by Booney » Tue May 17, 2016 9:32 pm
by MW » Wed May 18, 2016 1:30 pm
by bennymacca » Wed May 18, 2016 1:34 pm
MW wrote:Rucci suggesting today that Port and more into Neale than Crows.
by MW » Wed May 18, 2016 1:35 pm
bennymacca wrote:MW wrote:Rucci suggesting today that Port and more into Neale than Crows.
Pretty misleading headline, the article mentions Neale possibly wanting to go to Victoria. So if that's the case why bother chasing him.
So not really sure how port gets included in that article other than for clickbait reasons
by bennymacca » Wed May 18, 2016 1:37 pm
by hawks21 » Wed May 18, 2016 1:44 pm
MW wrote:bennymacca wrote:MW wrote:Rucci suggesting today that Port and more into Neale than Crows.
Pretty misleading headline, the article mentions Neale possibly wanting to go to Victoria. So if that's the case why bother chasing him.
So not really sure how port gets included in that article other than for clickbait reasons
I think it was more a chance to mention "out of contract" Brad Crouch to be honest. Watch for this to be dropped in every article until that contract is signed
by Booney » Wed May 18, 2016 1:49 pm
bennymacca wrote:There is no way he goes imo. Would be a massive risk for other clubs. And his brother is here.
He would just wait to sign because his contract would be shite now compared to maybe playing half a season of good footy
by bennymacca » Wed May 18, 2016 1:50 pm
by bennymacca » Wed May 18, 2016 1:51 pm
Booney wrote:bennymacca wrote:There is no way he goes imo. Would be a massive risk for other clubs. And his brother is here.
He would just wait to sign because his contract would be shite now compared to maybe playing half a season of good footy
You guys talk about this in the umpire whinge thread, please?
by Booney » Wed May 18, 2016 1:59 pm
bennymacca wrote:Yeah that's the other good point. Would be a first rounder I would think. Which port don't have (?)
And we would have a fair chunk of room in the cap.
100% the crows would throw a huge offer in front of him. Whether he decides to go to Melbourne is a different matter
by MW » Wed May 18, 2016 2:15 pm
by Booney » Wed May 18, 2016 2:21 pm
MW wrote:They'll tear the place down if they trade the first rounder again
by valleys07 » Wed May 18, 2016 2:58 pm
Booney wrote:MW wrote:They'll tear the place down if they trade the first rounder again
Not "they", I'll do it.
by hawks21 » Wed May 18, 2016 3:10 pm
valleys07 wrote:Booney wrote:MW wrote:They'll tear the place down if they trade the first rounder again
Not "they", I'll do it.
Most supporters are all for trading another first rounder
If they do, Boon- i'll join you.
by Grahaml » Thu May 19, 2016 12:53 am
by stan » Thu May 19, 2016 10:40 am
Grahaml wrote:Facing restrictions isn't the same thing as will be restricted. AFL just doesn't want to see clubs trading away first rounders for a few years in a row to stay up the top and then fall in an epic hole after. It's hard enough when Melbourne and Carlton do is WITH good picks, let alone without them.
by Booney » Thu May 19, 2016 11:34 am
stan wrote:Grahaml wrote:Facing restrictions isn't the same thing as will be restricted. AFL just doesn't want to see clubs trading away first rounders for a few years in a row to stay up the top and then fall in an epic hole after. It's hard enough when Melbourne and Carlton do is WITH good picks, let alone without them.
Bingo, based on how some clubs have gone the AFL sees a need to protect them from there own stupidity and greed.
by GWW » Thu May 19, 2016 1:54 pm
by hollywood7477 » Thu May 19, 2016 2:16 pm
GWW wrote:Assuming we finish 9-13, and get a top 10 pick (after taking into account the Academy picks), I think we'll try and target someone like Jonty Scharenberg, who would appear to be compatible with what we need.
by valleys07 » Thu May 19, 2016 2:25 pm
Competitions SANFL Official Site | Country Footy SA | Southern Football League | VFL Footy
Club Forums Snouts Louts | The Roost | Redlegs Forum |