BLWNBA

I may have this wrong as I was listening at work, but I thought it was in reference to younger players they can see going through the midfield. But the comment contextually went on to be talking about the younger talent coming through in general.

There's no insult, you just seem incredibly triggered every time I state that Petracca won't be at the club - almost to the point of fixation. I actually find your replies often either strawman, or aren't even responding to a point of contention I've made. Petracca + 24 for 7 and 8. Personally I'm actually not that perturbed by what we get, I think Petracca is extremely overrated, especially in his current form.

Are you genuinely okay?

Liam Pickering on trade radio?

Cherry picking at it's finest. Maybe take this in the totality of my comments, with particular reference to my comment today that I am steadfast that Petracca will not be at the club next year.

Unsure on WC, but suspect there is very little chance Richmond would go for that.

I'm not sure I'd characterise it as superficial, though I think he may be agnostic about Petracca being at the club next year. It can be a little bit of 'column A' and also a little bit of 'column B', we're walking a bit of a tight-rope on this one.

King and Petracca have been in contact, with another meeting this week. The relationship is amicable. Whilst I'm steadfast that he won't be at the Club next year, I wouldn't exactly put him and the situation into the Oliver / May mould.

Tim Lamb: Petracca discussions have been preliminary only. Won't go further into details but he's loved member of the MFC and any trade must benefit the club. Stated explicitly that Petracca came to Melbourne to explore the trade. If BH is off the table, are we targeting Pick 6 and 7: Won't go into detail. BH: In this situation you need to be respectful as GC have made their position clear. It was not ideal that the Tan walk was spotted. Oliver: Has not made a call on his future, but based on media speculation appears GWS will be the option. Still needs to be a deal, no word received from GWS or Oliver camp. Reporting on Oliver meeting last week not necessarily correct, but we did not direct him to explore options The progress shown over the past couple of years by young brigade have allowed us to be more open. BM will come to the club (at this stage) via FA, but we are talking to Collingwood about potential options due to the Spargo compensation. The stature of Brody will add another dimension to the front end. Max Heath: working through this, will be straight-forward. Derksen: Had a historical interest and was monitored this year. Excited about Turner and Adams as genuine players, plus TMac providing leadership. Unfortunately decided to go in another direction. We're after another midfielder, but not just for the sake of it. Believe Rivers can turn into a topline midfielder for us, also mentioned Tholstrup. Lamb expects May to be at the club next year. Non-committal about trading back into the first, never say never.

I'm not saying this didn't happen, and I'm not suggesting you weren't told this. But I don't see in anyway how this makes sense, what the logical purpose of it is, nor how it benefits the trade in anyway. If anything it seems pretty illogical.

Ah yep, just re-read your post and you're right, I didn't read it properly. My bad. Answer remains the same unfortunately I didn't actually hear the discussion. But I would say that it probably removes some administrative burden on the AFL, given they had discretion to waive this requirement for clubs upon an application by a club seeking to trade away a first round pick despite not having used two in four. In fact, we benefited from this at least once in recent memory. It gives more autonomy to clubs and I could be wrong, but I don't recall the AFL ever denying a dispensation request from a club to have this waived. Although, I could be wrong on that as I'm just going off memory.

Not really. We're open to trading Petracca and GC are holding firm on Humphries, I don't really think it's equatable nor can the view point being conflated. Cameron also stated that players could ask the question, but ultimately a club was open to holding them. It was pretty balanced.

Unsure of the context this was spoken about mate, but this was in place long before the current trade period. All clubs can trade two years in advance, so conceptually you can move 2025, 2026 and 2027 picks this period.

Was about to post the same thing. These are two very different situations although there appears to be somewhat of a nexus between the two. However, the posturing by Melbourne and Gold Coast are almost diametrically opposed. I don't really see how some are conflating the two scenarios as being hypocritical.

He didn't really have an issue, he conceded it was the current landscape of player movement BUT he said if the player has the right to do that, then the Club has the right to hold the contract and that should be respected.

Posted in the BH thread, but for completeness: Craig Cameron on Humphries: Humphries has not stated either by himself, or by his manager, "in those words" that he wants to be traded. But, GC are not "naive". CC explicitly states that BH will not be traded but "the landscape is changing and we have to understand that the landscape is what it is ... but once a club is definitive with its answer, that's what needs to be accepted." CC ideally wished this scenario did not play out as it did and it was 'unusual' in the way its played out in the public eye. Hardwick's message to Bailey "we love you, you're still in a development phase and you have three years on a contract and we are not trading you." CC "he's 21 and impetuous and it's the way of the world that guys think they can get out when contracted and the grass may be greener, but it's not going to happen." GC will work through the awkwardness of the situation with Bailey and the return (at start of preseason) will not be an issue.

Craig Cameron on Humphries: Humphries has not stated either by himself, or by his manager, "in those words" that he wants to be traded. But, GC are not "naive". CC explicitly states that BH will not be traded but "the landscape is changing and we have to understand that the landscape is what it is ... but once a club is definitive with its answer, that's what needs to be accepted." CC ideally wished this scenario did not play out as it did and it was 'unusual' in the way its played out in the public eye. Hardwick's message to Bailey "we love you, you're still in a development phase and you have three years on a contract and we are not trading you." CC "he's 21 and impetuous and it's the way of the world that guys think they can get out when contracted and the grass may be greener, but it's not going to happen." GC will work through the awkwardness of the situation with Bailey and the return (at start of preseason) will not be an issue.

CC via Trade Radio: Negotiations on Petracca have begun Won't play out negotiations in public All options open, including players and picks but GC have been open on what players aren't available (read: Humphries) Open to extending the Petracca deal if it suits their payment structure and TPP requirements Confident under the GC that Petracca can return to his best, understand they won't be getting the 24 year-old Petracca though

Craig Cameron interview on TR, approx 10 mins away.

Pick 36.

Even so, he likes them more than Melbourne...

We could essentially be moving Oliver on for a third rounder, I wouldn't be expecting much back in return. Negotiating power with Oliver is fairly low too, given the circumstances.