nutbean

Correct ! On that - I have never understood the angst on perceived differences between player and club on pay claims. We have players that are perceived to be in demand - players and their managers ask - the club can agree or disagree. Then there are players like Cam Pedersen who I perceive to have little demand outside our club - The club dictates and the player can agree or disagree. This is how the game works.

I am not sure why we are debating money paid to Dawes ( apart from accuracy) At a players best he is worth $X. It costs $X amount to lure a player out of a club. Tom Mitchell apparently is being paid more at Hawthorn than at the Swans. We paid a good sum to get Dawes to the MFC. It didn't work out. We have paid rookies a rookies salary and not one game has been played. Lynden Dunn was paid a salary and we got 4 matches out of him. We have had high hopes for JKH in the first season yet he has hardly played a game in the last two seasons. Do we reflect on every player that hasn't got many games and bemoan that they were being paid ? Or the reverse - Anything paid to Jayden Hunt up until this season has been nothing more than an investment in the future as he didn't get a game. Now Hunt is looking like a decent investment. Some players work out - some players don't. From where I am sitting Dawes put in, wasn't a disruptive prima donna as some footballers are . Bottom line is - his body did not allow him to play enough games and when he did he didn't take enough marks or kick enough goals. I thank Dawes for his efforts ( which I don't think should be doubted) and wish him well.

Am I right in my assumption that the reason the developer went ahead and pull down the pub is because size of the maximum fine is more palatable than the project being halted ?

It never fails to amuse me on posters who cant recognise the difference between everyone recognising the reasons that a player has been delisted (and most posters universally accept that the Dawes decision is the right decision) and giving that player a classless, vitriolic, plain nasty send off. Am I glad or happy he is gone is not a question that crosses my mind. Do i understand why he was delisted and do i agree with decision ? Absolutely. There can be obvious exceptions when we believe a player doesn't give it his best or is disruptive or dishonest about the way he leaves the club. But that is a rarity. Thanks to any player who came to our club, gave it their best shot and for one of many reasons didn't make it.

I have never understood the need for vitriol directed at players. Chris Dawes can be critiqued. It was a trade that definitely didn't work for us and I don't believe he should be offered a further contract. You can ever be objective and point to his body fragility and his lack of impact or marking ability on the field. I suspect Dawes himself would not disagree with the critique. But the need to denigrate a player ? i just don't get it.

There is a package on the club website - he looks very neat in all aspects (albeit he is playing in the lower grade).

He is an absolute gun (well...now that he is playing for us he is)

I am quite happy for us that it is boring. We moved out our number one pick for this year to get two picks last year and that looks like it might bear fruit. We look to be bringing in a player that is probably around the 2nd round mark. We have signed all the players we wanted signed and i cant see any on any of them going onto the trade table as they have so much upside. We have no players of real value who want to look for opportunities elsewhere. I would be surprised if we pull out any sort of surprise (other than a possible free agent) as we have no draft picks to play with and we have no players to give up. I am delighted to be bored senseless by the trade period as it is a reflection of where the club is at.

Since the Roos era began there is only one player that I believe that the club has "invested" games into with a view to the future and that is O'Mac. Not usually a fan of this approach but it looks like this will pay dividends with O'Mac. I think they may take the same approach with the Weed.

I dislike Scully as much as the next man ( probably more) - I hate that he lied through his teeth. However, the big difference between the Scully times and Hogan times is that Scully walked away from a club that was a cesspool full of stinkiness, with prospects of improvement, let alone finals a hazy dream, for much more money. Hogan can see he is in a well run, stable club, with good people and enough good talent that will propel us up the ladder. He gave up more money to remain in a team that is going places.

It means we are also considering drafting this little guy

I called for it to happen ? is that the same thing ?

You must be in heaven - as far as you are concerned we have signed Hogan and Watts on the same day !

ummm... Watts already re-signed 2/3's of the way through the last season ?

To me this is so much more than just keeping Hogan. Good clubs keep good players. This is a ringing endorsement for the club.

I think Scully will stay...

Give this man a job in our marketing department !

The thing that boils my grits (over on the other thread) and happens every time one of our footballers doesn't re-sign on the timetable a poster is happy with, is the questioning of the players commitment and in particular, their talent. These footballers go from good to bog ordinary based purely on not signing a contract quickly enough. Those questioning what Hogan has produced over 41 games - lordy....

Confirmed on trade radio - 2 year extension

I cant figure out what that has to do with the debate at all. Are we suggesting that because Boyd has a premiership medallion he is a better footballer than Hogan ? By that logic lets trade Gawn for Roughead. There has been some very average footballers who have won premiership medallions and a list longer than your arm of out and out champions who haven't. (Incidentally, arguably one of the best bulldogs of this generation didn't play yesterday because he was injured)

Couldn't disagree more. I thought Boyd was great yesterday and he did it on the biggest day of the football calendar. If you want to argue who has accomplished more - no brainer - footy is a team game and there is no higher prize than a premiership. If you want to argue who has been the better player over the course of their short careers - it is also a no brainer in my opinion - Hogan. I congratulate Boyd on a fantastic game but up until the final series he had been very ordinary with many pundits questioning him and one even suggesting he renegotiate his contract for less money as it was affecting him. He played a serviceable final series up unto the GF and played an absolute pearler in the big one This might be Tom Hawkins revisited - a break out game leading to a prosperous career - however i am not going to revise what has been, on balance, a fairly poor return up until yesterday.

I had to look that up !

so much white noise.... I am not sure why anyone would listen to anyone..

slightly larger ramification

It doesn't leak not because it there is nothing to leak but because this time of the year everything is so fluid. All clubs are asking all sorts of players/managers what they want to do and if if they are interested in coming to their club then add to that the penchant of clubs to float the possibility of players being traded out who aren't expecting it. I am happy that are club doesn't leak or would you prefer to be Richmond who let everyone know last trade period that Treloar was signed, sealed and delivered ?