To Those Bagging Hudson…

[Drummond]

I hope those that have been bagging Hudson can now wake up and smell the roses. 30 year old Jason Torney has been dumped after a very solid season. What does this have to do with Hudson you might ask? Well Hudson is 28 and wanted a 3 year deal; the AFC only offered him a 2 year deal. If Hudson were to have accepted this deal he would’ve been out of contract at the end of 2009 and with the way they have handled Torney, there is NO doubt Hudson would’ve been dumped at this time. So considering Hudson was simply looking after his own future, why should he have accepted a deal that would’ve sent him into an early retirement?

The Western Bulldogs offered him a 3 year deal which gives him more security. Why wouldn’t he have taken them up on this offer considering the ruthless, and heartless, display we shown to our older players?

Good luck with the Dogs Hudson.

 

[earlsta]

Torney's one of my favourites, I've seen him countless countless times put his body on the line and take a mark in our defence, he is very very good.

Yep he's 30...but do we have a replacement to do the job better than him? He's a true quality player, could have played a lot longer, seemed to get better in the last two years.

 

[lincsPJ]

there is NO doubt Hudson would’ve been dumped at this time.

do you use tarot, clairvoyants or magic 8 balls for these wild predictions?

you know the 30yo contract rule that the afc has.

 

[Drummond]

you know the 30yo contract rule that the afc has.

Working wonders.

 

[Pride of SA]

Working wonders.

better rule than the 'keep players who`ve shown nothing for several years on the list' some of us here subscribe to.

Hudson has to look after himself for sure, but the AFC has to look after itself as well.
29 year old with one knee op and a grand total of 55 games dont get 3 year deals.
period.

If McLeod can cop the 30yo rule, Hudson can. IF not, tell your story walking Huddo, you`re not THAT crucial to our future plans.

 

[Drummond]

better rule than the 'keep players who`ve shown nothing for several years on the list' some of us here subscribe to.

Hudson has to look after himself for sure, but the AFC has to look after itself as well.
29 year old with one knee op and a grand total of 55 games dont get 3 year deals.
period.

If McLeod can cop the 30yo rule, Hudson can. IF not, tell your story walking Huddo, you`re not THAT crucial to our future plans.

That’s all well and good, so why then are supporting bagging Hudson???

There is no reason to, he’s done nothing wrong.

 

[lincsPJ]

Working wonders.

but the contract law doesnt have anything to do with the delisting of torney. if they wanted him, they wouldve offered a 1 yr deal.

as for huddo... well.. we have a hunch there might be some in house issues there within the playing group as to why he may have wanted out. we'll probably never find out either. i reckon the whole contract excuse was only part of the reason he is now at footscray.

 

[out of order]

while he wasnt exactly loyal, i think most ppl will bag the club for its incompetence in trading, not huddo. We needed to get a first rounder for him. We had too many rucks, so longterm we are probably better off without him tbh. It was up to us to get some value for him

 

[fightingdreamer88]

Yeah, there's NO DOUBT Hudson would have been delisted.

And you call me unintelligent? Go take a chill pill and come back later.

 

[lincsPJ]

while he wasnt exactly loyal, i think most ppl will bag the club for its incompetence in trading, not huddo. We needed to get a first rounder for him. We had too many rucks, so longterm we are probably better off without him tbh. It was up to us to get some value for him

trading in the hudson scenario was not really up to the afc... unless we wanted to offer another player or pick to upgrade the pick we received.

it was kind of the wb to give us something when hudson could have left with no compensation and been picked up in the psd.

 

[fightingdreamer88]

while he wasnt exactly loyal, i think most ppl will bag the club for its incompetence in trading, not huddo. We needed to get a first rounder for him. We had too many rucks, so longterm we are probably better off without him tbh. It was up to us to get some value for him

Our hands really were tied. It sucks but that was the situation.

 

[Drummond]

Yeah, there's NO DOUBT Hudson would have been delisted.

And you call me unintelligent? Go take a chill pill and come back later.

Yes, no doubt. Why was Torney delisted? Because he’s 30 and we have Symes.

Hudson would’ve been 30 and we have Maric and Griffin therefore he would've been sent packing. Heaven forbid if either fails to develop.

 

[GlaCial]

I hope those that have been bagging Hudson can now wake up and smell the roses. 30 year old Jason Torney has been dumped after a very solid season. What does this have to do with Hudson you might ask? Well Hudson is 28 and wanted a 3 year deal; the AFC only offered him a 2 year deal. If Hudson were to have accepted this deal he would’ve been out of contract at the end of 2009 and with the way they have handled Torney, there is NO doubt Hudson would’ve been dumped at this time. So considering Hudson was simply looking after his own future, why should he have accepted a deal that would’ve sent him into an early retirement?

The Western Bulldogs offered him a 3 year deal which gives him more security. Why wouldn’t he have taken them up on this offer considering the ruthless, and heartless, display we shown to our older players?

Good luck with the Dogs Hudson.

Are you bagging Adelaide for de-listing 30 year olds or are you still getting over Pfeiffer?

NSS, of course Hudson went because he wasn't confident that he would get a 3rd year. But what are you going to do, keep Freddy, Bones, Pussy, the Jarman bros, Mods and Benny on the list forever.

De-listing great or even good players (and in your case even Gibson and Pfieffer) is never popular, but like it or not someone has to do it. I'm just glad we have people who have the balls to make these tough decisions, and then put up with the rubbish that gets thrown at them.

 

[GlaCial]

That’s all well and good, so why then are supporting bagging Hudson???

There is no reason to, he’s done nothing wrong.

