List Mgmt. Our List 2014 - Trade, De-list and Draft - (keep it all in here)

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.

Log in to remove this ad.

I'm stumped. I must have missed something.

I'd like to know which rule enables Mumford to arrange a move to GWS without it being trade week, without him having been delisted, and without him being a FA.

Anyone got something for me?

And please, the AFL's rule of "We'll allow anything to ensure success in Sydney" isn't an actual rule, despite how obvious it has become in reality.
 
I'm stumped. I must have missed something.

I'd like to know which rule enables Mumford to arrange a move to GWS without it being trade week, without him having been delisted, and without him being a FA.

Anyone got something for me?

And please, the AFL's rule of "We'll allow anything to ensure success in Sydney" isn't an actual rule, despite how obvious it has become in reality.

they did it with davis mid season '11
 
I'm stumped. I must have missed something.

I'd like to know which rule enables Mumford to arrange a move to GWS without it being trade week, without him having been delisted, and without him being a FA.

Anyone got something for me?

And please, the AFL's rule of "We'll allow anything to ensure success in Sydney" isn't an actual rule, despite how obvious it has become in reality.

they did it with davis mid season '11

Yep.

The AFL is well and truly amateur hour. Certain rules for some that don't apply to others. Stating a rule saying "it's against the rules to poach players before trade and free agency period" then completely dismiss this rule for GWS & Sydney is a load of ****ing garbage.
 
I'm stumped. I must have missed something.

I'd like to know which rule enables Mumford to arrange a move to GWS without it being trade week, without him having been delisted, and without him being a FA.

Anyone got something for me?

And please, the AFL's rule of "We'll allow anything to ensure success in Sydney" isn't an actual rule, despite how obvious it has become in reality.

Pick 1 in the PSD. They offer a miserable trade deal knowing if Swans don't agree they are guaranteed to get him for nix. Nothing can stop GWS from getting him except Mummy accepting an offer elsewhere, so if they have a deal with him its a lock.
 
I'm stumped. I must have missed something.

I'd like to know which rule enables Mumford to arrange a move to GWS without it being trade week, without him having been delisted, and without him being a FA.

Anyone got something for me?

And please, the AFL's rule of "We'll allow anything to ensure success in Sydney" isn't an actual rule, despite how obvious it has become in reality.

I think Mumford can move straight across to GWS without any roadblocks due to their number 1 pick in the PSD. They essentially don't need to trade for him and why would they after the Swans snatched Buddy from them. It's unusual because Mumford is still on Sydney's list right now. They technically could have waited until next month but why let the Swans get all the attention?
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Read on the Essendon board a deal that involved Crameri + steak knives for Bulldogs pick 4 :oops:
bullshit-o.gif


We got less for a reigning coleman medalist
 
maybe it's all the bigfooty cynics getting to me but I get the feeling we overrate Laids and Duigan's trade value

yeah I know... but if they are getting Mummy, they dont need Hampson or Knockers... therefore the only players that we have of potential value to them would be Laidler and Duigan... who would not only provide mature experienced bodies, but leadership qualities as well.

But something tells me that if we dont find Laidler a new home, we might just be re-signing him on a 1 year contract and playing him more next year to increase his trade value.
 
If Betts leaves and Thomas comes to Carlton we lose our compensation pick. It's a win/loss scenario.
In the case that Betts is firm on leaving Victoria and wants to move to Adelaide for personal reasons, wouldn't Carlton want to match Adelaide's offer. This is not to retain Betts but rather get at least something for him. Adelaide would be forced to cough up a player like McKay or McKernan or a draft pick to acquire Betts. In effect we could at least get some value from Betts and get Thomas for nothing.
 
If Betts leaves and Thomas comes to Carlton we lose our compensation pick. It's a win/loss scenario.
In the case that Betts is firm on leaving Victoria and wants to move to Adelaide for personal reasons, wouldn't Carlton want to match Adelaide's offer. This is not to retain Betts but rather get at least something for him. Adelaide would be forced to cough up a player like McKay or McKernan or a draft pick to acquire Betts. In effect we could at least get some value from Betts and get Thomas for nothing.

If we match their offer then Betts will just sign up and refuse to be traded.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top