He is gone...rumour

[Teflon]

Well said, both teflon and harveysdisciple.

I WOULD take the long term pain 'cause we want a FLAG! One in 100 yrs isn't good enogh.

I also agree Hall should have been suspended for the d%g act of punching Maguie about 100m off the ball.

Much as you can bag Hall (and I do!) he is a Premiership player , and good luck to him. So far, only 20 past players at St Kilda share that distinction.

But the catch is, you aren't guaranteed a flag.

Hence the risk.

No sane person in the universe wouldn't risk their long term future for a flag - if it was that simple everyone would do it.
The problem is that history tells us that teams who go for the flag depsite their medium to long term future don't actually get the flag and end up regretting their actions.

Drivel.

Show me where "Lifes gurantees" are written on anything......Id like a copy.

Stop trolling.

[meher baba]

Hall to Sydney was a good deal for both sides.

Hall was hanging with the wrong crowd in Melbourne, and his move to Sydney probably saved him from going down a seriously wrong path and ending up in the clink or the gutter. It would not have been a good idea for him to remain at the Saints, so our trading him was a win/win.

It worked out well: we got Dal, and Hall got himself together for a while. Then it began to fall apart.

As HD posted, the first major step in the process of Hall falling apart should have seen him (and, most likely) the Swans miss out on winning a GF in 2005. That this didn't happen is symptomatic of everything that is wrong with the current AFL administration and its Quixotic quest for traction in NSW-Qld which will probably end up having the opposite effect of what they are intending (ie, rather than turn AFL into the national sport as they hope, it will impoverish and diminish the game in its heartland areas, thereby letting soccer and the rugby codes in).

Back to Hall. I have contacts close to the Swans administration, and I know that the club made an enormous investment in trying to keep Hall on track both on and off the field.

I haven't raised this point before, but I am wondering whether our club had made (or had planned to make) anything like this sort of investment
in relation to AL? I read in one of the newspaper articles about this that he was just on a standard sort of contract that had no specific clauses about off-field behaviour in it.

Are there grounds for criticising Westaway, Nettlefold, Drain, etc. for adopting too much of a "she'll be right" approach in relation to managing a talented, but troubled new recruit?

I'm not sure about this, but the discussion about Hall on this thread makes me ponder the possibility.

[barks4eva]

Actually I remember when I first heard you say it!

Rnd 21 when we were on top of the ladder and premiership favourites!

(was being thrown out of bondi in round 21 by the monster from the deep for the first time ...everyone knows that)

everyone knows what?

FACT is you said it in Round 21 after the North game!

Apologies for having a good memory, unlike your good self!

I thought the monster was the one thrown out, personally I reckon they should all be given medals of honour for putting up with you in the first place

[Moods]

I actually reckon Rodger makes a lot of sense - in this instance. maybe we should read his posts for what they are rather than assuming that everything he writes is attempting to bait someone?

Who did Geelong 'gamble' on for their success? The hawks went for Stuey Dew but gave up nothing to get him, bit like Gardiner for us.

Sydnet and W.C. before them? If they recruited a player for premiership success I can't think of one. And if you include Hall, well how old was he when he went to the swans 23-24? Hardly a gamble I would have thought.

The lions before them? Can't think of anyone recruited for that 'window'? Maybe Martin Pyke, but hardly a superstar and they gave up nothing for him.

The argument isn't so much as to why did Lyon (and co) recruit Lovett. It's why did we give up so much to get him? Historically, despite what others say, premiership clubs haven't loaded up for a premiership tilt, rather they have generally trusted their lists. If they have gone for an older player, they have taken them well down the draft order, so any risk is almost neutralised by the fact that they are giving up nothing and paying the bloke peanuts.

Believe it or not - we're not the only club out there desperate for a flag. The good clubs always have one eye to the future.

[asiu]

i was standing near paul roos (within hearing distance) (thats why i was there) on the tuesday (?*) night before the grand final as he was on the phone to (?) discussing the hall 'plan'

(and i rang andrew from hawthorn as soon as i walked outside)

they settled on the 'it was in play' approach to his defence

it was suss then ....it had that 'give them something so its worked out ' sort of feel to it

*could have been the monday night , cant remember

[asiu]

fact

the bit between your ballbag and your datum ...thats a fact !!!!

wasnt in melbourne for the 'wasted' rounds ...was in bondi tryn to expain to the MftD that the st kilda footy club was in FACT more important than our relationship and that yes i was going back to melbourne for the finals !!!!

you win round 7 as well , are they tasting nice those sao's ?

[markp]

The argument isn't so much as to why did Lyon (and co) recruit Lovett. It's why did we give up so much to get him?

ST KILDA believes it has scored the equivalent of a first-round draft pick in securing talented young Irishman Tommy Walsh as an international rookie for two years.

