16 minutes ago, Fat Tony said:

Kossie was already contracted to 2027. We didnt need to do anything.

So you didn’t want to extend him?

Doing ‘nothing’ was continuing to have pressure on us to lose him for little. Your posturing with little purpose.

1 hour ago, deanox said:

I thought Lamb just straight batted most things in a reasonable way, and I thought he answered the questions about Clarry's role and off-field well.

But the questions overall were poor. Too much focus on things they all knew Lamb couldn't answer - will you pay salary, what trade would you accept - and not real question ls like:

• What is the role King would require Oliver to play? Did Oliver say he was or wasn't prepared to play that role?

• You've talked about how Trac is a modern day great, but Oliver has 4 X Bluey and 2 X AFLCA MVP and you don't talk about him in the same way, why?

• You mentioned that to trade Trac the offer needs to be head turning, but you aren't using the same language Oliver. Is that because you see him as surplus to your current needs?

• Are WCE in the conversation for McVee? Would you be prepared to send him to the PSD if Fremantle didn't offer a reasonable trade? Would you be prepared to re-draft McVee ahead of Freo in that situation?

Personally, I am a bit disappointed that there has been a clear decision to pump up Trac as a great but effectively down play Oliver. There is no reason the club couldn't say similar things "Clayton is a great player and if he would prefer to seek a trade because he doesn't like the role outlined for him, we expect to see a deal that provides value to us versus the value he'd provide in role we think he'll play on King's game plan moving forward.".

Isn't the reason for the different language between Trac and Oliver obvious?

That is, the club is prepared to take Trac back, but we don't want Oliver back?

If we did the same dance with Oliver, but then flogged him off for nothing, our words on Trac would look cheap.

In some respects this is smart - we're making it clear to the market that Oliver (and May) are players we're happy to facilitate a trade on, but Trac we're not, because if it were up to us his name wouldn't be up for discussion.

18 minutes ago, Fat Tony said:

Kossie was already contracted to 2027. We didnt need to do anything.

True but he would have deff asked for a trade if he didn't sign the extension is what i mean. We reacted due to the noise getting louder about a trade to Freo.

100% he would be regretting his decision

2 minutes ago, SthSea22 said:

100% he would be regretting his decision

Like he was 100% gone?

Please

1 minute ago, Ted Lasso said:

you're making a lot of assumptions.

Steven King is on record wanting him to stay and has pitched to him, what the players think is largely irrelevant, they're paid athletes, they'll play with who they're told to and they don't have to like it.

Just nonsense. What players think is the opposite of irrelevant, it's why all this is happening. If they're going to buy in 100%, they need to know that every one of their team mates is doing the same. The talk even before the Petracca meeting was that the players felt that Trac wasn't completely invested, which is fatal.

As for "Steven King is on record". Of course he is, and if you believe him for one moment, I have a bridge to sell you. He said what he had to say. Also, King gave him a phone call, but didn't even make the effort to sit down with him in person.

Hard to believe that supporters could be so gullible here, but there you go.

Just now, bing181 said:

Just nonsense. What players think is the opposite of irrelevant, it's why all this is happening. If they're going to buy in 100%, they need to know that every one of their team mates is doing the same. The talk even before the Petracca meeting was that the players felt that Trac wasn't completely invested, which is fatal.

As for "Steven King is on record". Of course he is, and if you believe him for one moment, I have a bridge to sell you. He said what he had to say. Also, King gave him a phone call, but didn't even make the effort to sit down with him in person.

Hard to believe that supporters could be so gullible here, but there you go.

Source?

"Didn't even make the effort" - is that because he was a bit busy preparing Geelong for a prelim and then a grand final?

2 minutes ago, bing181 said:

Just nonsense. What players think is the opposite of irrelevant, it's why all this is happening. If they're going to buy in 100%, they need to know that every one of their team mates is doing the same. The talk even before the Petracca meeting was that the players felt that Trac wasn't completely invested, which is fatal.

As for "Steven King is on record". Of course he is, and if you believe him for one moment, I have a bridge to sell you. He said what he had to say. Also, King gave him a phone call, but didn't even make the effort to sit down with him in person.

Hard to believe that supporters could be so gullible here, but there you go.

Hahaha your entire post is just your own conspiracy theories you're trying to pretend are facts to make a point

Of course Steven King said one thing, but Bing from Demonland knows better.

Literally last off season was WAYYYY more toxic with Trac and guess what, he walked back in the door, so did Clarry, so did Kozzie

6 minutes ago, rpfc said:

So you didn’t want to extend him?

Doing ‘nothing’ was continuing to have pressure on us to lose him for little. Your posturing with little purpose.

