Ok sure rules allow it, but why would we offer that much?
OK, I’ve flipped again, that’s gross negligence for mine, I get he wanted 5 and 9, but 9 and this years now 3 should have been done, that’s not revisionist that’s just lowering return on sunk cost.
2 Likes
Actually very good offer it was
Both must go
The point I was making is that not even the Journo said we have or would,… just that we could, … and people started carrying on as if we had, or were!
I personally doubt we would, … but someone pointed out why we might, (assuming they knew what they were on about) …In the end, who knows in the Ducks & Drakes fk about that is AFL trading? 
That much is obvious but that’s not the full picture.
I’ll ask again to see if you can shed light on the key aspects of this:
From your inside knowledge can you categorically deny that Sydney wouldn’t have gained pick 9 from Carlton upon letting Papley go?
And is it not true that they would have let him go if they secured an in principle agreement from us for trading Joe to them for that pick 9 and their 2021 first round pick (pick 3 this year)?
FWIW the Carlton “ITK” are adamant that Carlton were never going to give up pick 9 for Papley.
2 Likes
Dodoro seemed to think the offer was 9 and their future first
That’s what I’m trying to establish. It seems incredibly odd that Dodoro and Harley would say this if Carlton refused at any point to dispense with pick 9. I know BWAS and one or two others have claimed that but it seems at odds.
Maybe Carlton were prepared to give pick 9 but with something coming back to them.
1 Like
Dudoro has said that Sydney offered pick 9 as part of the deal. That isn’t the media making the claim, its a direct quote from him.
It’s blatantly obvious that Sydney would have traded papley for 9 then ontrade to us for Daniher.
They also wouldn’t have offered 9 if Carlton hadn’t offered it to them.
The only reason this is coming up again is to blame Dodoro.
Blitz is getting extremely tiresome
5 Likes
cough and fletchers 
1 Like
I think the suggestion is that the actual story was:
Harley went out on his own and hooked Daniher but the actual list manager was a sane person and didn’t think they needed to add another extremely talented left footed weirdo with very serious injury concerns - so Dodoro and he colluded (or at least nodded and winked to an extremely collusive extent) to come up with a story that was plausible from both sides, didn’t make Swans look cheap and matched with what Dodoro said he would/wouldn’t accept all along. Unfortunately now Dodoro’s on record comments make him look in hindsight like a terrible list manager.
1 Like
Haha gee whiz. That is next level stuff in the name of saving face if that’s what it was.
Here we go again. It’s ■■■■■■■ deja vu regarding LAST YEAR.
Move the ■■■■ on!
Who cares what pick it was or wasn’t.
Let’s worry about NOW!
1 Like
In the end, the most important thing is for us to select the version of events that most closely matches our already entrenched views. Just filter out the doubt and counter-facts- it gets easier the more you practice.
8 Likes
I still don’t believe a Daniher is leaving us.
Imagine if we offered Tommy Hird 4 years at $700k after supporting him for 3 years through an LTI and he said no I want to play for the pies. Or Mason Fletcher? It wouldn’t happen.
I don’t like this new world we live in. I’m going back in my cave to hang out with bats.
4 Likes
That’s bullshit. They tell themselves that because they wanted him and we ruined their trade. Just like we tell ourselves 9 was never on offer when it was.
I back Dodoro for making that decision by the way, it’s what i thought was best at the time too. But we were definitely offered 9 and a future first. ■■■■ happens.
2 Likes
Bats hey. Hmmm.
Last year I was happy that we kept him, knowing it was a risk.
I’m disappointed that it hasn’t worked out, but I’m not going to retroactively be angry at the club about not taking the deal.
There’s plenty of other reasons to be angry at the club.
24 Likes