The Saints were more than comfortable in trading pick 16 in last month's national draft for former Essendon midfielder Andrew Lovett, safe in the knowledge that 21-year-old Walsh had agreed to try his luck in the AFL.

"Athletically, Tommy is a first-round draft pick," St Kilda list manager Matthew Drain said this week.

"That was in our mind when we gave up (pick) 16.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/s ... 5807290394

[Milton66]

Funny how trading for a player in his mid-20's automatically means that we are "loading up" for a flag.

We need pace, so we triedt to fill the hole.

No one refers to Dawson as "loading up", yet he plays an equally important role.

[stinger]

So many people with so much knowlege of things I must confess I have no knowledge about.

The media would have it that we were not the only Club interested in Lovett, and the other Clubs offered more money than did St Kilda.

In regards all other matters, pure speculation.

Perhaps all those assuming what is alleged to have occured should wait on the process in place - and then consider the defence IF there is any need to rely on a defence.


The indefinite suspension is sensible, not the least from the point of view of giving the player the courtesy of evading the media and media questioning during his appearances at training - which is a public event in the normal course.

There is absolutely no need for Lovett or his legal representatives to say anything publically at this stage because what are they going to say?

Obviously Lovett has not agreed the tenure of the complaint as published in the media otherwise charges would have been laid then and there.

So we CAN speculate that, if the complaint is as reported, Lovett has rejected the sequence and/or the event which may be leading to Victoria Police continuing their enquiries.

So let's just have a nice long glass of iced water pending Victoria Police actually laying a Charge - and then Lovett and his representatives having the opportunity to defend those Charges.

...sensible post.....as amended.....



but if lovett goes down...


as st mart said....


"Fact is
Ball gone for Zero.......LOSS
Lovett gone for Pick #16.......LOSS
Clarke gone for pick #60.....Ridiculous and pointless.
Maguire for pick #90......was he a better gamble than the kid from Sandy....time will tell....maybe that was worth the risk
Peake.....fair enough, as a back up for X if he did not work "


....pretty much sums up our brilliant recruiting for the year....


although tom terrific may be a plus.....and jesse ..if he can get out onto the field......

[older saint]

"Fact is
Ball gone for Zero.......LOSS (better to get capo room than a player who gets paid $'s and spends half the season in the 2's)
Lovett gone for Pick #16.......LOSS (hindsight expert comment)
Clarke gone for pick #60.....Ridiculous and pointless. (needed a new started and with SFA games in last 3 years what value did he have?)
Maguire for pick #90......was he a better gamble than the kid from Sandy....time will tell....maybe that was worth the risk ( damaged goods which all but 1 club passed on.)
Peake.....fair enough, as a back up for X if he did not work "

I will laugh in 6 months time if people are here talking about great trades if smith recovers, Peake plays well, kid from Sandy stands up and clarke and Maguire are watching from sidelines or the QAFL..

[meher baba]

i was standing near paul roos (within hearing distance) (thats why i was there) on the tuesday (?*) night before the grand final as he was on the phone to (?) discussing the hall 'plan'

(and i rang andrew from hawthorn as soon as i walked outside)

they settled on the 'it was in play' approach to his defence

it was suss then ....it had that 'give them something so its worked out ' sort of feel to it

*could have been the monday night , cant remember

It was suss before that: right after the game, the AFL media people were starting to background journos with general hints that Hall was going to play in the GF as part of a "softening up" process. Hence, the "Hall might still play in the GF" stories started the very next morning.

If it had been any other club (except perhaps Freo, who - as we know - the AFL has also bent over backwards to help from time to time), then Hall would have been suspended and would have stayed suspended. As if the Swans would really have tried to take the AFL to court about the matter!!

It remains the most disgraceful episode of a disgraceful decade of AFL administration. If Kerry Packer hadn't made an ill-judged intervention from his death bed in the television bidding war, we wouldn't be in a situation in which the over-inflated revenue from television makes the current administration look like it knows what it is doing.

Once the TV revenue reverts to a sensible level after the next round of negotiations, and after the AFL has blown all of the windfall it got on its daft adventures on the Gold Coast and in Western Sydney, the record of the current administration will be judged by the history books for the disaster that it has been.

But I'm probably not making my view of Demetriou and co clear enough. Sorry to be so vague............

[meher baba]

Funny how trading for a player in his mid-20's automatically means that we are "loading up" for a flag.

We need pace, so we triedt to fill the hole.

No one refers to Dawson as "loading up", yet he plays an equally important role.

I don't suppose this could be anything to do with the fact that Zac is 4 years younger than Lovett and that we didn't have to trade anything (let alone a first round draft pick) to get him?

[stinger]

But I'm probably not making my view of Demetriou and co clear enough. Sorry to be so vague............

clear enough for me mb...

