Mega Thread Trade/Free Agency Open Discussion - RFC Forum

[KissStephanie]

He had a stab at our club when he didnt need too, wont be forgotten, players have had a dig at the club they left but never have i seen a player have a dig at a club that tried to recruit them.

I don't think that Adam Treloar had a stab at your club. I believe he was simply honestly sharing his opinion. I agree with him, but that doesn't mean that I'm having a stab at your club either.

Who knows, he might have had an intense hatred of Richmond in his supporter days which he has taken into his playing days.

There is little doubt though that Richmond sooked-it-up and were filthy about Treloar choosing Collingwood, and tried to make his path to join his preferred club more difficult than it needed to be.

Honestly don't understand why everyone has their knickers in a knot. He actually plays for Collingwood would you believe, what is he going to say, "Oh yeh we aren't too great right now Richmond have us covered at the moment"? Of course not, he's always going to say his own team is better haha. Y'all need to calm down, means absolutely nothing.

I think you misunderstand. Richmond offered Adam Treloar more money, but one of the reasons he declined the offer was because he honestly believes Collingwood has a better list. I agree with him, and it's the reason I always felt confident he would nominate Collingwood as preferred club.

 

[Tiger71]

This always amuses me how people tailor metrics to suit their agenda. I mean why wouldn't you use 60 years in this case, is it because it than adds another 2 premierships to even the ledger. Why not use 10 years or 25 years? In fact, why not use 35 years to gauge recent success.

Why not piss off and post on your board ?

Hows that for a metric ?

 

[Tiger71]

I don't think that Adam Treloar had a stab at your club. I believe he was simply honestly sharing his opinion. I agree with him, but that doesn't mean that I'm having a stab at your club either.There is little doubt though that Richmond sooked-it-up and were filthy about Treloar choosing Collingwood, and tried to make his path to join his preferred club more difficult than it needed to be.I think you misunderstand. Richmond offered Adam Treloar more money, but one of the reasons he declined the offer was because he honestly believes Collingwood has a better list. I agree with him, and it's the reason I always felt confident he would nominate Collingwood as preferred club.

What a crock of rubbish lol. I know that story sells on your board but my god haha

 

[NT.Thunder]

Why not use 2 years, 100 years, 1 million years???? common sense says 57 years makes his point.

Common sense and KB in the same sentence - come on Morro - even you don't believe that.

Would be like me trying to justify anything Eddie M says as common sense to make his point, we both know that's far from the truth.

I really hope this does generate some good rivalry between the 2 clubs over the years to come, the game really needs two traditional clubs that are going to be competitive and pushing for serious finals football. There's no way we can count on Carlton or Essendon to fulfill this gap!!!

 

[sportshow]

TL;DR

You still call yourself after Didak? Man, that's, um, bold.

I can't decide which sums up Didak most: this one where he was looking for his keys for 2 minutes:

Or this one where the damp, cheating squib is shown up, as a damp, cheating, squib:

i'd forgotten just how much of a squib it was ....

 

[Neen]

Treloar is a smart cookie off the field. Struck a deal with the pies and his missus is well looked after as well. Lollingwood sold off their first rounders for a couple of years - good one them. Bringing mercenaries to the club as a bandaid approach to arrest the slide does not always work well. Just ask Bucks. He knows all about that.

I look forward to Round 2 and what's in store for Treloar on the field. Maybe a short discussion with Adams might help. Richo is right, and Jack was professional in his comments regarding Treloar's delusions. If one of our high prized recruits went to the media with that sort of rubbish, I'd be pissed off.

 

[KissStephanie]

In hindsight he shouldn't have mentioned Richmond at all actually. Bring on Round 2

I don't think it matters. I doubt very much that Adam Treloar's honest opinion will have any bearing on the Round 2 result at all.

Saw somewhere that we also currently have the exact same average age, 23.8 or something, and considering we have more list spots to fill we will probably be younger once the draft is over

The average age of Collingwood's current 35 player list (not counting rookie list) for 2016 is 24 years and four months, which I believe is the fourth youngest. The average age of Richmond's current 35 player list for 2016 is 25 years and seven months, which is considerably older in footy.

Both clubs have the same number of spots to fill on their lists, so what makes you think that Richmond will add more youngsters to their list than Collingwood will? That doesn't make any sense at all.

 

[NT.Thunder]

Why not piss off and post on your board ?

Hows that for a metric ?

That's more imperial but I get your point

 

[Tiger71]

Treloar is a smart cookie off the field. Struck a deal with the pies and his missus is well looked after as well. Lollingwood sold off their first rounders for a couple of years - good one them. Bringing mercenaries to the club as a bandaid approach to arrest the slide does not always work well. Just ask Bucks. He knows all about that.

