Oh, no!!! an "investigation"!

[MightyFighting]

The AFL will "launch" an investigation into the Rawlings deal. Three things:


1) The trade was against the spirit of the rules, but the law only cares if it's against the letter of the rules.

2) Unlike the government, the AFL cannot make rules retrospectively and then punish people for having broken them before they existed.

3) All clubs probably like the idea that they too can punish wayward players in the same way in the future.

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

Aren't the AFL priceless? Always looking for some way to fine others when all they are doing is trying to work their silly system to the best of their ability.
If we really are into investigations as such, why not ask the question if the salary cap and the draft contravenes restrain of trade laws.
Careful AFL, you are treading on thin ice.

 

[lazydog]

Collusion, as someone pointed out, is where BOTH parties benefit at the time.

Let them investigate.

 

[feher]

Originally posted by MightyFighting
The AFL will "launch" an investigation into the Rawlings deal. Three things:


1) The trade was against the spirit of the rules, but the law only cares if it's against the letter of the rules.

2) Unlike the government, the AFL cannot make rules retrospectively and then punish people for having broken them before they existed.

3) All clubs probably like the idea that they too can punish wayward players in the same way in the future.

it wasn't against the rules what happened, we gave away a future champion in veale we wanted to keep him, the dogs offer was too good to refuse so we traded him

 

[Hawk71]

No case to answer!

 

[PJK]

The question is being vindictive to a player actually going to have a detrimental effect on morale in the long term?
Does it prevent players from wanting to leave?
Or does it foster a distrust between administration and players?
Is Jacobs the equal of rawlings and Veale?
Time will tell

 

[carlos' roos]

it is clear you didn't want rawlings to be a kanga in the first place, we offered you a better deal (picks 9 and a player maybe another pick aswell) than what you got. Hawthorn should be ashamed of themselves not letting a great player from their club have so much as a smooth transition to a new home. Now we have to get him through court or the afl renigging your trade. shame on you.
How is HOOK saying hawthorn tried, obviously not hard enough, its not like we offered pick 6687 and 876876 for rawlings.. Big girls who couldn't have a player they wanted so made sure he couldn't get what he wanted.

p.s Sorry PD

 

[feher]

Originally posted by PJK
The question is being vindictive to a player actually going to have a detrimental effect on morale in the long term?
Does it prevent players from wanting to leave?
Or does it foster a distrust between administration and players?
Is Jacobs the equal of rawlings and Veale?
Time will tell

I fully agree, who ever is left without a contract at the club this season and next will be looking over there shoulder. This certainly wasn't a good move in terms of player morral, but a good move to get rid of jade (and **** him off) and give veale some fame.

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

Originally posted by carlos' roos
it is clear you didn't want rawlings to be a kanga in the first place, we offered you a better deal (picks 9 and a player maybe another pick aswell) than what you got. Hawthorn should be ashamed of themselves not letting a great player from their club have so much as a smooth transition to a new home. Now we have to get him through court or the afl renigging your trade. shame on you.
How is HOOK saying hawthorn tried, obviously not hard enough, its not like we offered pick 6687 and 876876 for rawlings.. Big girls who couldn't have a player they wanted so made sure he couldn't get what he wanted.

p.s Sorry PD

I've had enough of all this crying from Kangaroos sooks. Let's try to make one thing perfectly clear ... I'm typing slowly because I know you can't read fast ...... you are looking at this from a Kangaroos objective only. You wanted Rawlings, you missed out, and you are understandably disappointed.
But there is a far bigger picture than just what the Kangaroos wanted. It is not Hawthorn's role to be looking after the needs of anyone else but themselves.
Because Rawlings told the footy world he wanted to play with the Kangaroos, that made Hawthorn's job very difficult in that they were suddenly expected to deal with one club only ... the Kangaroos.
They couldn't strike a deal, just like Port Adelaide couldn't deal with Collingwood. That's life, we can't always get what we want.
But don't start stamping your feet and heaping ALL the blame solely at the feet of the Hawthorn Football Club.
They were just trying to make the best of a very difficult situation after Rawlings and his manager Pick-a-ring painted them into a corner.
If you really want to scream at someone, have a go at Rawlings' manager for loading Rawlings with a head full of crap information. For telling him he would be able to play for the Kangaroos in 2004 without talking to Hawthorn first,
Next year the Kangaroos may be faced with the same situation, and I bet you won't be placing the other club's wishes before your own. Think about it.

