|
|
|
Capper
|
 |
« Reply #1 on: January 23, 2015, 04:30:45 PM » |
|
So had this come in last year then we would have signed patful
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
My Chumps
|
|
« Reply #2 on: January 25, 2015, 04:33:02 PM » |
|
So had this come in last year then we would have signed patful
That's why it came in originally though; it was a knee-jerk reaction to the influx of players wanting to/coming to play for us. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
j959
|
|
« Reply #3 on: January 28, 2015, 12:22:56 PM » |
|
So had this come in last year then we would have signed patful
That's why it came in originally though; it was a knee-jerk reaction to the influx of players wanting to/coming to play for us.
I don't want to claim 'persecution' but the AFL doesn't bat an eyelid when Frawley wanted to go to Hawthorn ...  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
SydneyRox
|
|
« Reply #4 on: January 28, 2015, 12:23:35 PM » |
|
So had this come in last year then we would have signed patful
That's why it came in originally though; it was a knee-jerk reaction to the influx of players wanting to/coming to play for us.
I don't want to claim 'persecution' but Eddie doesn't bat an eyelid when Frawley wanted to go to Hawthorn ...
Fixed |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
My Chumps
|
|
« Reply #5 on: January 28, 2015, 12:48:42 PM » |
|
So had this come in last year then we would have signed patful
That's why it came in originally though; it was a knee-jerk reaction to the influx of players wanting to/coming to play for us.
I don't want to claim 'persecution' but the AFL doesn't bat an eyelid when Frawley wanted to go to Hawthorn ...
Yeah, and to a lesser extent O'Rourke. Don't get me wrong, the whole thing is absolute bullshower haha. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
meow meow
Guest
|
|
« Reply #6 on: January 28, 2015, 12:54:39 PM » |
|
You clowns didn't even have the space in the cap to retain Biggs even after Malceski leaving. How on earth were you going to sign Patful?
The trade ban is bullshower, but it's not like you would have been able to go on a spending spree if there was no ban.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
j959
|
|
« Reply #7 on: January 28, 2015, 01:10:04 PM » |
|
You clowns didn't even have the space in the cap to retain Biggs even after Malceski leaving. How on earth were you going to sign Patful?
The trade ban is bullshower, but it's not like you would have been able to go on a spending spree if there was no ban.
agree with you mm on the financial side, but the ban was and still is the height of sh*teness ... |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
SydneyRox
|
|
« Reply #8 on: January 28, 2015, 01:58:00 PM » |
|
You clowns didn't even have the space in the cap to retain Biggs even after Malceski leaving. How on earth were you going to sign Patful?
The trade ban is bullshower, but it's not like you would have been able to go on a spending spree if there was no ban.
agree with you mm on the financial side, but the ban was and still is the height of sh*teness ...
This. Who knows what we could have achieved? Our hands we ties for players like Biggs and Membrey |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Capper
|
|
« Reply #9 on: January 28, 2015, 02:41:49 PM » |
|
You clowns didn't even have the space in the cap to retain Biggs even after Malceski leaving. How on earth were you going to sign Patful?
The trade ban is bullshower, but it's not like you would have been able to go on a spending spree if there was no ban.
I thinkthat whole thing about not being able to re-sign Biggs is bullshower. We could have signed him on as we used a nat pick for his spot. They got riud off Biggs to make room in the cap not because they couldnt afford to keep him |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Capper
|
|
« Reply #10 on: January 28, 2015, 02:43:10 PM » |
|
You clowns didn't even have the space in the cap to retain Biggs even after Malceski leaving. How on earth were you going to sign Patful?
The trade ban is bullshower, but it's not like you would have been able to go on a spending spree if there was no ban.
agree with you mm on the financial side, but the ban was and still is the height of sh*teness ...
This. Who knows what we could have achieved? Our hands we ties for players like Biggs and Membrey
Membrey was always going to go to Saints for more game time just like Lamb did last year. And that worked out well for Lamb, didnt it!! (sarcastic) |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
SydneyRox
|
|
« Reply #11 on: January 28, 2015, 04:40:28 PM » |
|
You clowns didn't even have the space in the cap to retain Biggs even after Malceski leaving. How on earth were you going to sign Patful?
The trade ban is bullshower, but it's not like you would have been able to go on a spending spree if there was no ban.
agree with you mm on the financial side, but the ban was and still is the height of sh*teness ...
This. Who knows what we could have achieved? Our hands we ties for players like Biggs and Membrey
Membrey was always going to go to Saints for more game time just like Lamb did last year. And that worked out well for Lamb, didnt it!! (sarcastic)
yeah, but if we could have been allowed to trade in a player it might have been better served for us. Could have given them Biggs as well! As it stood we had zero negotiation available to us. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Author