Opinion The greatest trade in history?

[SM]

No, I actually do think your original point is bullshit. The fact that you didn't actually know the numbers you were talking about adds to the widely held belief on this board that a lot of what you argue is contrarian, rather than considered. Unless you're on a main board pod cast in which case your knees are in the air.

So you're telling me that you research thoroughly before every single point you make on this board? Give me a break. I was under the strong impression that those were the figures involved with Mitchell, and freely suggested if I was wrong that I would withdraw my point. What more do you want me to say? Are you finished sucking up to Vonn now?

If a lot of what I argue is contrarian then why haven't I been on here day in day out bickering about the Franklin deal when it would have been so easy to pick a fight with everyone? This board is crap a lot of the time these days so I refrain from posting much on it.

 

[SM]

I'll just leave this here.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/sport/the-swans-15m-man-is-only-17/story-e6frg7mf-1226012256931

 

[Kummerspeck]

So you're telling me that you research thoroughly before every single point you make on this board? Give me a break. I was under the strong impression that those were the figures involved with Mitchell

If I'm going to attempt to refute an article or post, I usually google a bit.

If a lot of what I argue is contrarian then why haven't I been on here day in day out bickering about the Franklin deal when it would have been so easy to pick a fight with everyone?

Ease of argument doesn't have anything to do with being a contrarian, nor does the desire to argue excessively.

And the more you mention that podcast, the more I'm convinced that you're just a poor little boy jealous that no one's shining the spotlight on him despite his best attempt to keep it pointed in his direction.

Are you actually convinced or do are you just under a strong impression? I also resent your continual personal attacks on myself and my intentions. Be aware that the moderators have been informed and you are being monitored.

 

[SM]

If I'm going to attempt to refute an article or post, I usually google a bit.

Ease of argument doesn't have anything to do with being a contrarian, nor does the desire to argue excessively.


Are you actually convinced or do are you just under a strong impression?

Try forming actual sentences that I can understand, and then get back to me. In the mean time read the article that reaffirms my understanding of Mitchell's contract. I tend not to research when I'm fairly convinced my memory serves me well, as it has done in this case.

 

[RW]

Donners is right, there's no way we can possibly assess the cost of the Franklin deal now. The thing about the 9 years is that at face value it looks like a massive risk, but because it's so far ahead and so much will change between now and then, our predictions are even more useless than they usually are (well, at least mine are). Look at Alistair Lynch, his career was nearly over less than halfway through his 10-year deal (due to chronic fatigue syndrome) but he retired at 36 with three premierships to his name! We don't even know what our list will look like in 9 years time. So for now, I'm just going to take things as they come and enjoy watching Buddy kick a few bags at the SCG next year and hope he helps us grab a premiership or two.

 

[robbieando]

Wasn't it $400-500k? If it was less then I retract my point.

Go lower. Your thinking of the offer GWS made him ($1million over 3 years) not enter the draft and join them as one of their 17 year old priority selections. We didn't match the GWS offer only committed to drafting him via the father son process and provided him with a higher contract than a normal 1st Round Selection on a long term deal. He wouldn't be on more than 200k. So yeah....

 

[SM]

Go lower. Your thinking of the offer GWS made him ($1million over 3 years) not enter the draft and join them as one of their 17 year old priority selections. We didn't match the GWS offer only committed to drafting him via the father son process and provided him with a higher contract than a normal 1st Round Selection on a long term deal. He wouldn't be on more than 200k. So yeah....

Article I just found points to my belief that he's averaging 500k a year.

 

[Kummerspeck]

Try forming actual sentences that I can understand, and then get back to me.

I refuse to dumb myself down.

In the mean time read the article that reaffirms my understanding of Mitchell's contract. I tend not to research when I'm fairly convinced my memory serves me well, as it has done in this case.

Sure: Differing versions exist of how much was offered and for how long. Your swallowing of tabloids /= fact.

 

[SM]

I refuse to dumb myself down.

Yes, forming intelligible sentences equates to dumbing down. Again your logic is irrefutable.

Sure:

Differing versions exist of how much was offered and for how long. Your swallowing of tabloids /= fact.

But it does state that we offered more than GWS, which was $1m over three years.

 

[Kummerspeck]

But it does state that we offered more than GWS, which was $1m over three years.

There is no basis for anything in that article to be taken as fact. No attributed quotes and sensationalised numbers. Articles stated every year that Fevola had an in principle agreement with Sydney filled with the same kind of trash found in that.

I also highly resent your inability to not continually pass personal comments and I ask you to refrain.

 

[Heeney2Franklin]

I'll just leave this here.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/sport/the-swans-15m-man-is-only-17/story-e6frg7mf-1226012256931

Woah what is that holy shit is Mitchell really earning that much

 

[robbieando]

Article I just found points to my belief that he's averaging 500k a year.

Article points to the GWS offer more than the Swans offer. More than anything else it indicates we paid much more than we wanted too, but much less than GWS offered

but the Swans have had to pay a lot more than they were going to without GWS."

So no where near 500k a year and that isn't even the agreed offer that GWS put to Mitchell, 300k a year was (3 years, $1million)

So 200k is entirely in the ballpark

 

[SM]

Woah what is that holy shit is Mitchell really earning that much

I thought that was the whole point, we threw a lot of money at him to keep him away from GWS.

 

[Heeney2Franklin]

I thought that was the whole point, we threw a lot of money at him to keep him away from GWS.

Oh sorry for sounding so surprised mate but it's the first i have heard of it wow what a offer, sneaky bastards GWS are they wanted him badly

 

[robbieando]

Woah what is that holy shit is Mitchell really earning that much

He isn't paid that much. He was offered that much by GWS to join them instead of us. He accepted a lesser offer from us.