I look forward to Round 2 and what's in store for Treloar on the field. Maybe a short discussion with Adams might help. Richo is right, and Jack was professional in his comments regarding Treloar's delusions. If one of our high prized recruits went to the media with that sort of rubbish, I'd be pissed off.

Agree mate, yet the pie feral's lap it up. treloar has shown by his actions, not words, its all about him and the cash. He lied to GWS, said he would stay, was the first to come out and say it but him and grubby where working there magic behind the scenes. It has nothing to do with lists, simply the cash and i would not be surprised when his contracts up, if another club offers $$$ and a "silver" lining extra he will move.

 

[This Is Anfield]

I think you misunderstand. Richmond offered Adam Treloar more money, but one of the reasons he declined the offer was because he honestly believes Collingwood has a better list. I agree with him, and it's the reason I always felt confident he would nominate Collingwood as preferred club.

It always amazes me that people claim to KNOW what a club offered to a player and also what a stranger HONESTLY believes.
You may be correct but I believe, with absolutely zero evidence, that you're only guessing.

 

[Morro]

Common sense and KB in the sentence - come on Morro - even you don't believe that.

Would be like me trying to justify anything Eddie M says as common sense to make his point, we both know that's far from the truth.

I really hope this does generate some good rivalry between the 2 clubs over the years to come, the game really needs two traditional clubs that are going to be competitive and pushing for serious finals football. There's no way we can count on Carlton or Essendon to fulfill this gap!!!

Got me there, but you get my point

 

[Tiger Toffee]

I don't think that Adam Treloar had a stab at your club. I believe he was simply honestly sharing his opinion. I agree with him, but that doesn't mean that I'm having a stab at your club either.There is little doubt though that Richmond sooked-it-up and were filthy about Treloar choosing Collingwood, and tried to make his path to join his preferred club more difficult than it needed to be.I think you misunderstand. Richmond offered Adam Treloar more money, but one of the reasons he declined the offer was because he honestly believes Collingwood has a better list. I agree with him, and it's the reason I always felt confident he would nominate Collingwood as preferred club.

Collingwood wasn't his preferred football club, collingwood was his and his family's preferred cash register.

 

[Neen]

Collingwood wasn't his preferred football club, collingwood was his and his family's preferred cash register.

Brilliant.

No amount of distractive journalism or propaganda from delusional fans can change that.

 

[bananatigz]

I don't think that Adam Treloar had a stab at your club. I believe he was simply honestly sharing his opinion. I agree with him, but that doesn't mean that I'm having a stab at your club either.There is little doubt though that Richmond sooked-it-up and were filthy about Treloar choosing Collingwood, and tried to make his path to join his preferred club more difficult than it needed to be.I think you misunderstand. Richmond offered Adam Treloar more money, but one of the reasons he declined the offer was because he honestly believes Collingwood has a better list. I agree with him, and it's the reason I always felt confident he would nominate Collingwood as preferred club.

And you know that how? Seriously it is our board don't come on here taking pot-shots at our club

I don't think it matters. I doubt very much that Adam Treloar's honest opinion will have any bearing on the Round 2 result at all.The average age of Collingwood's current 35 player list (not counting rookie list) for 2016 is 24 years and four months, which I believe is the fourth youngest. The average age of Richmond's current 35 player list for 2016 is 25 years and seven months, which is considerably older in footy.

Both clubs have the same number of spots to fill on their lists, so what makes you think that Richmond will add more youngsters to their list than Collingwood will? That doesn't make any sense at all.

Maybe you are correct, maybe the person who posted earlier is correct, it doesn't really matter, age is the most useless stat in footy. The fact you think you somehow have a better list because you are younger is laughable, I assume that is your thinking seeing as performance wise you've been nowhere near us

 

[DrMike]

I really hope this does generate some good rivalry between the 2 clubs over the years to come, the game really needs two traditional clubs that are going to be competitive and pushing for serious finals football. There's no way we can count on Carlton or Essendon to fulfill this gap!!!

That would be nice, hopefully Collingwood can become a good team and hold up their end.

 

[KissStephanie]

There really isn't much for you to back this up with, we were comfortably a better side in 2015, and just because you have a younger list doesn't mean everything is going to just magically happen.

Richmond did have five more wins and four less losses this year, but of those five extra wins, two of them were by under two goals. Only one of Richmond's losses were by under two goals.

On the other hand, Collingwood played in six matches that were decided by less than two goals, but lost all of them. Three of those losses were by under 6 points.

It doesn't take too much to turn such narrow losses into wins, so simply looking at wins and losses isn't a full guide to a teams performance. Rarely does a team lose all six close matches they played in as Collingwood did this year.

I don't think improvement will magically happen though, but winning the close matches, and further improvement from the larger number of quality under-24 year olds on Collingwood's list is quite possible and realistic.

There are only seven players on the Collingwood list who are between the ages of 24-26 years of age. When more of the current youngsters reach that age group, then Collingwood's performances and consistency will significantly improve.

