SA Footy

the joker wrote:

whufc wrote:

the joker wrote:Makes sense danger meeting clarko in melbourne during the week. Because you wouldn't have thought that clarko would want to talk about international rules in the lead up to prelim

Or danger going to the hawks at end of contract

hawks don't have the cap for danger.

Wouldn't be so sure. Franklin gone, Mitchell, Hodge, Lake, Sewell, Hale, maybe Burgoyne all to be gone within a season or 2.

JK wrote:

the joker wrote:

whufc wrote:

the joker wrote:Makes sense danger meeting clarko in melbourne during the week. Because you wouldn't have thought that clarko would want to talk about international rules in the lead up to prelim

Or danger going to the hawks at end of contract

hawks don't have the cap for danger.

Wouldn't be so sure. Franklin gone, Mitchell, Hodge, Lake, Sewell, Hale, maybe Burgoyne all to be gone within a season or 2.

Yep Hawks will have plenty of cap room!!! And with Mitchell, Hodge, Sewell and Burgoyne potentially gone they will be in need of a gun midfielder

whufc wrote:

JK wrote:

the joker wrote:

whufc wrote:[quote="the joker"]Makes sense danger meeting clarko in melbourne during the week. Because you wouldn't have thought that clarko would want to talk about international rules in the lead up to prelim

Or danger going to the hawks at end of contract

hawks don't have the cap for danger.

Wouldn't be so sure. Franklin gone, Mitchell, Hodge, Lake, Sewell, Hale, maybe Burgoyne all to be gone within a season or 2.

Yep Hawks will have plenty of cap room!!! And with Mitchell, Hodge, Sewell and Burgoyne potentially gone they will be in need of a gun midfielder[/quote]dangers going no where.

Someone at work just told me Ruciuto just said they wouldn't be against trading Danger??

What would they think they'd accomplish by doing that?

HH3 wrote:Someone at work just told me Ruciuto just said they wouldn't be against trading Danger??

What would they think they'd accomplish by doing that?

He needs to shut up.

HH3 wrote:Someone at work just told me Ruciuto just said they wouldn't be against trading Danger??

What would they think they'd accomplish by doing that?

Given the state of the club currently I wouldn't be discounting anything at this point in time

gadj1976 wrote:

HH3 wrote:Someone at work just told me Ruciuto just said they wouldn't be against trading Danger??

What would they think they'd accomplish by doing that?

He needs to shut up.

Um yeah he does. After this bloke was part of the gang of 5, to say he could be traded..........well played Riccutio. Well played.

Im sure thats probably gonna help make up his mind about staying or leaving after next year if they dont trade him.

HH3 wrote:Im sure thats probably gonna help make up his mind about staying or leaving after next year if they dont trade him.

Love they wat Riccutio is going about his business at the moment.

I have no problem with what Roo said. If it's ok for the player to not committ (even if it's just verbally in the media) then why not the club.

MW wrote:I have no problem with what Roo said. If it's ok for the player to not committ (even if it's just verbally in the media) then why not the club.

Coz the player isnt out of contract til the end of NEXT season. Roos talking about trading him this year. Imagine if Danger said "im gonna leave after next season" He'd be dogging the club in their eyes. There'd be talk of not playing him coz he's not committed to the club, yadda yadda.

MW wrote:I have no problem with what Roo said. If it's ok for the player to not committ (even if it's just verbally in the media) then why not the club.

Because the club is trying to convince the said player to stay. Its not a onr size fits all rule.

HH3 wrote:

MW wrote:I have no problem with what Roo said. If it's ok for the player to not committ (even if it's just verbally in the media) then why not the club.

Coz the player isnt out of contract til the end of NEXT season. Roos talking about trading him this year. Imagine if Danger said "im gonna leave after next season" He'd be dogging the club in their eyes. There'd be talk of not playing him coz he's not committed to the club, yadda yadda.

Yeah and that.

stan wrote:

HH3 wrote:

MW wrote:I have no problem with what Roo said. If it's ok for the player to not committ (even if it's just verbally in the media) then why not the club.

Coz the player isnt out of contract til the end of NEXT season. Roos talking about trading him this year. Imagine if Danger said "im gonna leave after next season" He'd be dogging the club in their eyes. There'd be talk of not playing him coz he's not committed to the club, yadda yadda.

Yeah and that.

And what if we get another Tippett situation when 12 months earlier we could of traded him? Once bitten twice shy for the Crows me thinks
No player bigger than the club

stan wrote:

MW wrote:I have no problem with what Roo said. If it's ok for the player to not committ (even if it's just verbally in the media) then why not the club.

Because the club is trying to convince the said player to stay. Its not a onr size fits all rule.

I have not heard the quote from Roo, but from reports it was not a blanket "we are considering trading Dangerfield" he just did not committ to not trading him. Crows would be stupid not to look at offers.

MW wrote:

stan wrote:

MW wrote:I have no problem with what Roo said. If it's ok for the player to not committ (even if it's just verbally in the media) then why not the club.

Because the club is trying to convince the said player to stay. Its not a onr size fits all rule.

I have not heard the quote from Roo, but from reports it was not a blanket "we are considering trading Dangerfield" he just did not committ to not trading him. Crows would be stupid not to look at offers.

What would they be hoping to pick up? Isn't he supposed to be one of the clubs best players, and possible future captain?

I would've thought they'd throw all their support behind him and putting in every effort to keep him long term, instead of gambling on a different player, or draft picks that could be busts.

HH3 wrote:

MW wrote:

stan wrote:

MW wrote:I have no problem with what Roo said. If it's ok for the player to not committ (even if it's just verbally in the media) then why not the club.

Because the club is trying to convince the said player to stay. Its not a onr size fits all rule.

I have not heard the quote from Roo, but from reports it was not a blanket "we are considering trading Dangerfield" he just did not committ to not trading him. Crows would be stupid not to look at offers.

What would they be hoping to pick up? Isn't he supposed to be one of the clubs best players, and possible future captain?

I would've thought they'd throw all their support behind him and putting in every effort to keep him long term, instead of gambling on a different player, or draft picks that could be busts.

That is what Roo has been quoted as saying, they are going to put the things around the team (not just him) to win premierships, and with that they expect Danger to sign.

MW wrote:

stan wrote:

HH3 wrote:

MW wrote:I have no problem with what Roo said. If it's ok for the player to not committ (even if it's just verbally in the media) then why not the club.

Coz the player isnt out of contract til the end of NEXT season. Roos talking about trading him this year. Imagine if Danger said "im gonna leave after next season" He'd be dogging the club in their eyes. There'd be talk of not playing him coz he's not committed to the club, yadda yadda.

Yeah and that.

And what if we get another Tippett situation when 12 months earlier we could of traded him? Once bitten twice shy for the Crows me thinks
No player bigger than the club

What your also paying Dangerfield outside the cap?

probably
the bit about being able to trade him before he walks was what I was eluding too

MW wrote:

stan wrote:

MW wrote:I have no problem with what Roo said. If it's ok for the player to not committ (even if it's just verbally in the media) then why not the club.

Because the club is trying to convince the said player to stay. Its not a onr size fits all rule.

I have not heard the quote from Roo, but from reports it was not a blanket "we are considering trading Dangerfield" he just did not committ to not trading him. Crows would be stupid not to look at offers.

i heard it this arvo, he basically said he would never say never with regards to trading anyone, but he wants to create an environment where players want to stay.

seemed fair enough to me tbh, blown out of proportion