Strategy Trade and List management Thread Part 6 (opposition supporters - READ posting rules before posting)

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
Clinton Casey it was. The weird part was that it was even reported in the papers at the time, but the idea was that Casey would hook them up with the investments but they had to pay for them so it wasn’t a cap issue.

Hilariously went up in smoke.

I don’t know if we would have gone for Aker if we had kept Brown but he would have been able to enjoy a few more prelims at least.

Ironically despite the promise of property developments out east he ended up settling in Williamstown.

Yep, you're right. I confused one dodgy businessman for another! 😄

Some coincidental solvency issues at ex-Casey companies, but he's still 'developing'.

And his current company profile hints at an alternative reality to the deals he promised Brown and others:

Screenshot_20240422-224137_Chrome.jpg
 
Yep, you're right. I confused one dodgy businessman for another! 😄

Some coincidental solvency issues at ex-Casey companies, but he's still 'developing'.

And his current company profile hints at an alternative reality to the deals he promised Brown and others:

View attachment 1967734
I know one or two former movers and shakers at Richmond and Casey is a punchline at the club now.

It’s hilarious how footy clubs attract these clowns, and even more hilarious how the end up running them.
 
Nah we were $50k short of what Ward initially wanted, but because we wouldn’t come up to what he wanted the negotiations got parked. Then GWS sniffed the opening and godfathered him.

The other one we botched worse was Nathan Brown. We offered him less than his previous contract.
Nathan Brown left after Campbell Rose got involved in his contract discussions. Rose was a ‘slash and burn’ type that demanded all parts of the club take a pay cut to turn the club around… He was universally hated for this approach but he was instrumental in playing the Federal and State governments off against each other and getting millions off both for the first redevelopment in 2004.
I was absolutely devastated when we lost Brown… he was the ‘rockstar’ of the AFL back then…
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Nathan Brown left after Campbell Rose got involved in his contract discussions. Rose was a ‘slash and burn’ type that demanded all parts of the club take a pay cut to turn the club around… He was universally hated for this approach but he was instrumental in playing the Federal and State governments off against each other and getting millions off both for the first redevelopment in 2004.
I was absolutely devastated when we lost Brown… he was the ‘rockstar’ of the AFL back then…
Despite not being a footy guy when we got him, Cam is still very passionate about the club. Had to make some very difficult decisions and was extremely unpopular with elements of the playing group because of the things you refer to. We wouldn’t have a club if he hadn’t done them though!
 
Despite not being a footy guy when we got him, Cam is still very passionate about the club. Had to make some very difficult decisions and was extremely unpopular with elements of the playing group because of the things you refer to. We wouldn’t have a club if he hadn’t done them though!
Yes from memory he came from a sailing background. The younger generation amongst us would be shocked at how far we have come since the early 2000's - 20 years but it doesn't seem that long ago... back then the Western Oval had a lot of character and fond memories but it was a dump and Rose, Smorgon and Eade turned the ship around. Probably the only big mistake they made was using the pick they got for Brown on Rawlings.
I don't think it would be to much of a stretch to say that the last 20 years have seen the biggest change in the club ever!
 
Yes from memory he came from a sailing background. The younger generation amongst us would be shocked at how far we have come since the early 2000's - 20 years but it doesn't seem that long ago... back then the Western Oval had a lot of character and fond memories but it was a dump and Rose, Smorgon and Eade turned the ship around. Probably the only big mistake they made was using the pick they got for Brown on Rawlings.
I don't think it would be to much of a stretch to say that the last 20 years have seen the biggest change in the club ever!

Definitely, we are financially secure and steadily growing in the membership department. Our facilities are so good, that we ripped down a building that we built 10 years ago, to replace with something better. We pioneered the AFLW along with Melbourne and was the first to win a flag out of the two of us.

I credit Rose/ Smorgon for setting us up to be financially secure and Rocket for making us competitive on field. He doesn’t get the credit he deserves.

I smile when opposition supporters still try the old, poor unsuccessful Bulldogs line on us.
 
If we do lose one of English/Smith or both I'd love for us to ask the question of Isaac Cumming as a FA.

With Duryea & JJ at the tail end of their careers and no real permanent wing rotations, he gives us a chance to solve either problem. Might be hard to pry him out as a NSW kid but if we have the cap he makes us better.
 
If we do lose one of English/Smith or both I'd love for us to ask the question of Isaac Cumming as a FA.

With Duryea & JJ at the tail end of their careers and no real permanent wing rotations, he gives us a chance to solve either problem. Might be hard to pry him out as a NSW kid but if we have the cap he makes us better.

He’d be close to the top of my list for us.
 
If we do lose one of English/Smith or both I'd love for us to ask the question of Isaac Cumming as a FA.

