Just now, Demon Forever said:

not quite. Wont talk money until a commitment is made from BH to nominate us

That's interesting. Would have thought money was really the only thing we had to offer apart from being based in Victoria and a very clear way for the trade to happen.

13 minutes ago, The Jackson FIX said:

Flanders isn't coming to Melbourne. That deal to Saints for 7 will be one of the quicker ones to get done, massive overs for Ned.

GC will back themselves in to get Trac deal done for picks.

I think someone mentioned it a few days ago but aren’t St Kilda and Gold Coast not on the best terms atm given the whole “nepo babies” thing?

Wouldn’t be surprised if GC try to screw them over

3 minutes ago, Rab D Nesbitt said:

I'm still curious as to why The Brand © would openly nominate GC unless he had a clear understanding that a deal could be struck.

I think its a management strategy designed to create an untenable situation. Its really the only tactic contracted players have. Make it public that he wants to leave, get a few reporters to write stories like "Melbourne have to trade him, there is no coming back from that etc etc".

18 minutes ago, Demon Forever said:

Confident with the chats last week. Another meeting scheduled. MFC have told him that if he wants it to happen, he must drive it

As much as this is positive, it's dangerous. It shouldn't be him driving it. If he agrees then it's talks are on. If not, then Trac doesn't go. The talk is simply Trac for Humphrey or no deal.

I think I'd be comfortable with that as a deal.

6 minutes ago, Demon Forever said:

not quite. Wont talk money until a commitment is made from BH to nominate us

Why would Humphrey nominate us before we show him the money? Makes no sense.

Edited 19 hours ago19 hr by Roost it far

2 minutes ago, demoncat said:

Doesn’t that risk putting us on the back foot though? Especially if other clubs jump the queue and offer him a contract first

Agreed. You need to put an offer on the table to get that interest up. If he nominates first, then theoretically we hold the upper hand in negotiations, which a good manager will not allow.

His manager would ask each club to put forward their best offer, take that to BH and ask him what he wants to do.

Also i wouldnt be taking too seriously what GCS are saying about BH, they are not going to tip their hand until they absolutely have to....the art of negotiations.

1 minute ago, GS_1905 said:

I think its a management strategy designed to create an untenable situation. Its really the only tactic contracted players have. Make it public that he wants to leave, get a few reporters to write stories like "Melbourne have to trade him, there is no coming back from that etc etc".

I'm thinking the same GS. The next best thing to trading him for BH will be seeing his walk of shame back into AAMI Park for pre-season training all whilst his inner soul is dying.

There’s no chance Bailey meets with multiple clubs if GC are dead against trading him.

These meetings would have been planned prior to the Petracca nomination of GC

3 minutes ago, Roost it far said:

Why would Humphrey nominate us before we show him the money? Makes no sense.

Dees have advised him it would be a large uplift in $$$. Not prepared to talk money until a commitment is made to request a trade

Just now, BW511 said:

There’s no chance Bailey meets with multiple clubs if GC are dead against trading him.

These meetings would have been planned prior to the Petracca nomination of GC

Personally I reckon his manager is angling for a contract bump for his young star. $800k is cheap on the open market and the number will likely come out soon enough.

1 hour ago, KoltTheRam said:

Thought Lamby spoke well, was quite clear, reiterated that Gold Coast would have to come to us and turn our heads. Now we’ve gotta follow through on this

I fear the offer and ultimate deal we get will have us fans shaking our heads

We don't want picks. This draft is rubbish and with all the Academies and F/S and FA compo, it's a waste of time.

Trac for Pick 7 is a hard no.

Trac for Humphrey is the only conversation

1 minute ago, Demon Forever said:

Dees have advised him it would be a large uplift in $$$. Not prepared to talk money until a commitment is made to request a trade

I’m sorry but that makes even less sense. “We’ll give you more money but you have to commit to us before we tell you how much”

3 minutes ago, Roost it far said:

Why would Humphrey nominate us before we show him the money? Makes no sense.

Does from our point of view

Doesn't from theirs.

Reasoning: if we can get him to nominate us.... half the battle is won . Strategically he's aligned.

If we show the money first.... just opens Pandora's Box and who knows where it ends.

The reality i would think is unofficially via the manager a suggestion of $$$ is made. Ideally thats a starting point because if BH then DOES nominate us others may look to trump but if we can match and he's nominated us then 3/4 of the battle's done.

The first to move may or may not control the gambit. This reminds of Auctions but in a different way...the similarity is holding of nerve and tge confidence of knowing what you can do ....and what you won't.