On the other hand, Richmond already have twelve players on their list in the 24-26 years of age range, so their potential improvement is not as great as Collingwood, and Richmond don't have the same quality of under-24 year olds coming through as Collingwood has.

Collingwood have 21 players on their senior list under 25 next year
Richmond have 20 player on their senior list under 25 next year

Collingwood's list quality and age is significantly better than Richmond. Firstly, there are 20 players on Collingwood's list who have yet to turn 24, and that is the age where improvement comes from. Richmond only have 15 players under the age of 24, which is a considerable difference.

Secondly, Collingwood had six representatives in the AFL Under-24 team of 2015 squad, which was the most of any club. Western Bulldogs had five, and GWS had four. Richmond only had two representatives, which was ahead of only Fremantle, Geelong, Hawthorn and North Melbourne.

Of those six Collingwood representatives that made the Under-24 team, none of the four current top-10 draft picks at the club made the squad, but realistically could over the next 1-3 years. They are Matthew Scharenberg, James Aish, Jordan DeGoey and Darcy Moore.

Given the draft is still to come and we still have our 1st round pick, there's a fair chance we'll pick up more kids than Collingwood this year also
So yeah massive difference there

How did you come to that conclusion? Both Collingwood and Richmond have 35 players on their list currently for 2016, so both clubs will add the same amount of "kids" to the list before next season.

The average age of the 35 players on the current Collingwood list for 2016 is 24 years and 4 months. The average age of the 35 players on the current Richmond list for 2016 is 25 years and 7 months, which is quite significant in footy.

Collingwood has more players 28 and over too, 8 to 5 so more approaching retirement

That's quite wrong. Try counting that again. Collingwood has only four players who are 28 years of age or older on the current 35 player list for 2016. Dane Swan (31), Travis Cloke (28), Tyson Goldsack (28) and Alan Toovey (28).

In Round 22 this year, Collingwood had a great 48 points win over Geelong, and the average age of the team that played that night was only 23 years and 166 days, which is exceptionally young. On the other hand, the Richmond team that put up a terrible performance against North Melbourne in the Elimination Final was a lot older at 25 years and 205 days.

 

[Tiger_Of_Old]

This always amuses me how people tailor metrics to suit their agenda. I mean why wouldn't you use 60 years in this case, is it because it than adds another 2 premierships to even the ledger. Why not use 10 years or 25 years? In fact, why not use 35 years to gauge recent success.

Abit like we havn't won a flag in 30yrs.

 

[Infamy]

I don't think it matters. I doubt very much that Adam Treloar's honest opinion will have any bearing on the Round 2 result at all.The average age of Collingwood's current 35 player list (not counting rookie list) for 2016 is 24 years and four months, which I believe is the fourth youngest. The average age of Richmond's current 35 player list for 2016 is 25 years and seven months, which is considerably older in footy.

Both clubs have the same number of spots to fill on their lists, so what makes you think that Richmond will add more youngsters to their list than Collingwood will? That doesn't make any sense at all.

There are only seven players on the Collingwood list who are between the ages of 24-26 years of age. When more of the current youngsters reach that age group, then Collingwood's performances and consistency will significantly improve.

On the other hand, Richmond already have twelve players on their list in the 24-26 years of age range, so their potential improvement is not as great as Collingwood, and Richmond don't have the same quality of under-24 year olds coming through as Collingwood has.Collingwood's list quality and age is significantly better than Richmond. Firstly, there are 20 players on Collingwood's list who have yet to turn 24, and that is the age where improvement comes from. Richmond only have 15 players under the age of 24, which is a considerable difference.

Secondly, Collingwood had six representatives in the AFL Under-24 team of 2015 squad, which was the most of any club. Western Bulldogs had five, and GWS had four. Richmond only had two representatives, which was ahead of only Fremantle, Geelong, Hawthorn and North Melbourne.

Of those six Collingwood representatives that made the Under-24 team, none of the four current top-10 draft picks at the club made the squad, but realistically could over the next 1-3 years. They are Matthew Scharenberg, James Aish, Jordan DeGoey and Darcy Moore.How did you come to that conclusion? Both Collingwood and Richmond have 35 players on their list currently for 2016, so both clubs will add the same amount of "kids" to the list before next season.

The average age of the 35 players on the current Collingwood list for 2016 is 24 years and 4 months. The average age of the 35 players on the current Richmond list for 2016 is 25 years and 7 months, which is quite significant in footy.That's quite wrong. Try counting that again. Collingwood has only four players who are 28 years of age or older on the current 35 player list for 2016. Dane Swan (31), Travis Cloke (28), Tyson Goldsack (28) and Alan Toovey (28).