Yes. But for one or two years more than what we already had. 9 years turns it into a risky deal.

These monster contracts rarely work out in favour of the club (as we are seeing currently). We need to be willing to lose players to manage our cap.

If we were able to reintegrate Trac last year after he tried to blow the place up then we are certainly able to do it this year

55 minutes ago, Redleg said:

You mean the one after don’t you?

15th yes

50 minutes ago, roy11 said:

Then we'll be up in arms about the draft, then the fixture, then pre-season supplementary drafts, then best 23s etc

Eeyores hey?

3 minutes ago, Fat Tony said:

Yes. But for one or two years more than what we already had. 9 years turns it into a risky deal.

These monster contracts rarely work out in favour of the club (as we are seeing currently). We need to be willing to lose players to manage our cap.

Yes and no.

Trac and Clarry were two of the pioneers of the modern day mega-deal. The Clarry one is a clear fail, although who could have predicted his fall from grace would be so steep. Perhaps internally it isn't such a shock, who knows. One things is for sure, if we pay him 700,000 a year NOT to play for us for five more years, then that has to be a black mark on the regime that penned it (LAMB).

Trac on the other hand, being contracted for four more years, clearly works in our favour. You can also see with Curnow, Merrett and even Humphrey, that 3+ years on a deal give clubs a lot of strength and bargaining power at the trade table. I think that's why we're seeing a lot more of them in recent years. They work for players and for clubs, in different ways.

5 minutes ago, BDA said:

If we were able to reintegrate Trac last year after he tried to blow the place up then we are certainly able to do it this year

Correct, and Trac's ego suggests that he will have a big 'I'll show Dimma' chip on his shoulder, should Gold Coast choose a kid over him.

So he will definitely be out to prove a point.

And even if he just goes thru the motions, like he did this year, he will still play a valuable role in the team.

While we all want him gone, including him, the club, his teammates and all of us who want Humphrey, we also don't have much to lose if he stays.

And this is the upper hand that Lamb has here.

21 minutes ago, titan_uranus said:

Isn't the reason for the different language between Trac and Oliver obvious?

That is, the club is prepared to take Trac back, but we don't want Oliver back?

Lamb said today in his presser we'd take Clarry back if a deal isn’t worked through.

On 03/10/2025 at 06:55, spirit of norm smith said:

The Tim Lamb resume …

2021 IN Dunstan❌

2022 IN Grundy ❌Hunter❌ Schache ❌OUT Toby Bedford, Jayden Hunt, Luke Jackson, Sam Weideman

2023 IN Billings ❌McAdam ⭕️ Fullarton❌ OUT Harmes Jordon Grundy

2024 In Sharp⭕️Campbell ⭕️OUT Neale-Bullen

And he’s still employed ?!?!??!?

I'm sure it's an oversight, but you seem to have missed out all the players he retained on the list.

10 minutes ago, Bang Bang Bang said:

Yes and no.

Trac and Clarry were two of the pioneers of the modern day mega-deal. The Clarry one is a clear fail, although who could have predicted his fall from grace would be so steep. Perhaps internally it isn't such a shock, who knows. One things is for sure, if we pay him 700,000 a year NOT to play for us for five more years, then that has to be a black mark on the regime that penned it (LAMB).

Trac on the other hand, being contracted for four more years, clearly works in our favour. You can also see with Curnow, Merrett and even Humphrey, that 3+ years on a deal give clubs a lot of strength and bargaining power at the trade table. I think that's why we're seeing a lot more of them in recent years. They work for players and for clubs, in different ways.

Let's see how it plays out with Petracca. If i was another club I would be reluctant to give a huge draft hual for a player on one of the biggest contracts in the AFL who is clearly on the decline. I wouldnt offer much more than #7 if i were GCS. I hope I am wrong.

Despite that, you don't need more than one year on the contract to have the whip hand in any trade negotiation.

20 minutes ago, Fat Tony said:

Yes. But for one or two years more than what we already had. 9 years turns it into a risky deal.

These monster contracts rarely work out in favour of the club (as we are seeing currently). We need to be willing to lose players to manage our cap.

With our list and club where it is and with Tassie on the horizon there’s no world where we could risk losing Koz. The flow on effects are almost more damaging than the player himself.

2 hours ago, Jaded No More said:

We got Grundy for what we traded him for. Very Little. We lost nothing in that trade, because we paid nothing in that trade.

Jackson was OUT OF GODDAMN CONTRACT

JJ was a bit player who struggled to get a game in our midfield, and was also OOC as was Bedford, who was offered a very good deal by us but chose to leave. Same goes for McVee.

