BLWNBA

This is all just media muckraking though, right?

Please. My comment has nothing to do with the poster on this forum, but this reaction from people, that he somehow is under obligation to inform someone of his contractual status and intention is puerile.

Yes, he didn’t want to sign for four years. My understanding, as @Jaded No More has said, is that it was reduced at his request.

We initially tabled a four year offer.

We’re all shaped by our own experiences, perspectives, morals and ethics. I don’t think lying is entirely ‘good’ or ‘bad’, it’s entirely contextual and like many things in life, I don’t think you can merely assign a binary answer to it. There’s also a difference between a lie, and a mistruth, to be a pedant. No, I explicitly don’t think an employee has any obligation to state their intentions to someone, other than their manager and at a certain point, their club of employment and a subsequent new club. Live in the real world. Props to you if you’ve never ‘lied’ to an employer. I don’t think there’s anything surprisingly or ‘wrong’ about what’s unfolded and I’m not even disputing what he’s apparently said to people. But given the conventions of the AFL system, how player movement works, and the nature of keeping a player that’s OOC and isn’t signing in the context of the AFL, and you still thought he’d likely sign… well, yeah, I would call you naive.

Yeah, just like there was no outrage when Houston came out and said he’d be playing at Port. At that point it looked like it he was destined for us and posters on here found that statement hilarious. Swings and roundabouts.

The collective naivety on this site is super cute. ☺️ I have no issue with the messaging from the Judd camp, and other area’s, being that re would re-sign on two years. But the faux moral outrage that he ‘lied’ to a supporter is bizarre.

Spot on, clearly there’s more to it than that. It potentially could be an enabling reason, but it’s not causative.

Assuming this is the result of covert effects from the media too 😂

‘The Brand’ does Europe.

FWIW, I don't think Petracca will be at Melbourne next year, but had missed Twomey also reporting this (I'm obviously aware there's a general consensus that GC are in the frame though). Twomey's comments on Oliver were interesting too, although maybe not all together surprising.

Rucci has a shocking track record, up there with McLure. Also seems like SEN have the work experience kid working on some stuff, given they've listed Oliver as 'leaving': Club-by-club trade guide: Targets, who's moving and draft hand

Damn, JD back at it again with the 'vomit' reacts. 🤮

Gold Coast reportedly looking the likely club if he leaves, but I agree that I'd be asking the question.

At the conclusion of the 2019 season, when Dangerfield was a 29 year old, he still had a further 81 goals than Petracca does at the same age. In fact, his goal accuracy slightly increases to 57.17% (Goals 283 - Behinds 212), so I'm not really certain you're making the point you think you are. But you're right, it is handy to quote statistics in context.

Thanks buddy, do you have time to give me a few classes?

On premise I agree with you, but I don't think the overwhelming pattern of performance and output demonstrates that Petracca can consistently and reliably perform in such a manner, at least in terms of scoring returns. He's had one five goal game (2025) and four, four goal games (2017, 2020, 2023 x 2) but then the drop between 1 - 2 goal games is pretty significant (even three goal returns are low for Tracc). Best returns for goals are 2021 when he had a career best haul of 29, then 2023 when he netted another 28 (28.34 return). To be fair, it's a bit of a apples and oranges comparison, given Dangerfield has spent more time as a forward; so we're comparing current output against a potential future output - so it's really all speculative. I agree with the comparison between the two players, there's definitely some similarities, especially around their general disposal efficiency too; but where they diverge is the forward craft and scoring accuracy. Dangerfield goes at 56.24%, where as is Petracca 51.79%. I'd note that although these on a surface level don't appear to dissimilar, you need to account for Dangerfield having a further 163 career goals than Petracca.

King will be meeting with some players today, uncertain if Trac will be one of them. As you said though, the timing was interesting.

What?

Agree on both, but it seems that Rosas will either be at Sydney or Richmond.

Far too many AFL fans operate in a binary world, where they are unable to understand what can be true in say, December of 2024, is no longer accurate 12 months down the track (despite still being 'true'). I like to make the analogy that I can, right now, say that tonight I'll be attending Store 'A'. I have every intention to attend Store 'A', as it stands. However, 6 hours from now Event 1 may prevent me from attending Store 'A' and as a result I do not attend. That does not take away from my previous intention, and it does not takeaway from my explicit decision from the morning to attend Store 'A'. When you're dealing with human decision making, there's irrevocably a high chance that what is true at a particular point in time regarding a decision, may not have the same output, especially when you're looking at a decision making process over a protracted period of time (i.e., 12 months plus). Information creep in the football landscape is real, but many arbitrarily deduce decisions to simple correct/false narratives. Personally I'm very sceptical if the AFL community will ever get to a point of maturity that we see in other sports, particularly with reference to trade and free agency. I don't think it's in the psyche of the AFL as entity, nor in the psyche of the ordinary AFL supporter. Overall I think there's an infantile romanticism associated with 'loyalty', 'one club players' etc, even with the addition of Free Agency. Like you said, Twomey and a few others are highly credible; it's pretty disingenuous the constant noise that's made about media reporting (really, one of the only reporters I would take with an absolute grain of salt is Sam McLure; however, I still wouldn't necessarily say he deliberately spreads 'misinformation'). But it's classic, you rarely see posts critiquing our interest in players at other clubs, however when those very same reporters publish on a matter pertaining to the MFC which isn't seen in a 'positive' manner, it becomes media BS, lies, deliberate and vexatious reporting etc.

Well done on reading, now go back and contextualise the comments.