In Round 22 this year, Collingwood had a great 48 points win over Geelong, and the average age of the team that played that night was only 23 years and 166 days, which is exceptionally young. On the other hand, the Richmond team that put up a terrible performance against North Melbourne in the Elimination Final was a lot older at 25 years and 205 days.

I didn't read any of this wall of text/bullshit after you claimed our average age is 25 years and 7 months.
We are not North Melbourne

Perhaps you should read this site before correcting me on my numbers
The ages are for next season
https://www.draftguru.com.au/lists/2016

 

[Tigerland]

Richmond did have five more wins and four less losses this year, but of those five extra wins, two of them were by under two goals. Only one of Richmond's losses were by under two goals.

On the other hand, Collingwood played in six matches that were decided by less than two goals, but lost all of them. Three of those losses were by under 6 points.

It doesn't take too much to turn such narrow losses into wins, so simply looking at wins and losses isn't a full guide to a teams performance. Rarely does a team lose all six close matches they played in as Collingwood did this year.

I don't think improvement will magically happen though, but winning the close matches, and further improvement from the larger number of quality under-24 year olds on Collingwood's list is quite possible and realistic.

There are only seven players on the Collingwood list who are between the ages of 24-26 years of age. When more of the current youngsters reach that age group, then Collingwood's performances and consistency will significantly improve.

On the other hand, Richmond already have twelve players on their list in the 24-26 years of age range, so their potential improvement is not as great as Collingwood, and Richmond don't have the same quality of under-24 year olds coming through as Collingwood has.Collingwood's list quality and age is significantly better than Richmond. Firstly, there are 20 players on Collingwood's list who have yet to turn 24, and that is the age where improvement comes from. Richmond only have 15 players under the age of 24, which is a considerable difference.

Secondly, Collingwood had six representatives in the AFL Under-24 team of 2015 squad, which was the most of any club. Western Bulldogs had five, and GWS had four. Richmond only had two representatives, which was ahead of only Fremantle, Geelong, Hawthorn and North Melbourne.

Of those six Collingwood representatives that made the Under-24 team, none of the four current top-10 draft picks at the club made the squad, but realistically could over the next 1-3 years. They are Matthew Scharenberg, James Aish, Jordan DeGoey and Darcy Moore.How did you come to that conclusion? Both Collingwood and Richmond have 35 players on their list currently for 2016, so both clubs will add the same amount of "kids" to the list before next season.

The average age of the 35 players on the current Collingwood list for 2016 is 24 years and 4 months. The average age of the 35 players on the current Richmond list for 2016 is 25 years and 7 months, which is quite significant in footy.That's quite wrong. Try counting that again. Collingwood has only four players who are 28 years of age or older on the current 35 player list for 2016. Dane Swan (31), Travis Cloke (28), Tyson Goldsack (28) and Alan Toovey (28).

In Round 22 this year, Collingwood had a great 48 points win over Geelong, and the average age of the team that played that night was only 23 years and 166 days, which is exceptionally young. On the other hand, the Richmond team that put up a terrible performance against North Melbourne in the Elimination Final was a lot older at 25 years and 205 days.

There's some pretty funny stuff in there.

A lot of if's.
Try these...

If we had a ladder of the last half of the home and away season then you'd be 2nd last behind the Blues.

If you think about those 7 over 25 year old players including - Pendles, Swann, Cloke, Toovey, Brown?, Greenwood, Goldsack - They are your best players.

'A good young list' in AFL basically means you're crap, you could be good so hold onto hope.

Enjoy your hope. Collingwood can scream from the rooftops for years that they have the best ever young list for years to come - it won't win you anything.

 

[Komrade_Tiger]

FIGJAM, Fatchins and the lol's are getting a bit defensive

Gotten lost once again

 

[theflea]

From what i understand Richmond were offering around the same as what Collingwood were. You clearly had the money as you guys showed interest in a few players throughout the Trade Period.

I don't see how he has taken a pot shot at your club. A pot should would more be like "Richmonds facilities are poor and they are an unprofessional organisation compared to Collingwood" In his mind all he is saying is he thinks our list is better than yours. So what? It's his opinion.
So should we sook up whenever KB or some other broadcaster or player thinks another team has a better list than ours?

You do realise that KB trolls everyone just to generate talk back right? He is deliberately inflammatory.

 

[Komrade_Tiger]

people need to realise that KB the media personality and Kevin Bartlett the Richmond Immortal are 2 separate personalities

 

[UpTheGuts]

You do realise that KB trolls everyone just to generate talk back right? He is deliberately inflammatory.

Best in the business at that

 

[Toadvine]

 

[theflea]

This always amuses me how people tailor metrics to suit their agenda. I mean why wouldn't you use 60 years in this case, is it because it than adds another 2 premierships to even the ledger. Why not use 10 years or 25 years? In fact, why not use 35 years to gauge recent success.

Its because everyone does it to suit their argument, even pies players!