Bucks and Dangerfield
Moderator: bbmods
-
- Posts: 1054
- Joined: Sun Mar 23, 2014 1:26 pm
- Been liked: 1 time
Bucks and Dangerfield
Many here are speculating on the possible trade re Beams and how it might get Dangerfield to Collingwood.
I don't know of course, but I doubt Buckley would want Dangerfield after he was heavily involved/responsible in the Sanderson sacking. Kinda like bringing in a 'rat pack" player?? Of course, there is the loyalty to his best mate which might play a part too, albeit it a business decision admittedly.
I don't know of course, but I doubt Buckley would want Dangerfield after he was heavily involved/responsible in the Sanderson sacking. Kinda like bringing in a 'rat pack" player?? Of course, there is the loyalty to his best mate which might play a part too, albeit it a business decision admittedly.
kymbo
- collie dog
- Posts: 1348
- Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2010 9:43 am
- Location: Shelby Christmas dog
-
- Posts: 13521
- Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2007 11:29 am
If Dangerfield had a big say in Sanderson being sacked (seems at odds with statements earlier in the year), then there's very little chance he'd leave. You don't get a coach sacked then move on to another club.
The hope is that the push came from others and he's not entirely comfortable with it. If that's the case we'd be some chance of working a trade.
The hope is that the push came from others and he's not entirely comfortable with it. If that's the case we'd be some chance of working a trade.
Well done boys!
- MatthewBoydFanClub
- Posts: 5559
- Joined: Mon Feb 12, 2007 7:02 pm
- Location: Elwood
- Been liked: 1 time
Re: Bucks and Dangerfield
I suspect that Sanderson's sacking had more to do with members on the Adelaide board, than any discontent among the Adelaide players. Adelaide will regret their decision and that's their problem. If their situation leads to unrest and motivates Dangerfield wanting to leave Adelaide then Collingwood would be a great home for Dangerfield.kymbo5@yahoo.com.au wrote:Many here are speculating on the possible trade re Beams and how it might get Dangerfield to Collingwood.
I don't know of course, but I doubt Buckley would want Dangerfield after he was heavily involved/responsible in the Sanderson sacking. Kinda like bringing in a 'rat pack" player?? Of course, there is the loyalty to his best mate which might play a part too, albeit it a business decision admittedly.
- Captain_MyCaptain
- Posts: 3070
- Joined: Thu May 25, 2006 9:20 pm
- Location: home
-
- Posts: 13521
- Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2007 11:29 am
-
- Posts: 1054
- Joined: Sun Mar 23, 2014 1:26 pm
- Been liked: 1 time
- makri
- Posts: 1243
- Joined: Sat Oct 29, 2005 7:24 pm
- Location: Clifton Hill
- Been liked: 2 times
- Contact:
If Dangerfield did have anything to do with Sanderson getting sacked it's unlikely that he would then come here and play under one of Sanderson's best mates.
Magpie Jumper Gallery:
https://www.instagram.com/magpiejumpers/
https://www.instagram.com/magpiejumpers/
Losing Beams and getting Dangerfield using the Beams compensation should be the first option we try.
Get him to agree to our offer and we're half way there with the implied threat that he'll leave for the pies at the end of 2015 if a trade isn't done.
Pick 4 and a player off the Brisbane list that suits there needs and one there prepared to trade would be better compensation that what they'll receive via free agency.
Replace Beams immediately with Dangerfield and our hopes in the short term suddenly don't seem so bleak.
About time Ed pulled off another Malthouse style coup.
Get him to agree to our offer and we're half way there with the implied threat that he'll leave for the pies at the end of 2015 if a trade isn't done.
Pick 4 and a player off the Brisbane list that suits there needs and one there prepared to trade would be better compensation that what they'll receive via free agency.
Replace Beams immediately with Dangerfield and our hopes in the short term suddenly don't seem so bleak.
About time Ed pulled off another Malthouse style coup.
He's mad. He's bad. He's MaynHARD!
-
- Posts: 1054
- Joined: Sun Mar 23, 2014 1:26 pm
- Been liked: 1 time
Adelaide's recent professionalism means they'll probably offer us former number 1 pick Richard Tambling!swoop42 wrote:Losing Beams and getting Dangerfield using the Beams compensation should be the first option we try.
Get him to agree to our offer and we're half way there with the implied threat that he'll leave for the pies at the end of 2015 if a trade isn't done.
Pick 4 and a player off the Brisbane list that suits there needs and one there prepared to trade would be better compensation that what they'll receive via free agency.
Replace Beams immediately with Dangerfield and our hopes in the short term suddenly don't seem so bleak.
About time Ed pulled off another Malthouse style coup.
kymbo
- Flashman
- Posts: 2019
- Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2007 7:03 pm
I know I pooh poohed us ever getting Dangerfield in another thread but with the Beams situation arising the notion isn't as far fetched as it once was.swoop42 wrote:Losing Beams and getting Dangerfield using the Beams compensation should be the first option we try.
Get him to agree to our offer and we're half way there with the implied threat that he'll leave for the pies at the end of 2015 if a trade isn't done.
Pick 4 and a player off the Brisbane list that suits there needs and one there prepared to trade would be better compensation that what they'll receive via free agency.
Replace Beams immediately with Dangerfield and our hopes in the short term suddenly don't seem so bleak.
About time Ed pulled off another Malthouse style coup.
I doubt it will happen but if the club don't at least throw an offer out there re orchestrating a 3 way trade then I'd be surprised.
As great as getting Dangerfield the player is, in light of the year we've had on field and the discontent festering off, it would almost be as much of a coup for the clubs public relations.
- doriswilgus
- Posts: 5350
- Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2005 8:02 pm
- Location: the great southern land
- Has liked: 4 times
- Been liked: 23 times
-
- Posts: 2899
- Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2011 5:05 pm
Re: Bucks and Dangerfield
Why not, makes as much sense as bringing in Clark who by all reports (I'm led to believe his depression is only a part of the whole picture) is exactly the sort Bucks should stay away from.kymbo5@yahoo.com.au wrote:Many here are speculating on the possible trade re Beams and how it might get Dangerfield to Collingwood.
I don't know of course, but I doubt Buckley would want Dangerfield after he was heavily involved/responsible in the Sanderson sacking. Kinda like bringing in a 'rat pack" player?? Of course, there is the loyalty to his best mate which might play a part too, albeit it a business decision admittedly.