Page 82 of 188
Posted: Sat Oct 11, 2014 9:45 pm
by swoop42
I dare say Brisbane are hoping Geelong are interested in Crisp and that our pick 30 and Crisp is enough for Christensen with pick 21 then going to us.
In that scenario I would hope we could keep pick 48 but wouldn't scuttle a deal over it.
Better yet pick 48 and Crisp for Christensen and we keep 30.
Screw em the best we can.
LOL.
Posted: Sat Oct 11, 2014 9:45 pm
by uncanny
Pies have insisted on
Beams for pick 5 and a player of the ilk of
Aish
or
Redden
I put Greenwood in the same bracket as those two youngsters
so I think it is the deal we have been holding out for.
Posted: Sat Oct 11, 2014 9:51 pm
by swoop42
^That's already been rejected.
Pick 5 and 25 (Greenwood).
We want something extra like pick 21 and rightly so.
We've done all the hard yards for Greenwood separately to the Beams deal and it's just dumb luck that North would accept pick 25 in return for him.
We'll probably still get a deal done for Greenwood without the "help" of Brisbane thank you very much.
Posted: Sat Oct 11, 2014 9:59 pm
by AN_Inkling
And Greenwood's not in their class. He has had one good year but could go anywhere from there. Think we could pick up Aish or Redden for pick 25? No chance. We are also looking to add other players to our list. Rolling a player we found separately into the Beams deal just to help Brisbane hurts us twice over: handing Brisbane a steal and inadequately compensating us, plus leaving more work for us to find another player to add to our list.
I don't care what we end up getting for 5 or 25, it is not acceptable for Brisbane to get Beams for such a deal. We'd also look like idiots for accepting it after rejecting the same deal all week and giving the statement we did on Friday. No way we go back on that.
Posted: Sat Oct 11, 2014 10:21 pm
by September Zeros
AN_Inkling wrote:And Greenwood's not in their class. He has had one good year but could go anywhere from there. Think we could pick up Aish or Redden for pick 25? No chance. We are also looking to add other players to our list. Rolling a player we found separately into the Beams deal just to help Brisbane hurts us twice over: handing Brisbane a steal and inadequately compensating us, plus leaving more work for us to find another player to add to our list.
I don't care what we end up getting for 5 or 25, it is not acceptable for Brisbane to get Beams for such a deal. We'd also look like idiots for accepting it after rejecting the same deal all week and giving the statement we did on Friday. No way we go back on that.
Absolutely inky.
At a bare minimum pies would need to end up with pick 5, 20something, greenwood and (varcoe
) for their loss of beams and Harry.
That's a couple of mature players of lesser quality to replace the ones we lost immediately, and a couple of sweetner picks to develop some kids over time who may or may not need up senior players.
That's the minimum and fair enough too. It's likely even the above sees us take a step backwards in the short term, unfortunately.
Posted: Sat Oct 11, 2014 10:24 pm
by MatthewBoydFanClub
swoop42 wrote:I dare say Brisbane are hoping Geelong are interested in Crisp and that our pick 30 and Crisp is enough for Christensen with pick 21 then going to us.
In that scenario I would hope we could keep pick 48 but wouldn't scuttle a deal over it.
Better yet pick 48 and Crisp for Christensen and we keep 30.
Screw em the best we can.
LOL.
If Crisp's name is being thrown up as a trade, what's wrong with Collingwood securing him, as well as pick's 5 and 25 from Brisbane? I think I would prefer Crisp to Varcoe if it came to that. We need another big bodied mid who has scope to improve. Crisp fits that description. We still try to secure Greenwood from North with a second round pick. That's another hard nut type similar to Adams. Goes some way to replacing Beams, doesn't it?
Posted: Sat Oct 11, 2014 10:45 pm
by RudeBoy
I'll say it again. Collingwood did not put Beams on the market. Our preference is to keep him. So unless any prospective suitors satisfy our wishes, he remains with us. It's that simple. The lions made the play, but have been unable to do the deal. They are the losers in this....so far.
Posted: Sun Oct 12, 2014 1:29 am
by 35forever
AN_Inkling wrote:^^For any "face" to be saved by Collingwood, any deal we accept from Brisbane has to be quite a bit better than pick 5 + 25. They don't have any other picks before the 3rd round and do not want to give up players. Hard to see how they're going to manage that. If they do, fine. But if we give in to the deal that was already on the table, that's not saving face even if there is a small sweetener.
You're right though, we need to understand whether there is any chance Beams will go to another club.
Actually taking any deal, as long as it's even slightly better than the old one, allows us to save face. Only accepting what was already offered, or something perceived as less causes us to lose face. This is not a football thing, it's purely media bullshit.
