact Adelaide have no leverage to trade danger to any other club but Geelong because PD has made it Chrystal clear that he only wants to go to Geelong

 

[Son_Of_God29]

Wow, geelong board is tolerant. I might have to visit more often.
Kane, you are very naïve if you think drafts aren't manipulated. If danger went to the draft, he would goto Geelong if that's where his nominated club is.
Why would any other club take a risk, when he has just left a club he loves after 7?? Years to move closer to family, it wouldn't make sense and all the arguments you make against are just hot air.
Adelaide would be mad not to trade with geelong with a compo pick available. Only the clubs will know what they are prepared to give and take. Should be interesting.

We are Way to tolerant of other posters on our board id like to see Mods take a stance against it, without going all AFC lockout style

 

[dazbroncos]

We are Way to tolerant of other posters on our board id like to see Mods take a stance against it, without going all AFC lockout style

We appreciate the opinions of others on here. If you see something you don't like, you know what to do.

We enforce the board rules. Break them and see what happens. We'd rather let people hang themselves than shoot on sight as plenty of other boards do.

Go Catters

 

[Son_Of_God29]

We appreciate the opinions of others on here. If you see something you don't like, you know what to do.

We enforce the board rules. Break them and see what happens. We'd rather let people hang themselves than shoot on sight as plenty of other boards do.

Go Catters

Mate we may appreciate the opinions of others but what I and other posters do not appreciate is Sh!t being spoken about OUR club on OUR Board.

I understand that being a mod is a difficult job sometimes but seriously how much more do we have to take