List Mgmt. OFFICIAL: Dangerfield + Pick 50 for Picks 9, 28 and Dean Gore

[manboob]

 

[manboob]

ouch

 

[Warnez]

He should wear that medal when we play the crows next year

 

[Catman]

Greg Norman wants his jacket back, Paddy.

 

[Catman]

Guess he got both wishes eventually!

 

[PowerBaz]

Probably have to pay more now.

 

[PowerBaz]

The guy is the most self centered ego centric footballer I've seen. Buyer beware.

 

[you pick one]

The guy is the most self centered ego centric footballer I've seen. Buyer beware.

But he will be cheap

 

[Mningasimisonda]

I've been thinking the last few days about how big risk it might be for Adelaide playing hard ball against Dangerfield's will. Especially what Fagan said in the article the other day about matching and then trading to the highest bidding Melbourne club.

If I were an Adelaide player or a prospective Adelaide player this wouldn't attract me to the club as a workplace or community. Geelong learnt a bit in 2005/2006 about where not doing the best deal for leaving players can get you. The players who leave are typically friends of other players at the club and other players at the club think what will the club do for me if they are prepared to do that to him. I don't know of any workplace where screwing those who leave improves morale.

Will be interesting to see how Adelaide proceed, but I think not acting in Dangerfield's best interests is a huge mistake, especially when they are dealing with a club like Geelong who is generally honest and overly fair at the trade table.

 

[sauron256]

The guy is the most self centered ego centric footballer I've seen. Buyer beware.

I'll let you know when we regret getting him.

Hope you're patient.

 

[you pick one]

Will be interesting to see how Adelaide proceed, but I think not acting in Dangerfield's best interests is a huge mistake, especially when they are dealing with a club like Geelong who is generally honest and overly fair at the trade table.

And we will be again, we went out of our way to help Burgoyne get to the Hawks ffs.

 

[Miss Vanessa]

For a start...you're not sorry.

And the debate was rel. to movement. Your preventing ..or should I say your intention to match is a prevention of movement. Nothing untoward..you're doing what you see is in your immediate best interest. Don't deny what your doing... bathe in the full glow of the master servant relationship... enjoy that even after 8 years of indentured servitude you get to influence his hard earned free agency. You have done nothing ..."wrong"..or illegal... far from it... i'm sure plenty of high flying legal manipulators know that it matters not anyway if your are right or wrong...its just what the rules are.

The hyperbole used by many people in this debate is hilarious. Master-servant relationship... Indentured servitude... Please. Danger is a professional footballer who has been paid outrageous sums of money to play the game.

And Danger hasn't achieved free agency in the way you and many others on this board believe he has. Here's a handy flow chart that details pretty much everything you need to know.

http://www.aflplayers.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/2013-Free-Agency-Infograhpic.pdf

I think we all need to take deep breath, calm down and just see how it all unwinds.

 

[LawnMosey]

To the Adelaide posters on here, what you have to realize about Free Agency (restricted or not) is that it's primary reason for existence is to allow players more freedom to decide where they play.

By matching the Cats offer, you are removing Paddy's freedom to exercise that right and demanding that he move on your terms. This by it's nature is restricting. Say what you like about within the rules or the cats being responsible for what happens next, but you started the process by removing his initial right to move freely in order to serve your own purposes.

Obviously the crows have done nothing yet, but I'm hearing a lot of defence of something that is indefensible. Sure it's within the rules, but still smells a bit.

 

[Eudes]

I'm sorry, I've been largely sympathetic to the crow fans, it's a shit thing to go through, but god that Club Champion thread is embarrassing. Get over yourselves.

I like the comments that go something along the lines:

"If he loves the club so much, how can he want to go home? What BS"

Because if you love something you can't possibly love anything else. It's impossible

 

[Catman]

The guy is the most self centered ego centric footballer I've seen. Buyer beware.

Chad Cornes and Warren Tredrea say hi.

 

[Mahlepi]

The hyperbole used by many people in this debate is hilarious. Master-servant relationship... Indentured servitude... Please. Danger is a professional footballer who has been paid outrageous sums of money to play the game.