Often in order to win , you must prepare to lose.

Edited 18 hours ago18 hr by beelzebub

4 minutes ago, Roost it far said:

Personally I reckon his manager is angling for a contract bump for his young star. $800k is cheap on the open market and the number will likely come out soon enough.

Will be very hard on clubs now.

TDK will become the benchmark now, I’d say Humphrey would have a better chance of influencing games than he does

8 minutes ago, Demon Forever said:

Dees have advised him it would be a large uplift in $$$. Not prepared to talk money until a commitment is made to request a trade

If that's correct it's a terrible tactic. No one is going to demand a trade without knowing what$$ they will get

2 minutes ago, Roost it far said:

I’m sorry but that makes even less sense. “We’ll give you more money but you have to commit to us before we tell you how much”

you place a dollar figure on his head, it becomes an auction. We don't want that as we are leveraging Trac as part of the deal

18 minutes ago, The Cult of Disco Turner said:

I think someone mentioned it a few days ago but aren’t St Kilda and Gold Coast not on the best terms atm given the whole “nepo babies” thing?

Wouldn’t be surprised if GC try to screw them over

Craig Cameron near-confirmed the Flanders deal with the ‘Aints was pretty close.

Gold Coast give; Sam Flanders + 4th rounder

Stk give; Pick 7 + 3rd round pick + baby bottle

6 minutes ago, Roost it far said:

I’m sorry but that makes even less sense. “We’ll give you more money but you have to commit to us before we tell you how much”

You dont go for a job interview and talk money straight away, you go through the process and if it fits, you negotiate the pay at the end. No different!

Melbourne know that if it becomes an auction, that is the last place we want it to go. Factors like many of the posts previously suggest leave us out in the cold. No Training ground, likely non finals team, exit of some stars etc.... We cannot be in a situation where his player manager is attempting to auction us off against other teams because we will lose.

26 minutes ago, Rab D Nesbitt said:

I'm still curious as to why The Brand © would openly nominate GC unless he had a clear understanding that a deal could be struck.

The Brand is asking for more $$ and longer deal to what he is on now

GC simply cannot keep Humphrey if they are to accommodate The Brands demands

For what it is worth, his Manger is Eddie Betts wife who is a pretty ruthless operator imo. She made a huge stink of the Covid restrictions when she was trying to navigate Eddie and the family out of Melbourne to Darwin which at the time was the strictest place to come to in Australia.

Edited 19 hours ago19 hr by SthSea22
q

3 minutes ago, Demon Forever said:

you place a dollar figure on his head, it becomes an auction. We don't want that as we are leveraging Trac as part of the deal

Humphrey's manager would know exactly what contract his suitors are offering. There is no way that Humphrey will nominate a club, and then find out he could have got millions more elsewhere. It just doesn't work that way.

If we are playing the game as you say, we are [censored].

Did we play the same game with Flanders?

PS: Your interview analogy in your subsequent post is not the same. A regular employee is not being headhunted by 3 suitors.

Edited 18 hours ago18 hr by mo64

Just now, mo64 said:

Humphrey's manager would know exactly what contract his suitors are offering. There is no way that Humphrey will nominate a club, and then find out he could have got millions more elsewhere. It just doesn't work that way.

If we are playing the game as you say, we are [censored].

Did we play the same game with Flanders?

It does when GC has the contract over his head. If push comes to shove, GC can hold him to the contract. Lets be honest, the winning club would pay him all around the same and his player manager would manage this for the winning team. He would hardly be losing Millions as you mention on a deal should he move.

Cant answer that bit about flanders, I dont know!

48 minutes ago, Redjacket said:

I reckon both clubs think that they're holding the best hand here and are waiting for the other to cave. This will go down to the wire. Anyone thinking that we will get more than a straight swap of players and a trade of later picks is delusional.

If we can manage to steal a straight swap we will have come away as bandits.

We will definitely add later picks to start with then will probably throw in a first rounder with something else coming back out way imo.

1 hour ago, pewpewpew said:

I hope so too but past experiences shows that we never are and fold like a card table chair at a $2 shop clearance sale

Luke Jackson is the only similar level player we've traded out in living memory and we extracted good value there.

Melbourne trading myths ...

16 minutes ago, Roost it far said:

I’m sorry but that makes even less sense. “We’ll give you more money but you have to commit to us before we tell you how much”

Ballparks would've been floated here.

The first convo a player manager has sans mention of $ would likely be the first.