He walked out on the club after he spent the 2nd of 3 years recovering from a serious injury. We stood by him. In retrospect we should have de-listed him in at the end of 2005, and given Maric, Meesen and Griffen more time.

 

[out of order]

trading in the hudson scenario was not really up to the afc... unless we wanted to offer another player or pick to upgrade the pick we received.

it was kind of the wb to give us something when hudson could have left with no compensation and been picked up in the psd.

nah thats rubbish mate if the bullies could of got him for nothing in the PSD they would have. They had pick4 not 1 so they know there's a risk, thats why they wanted to trade. Its up to the AFC to put the pressure on them to deliver like any other club does to us.

At the very least pick19 should of been coming to us, instead we settled for pick 22 which somehow blew out to some irrelevant pick due to negotiating incompetence. Doesnt it strike you as odd we always end on the bad end of deals.

 

[Drummond]

He walked out on the club after he spent the 2nd of 3 years recovering from a serious injury. We stood by him. In retrospect we should have de-listed him in at the end of 2005, and given Maric, Meesen and Griffen more time.

Gotta love this argument. Oh we stood by him, what an effort by the AFC! Of course we stood by him, he was our best ruckman in 2005, why the heck would we have delisted him?

The bottom line is that Hudson wanted insurance; we weren’t prepared to give it to him, so he walked. Absolutely nothing wrong with what he did, and yet everyone is bagging him to no end.

 

[lincsPJ]

nah thats rubbish mate if the bullies could of got him for nothing in the PSD they would have. They had pick4 not 1 so they know there's a risk, thats why they wanted to trade. Its up to the AFC to put the pressure on them to deliver like any other club does to us.

At the very least pick19 should of been coming to us, instead we settled for pick 22 which somehow blew out to some irrelevant pick due to negotiating incompetence. Doesnt it strike you as odd we always end on the bad end of deals.

if they were worried, they wouldve sorted that "risk" out with carlton, richmond and melbourne with a deal to not select hudson. so yeh it was easier for them to trade with us, but they were never going to offer too much.

 

[GlaCial]

Gotta love this argument. Oh we stood by him, what an effort by the AFC! Of course we stood by him, he was our best ruckman in 2005, why the heck would we have delisted him?

The bottom line is that Hudson wanted insurance; we weren’t prepared to give it to him, so he walked. Absolutely nothing wrong with what he did, and yet everyone is bagging him to no end.

Of course it was the right thing for him to do. But it's not going to stop me from bagging him for holding us to ransom.

Good on him for doing it, but don't expect me to thank him for doing it.

 

[Drummond]

Of course it was the right thing for him to do. But it's not going to stop me from bagging him for holding us to ransom.

Good on him for doing it, but don't expect me to thank him for doing it.

Case closed.

Hudson did was what right for him, and considering the ruthlessness displayed with Torney, why should he have taken his chances?

 

[Pride of SA]

Gotta love this argument. Oh we stood by him, what an effort by the AFC! Of course we stood by him, he was our best ruckman in 2005, why the heck would we have delisted him?

The bottom line is that Hudson wanted insurance; we weren’t prepared to give it to him, so he walked. Absolutely nothing wrong with what he did, and yet everyone is bagging him to no end.

I dont know about bagging him. He could have just said 'guys thanks for pulling me off the scrapheap at 25 when no-one wanted me, but I think I need to go elsewhere to get the most from my career, can you organise a trade'

instead he put the club over a barrel by effectively forcing them to take whatever they could get for him or else.

and since my loyalty is to the AFC and not an individual player, Huddo can go and get ****ed.

Theres a reason Hudsons mobile phone inbox is full of abusive messages from AFC players and Mattners isnt.

 

[Dandy_GO]

Gotta love this argument. Oh we stood by him, what an effort by the AFC! Of course we stood by him, he was our best ruckman in 2005, why the heck would we have delisted him?

The bottom line is that Hudson wanted insurance; we weren’t prepared to give it to him, so he walked. Absolutely nothing wrong with what he did, and yet everyone is bagging him to no end.

Correct.
I was annoyed by the whole Hudson thing, but was more annoyed at whatever was happening on the clubs end to cause such a reaction.
It shits me when I see people whinging about Watts/Hudson/Meesen etc as if they owe the club something, when these same people are happy to see Hart/Torney etc delisted without the smallest ounce of compassion.

 

[GlaCial]

Correct.
I was annoyed by the whole Hudson thing, but was more annoyed at whatever was happening on the clubs end to cause such a reaction.
It shits me when I see people whinging about Watts/Hudson/Meesen etc as if they owe the club something, when these same people are happy to see Hart/Torney etc delisted without the smallest ounce of compassion.

And how do you proposed that we compensate them? With 100 virgins in the afterlife? (oh no not another infraction).

 

[Dandy_GO]

And how do you proposed that we compensate them? With 100 virgins in the afterlife? (oh no not another infraction).

"Compassion" != "Compensation"

 

[pjcrows]

Case closed.

Hudson did was what right for him, and considering the ruthlessness displayed with Torney, why should he have taken his chances?

Your continued use of exaggerated and over-hyped language suggests that you would be a very good: a) author of crime thriller novels, or b) Liberal Party propagandist.

 

[GlaCial]

Correct.
I was annoyed by the whole Hudson thing, but was more annoyed at whatever was happening on the clubs end to cause such a reaction.
It shits me when I see people whinging about Watts/Hudson/Meesen etc as if they owe the club something, when these same people are happy to see Hart/Torney etc delisted without the smallest ounce of compassion.

OK, so how do you expect us to be compassionate? Send them Roses Chocolates and flowers?