And Danger hasn't achieved free agency in the way you and many others on this board believe he has. Here's a handy flow chart that details pretty much everything you need to know.

http://www.aflplayers.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/2013-Free-Agency-Infograhpic.pdf

I think we all need to take deep breath, calm down and just see how it all unwinds.

Why do Adelaide posters come on here to preach
We are not converting to your cult
It would be nice to head your own advice

 

[baldandbroke]

I've been thinking the last few days about how big risk it might be for Adelaide playing hard ball against Dangerfield's will. Especially what Fagan said in the article the other day about matching and then trading to the highest bidding Melbourne club.

If I were an Adelaide player or a prospective Adelaide player this wouldn't attract me to the club as a workplace or community. Geelong learnt a bit in 2005/2006 about where not doing the best deal for leaving players can get you. The players who leave are typically friends of other players at the club and other players at the club think what will the club do for me if they are prepared to do that to him. I don't know of any workplace where screwing those who leave improves morale.

Will be interesting to see how Adelaide proceed, but I think not acting in Dangerfield's best interests is a huge mistake, especially when they are dealing with a club like Geelong who is generally honest and overly fair at the trade table.

And will Geelong be acting in Dangerfield's best interest? I would hope so. Not organising a reasonable trade would be very ordinary, sending him to another club would be a low-act by your club - wouldn't it? I would say that all of the posters on BF saying that Geelong will hang AFC out to dry, are so far off base they need to check themselves. No way a deal doesn't get done early. It would be traitorous of Geelong to leave PD hanging on the threat of PSD and a club like Carlton or Brisbane jumping into the mix.

To the Adelaide posters on here, what you have to realize about Free Agency (restricted or not) is that it's primary reason for existence is to allow players more freedom to decide where they play.

By matching the Cats offer, you are removing Paddy's freedom to exercise that right and demanding that he move on your terms. This by it's nature is restricting. Say what you like about within the rules or the cats being responsible for what happens next, but you started the process by removing his initial right to move freely in order to serve your own purposes.

Obviously the crows have done nothing yet, but I'm hearing a lot of defence of something that is indefensible. Sure it's within the rules, but still smells a bit.

Again with this?

Lets walk through it together ...

... what you have to realize about Free Agency (restricted or not) is that it's primary reason for existence is to allow players more freedom to decide where they play.
​

PD has complete freedom to choose Geelong - he has exercised that "primary" reason for FA (restricted or not)

By matching the Cats offer, you are removing Paddy's freedom to exercise that right and demanding that he move on your terms.
​

No one is removing anyone's rights by matching. We aren't demanding that he move on our terms, we are exercising OUR rights. PD has freedom to choose the club he wants to move to - he doesn't have the freedom to demand what the terms of that movement are.

This by it's nature is restricting.
​

Finally, I was waiting for someone to pick up on the restricted bit.

Say what you like about within the rules or the cats being responsible for what happens next, but you started the process by removing his initial right to move freely in order to serve your own purposes.
​

No, PD started the process by saying he wanted to move under RFA, now Geelong and Adelaide are responsible for what happens next. By all means feel you are free as a club to not trade for Patrick. Send him to the PSD, and move on with your trading. I love that you AFC as the ones that are trying to "serve our own purposes" and Geelong as some social do-gooder that just wants PD to be happy. ALL clubs serve their own purposes, even yours.

Obviously the crows have done nothing yet, but I'm hearing a lot of defence of something that is indefensible. Sure it's within the rules, but still smells a bit.​

I couldn't imagine what you must think of a club like ours. We develop a player to be the best and fairest at our club, respect his decision to move home for family reasons. Treat him with nothing but open-arms and decency. Then want to get something in return when he leaves. What a bunch of selfish bastards. Try and step back and look at it from a more neutral pov. Ask anyone who is not involved if they think PD to Geelong for this years first round and next years first round is "indefensible". It doesn't smell at all.

 

[Mahlepi]

The other side of the coin is that if Geelong are so keen to get Dangerfield before he's an unrestricted free agent then the club should actually come up with a deal that the Crows aren't prepared to match. Restricted free agents usually come with higher price tags than unrestricted players because the clubs have the ability to match the offer. It's the way it works in US sport where teams matching RFA deals are common place as they will eventually be in the AFL.

