-
AFLW 2024 - Round 10 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
List Mgmt. Trade: Allen Christensen traded to Brisbane in exchange for National Draft selection no. 21
- Thread starter Cattas_21
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Depending his situation they might have let him through to Brisbane and nothing would have been proven execpt that we don't get any compensation for him.
- Aug 17, 2006
- 23,681
- 22,265
- AFL Club
- Geelong
My point is, how much speculation was there about Harry Taylor last year (granted Christensen isn't at that level, but to not hear a word)? We were hearing a bit this season about how Rivers was out of contract and we needed to sign him up pronto. Heck, I even remember a fair few Geelong supporters getting a bit nervous in the 2012/13 offseason, when Richmond was looking at Trent West. It's an easy column for any football journalist: to speculate on all the out-of-contract players at each club, yet I don't think I heard Christensen's name come up once, to the point where I think we just assumed he was contracted beyond 2014.
Like how we deserved to lose Ablett you mean?
Beams at the Pies. It's not just us as some are trying to conveniently portray.
Contract or not, the player leaves if they want out these days.
The question is what was Bundy worth if contracted?
The Suns didn't even try, they had pick 15 and weren't interested.
Last edited:
Big Fozza
Premiership Player
i think that's a shit attitude
No. I'm assuming he definitely wasn't going to. And its worked out good for him.
My understanding is that the rumours about his issues change from day to day. Things like that usually become clearer. Unless there is nothing much to it.
Big Fozza
Premiership Player
- Aug 17, 2006
- 23,681
- 22,265
- AFL Club
- Geelong
Was the holding off of contract discussions between Geelong and Ablett in 2010:
a) The club's decision
and
b) To give Geelong a better chance of securing other free agents?
Not, it wasn't. Quite the opposite. Mumford went to Sydney, partly because we couldn't dream to match the Swans offer, with Ablett still needing to be signed. Therefore, if we assume for a moment that Geelong deliberately held off Christensen's contract negotiations to give it a better chance of getting Frawley, or Dangerfield or whoever, I'd say that the only thing that the Ablett and Christensen situations had in common were that they left Geelong and headed to Queensland.
BlakeyNoFlakey
Brownlow Medallist
I'll spew if they go up to him after the game and give him hugs and kisses like they do with Gazza.
Big Fozza
Premiership Player
i didn't say that.
none of us know his circumstance though and what might be going on.
serious question; why are you so upset?
Put it this way, if I told my employer at the end of my contract that I wished to move interstate to a new employer and they said no you're not, we're going to make you move to whoever we want, I'd tell them to go and get ****ed. I appreciate that the AFL is not exactly the same, but that doesn't excuse being a *****.
They all left primarily for money. Personal reasons come second.
The club wasn't going to be able to keep them no matter what they did.
Once again even if Bundy was contracted, he would have left just as Beams is leaving Collingwood.
The Suns showed little interest in signing Bundy. We would have got very little extra for him if he was contracted given his "personal reasons" and injuries.
Geelong has a stated policy to help players get to their destination too.
People can play devil's advocate all they like, it won't change a thing to how contracts.negotiations are being played out these days.
As far as I can see, the club was in a fairly awkward position here.
Bundy 'agrees' to his contract. The club knows he's under pressure in other areas of his life (outside football) so apparently doesn't push him hard to sign at the time of his 'agreement'.
Bundy apparently then changes his mind and wants out. And a very specific 'out' at that. And informs the club at the absolute eleventh hour.
I guess it's possible that he only decided on the spur of the moment to get his manager on the phone to the clubs up here. Highly improbable, though.
So Bundy's apparently concealed his intentions to have a really good look at other options in the full knowledge that the GFC still expect him to sign.
I don't really understand what the club is expected to do.
Act with integrity and take people at their word? Or actually disbelieve everyone and coduct negotiations with players in an inherent spirit of suspicion?
The club has been worked over here. And I do hope they learn from it.
But I still would always want to see the club striving to believe the best of people. And maintain the view that you should be honest in your communication with your employees so they can embrace their opportunity to be honest with you.
But it is only an 'opportunity' for the players to reflect that honesty. And the opportunity is also clearly an avenue that is open to manipulation to suit one's own purposes.
I would argue that the club is in a difficult position trying to strike the balance between 'trusting' players and protecting the club's best interests.
On current evidence, the GFC skews the approach towards empowering players to deal frankly and openly with the club. And, despite the pitfalls that approach will inevitably bring, I'm more satisfied with that style than the alternative.
Bundy 'agrees' to his contract. The club knows he's under pressure in other areas of his life (outside football) so apparently doesn't push him hard to sign at the time of his 'agreement'.
Bundy apparently then changes his mind and wants out. And a very specific 'out' at that. And informs the club at the absolute eleventh hour.
I guess it's possible that he only decided on the spur of the moment to get his manager on the phone to the clubs up here. Highly improbable, though.