 

[SM]

Article points to the GWS offer more than the Swans offer. More than anything else it indicates we paid much more than we wanted too, but much less than GWS offered



So no where near 500k a year and that isn't even the agreed offer that GWS put to Mitchell, 300k a year was (3 years, $1million)

So 200k is entirely in the ballpark

It's open to interpretation, mine clearly differs from yours. To bring it back to the original point before it was derailed everything in an attempted slur, my point was that offering a large sum of money to a largely unproven player is not unheard of if they have the playing ability. Lamb has had impressive games at AFL level, Mitchell had had huge junior seasons, albeit with large injury concerns. Even if Mitchell were offered 200k, Lamb is getting 300k at GWS. If Lamb, like Mitchell, could be enticed to go to the Swans for less than the GWS offer, we would be looking at a similar offer for Lamb as Mitchell.

 

[Heeney2Franklin]

He isn't paid that much. He was offered that much by GWS to join them instead of us. He accepted a lesser offer from us.

Ohhhhh!! makes sense now thank you for further clarifying

 

[robbieando]

It's open to interpretation, mine clearly differs from yours.

There is no "Sydney matched", "offered more" or anything of the like to suggest we put a 7 figure sum in front of Mitchell in that article just that we paid more than we were originally willing to pay. I don't see how anyone can read into that article that we offered Mitchell the same money that GWS did.

To bring it back to the original point before Shitties derailed everything in an attempted slur, my point was that offering a large sum of money to a largely unproven player is not unheard of if they have the playing ability. Lamb has had impressive games at AFL level, Mitchell had had huge junior seasons, albeit with large injury concerns. Even if Mitchell were offered 200k, Lamb is getting 300k at GWS. If Lamb, like Mitchell, could be enticed to go to the Swans for less than the GWS offer, we would be looking at a similar offer for Lamb as Mitchell.

and something I rather not enter other than debate the finer details of one players contract.

 

[SM]

There is no "Sydney matched", "offered more" or anything of the like to suggest we put a 7 figure sum in front of Mitchell in that article just that we paid more than we were originally willing to pay. I don't see how anyone can read into that article that we offered Mitchell the same money that GWS did.

No, just the headline and the line "At least 1m and as much as 1.5 from the Sydney Swans when they realised they had to open their wallet."

and something I rather not enter other than debate the finer details of one players contract.

Then why jump in?

 

[Kummerspeck]

No, just the headline and the line "At least 1m and as much as 1.5 from the Sydney Swans when they realised they had to open their wallet."

Which attributed source said that?

 

[robbieando]

No, just the headline and the line "At least 1m and as much as 1.5 from the Sydney Swans when they realised they had to open their wallet."

The Headline isn't written by the journalist, but a sub editor which takes the article out of context so people read it. Well done you fell for the trick of newspaper industry

As for your "quote" nice try, but that dollar figure was the GWS offer and was clearly stated as such. No where does it say or suggest the Swans put forward the same amounts to Mitchell. If you can prove a quote from the article that does then well done, you are now the co-author of the article...

Then why jump in?

I was adding information which you admitted you DIDN'T KNOW to the thread for both general knowledge and use. That is allowed last time I checked. But I certainly wasn't jumping into the bitch fight.

 

[SM]

The Headline isn't written by the journalist, but a sub editor which takes the article out of context so people read it. Well done you fell for the trick of newspaper industry

I did not, you said that nowhere did it suggest the Swans paid 1.5.

As for your "quote" nice try, but that dollar figure was the GWS offer and was clearly stated as such. No where does it say or suggest the Swans put forward the same amounts to Mitchell. If you can prove a quote from the article that does then well done, you are now the co-author of the article...

Read the article again....

"Mitchell had at least $1 million put in front of him by GWS and as much as $1.5m after Sydney realised the need to open its own wallet."

GWS offered him $1m, and Sydney offered as much as 1.5 after realising it needed to open its own wallet.

 

[RW]

Read the article again....

"Mitchell had at least $1 million put in front of him by GWS and as much as $1.5m after Sydney realised the need to open its own wallet."

GWS offered him $1m, and Sydney offered as much as 1.5 after realising it needed to open its own wallet.

Okay, fair enough. That article wasn't worded the best so I can see the potential for confusion.

 

[robbieando]

I did not, you said that nowhere did it suggest the Swans paid 1.5.



Read the article again....

"Mitchell had at least $1 million put in front of him by GWS and as much as $1.5m after Sydney realised the need to open its own wallet."

GWS offered him $1m, and Sydney offered as much as 1.5 after realising it needed to open its own wallet.

I suggest you read it first before you tell me to even re-read it.

To begin with read this paragraph:

A three-year deal of at least $1m from GWS meant that Mitchell stood to earn $740,000 or more in his third season, by which time he would barely be out of his teens. Some of the game's finest players, such as Hawthorn's Norm Smith medallist Luke Hodge, are barely earning that sort of money. The offer -- several people close to the negotiations have indicated that a five-year deal worth $1.5m was GWS's final pitch -- said something not only about GWS's opinion of Mitchell but about its financial ability to shake the player market out from both ends.

So the $1.5 million offer was not from us but the Giants. They only went to $1.5 million when we made our offer, which certainly wasn't $1.5 million. Because if it was the article wouldn't be relying on a missing comma to state that as the fact.

You reading of your own quote is that GWS offered $1 million before we went "oh shit, can't let that happen - offer him $1.5 million". But I read it as GWS offered $1 million, we heard about it made our offer which Mitchell was happy with before the Giants made a final pitch of $1.5 million.

The article makes that clear. You just saw a comma where there wasn't one.

 

[SwanLake12]

That article is quite confusing but I also had no idea Mitchell was on that kind of money nor the lengths we had to go to to keep GWS from snatching him