ANB was a trade done in good faith to enable a club champion to get back for pressing family reasons that most on here don't know about

We did not want to lose Jackson, and these long term deals everyone has a sook about, is exactly why we do them, so that we have a leg up in negotiations. If Trac was currently OOC he'd walk and we'd get a compo pick back. How is that a better option?

JJ was a bit player because Goodwin insisted on playing his preferred players in the key roles. I suspect Sparrow was in the same position because I can't work out what the hell he does.

JJ is the ultimate professional and fits the no DH policy most clubs perfectly.

King seems to be taking a knew approach and expect to see Sparrow, Langford and Windsor linking up next to Kozzie.

In 2021 we had Burgess and our systems worked but we weren't developing players or giving anyone to excel besides our stars.

Watch Adelaide fall from grace like we did now Burgess has gone

58 minutes ago, bing181 said:

All of them.

(Btw, Hogan to GWS, where he won a Coleman; Pick 54)

Fremantle traded Hogan to GWS for pick 54, it's a bit rich to blame Tim Lamb for that.

3 minutes ago, Fat Tony said:

Let's see how it plays out with Petracca. If i was another club I would be reluctant to give a huge draft hual for a player on one of the biggest contracts in the AFL who is clearly on the decline. I wouldnt offer much more than #7 if i were GCS. I hope I am wrong.

Despite that, you don't need more than one year on the contract to have the whip hand in any trade negotiation.

Pick 7 in this draft is chump change. After academies etc. it will be after pick 10. Do you really think pick 10,11 or 12 is going to get you a player of Petracca's skill set? You would be lucky if you used pick 10,11 and 12 in this draft to find a player anywhere near what Petracca brings to the table even if he is approaching 30. All those picks could be busts. If GC offered pick 1 in this draft I would still be apprehensive. We know what we have with Petracca, and we don't with picks, you can only project and speculate. That is why it should always be a higher price when offering up speculative picks and why the MFC shouldn't consider it when he is under contract. It would be totally different if we didn't have any other option.

40 minutes ago, titan_uranus said:

"Didn't even make the effort" - is that because he was a bit busy preparing Geelong for a prelim and then a grand final?

He apparently found time to sit down with McVee.

40 minutes ago, Ted Lasso said:

Literally last off season was WAYYYY more toxic with Trac and guess what, he walked back in the door

Last season he didn't even meet with any other clubs.

There was also a certain amount of understanding both from the club and the players about his mental state post serious injury.

Try again.

So no news then?

2 hours ago, dazzledavey36 said:

My gripe with Tim Lamb isnt just narrowed down to trading a contracted player out. You do realise there that being an official list manager of the club right? Clearly not..

He has made dumb list management decisions by bringing genuine list cloggers to giving out ridiculous long term contracts to Jack Viney.

You're delusional if you think he has done a great job of late.

Holy [censored] dude! Went ok bringing in May, Lever, Brown, Hibberd, Langdon, and what do they have in common?

1 hour ago, BigDavidNoitzzzz said:

You can infer the answer to most of these yourself.

The differing sentiment between Trac and Oliver simply boils down to leverage. View any and every tidbit of trade slop interrogation with this lens.

I can infer, but they were questions a good journalist could have asked to get decent responses. Instead they asked lots of questions that were always going to get "I can't respond to that." it was a waste of time.

56 minutes ago, titan_uranus said:

Isn't the reason for the different language between Trac and Oliver obvious?

That is, the club is prepared to take Trac back, but we don't want Oliver back?

If we did the same dance with Oliver, but then flogged him off for nothing, our words on Trac would look cheap.

In some respects this is smart - we're making it clear to the market that Oliver (and May) are players we're happy to facilitate a trade on, but Trac we're not, because if it were up to us his name wouldn't be up for discussion.

Because we may still be stuck with Oliver. Maybe he doesn't agree to trade or no one will trade anything for him.

I still believe we can telegraph "Oliver is a superstar, and we'll always find a role for him, but we don't believe his strongest role fits with Steven Kings game plan. He is a champion of our club, and we don't want to see a player of his talent out of the game, so we've offered the opportunity to seek a trade where he may be offered a role that suits his style better. If not, we know he will work hard within our system and game plan and compete for a spot on our best 22."

In a way that we can still trade him for a bag of chips. A trade comes up and people say "you accepted low for Oliver " and we say "they might think it was low, but given the role we saw him playing in the new game plan we felt it was a fair deal, and we wish Clarry all the best".

It's not hard. I think they've gone out of their way to make it uncomfortable for him. But I also think that diminishes his value in the market.