So Bundy's apparently concealed his intentions to have a really good look at other options in the full knowledge that the GFC still expect him to sign.
I don't really understand what the club is expected to do.
Act with integrity and take people at their word? Or actually disbelieve everyone and coduct negotiations with players in an inherent spirit of suspicion?
The club has been worked over here. And I do hope they learn from it.
But I still would always want to see the club striving to believe the best of people. And maintain the view that you should be honest in your communication with your employees so they can embrace their opportunity to be honest with you.
But it is only an 'opportunity' for the players to reflect that honesty. And the opportunity is also clearly an avenue that is open to manipulation to suit one's own purposes.
I would argue that the club is in a difficult position trying to strike the balance between 'trusting' players and protecting the club's best interests.
On current evidence, the GFC skews the approach towards empowering players to deal frankly and openly with the club. And, despite the pitfalls that approach will inevitably bring, I'm more satisfied with that style than the alternative.
Let's just move on. Start posting in what we are going to do with the pick in the appropriate threads.
Sitting here discussing his issues are not going to resolve anything. As far as I'm concerned we've emptied the trash, time to see who we can get from it.
Can we close this already.
Sitting here discussing his issues are not going to resolve anything. As far as I'm concerned we've emptied the trash, time to see who we can get from it.
Can we close this already.
Uninformed opinion. Considering his age, he's performed very well. Even played very well in the 2011 GF.
This was the first season since becoming entrenched in the best 22 that he's missed a substantial portion of the season. Only 8 games this year, but 21 last year, 17 the year before, and 19 the year before that. Not the most durable, but it's not like we're talking about Vardy or Menzel here.
And I remember arguing the same about Chapman last year. People claimed Chapman was "injury prone" because he had a bad run with injuries in 2013, but history suggested that was an anomaly, not indicative of how he'd fare in the future. The sample size is smaller with Christensen, but there's no reason to suggest it won't be similar, 2014 being just an aberration.
But as SJ pointed out, losing Christensen isn't just about losing a quality player. He was amongst the few that we absolutely had to keep in the coming years, because he was part of the next generation of midfielders that would comprise the core of the side. He was set back a bit in 2014, but he was still developing well and was becoming a vital player for us. Like with some of our other youngsters, there was a feeling that he wasn't far off hitting his peak. More mids playing at their best is really what we need, both in the short and long-term future. Losing him isn't the end of the world, but it's a massive blow if the club wishes to remain competitive, because it means the spot of a 23-year-old with a few pre-seasons and 60 odd games will likely be replaced by an 18-year-old with zero pre-seasons and zero games. Whilst that kid we draft could turn out fine, it's not what we need right now. Before Christensen left, we needed players around his age bracket and experience to ensure sustained competitiveness and to ensure the drop-off didn't happen suddenly, so him leaving has only served to worsen that problem.
In the short-term, we need quality inside mids to help Selwood, which is what Christensen was and what we expected him to do in 2015. In the long-term, when our veterans have retired, we needed that next group of guys in their mid-20s, with 100-odd games under their belt, to come through and replace them to a degree. We won't be able to do that for everyone, and we know it, but the more inexperienced youth we have to bring into the team at once, the worse the drop-off will be.
What we got for Christensen may be perceived as around par for those outside the club, but his value to us was much higher, and could only really be equaled by a top-10 pick that could be ready to play AFL by next year, or a youngster with similar attributes to Christensen. Christensen is a quality player and better than non-Geelong supporters realize, but his value needs to also be measured in terms of how important he was to Geelong. In terms of the spot in the team Christensen held, we've been set back four years of development.
Last edited:
Yep. Ultimately though, as more people might learn, there is only one kind of 'agreement' that matters; a signature.
True. This isn't directed at you, but it's also possible that unicorns graze in my backyard, entertained by the fairies in the garden. It's also highly improbable.
That is very noble. But also, considering that player payments annually add up to millions of dollars, it would be extraordinarily naive to think that. Which the events of the last week have just shown.
People might have good intentions. But once enough money is waved under their noses they'll throw puppies through razor blades. And they'll do it with a smile.
Interesting thought experiment; Christensen says he 'agrees' to a new deal. The club puts a piece of blank paper in front of him, asks him to sign it, but says they will 'agree' to not hold him to it. Let's see any player agree to that.
Of course they will! They are his mates!
Last edited:
Of course they will. The Cats are the nicest bunch of guys around.
Be nice if they showed some animosity towards the guy who abandoned the team, but they won't.
- Banned
- #3,773
Such a dog act to do to the club after he was preaching how himself and the other kids were keen to take over the senior's legacy.
Find it hard to view Bundy in a positive light after how he has handled this, it's nothing more than a cash grab and nothing to do with personal issues.
Find it hard to view Bundy in a positive light after how he has handled this, it's nothing more than a cash grab and nothing to do with personal issues.
Aaaaaand you know this how?
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Poll