Posted: Sun Oct 12, 2014 2:14 am
by 35forever
dp
Posted: Sun Oct 12, 2014 3:02 am
by 35forever
Posted: Sun Oct 12, 2014 7:35 am
by thebaldfacts
Forget Brisbane. They have had their chance.
Time to see what GC and GWS has to offer.
If Brisbane wants back in the game, then 5, 25 plus Aish or Mayes.
Posted: Sun Oct 12, 2014 7:35 am
by rocketronnie
qldmagpie67 wrote:Howdy all I'll give you all the tip the reason he nominated Brisbane is his dads treatment is in Brisbane on a ongoing basis (he is still undertaking treatment) which gives Dayne the chance of being close to his father and allowing his dad to stay over if required and it's only a 45 minute drive either way from Brisbane to Gold Coast now with the motorway.
All this talk of it being about money isn't actually factual as he would be handsomely rewarded with his next contract at the pies considering since he signed his last deal was done prior to him being a AA, Copeland winner and his output has increased markedly since the beginning of 2012.
I don't blame the club for rejecting the lions offer we all agree it is not fair and reasonable.
Many have pointed out that he is under contract and the club didn't put him up for trade Dayne requested it.
I said before I am like many others and am very upset by the way this has been played out and I'm squarely laying the blame at the feet of his management group as anyone with a ounce of scruples would have told there client to attend his current clubs awards night not advise him differently which has been reported.
I said before if Dayne stayed for 2015 I wouldn't expect anything less than the effort he has given weekly sin he arrived at the club.
He wouldn't play dead nor would he sit out a year as that would send a very bad message to any perspective club.
I hope he stays and the club then has 12 months to change his mind and find a way if giving him the chance to see his father more without impacting on his club commitments.
Correct me if I'm wrong but at the end of 2015 if he decides to leave he has to go into the national draft and could be picked up by any club ?
If he stayed for 2016 then he becomes a RFA and we have the right to match any offer ?
I hope this can be sorted out so the club doesn't loss out and Dayne can have some of his personal issues appeased.
If we don't allow him to go to Brisbane as he wants for personal reasons, then we will have screwed him mightily. Given that, why should he reconcile with the club?
Posted: Sun Oct 12, 2014 7:55 am
by Albert Parker
^Because he needs to accept that he is a contracted and required player and we need to be compensated fairly if his wish is to be granted.
There is more to this deal than his father and brother. Brisbane are prepared to pay him handsomely. Pies can't just roll over on this.
Posted: Sun Oct 12, 2014 10:13 am
by bwphantom
Crisp? The guy is a spud and has no damn clue. Can't even dominate in the NEAFL. If Lions can't trade him then he will be delisted. I live in Brisbane and have seen this guy play on numerous occasions.
Taking him would be like accepting 5, 25 & 100 for Beams. So if you are happy with that then by all means do the deal.
Posted: Sun Oct 12, 2014 10:14 am
by swoop42
BucksIsFutureCoach wrote:swoop42 wrote:I dare say Brisbane are hoping Geelong are interested in Crisp and that our pick 30 and Crisp is enough for Christensen with pick 21 then going to us.
In that scenario I would hope we could keep pick 48 but wouldn't scuttle a deal over it.
Better yet pick 48 and Crisp for Christensen and we keep 30.
Screw em the best we can.
LOL.
If Crisp's name is being thrown up as a trade, what's wrong with Collingwood securing him, as well as pick's 5 and 25 from Brisbane? I think I would prefer Crisp to Varcoe if it came to that. We need another big bodied mid who has scope to improve. Crisp fits that description. We still try to secure Greenwood from North with a second round pick. That's another hard nut type similar to Adams. Goes some way to replacing Beams, doesn't it?
I agree if Hine rates Crisp enough on the back of 18 games in 3 years but I'm not sure his name was thrown up as coming to us or being traded for a pick around the mark of 21.
For me if we get Crisp we say no to Varcoe and look to Trade Lumumba and pick 30/48 to Melbourne for 23 or something along those lines.
While I prefer we don't trade with Brisbane at all now unless Aish becomes included in the deal I think I'd prefer 5, 23, 25 and Crisp
ahead of 5, 21, 25 and Varcoe which I believe would have included us losing pick 30 anyway.
Like you say Crisp has scope for development and improvement while Varcoe looks to be on the wane to me.
Get Crisp and so no to Varcoe. I don't want both and would prefer an extra pick to take to the draft.
Still hoping it'll be Beams to GWS, GC or the dees.