[plugger66]

i was standing near paul roos (within hearing distance) (thats why i was there) on the tuesday (?*) night before the grand final as he was on the phone to (?) discussing the hall 'plan'

(and i rang andrew from hawthorn as soon as i walked outside)

they settled on the 'it was in play' approach to his defence

it was suss then ....it had that 'give them something so its worked out ' sort of feel to it

*could have been the monday night , cant remember

It was suss before that: right after the game, the AFL media people were starting to background journos with general hints that Hall was going to play in the GF as part of a "softening up" process. Hence, the "Hall might still play in the GF" stories started the very next morning.

If it had been any other club (except perhaps Freo, who - as we know - the AFL has also bent over backwards to help from time to time), then Hall would have been suspended and would have stayed suspended. As if the Swans would really have tried to take the AFL to court about the matter!!

It remains the most disgraceful episode of a disgraceful decade of AFL administration. If Kerry Packer hadn't made an ill-judged intervention from his death bed in the television bidding war, we wouldn't be in a situation in which the over-inflated revenue from television makes the current administration look like it knows what it is doing.

Once the TV revenue reverts to a sensible level after the next round of negotiations, and after the AFL has blown all of the windfall it got on its daft adventures on the Gold Coast and in Western Sydney, the record of the current administration will be judged by the history books for the disaster that it has been.

But I'm probably not making my view of Demetriou and co clear enough. Sorry to be so vague............

So the AFL has gone backwards in the last 10 years. Dont make me laugh. It is bar far the most successful footy code in Australia and has increased the difference between itself and the other codes in the last 10 years. NRL are a laughing stock and the ARU isnt even worth speaking about. Just about every soccer club is in debt where as most AFL clubs are making money whee as 10 years ago more were in debt. Obviously the AFl administration has made errors in the last 10 years but compared to other codes they have made many less.

[SydneySainter]

It could be a case of .... can't see the forest for the trees....

Some people seem to think we either will

win the flag next year or need to make sure we do...not a guarantee..... what I am saying is that being short-sighted can come at a cost and there is a risk involved when you do not continue to bring the best young talent in..... a long term negative effect....even if lovett worked (which was very speculative) it still would have hurt long term....and it will take more than 1 more year at the top to win the GF

example
Sydney picked up Hall for Dal....Hall has left (with a cup) we have a dual AA who has another possible 120 games left.....short term it worked for sydney.....long term it has benefited us...Dal may play in 2 flags yet.....IF HALL was delisted before he played a game.....who would have been the winner?????

there is also the effect of breaking up a tight knit group for results....and how that effects group loyalty down the track....we expect players to remain loyal and stick by the jumper even when their income is at stake, yet it seems we think the club has NO responsibility to do the same?????

Supporters even Boo players who gave great service to the jumper in their time.....

anyway that is another argument.....

Fact is
Ball gone for Zero.......LOSS
Lovett gone for Pick #16.......LOSS
Clarke gone for pick #60.....Ridiculous and pointless.
Maguire for pick #90......was he a better gamble than the kid from Sandy....time will tell....maybe that was worth the risk
Peake.....fair enough, as a back up for X if he did not work

I would have preferred
Pick #16, Pick 30, Pick 32, X.Clarke, Pick 63, Pick 77
in the last uncomprimised draft.....considering the next few years we will get zilch

You lost your aguement as soon as you used Hall and Dal as an example. Sydney short term gain won them a flag. We have one won in 112 years. Big deal if in the short term we only win one flag because of a short term recruitment. And dal may win 2. He could also win none. Why use those 2 to prove short term recruitment isnt good for a club.

Agree on this, we have played finals 5 out of the last 6 years and whilst it has been a good ride, its time to deliver, a premiership or bust for mine.

Agreed. Our time for the flag is now or never.

Whilst we have several promising kids in development, spending a long time playing finals gives you limited drafting options and unless we start trading players like Roo, Dal, BJ and Chips for early draft picks, it's cyclical that we will face a rebuilding phase in the near future.

Anyone who thinks that we can still challenge for a flag in two to three years time, that's wishful thinking and if the club focuses the entirety of it's recruiting on the future, we may not have a flag by the time our rebuilding phase begins.

[rodgerfox]

It could be a case of .... can't see the forest for the trees....

Some people seem to think we either will

win the flag next year or need to make sure we do...not a guarantee..... what I am saying is that being short-sighted can come at a cost and there is a risk involved when you do not continue to bring the best young talent in..... a long term negative effect....even if lovett worked (which was very speculative) it still would have hurt long term....and it will take more than 1 more year at the top to win the GF

example
Sydney picked up Hall for Dal....Hall has left (with a cup) we have a dual AA who has another possible 120 games left.....short term it worked for sydney.....long term it has benefited us...Dal may play in 2 flags yet.....IF HALL was delisted before he played a game.....who would have been the winner?????

there is also the effect of breaking up a tight knit group for results....and how that effects group loyalty down the track....we expect players to remain loyal and stick by the jumper even when their income is at stake, yet it seems we think the club has NO responsibility to do the same?????