 

[BigCat1]

The thing that looks really sus in all this is that Hawthorn has apparently turned down much better offers just to stiff Jade Rawlings. Even at the last minute Geelong and Melbourne through better offers at you. Melbourne offered pick 5 and Geelong offered pick 7 and 20. Rawlings would have agreed to go to one of these clubs and the Hawks could still have on-traded to get Jacobs. That is where this collusion theory is coming from. If that's true then an investigation must be held. I hope that all the ill will this is going to bring you is going to be worth it.

I reckon it's all very harsh considering it was partly your fault in the way you managed your cap that led to him leaving.

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

Originally posted by BigCat1
The thing that looks really sus in all this is that Hawthorn has apparently turned down much better offers just to stiff Jade Rawlings. Even at the last minute Geelong and Melbourne through better offers at you. Melbourne offered pick 5 and Geelong offered pick 7 and 20. Rawlings would have agreed to go to one of these clubs and the Hawks could still have on-traded to get Jacobs. That is where this collusion theory is coming from. If that's true then an investigation must be held. I hope that all the ill will this is going to bring you is going to be worth it.

I reckon it's all very harsh considering it was partly your fault in the way you managed your cap that led to him leaving.

First of all, if they have an "investigation", they will find Hawthorn have no case to answer. They did nothing wrong under trade week rules ..... so there will be no "ill" .... sorry to disappoint you.
And secondly ..... who was it who forced the Hawks into trading corner? I think it may have been Rawlings, and his Mickey Mouse Manager.
How are Geelong managing their finances by the way? Okay?

 

[BigCat1]

Originally posted by Adelaide Hawk
First of all, if they have an "investigation", they will find Hawthorn have no case to answer. They did nothing wrong under trade week rules ..... so there will be no "ill" .... sorry to disappoint you.
And secondly ..... who was it who forced the Hawks into trading corner? I think it may have been Rawlings, and his Mickey Mouse Manager.
How are Geelong managing their finances by the way? Okay?

Mate take it easy. I has making a point, not starting a war. Of course Jade walked on the club but you have to take some responsibility for it. Even the most one-eyed hawks can admit that. Ps our finances are fine now thanks for asking.

Secondly. Do you think it is right accepting a lesser offer just to **** Rawlings off. A lot of Hawks fans are taking the moral highground on this one saying Jade backed them into a corner. Rubbish if you had accepted Geelongs offer of pick 7 and 20 that they put up on Friday then you still would have got jacobs and been able to keep pick 20 for yourself. Jade would have been relatively happy and nobody would have said a thing. Surely that would have been a better deal for you?

I ask you this and all other Hawks fans. Why didn't you take that or Melb's pick 5? Did this revenge thing get out of control? This is what people don't understand. Can you please explain it to me without all the agro.

 

[utility]

Originally posted by BigCat1
The thing that looks really sus in all this is that Hawthorn has apparently turned down much better offers just to stiff Jade Rawlings. Even at the last minute Geelong and Melbourne through better offers at you. Melbourne offered pick 5 and Geelong offered pick 7 and 20. Rawlings would have agreed to go to one of these clubs and the Hawks could still have on-traded to get Jacobs. That is where this collusion theory is coming from. If that's true then an investigation must be held. I hope that all the ill will this is going to bring you is going to be worth it.

I reckon it's all very harsh considering it was partly your fault in the way you managed your cap that led to him leaving.

Ditto.

 

[Ghostwriter]

Originally posted by MightyFighting

3) All clubs probably like the idea that they too can punish wayward players in the same way in the future.

Care to expand on that statement a little.

 

[MrFurious]

pppfffftt! AFL investigations are a fact of life for us at Essendon... BIG DEAL

I reckon the Hawks did the right thing for themselves...if they're losing a 26 (?) year old player, with X many games experience, how can picks 9 and 24 replace that? The best option for Hawthorn for the immediate future was to grab DJ from the Bombers... end of story...

In future, players wanting to leave any club may just take it a little more cautiously, in case they get 'jaded'.... or 'nicked'...errr,...pretty bad, i know

 

[Ghostwriter]

Hang on a minute if you read some of the Hawks post re Rawlings he has only played the last 3 years and last year was the only year he was any good.
Its funny how the service Rawlings gave the Hawks changes to suit the argument.
So what is it Hawks 9 years service or 1 year?.

 

[Grendel]

Improved consistently for the last four. Without doubt, this season past was his best.

Dont know what thats got to do with the rest of the thread but there you have it.

 

[MightyFighting]

Originally posted by BigCat1

I ask you this and all other Hawks fans. Why didn't you take that or Melb's pick 5? Did this revenge thing get out of control? This is what people don't understand. Can you please explain it to me without all the agro.

A player can only be traded to a club he agrees to go to. Rawlings wouldn't agree to go to either Geelong or Melbourne.

