LOL at the media "not being accurate". Not so much because it's true or not, but I don't reckon anyone's pushed the "fiance wants out" angle other than posters on here. If the media has been pushing anything it is - quite predictably - that Paddy wants out because of ASAGA. Oh well, it's all he said, she said in the end.
Name one established Essendon player that left Essendon and was glad with their decision.
Monfries
I reckon him & Dimma (50 games & a flag, gotta be happy with that) are two.
Teddy wasn't established, hence why he went.
Greg Anderson?
Glenn Manton.
21 games for us in 3 years, hardly established.
Name one established Essendon player that left Essendon and was glad with their decision.
Monfries
I reckon him & Dimma (50 games & a flag, gotta be happy with that) are two.
Teddy wasn't established, hence why he went.
Greg Anderson?
Glenn Manton.
21 games for us in 3 years, hardly established.
Salmon? Her considers himself a Hawks man doesn't he?
Name one established Essendon player that left Essendon and was glad with their decision.
Monfries
I reckon him & Dimma (50 games & a flag, gotta be happy with that) are two.
Teddy wasn't established, hence why he went.
Greg Anderson?
Glenn Manton.
Ted Richards
You reckon Ted Richards was established?
Roos wants pick 3 for Frawley.
On that basis Ryder is worth this year's pick #1, plus last years #1 pick + a good player ;)
Like Lloyd first said on Footy Classified when the story first broke, they would have to offer Rockliff, Hanley and pick 4 to even get us to consider it.
Roos wants pick 3 for Frawley.
On that basis Ryder is worth this year's pick #1, plus last years #1 pick + a good player ;)
It really irritates me how these clubs get compensation for losing players to Free Agency. IMO you should get nothing, given the "compensation" you have received has been the 7+ years the player has served at your club. Any why should it be linked to your finishing position on the ladder? Hawks get just PIck 20 for Buddy, who is one of the best handful of players in the AFL, due to them winning the flag, yet because the Dees are trash, they lose Frawley who is nothing more than a solid defender and they get a 2nd pick in the top three. Ridiculous!
Roos wants pick 3 for Frawley.
On that basis Ryder is worth this year's pick #1, plus last years #1 pick + a good player ;)
It really irritates me how these clubs get compensation for losing players to Free Agency. IMO you should get nothing, given the "compensation" you have received has been the 7+ years the player has served at your club. Any why should it be linked to your finishing position on the ladder? Hawks get just PIck 20 for Buddy, who is one of the best handful of players in the AFL, due to them winning the flag, yet because the Dees are trash, they lose Frawley who is nothing more than a solid defender and they get a 2nd pick in the top three. Ridiculous!
It's all done on a AFL round table of what they think, this gives them ultimate control to better penalise some and reward others. It enable them to do what they are going to do, give Melbourne a priority pick without giving them a priority pick.
Keeps Eddie happy and helps Roos rebuild the club which the AFL is paying him to do.
Imaging the pick we would get as compo for Ryder if he left as a free agent probably a second rounder.
Going to Roos’ theory for Frawley then we should get Pick 4, Rockliff and Hanley
Roos wants pick 3 for Frawley.
On that basis Ryder is worth this year's pick #1, plus last years #1 pick + a good player ;)
The "good player" would have to be pretty dam good aswell
Roos wants pick 3 for Frawley.
On that basis Ryder is worth this year's pick #1, plus last years #1 pick + a good player ;)
It really irritates me how these clubs get compensation for losing players to Free Agency. IMO you should get nothing, given the "compensation" you have received has been the 7+ years the player has served at your club. Any why should it be linked to your finishing position on the ladder? Hawks get just PIck 20 for Buddy, who is one of the best handful of players in the AFL, due to them winning the flag, yet because the Dees are trash, they lose Frawley who is nothing more than a solid defender and they get a 2nd pick in the top three. Ridiculous!
Another way to look at it - putting faith in the chance a kid will work out at top level, recruiting them at 18, developing, training, teaching them, providing support, pay, guidance - and when they turn 25 - they're ready to give a few years back. Except - they leave for better money....
Our kids at Uni pay back large sums of money lent to them during their tutelage, supposedly back-ended against when they are earning better money. Yet our sportsmen - who are really just giving back 'entertainment', are not expected to pay back anything after they've been carried for 7 years?
Roos wants pick 3 for Frawley.
On that basis Ryder is worth this year's pick #1, plus last years #1 pick + a good player ;)
......
If Richmond were willing to part with a pick in the 20's for Hampson, then what does that make Ryder worth. A lifetime of pick 1's?
back on topic, i don't understand all the fuss about Frawley, good stopper, average forward. And he wants about 600-700K!! no thanks
Can’t compare this to uni fees, apples and oranges.
Ryder needs to decide if he wants to Ryde or Die with us.
