bing181

Seriously? There's even a radio station talking about nothing but trades.

Publicly the club has to deny deny deny. If Richardson comes out and says "we've suggested to Clayton that he explores his options", we'd be lucky to get a future second-rounder for him, especially on his salary.

On the basis of what we know, the review is into the Football Department.

Or perhaps not.

If he's being shopped around, I don't know that any of us know the reasons. The internal workings and the internal dynamics of a playing group and club are not generally accessible to the wider public. But to throw my own baseless speculation into the ring, I do wonder whether deep down here at some level the club has decided to close-off on this playing group and look to rebuilding around the next group down (JVR, Rivers, Judd, Windsor etc) plus going to the draft - and in particular this draft which apparently has plenty of talent. We've got Pick 5, perhaps we can massage our way into a second first-round pick. But if we could get a third first-rounder as well, it could go a fair way to setting us up long-term. So ... Oliver: getting older, would get us some decent picks plus clear salary space. Also, much as we love him, he's not bringing leadership or a wise head either - and this when we've lost Gus and ANB. Random thoughts.

Not sure the article says it was started by Pert, simply that Pert's been ringing around. For whatever reason. But perhaps because a trade at the level of Oliver goes way above a list manager so better to go directly to the other CEO's? Of course, I'm just guessing, just like everybody else here.

Bit of a non sequitur there? If you're not sure of her suitability, how can you assert that the board are basically just inserting their mates? Perhaps she was chosen because she was a strong candidate? Has plenty of board experience - as opposed to the current president for example. https://www.linkedin.com/in/dr-angela-williams-ab717181/details/experience/

Not necessarily linked. "Janette’s decision to step down is based on capacity and other professional commitments, which will prevent her from dedicating the time and focus she feels required to do the role."

Unless I'm missing something, Trac has his Insta cooking account (managed by his partner) plus his personal account. The post in discussion here was on his personal account. Blurred lines.

Not only did most of the key players they brought in cost first round picks (and more ...), they mostly came across when the Lions were struggling and had plenty of draft picks and salary space to play with. Not all that different to what we did with the likes of Lever and May back in the day. Lions also managed to get some go-home picks, e.g. Charlie Cameron.

They may lose Daniher.

"This break is exactly what we needed". From 25:55

No coincidence either that in both of those seasons we missed finals the preceding year. (i.e. longer off-season/break).

Helped along by the specifics of their situation: Academy picks, extra cap space, location etc. etc. (Not disagreeing with your premise either).

On paper. The team you're able to get on the field and keep on the field (consistency) is something else.

Then what does that tell you about our midfielders? (Though do accept they were mostly cooked this year )

Always exciting to land a big name in the trade period, but those trades are comparatively rare especially once you take out the go-home trades. Hunter retiring helps but I don't see that we have the $$$ available to attract any big fish. I imagine the focus will be on the draft - as it probably should be - with some depth players brought in to plug holes and replenish the stocks. Personally, wouldn't mind a KP Defender. May and McDonald aren't getting any younger. Perhaps that's what they're hoping for out of Derkson.

Was a smart pickup in 2023 and gave us a genuine winger opposite Langdon, allowing Brayshaw to move back into the middle. This year age, injury and who knows what else got the better of him, but thanks for pulling on the red and blue.

Agree and all, but any future Brisbane picks are going to be low for what they are given that it's Brisbane/a top 4 side. That F1 could fall into the twenties.

Also because we've been focused on keeping the list together and re-signing players, which is also list management.

Who like? You mention "players" plural, but the only player we've traded in of late who hasn't played a game is Fullarton. If you're only trading lower/cheap picks and offering salaries to match, to only have one amongst a number who didn't get an AFL game is actually good trading.

For all the talk of trades and Tim Lamb, the trade pool is generally pretty shallow and not all clubs dip into it. In any season there are clubs who don't trade in any players, or perhaps only one.

Twice.

plus had to pick up his $1.6 million over 2 years. Might as well include all the facts, not just the ones that suit your argument.

Just a little bit selective perhaps? Also not entirely accurate. Daniher was traded in 2020, and for the Dogs you've omitted Coffield who hasn't exactly transformed their team. You've also omitted the trading of 8 teams, which completely skews your comparisons. Cherry-picking. You've also omitted players traded OUT, which also falls under list management. Even amongst the clubs you've listed there are a few who would be on a net loss when you look at who they've lost. e.g. Fremantle - Cerra, Schultz, Lobb, Henry were all established in their team. Finally, you can't compare without context. A team lower down the ladder with few big salaries to manage, lots of cap space and more high draft picks will always have a stronger hand come trade time.