 

[ROCK22]

There is no case to answer. Rawlings-- good riddance to old rubbish

 

[carlos' roos]

Originally posted by ROCK22
There is no case to answer. Rawlings-- good riddance to old rubbish

so if he wanted to stay now you wouldn't have him. Don't even answer because you will be called a liar. Oh how quickly you turn, you are as bad as a cwood supporter once they lose a grannie

 

[BUBBALOUIS]

Originally posted by BigCat1
The thing that looks really sus in all this is that Hawthorn has apparently turned down much better offers just to stiff Jade Rawlings. Even at the last minute Geelong and Melbourne through better offers at you. Melbourne offered pick 5 and Geelong offered pick 7 and 20. Rawlings would have agreed to go to one of these clubs and the Hawks could still have on-traded to get Jacobs. That is where this collusion theory is coming from. If that's true then an investigation must be held. I hope that all the ill will this is going to bring you is going to be worth it.

I reckon it's all very harsh considering it was partly your fault in the way you managed your cap that led to him leaving.

pleae please please get your facts right before you slag off at Hawthorn, John Hook on fox footy said the night before the deal went down, he pleaded with rawlings to nominate melbourne or geelong as fall back positions , in case the kangas couldnt deliver, rawlings and his manager told them to forget it , it was the kangas or the draft (obviously thinking hawthorn would cave), well the way i read it he got his wish and is entering the pre season draft

 

[BigCat1]

Originally posted by BUBBALOUIS
pleae please please get your facts right before you slag off at Hawthorn, John Hook on fox footy said the night before the deal went down, he pleaded with rawlings to nominate melbourne or geelong as fall back positions , in case the kangas couldnt deliver, rawlings and his manager told them to forget it , it was the kangas or the draft (obviously thinking hawthorn would cave), well the way i read it he got his wish and is entering the pre season draft

Well this is where the truth is seemingly different. Brian Cook confirmed today that the Cats offered pick 7 and 20 for Rawlings on Friday at Pickering's suggestion. When the Roos deal broke down in the morning Rawlings was prepared to go to Geelong or the Dees. He still maintained that under no circumstances was he going to agree to go to the WB. Your right on Thursday it was the Kanga's or nowhere but on Friday all that changed. You still havent answered the question. Why didn't the Hawks just accept the better deal? Don't tell me they couldnt have got Jacobs with pick 7 and kept pick 20 for themselves. Do they hate Jade so much that they are willing to hurt themseleves to extract a bit of revenge?

 

[feher]

Originally posted by BigCat1
Well this is where the truth is seemingly different. Brian Cook confirmed today that the Cats offered pick 7 and 20 for Rawlings on Friday at Pickering's suggestion. When the Roos deal broke down in the morning Rawlings was prepared to go to Geelong or the Dees. He still maintained that under no circumstances was he going to agree to go to the WB. Your right on Thursday it was the Kanga's or nowhere but on Friday all that changed. You still havent answered the question. Why didn't the Hawks just accept the better deal? Don't tell me they couldnt have got Jacobs with pick 7 and kept pick 20 for themselves. Do they hate Jade so much that they are willing to hurt themseleves to extract a bit of revenge?

hawthorn wanted players not picks so:

1) if we wanted jacobs, then geel, north, melb whould have to trade with sheeds
2) geel, north, melb would have to come up with a suitable replacement with rawlings, obviously there was nothing suitble from these clubs, so we traded with the bullies

do you understand we wanted players not picks, and you will have to ask sheeds what is jacobs worth, not hawthorn we did not control jacobs trade value!

 

[olster]

Can someone please explain how this is not draft tampering? Two clubs negoitiate a deal whereby one club offers an early pick in exchange for the other club not trading their player to any club, therefore forcing him into the psd. As a coincidence the team who gave up the early pick has the first pick in the psd. Does this not alter the outcome of the draft, as the player has no other options? The AFL should grow some balls and ensures this never happens again.

 

[feher]

Originally posted by olster
Can someone please explain how this is not draft tampering? Two clubs negoitiate a deal whereby one club offers an early pick in exchange for the other club not trading their player to any club, therefore forcing him into the psd. As a coincidence the team who gave up the early pick has the first pick in the psd. Does this not alter the outcome of the draft, as the player has no other options? The AFL should grow some balls and ensures this never happens again.

what do you mean the player has no other option? no player that enters a draft be it national or pre-season has any say were they end up, the team with that pick, picks the player. We did not tamper with the draft, we didn't trade anyone against there wishes. we can still keep rawlings if all parties can agree to it, thus not focing him into the draft.

at the end of the day he will be a dog, and the afl can't do s**t