The whole purpose of restricted free agency is to provide a safety net for clubs to protect them from opposition clubs attempting to sign restricted free agents on lowball deals. I think the belief that clubs should turn a blind eye and ignore the rules of restricted free agency (which are there to protect all clubs) and the expectation that clubs should be treating players as unrestricted free agents (even though they have not yet qualified) actually goes against the spirit of the rule.

Hypothetically if Selwood wanted to leave Geelong as a RFA and sign with Hawthorn on $700k a year (which is way below his market value) are you telling me that Geelong wouldn't be doing exactly the same thing ? Geelong would be absolutely crazy if they didn't.

But we can play that game
We can pay 1.5 for 2 years and then adjust

We just don't see the need to play games

 

[Mahlepi]

And will Geelong be acting in Dangerfield's best interest? I would hope so. Not organising a reasonable trade would be very ordinary, sending him to another club would be a low-act by your club - wouldn't it? I would say that all of the posters on BF saying that Geelong will hang AFC out to dry, are so far off base they need to check themselves. No way a deal doesn't get done early. It would be traitorous of Geelong to leave PD hanging on the threat of PSD and a club like Carlton or Brisbane jumping into the mix.


Again with this?

Lets walk through it together ...

... what you have to realize about Free Agency (restricted or not) is that it's primary reason for existence is to allow players more freedom to decide where they play.
​

PD has complete freedom to choose Geelong - he has exercised that "primary" reason for FA (restricted or not)

By matching the Cats offer, you are removing Paddy's freedom to exercise that right and demanding that he move on your terms.
​

No one is removing anyone's rights by matching. We aren't demanding that he move on our terms, we are exercising OUR rights. PD has freedom to choose the club he wants to move to - he doesn't have the freedom to demand what the terms of that movement are.

This by it's nature is restricting.
​

Finally, I was waiting for someone to pick up on the restricted bit.

Say what you like about within the rules or the cats being responsible for what happens next, but you started the process by removing his initial right to move freely in order to serve your own purposes.
​

No, PD started the process by saying he wanted to move under RFA, now Geelong and Adelaide are responsible for what happens next. By all means feel you are free as a club to not trade for Patrick. Send him to the PSD, and move on with your trading. I love that you AFC as the ones that are trying to "serve our own purposes" and Geelong as some social do-gooder that just wants PD to be happy. ALL clubs serve their own purposes, even yours.

Obviously the crows have done nothing yet, but I'm hearing a lot of defence of something that is indefensible. Sure it's within the rules, but still smells a bit.​

I couldn't imagine what you must think of a club like ours. We develop a player to be the best and fairest at our club, respect his decision to move home for family reasons. Treat him with nothing but open-arms and decency. Then want to get something in return when he leaves. What a bunch off selfish bastards. Try and step back and look at it from a more neutral pov. Ask anyone who is not involved if they think PD to Geelong for this years first round and next years first round is "indefensible". It doesn't smell at all.

I'll keep this simple what did you give up for betts
What did the Hawks give up for Frawley
What did we give up for rivers
What will we give up for danger

There is a common answer

Time to mature up as a club. Danger told you of his intentions early - why?

Crows credibility is on the line again, the Talia incident was poor.

Aflpa are all over this

 

[baldandbroke]

I'll keep this simple what did you give up for betts
What did the Hawks give up for Frawley
What did we give up for rivers
What will we give up for danger

There is a common answer

Time to mature up as a club. Danger told you of his intentions early - why?

Crows credibility is on the line again, the Talia incident was poor.

Aflpa are all over this

I'll keep it simple for you too ...

Matched RFA is the same as asking for a trade.

Michael Talia plays for the Western Bulldogs.

 

[Mahlepi]

I'll keep it simple for you too ...

Matched RFA is the same as asking for a trade.

Michael Talia plays for the Western Bulldogs.

Cool
So we know where you stand, the aflpa want free agency not trades
Your Talia used that info
And again we will not be trading as it will not be matched

 

[GFrost]

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2015-09-27/dangerfield-confident-on-crowscats-trade-deal

"I certainly hope that it's a fair deal for both parties – that will obviously take its course – the season has only just finished for us and the free agency period and trade period is some while away," Dangerfield said.
"I think both the Geelong Football Club and the Adelaide Football Club can come to some sort of arrangement.
"I'm not sure what that is but I'm sure it will be fair and equitable for all."

