That’s why i said “more” kelly 
1 Like
Fro another thread.
No.
Which players are you thinking of the clubs have traded out before their contract is up that wasn’t the player’s choice? I can think of a couple of players that got forced into retirement while contracted, although they still have to get paid in that situation, but I can’t think of any that got forced to move clubs.
Edit: I can think of some that tried. Us with Hooker, port with Hartlett, brisbane with Bradshaw (which backfired amazingly).
Yep this is the sort of lateral thinking that could help snare Setterfield and Martin.
Convert our first pick into two top 20ish picks plus add some change if needed to get it done.
The angst on social media about Geelong playing hardball with Kelly but saying GC had to roll over on Ablett is hilarious.
-
GC did when he asked the year before and gave up the year after.
-
Kelly is only a year into his AFL career vs Ablett’s 10+ yrs.
-
Kelly says he wants to be closer to family BUT only play for Eagles. Not Freo.
Also no club has to roll over on contracted players. Pretty sure there wasn’t this much on Freo saying pick 4 isnt enough for Neale.
Stringer?
Depends who you want to listen to. Coniglio is high on their priority list as well I imagine.
2 Likes
Cats really would be looking to trade with Freo
If he wants to go back to WA happy to do so but contracted so best value to Cats needs to come. Same for Freo.
If they lose Neale but got Kelly they’d be happy. And Cats would very happily accept Lions pick 4 you’d think.
1 Like
Fair.
1 Like
Sure they are but Kelly has to approve it. Hence why I reckon Geelong should play hard ball. I’m sick of every player nominating the club of choice whilst still contracted and citing homesickness. It’s becoming a joke considering they entered the draft knowing the reality that they will need to move interstate.
We are raising a generation of kids who cannot bare to be apart from mummy or daddy.
3 Likes
And you my friend have just articulated what it means to operate in a win loss industry…Contracts are there to be broken and simply mandate an amount of money and timeframe which is subject to having their needs met…Both parties have an option to stay or go…
From a players perspective the key needs are; culture, alignment to culture, leadership (and by extension safety), facilities, commercial oppportunity created through club, competitiveness of team and future strategy, on ground opportunity, self concept of value vs team value and external comparisons ($ and hierarchy status), medical support, coaching quality (on ground), coaching off ground (development)…I believe the go-home factor is invariably an excuse…In actual fact it’s a result of one or more of these primary needs being unmet. The lack of Sydney Swans players defecting is a classic example of getting it right, On the flip side you then have Adelaide.
Then you have a clubs perspective…
Is the player a positive contributor to culture, are they self led, do they live up to the standards that we seek, are they durable, what’s their form line been (12,24,36 months), are they improving maturing or declining, are they delivering return on investment relative to others in market and those in the draft, what other players do we have in this position (how do they compare?), does the player fit the aspirational demographic, are they coachable, do they fit into our game plan, can they execute the gameplan… Do they provide commercial value, do they represent what the club wants to be known for? Are they resillient mentally and physically?
Just a thought of where I think it’s placed. Incidentally I think as a club we operate as well as anyone now…
5 Likes
No.
There’s a basic flaw in your analysis- you assume GC are logical (& numerate).
Heated posturing is their default negotiating position.
So an offer from us will just see them back themselves into a corner (think McCarthy & Freo)
They react differently when the departing player gets the ball rolling - eg if Lynch had been the subject of a trade offer from Richmong, GC would have demanded multiple first round picks - no way would they have settled for Pick 3 alone.
Martin needs to kick things off - we make no offers. We’re just facilitating the departure.
3 Likes
Lots of people liked this.
Just not for the reasons FarkCarlton hoped.
7 Likes
He has 3 kids under 3yrs old. It’s a little bit different than a homesick 18yr old.
In saying that if it’s a must to get back to WA for that extended family support it shouldn’t matter which club he gets to. And Freo will trump what WC can offer easily if it’s tied to Neale trade.
2 Likes
There’s no way that Kelly is worth Pick 4 and there’s no way that Freo, as dumb as they are, would do that deal.
Geelong are whistling Dixie on this. Foolish in the extreme. Kelly is worth maybe a mid-late 1sr round pick, somewhere in the mid teens. They’re whistling Dixie if they think they’re getting a top 10 for him.
1 Like
Spot on. And as in most industries, the contract is in place MOSTLY to protect the employee, or in this case the player. If they choose to break it and go somewhere else it will most likely be accommodated.
1 Like
Lol, it’s funny, when he likes an Essendon post everybody blows a load, but if he likes a Carlton post it’s “don’t worry, lot’s of people liked it”
7 Likes
Yeah they’d have to give Freo back something for sure. Or Freo would hold it and try to send them back something.
Kelly however is being rated around mid teens 1st rounder. And his numbers are up there with some of best mids in league.
Cats aren’t just going to roll over on this. They brought in Ablett to have a serious dip at the flag and Kelly would now be a big part of that.
Freo got pick 2 for Lachie Weller last year. Strange things happen sometimes and Kelly a far better player than he.