With Duryea & JJ at the tail end of their careers and no real permanent wing rotations, he gives us a chance to solve either problem. Might be hard to pry him out as a NSW kid but if we have the cap he makes us better.
There’s the added bonus that Isaac Cumming was one of Bokonon’s (for anyone who remembers back that far to him and his many alts) favourite players, so losing him to the Dogs would just be perfect
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

During Nathan Browns first ever post draft presser after arriving at the club he said he was in the game to make money.

Nothing that he has done since leaving the game has led me to believe that he's had a road to Damascus like moment that has assuaged him from that belief.

He was gone the moment he was drafted by the club.
He openly said that he wanted to make enough money so he never had to work again after his footy career, but he also said - before the trade - that if the contract offers were in the same ballpark, his preference was to stay. He could have been lying, but he would have looked quite foolish if we called him out and publicly said we'd offered the same terms.

There was an in the know poster on here at the time that said we offered win 1mil/3 years, and Richmond was offering 2mil/4 years. That's 50% more per year (333k p.a. vs 500k p.a.), with the security of an extra year, which 99%(?) of players would move for, let alone someone who's openly said that money is important to them. This was after he accepted a pay cut earlier in his existing contract to help keep the club afloat, so there was a bit of trust lost in how rock solid our player contracts were.

During negotiations, noises from the club made out as that was the max we could offer and that any longer term deal was too risky, yet a month after trading Brown, we offered Rawlings, a B-/B+ grader nowhere near Brown's talent and standing, 450k p.a. and 4 years (1.8mil) to make sure he was ok with nominating for the Pre Season Draft and coming to us (otherwise if he sat the year out or went into the National Draft, we risked complete and utter humiliation after the Veale deal).

The truth is, after Rohde's first year, we thought a contested marking key forward was a panacea for his game plan, and the club became obsessed with getting one, even at the cost of one of the top 20 players in the competition. Smorgon, Rohde, Rose, Barry Richardson and Ste0hen Newport (proven to be an incompetent buffoon) were all on board, and lowballing an existing star in Brown was a pathway to get the salary cap space and trade assets to get a move done.

He's demonised on here, and money hungry he is, but I really don't know if we ever gave him a genuine, good faith opportunity to stay.
 
Last edited:
He openly said that he wanted to make enough money so he never had to work again after his footy career, but he also said - before the trade - that if the contract offers were in the same ballpark, his preference was to stay. He could have been lying, but he would have looked quite foolish if we called him out and publicly said we'd offered the same terms.

There was an in the know poster on here at the time that said we offered win 1mil/3 years, and Richmond was offering 2mil/4 years. That's 50% more per year (333k p.a. vs 500k p.a.), with the security of an extra year, which 99%(?) of players would move for, let alone someone who's openly said that money is important to them. This was after he accepted a pay cut earlier in his existing contract to help keep the club afloat, so there was a bit of trust lost in how rock solid our player contracts were.

During negotiations, noises from the club made out as that was the max we could offer and that any longer term deal was too risky, yet a month after trading Brown, we offered Rawlings, a B-/B+ grader nowhere near Brown's talent and standing, 450k p.a. and 4 years (1.8mil) to make sure he was ok with nominating for the Pre Season Draft and coming to us (otherwise if he sat the year out or went into the National Draft, we risked complete and utter humiliation after the Veale deal).

The truth is, after Rohde's first year, we thought a contested marking key forward was a panacea for his game plan, and the club became obsessed with getting one, even at the cost of one of the top 20 players in the competition. Smorgon, Rohde, Rose, Barry Richardson and Ste0hen Newport (proven to be an incompetent buffoon) were all on board, and lowballing an existing star in Brown was a pathway to get the salary cap space and trade assets to get a move done.

He's demonised on here, and money hungry he is, but I really don't know if we ever gave him a genuine, good faith opportunity to stay.

Didn't both Brown and Darcy take unders around the same time to stay previously?
 
Didn't both Brown and Darcy take unders around the same time to stay previously?
I don't know about Brown's previous contract, but Darcy did make us sweat in his contract after winning the AFL MVP and his first year under Rohde. During an Age article where he said he was pushing negotiations back until the end of the year, he publicly said something along the lines off: "I know you're not meant to say this type of thing, but I look across the league and think, gee I would love to be coached by someone like Mick Malthouse"...

He was signed a couple of months later, "never considered leaving" apparently.

Brown also had an article that year, where he said Rohde had made a point that players weren't to call him by any nickname (like Rohder), but always address him as Peter.

Multiple times later in that article, "Rohder does this", "Rohder thinks that"

Maybe misreading it, but players seemed to be openly inching for a change of coach in plain sight.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top