Nice use of the word "arrangement" not necessarily "deal" there Patrick.
Also good he specifically said the Geelong Football Club and Adelaide Football Club... Pointed.

 

[geelong_boy]

And we will be again, we went out of our way to help Burgoyne get to the Hawks ffs.

And we used that to our advantage, splitting a draft pick around ~33 into picks 40 (Christensen), 42 (Vardy) and a pick in the 50s which IIRC was used on Cowan.

 

[bigblackboz]

And will Geelong be acting in Dangerfield's best interest? I would hope so. Not organising a reasonable trade would be very ordinary, sending him to another club would be a low-act by your club - wouldn't it? I would say that all of the posters on BF saying that Geelong will hang AFC out to dry, are so far off base they need to check themselves. No way a deal doesn't get done early. It would be traitorous of Geelong to leave PD hanging on the threat of PSD and a club like Carlton or Brisbane jumping into the mix.


Again with this?

Lets walk through it together ...

... what you have to realize about Free Agency (restricted or not) is that it's primary reason for existence is to allow players more freedom to decide where they play.
​

PD has complete freedom to choose Geelong - he has exercised that "primary" reason for FA (restricted or not)

By matching the Cats offer, you are removing Paddy's freedom to exercise that right and demanding that he move on your terms.
​

No one is removing anyone's rights by matching. We aren't demanding that he move on our terms, we are exercising OUR rights. PD has freedom to choose the club he wants to move to - he doesn't have the freedom to demand what the terms of that movement are.

This by it's nature is restricting.
​

Finally, I was waiting for someone to pick up on the restricted bit.

Say what you like about within the rules or the cats being responsible for what happens next, but you started the process by removing his initial right to move freely in order to serve your own purposes.
​

No, PD started the process by saying he wanted to move under RFA, now Geelong and Adelaide are responsible for what happens next. By all means feel you are free as a club to not trade for Patrick. Send him to the PSD, and move on with your trading. I love that you AFC as the ones that are trying to "serve our own purposes" and Geelong as some social do-gooder that just wants PD to be happy. ALL clubs serve their own purposes, even yours.

Obviously the crows have done nothing yet, but I'm hearing a lot of defence of something that is indefensible. Sure it's within the rules, but still smells a bit.​

I couldn't imagine what you must think of a club like ours. We develop a player to be the best and fairest at our club, respect his decision to move home for family reasons. Treat him with nothing but open-arms and decency. Then want to get something in return when he leaves. What a bunch off selfish bastards. Try and step back and look at it from a more neutral pov. Ask anyone who is not involved if they think PD to Geelong for this years first round and next years first round is "indefensible". It doesn't smell at all.

1. Patrick's best interests are to get to Geelong as cheap as possible. He also wants to win and Geelong giving up as little as possible is best for him. He now would think as a Geelong player.

2. It's not in Geelong's hands what happens next. He has signalled that he will sign with Geelong. It's completely in Adelaide's hands whether you match or not.

3. Does decency entail attacking his family?

4. Your club isn't a highly respected and noble club. In fact it's viewed up the other end of the scale.

5. You are not being decent by even discussing him with other clubs. He has made a decision. You should be in discussions with only one club if that's what you want. Your position isn't defensable.

 

[baldandbroke]

1. Patrick's best interests are to get to Geelong as cheap as possible. He also wants to win and Geelong giving up as little as possible is best for him. He now would think as a Geelong player.

Not yet he isn't. Do you believe in "club before player"? Or do you think that players are more important than the clubs?

2. It's not in Geelong's hands what happens next. He has signalled that he will sign with Geelong. It's completely in Adelaide's hands whether you match or not.

Of course it is in Geelong's hands as well as Adelaide's.

3. Does decency entail attacking his family?

Where did our club attack his family? FFS.

4. Your club isn't a highly respected and noble club. In fact it's viewed up the other end of the scale.

That is just your position Mr Hashtag. You have taken a personal disliking to AFC, which is fine by us. Head over to the Port board and you will get lots of likes.

5. You are not being decent by even discussing him with other clubs. He has made a decision. You should be in discussions with only one club if that's what you want. Your position isn't defensable.

huh? PD wanting to go to Geelong means we should not be preparing contingencies? Are you kidding?