Look that is a slanted article. Even the Richmond deal is BS. Fitzroy wanted Hogg and traded players to get him. Buckley wasn’t even part of the normal draft. He was allocated to Brisbane under their zone concessions. He clearly didn’t want to play for them – as opposed to leaving for a premiership! He negotiated his exit deal. Smart work. Brisbane got two nominated players outside a named top 10 plus the clubs first round draft pick. They got Collingwood’s premiership CHF and a bloke that was on target to win the Norm Smith Medal until he got knocked out by TD. They also got pick 12 which got them one of the Scott’s. This was a price worked out for an unproven player at AFL level. What bully boy tactics did Collingwood employ? The trade price was in his contract. Collingwood named their top 10.Beckers said:Read this again very, very slowly and break it down into small pieces:
Nathan Buckley effectively told the Bears who wouldn't play for them and instead of letting him enter the draft, the Bears agreed to let him go to the club of his choice, Collingwood. The Bears got little in return. Similar 'bully-boy' tactics saw Richmond persuade Fitzroy to part with Michael Gale, Paul Broderick and Mathew Dundas in exchange for Richmond skipper Jeff Hogg. Richmond won that exchange.
It doesn't seem like a very good business deal that Brisbane arranged now was it? It also appears that the author of the article was under the same impression as the rest of the footballing world that Collingwood employed "bully-boy" tactics behind the scenes to broker the deal? If he had re-entered the draft after his year at the Bears, Collingwood would NOT have had the chance to draft him?
BUT none of that is draft tampering which is what you claimed.