Nananananana
Agreed. Also, playing for the red and black is a privilege that is generally well rewarded. When it becomes only a legal obligation, move on.
Roos wants pick 3 for Frawley.
On that basis Ryder is worth this year's pick #1, plus last years #1 pick + a good player ;)
It really irritates me how these clubs get compensation for losing players to Free Agency. IMO you should get nothing, given the "compensation" you have received has been the 7+ years the player has served at your club. Any why should it be linked to your finishing position on the ladder? Hawks get just PIck 20 for Buddy, who is one of the best handful of players in the AFL, due to them winning the flag, yet because the Dees are trash, they lose Frawley who is nothing more than a solid defender and they get a 2nd pick in the top three. Ridiculous!
Another way to look at it - putting faith in the chance a kid will work out at top level, recruiting them at 18, developing, training, teaching them, providing support, pay, guidance - and when they turn 25 - they're ready to give a few years back. Except - they leave for better money....
Our kids at Uni pay back large sums of money lent to them during their tutelage, supposedly back-ended against when they are earning better money. Yet our sportsmen - who are really just giving back 'entertainment', are not expected to pay back anything after they've been carried for 7 years?
That applies to a lot of players, sure, but there are plenty of players to whom it doesn't. Joel Selwood was 25 at the start of the year, and I don't think anyone would argue that he's just starting to give something back to Geelong. Judd was a Brownlow medallist, Norm Smith medallist and premiership captain before he was 25, I think West Coast got pretty good value out of him. Heppell has deserved every single game he's got, he won't be 25 for another three years.
Frawley's not the same calibre, but he's in the same category, he was an All Australian tall defender at 21, and has been a good player since then, and has played 97 of a possible 110 games in the last five years. He has spent the vast majority of his career being played and paid based on his actualy quality, not his potential. Melbourne have more than received fair value for their investment of pick 12 and the development work they've put into him. Their inability to create an environment that could even be called mediocre will cost them a good player. They don't deserve compensation for that.
Edit: add to that he's an unrestricted free agent, which means he's not in their top paid players, and they're getting what they deserve. Front ended contract or no, not in the top 10 players at Melbourne?
I love paddy but I would do more than just consider that deal, I'd take it.Like Lloyd first said on Footy Classified when the story first broke, they would have to offer Rockliff, Hanley and pick 4 to even get us to consider it.
Roos wants pick 3 for Frawley.
On that basis Ryder is worth this year's pick #1, plus last years #1 pick + a good player ;)
It really irritates me how these clubs get compensation for losing players to Free Agency. IMO you should get nothing, given the "compensation" you have received has been the 7+ years the player has served at your club. Any why should it be linked to your finishing position on the ladder? Hawks get just PIck 20 for Buddy, who is one of the best handful of players in the AFL, due to them winning the flag, yet because the Dees are trash, they lose Frawley who is nothing more than a solid defender and they get a 2nd pick in the top three. Ridiculous!
Another way to look at it - putting faith in the chance a kid will work out at top level, recruiting them at 18, developing, training, teaching them, providing support, pay, guidance - and when they turn 25 - they're ready to give a few years back. Except - they leave for better money....
Our kids at Uni pay back large sums of money lent to them during their tutelage, supposedly back-ended against when they are earning better money. Yet our sportsmen - who are really just giving back 'entertainment', are not expected to pay back anything after they've been carried for 7 years?
That applies to a lot of players, sure, but there are plenty of players to whom it doesn't. Joel Selwood was 25 at the start of the year, and I don't think anyone would argue that he's just starting to give something back to Geelong. Judd was a Brownlow medallist, Norm Smith medallist and premiership captain before he was 25, I think West Coast got pretty good value out of him. Heppell has deserved every single game he's got, he won't be 25 for another three years.
Frawley's not the same calibre, but he's in the same category, he was an All Australian tall defender at 21, and has been a good player since then, and has played 97 of a possible 110 games in the last five years. He has spent the vast majority of his career being played and paid based on his actualy quality, not his potential. Melbourne have more than received fair value for their investment of pick 12 and the development work they've put into him. Their inability to create an environment that could even be called mediocre will cost them a good player. They don't deserve compensation for that.
Edit: add to that he's an unrestricted free agent, which means he's not in their top paid players, and they're getting what they deserve. Front ended contract or no, not in the top 10 players at Melbourne?
Good points, and yes, I intentionally biased my argument to better serve myself :)
It's not totally hogwash, though, especially when it comes to talls :)
Absolutely, if it was someone like TBell (or in fact Ryder) I'd be with you all the way.
70/30 going now according to flog face Barrett ! Quote can’t blame him after what the club did to its players .
You know my feelings on this Garry! Honestly who gives a ■■■■ what your feelings are you tool !