Supporters even Boo players who gave great service to the jumper in their time.....

anyway that is another argument.....

Fact is
Ball gone for Zero.......LOSS
Lovett gone for Pick #16.......LOSS
Clarke gone for pick #60.....Ridiculous and pointless.
Maguire for pick #90......was he a better gamble than the kid from Sandy....time will tell....maybe that was worth the risk
Peake.....fair enough, as a back up for X if he did not work

I would have preferred
Pick #16, Pick 30, Pick 32, X.Clarke, Pick 63, Pick 77
in the last uncomprimised draft.....considering the next few years we will get zilch

You lost your aguement as soon as you used Hall and Dal as an example. Sydney short term gain won them a flag. We have one won in 112 years. Big deal if in the short term we only win one flag because of a short term recruitment. And dal may win 2. He could also win none. Why use those 2 to prove short term recruitment isnt good for a club.

Agree on this, we have played finals 5 out of the last 6 years and whilst it has been a good ride, its time to deliver, a premiership or bust for mine.

Agreed. Our time for the flag is now or never.

Whilst we have several promising kids in development, spending a long time playing finals gives you limited drafting options and unless we start trading players like Roo, Dal, BJ and Chips for early draft picks, it's cyclical that we will face a rebuilding phase in the near future.

Anyone who thinks that we can still challenge for a flag in two to three years time, that's wishful thinking and if the club focuses the entirety of it's recruiting on the future, we may not have a flag by the time our rebuilding phase begins.

Madness.

"Anyone who thinks that we can still challenge for a flag in two to three years time"

The problem with that is that if you sacrifice your medium to long term list improvement for a short term crack, you can rule yourself out of contention for far longer than 2-3 years.

[plugger66]

It could be a case of .... can't see the forest for the trees....

Some people seem to think we either will

win the flag next year or need to make sure we do...not a guarantee..... what I am saying is that being short-sighted can come at a cost and there is a risk involved when you do not continue to bring the best young talent in..... a long term negative effect....even if lovett worked (which was very speculative) it still would have hurt long term....and it will take more than 1 more year at the top to win the GF

example
Sydney picked up Hall for Dal....Hall has left (with a cup) we have a dual AA who has another possible 120 games left.....short term it worked for sydney.....long term it has benefited us...Dal may play in 2 flags yet.....IF HALL was delisted before he played a game.....who would have been the winner?????

there is also the effect of breaking up a tight knit group for results....and how that effects group loyalty down the track....we expect players to remain loyal and stick by the jumper even when their income is at stake, yet it seems we think the club has NO responsibility to do the same?????

Supporters even Boo players who gave great service to the jumper in their time.....

anyway that is another argument.....

Fact is
Ball gone for Zero.......LOSS
Lovett gone for Pick #16.......LOSS
Clarke gone for pick #60.....Ridiculous and pointless.
Maguire for pick #90......was he a better gamble than the kid from Sandy....time will tell....maybe that was worth the risk
Peake.....fair enough, as a back up for X if he did not work

I would have preferred
Pick #16, Pick 30, Pick 32, X.Clarke, Pick 63, Pick 77
in the last uncomprimised draft.....considering the next few years we will get zilch

You lost your aguement as soon as you used Hall and Dal as an example. Sydney short term gain won them a flag. We have one won in 112 years. Big deal if in the short term we only win one flag because of a short term recruitment. And dal may win 2. He could also win none. Why use those 2 to prove short term recruitment isnt good for a club.

Agree on this, we have played finals 5 out of the last 6 years and whilst it has been a good ride, its time to deliver, a premiership or bust for mine.

Agreed. Our time for the flag is now or never.

Whilst we have several promising kids in development, spending a long time playing finals gives you limited drafting options and unless we start trading players like Roo, Dal, BJ and Chips for early draft picks, it's cyclical that we will face a rebuilding phase in the near future.

Anyone who thinks that we can still challenge for a flag in two to three years time, that's wishful thinking and if the club focuses the entirety of it's recruiting on the future, we may not have a flag by the time our rebuilding phase begins.

Madness.

"Anyone who thinks that we can still challenge for a flag in two to three years time"

The problem with that is that if you sacrifice your medium to long term list improvement for a short term crack, you can rule yourself out of contention for far longer than 2-3 years.

But what if you have a positive attitude unlike your negative one and we do win the flag. Even if we didnt it is worth a gamble afterall everything else we have tried in 112 years has only given us one flag. Im sure you will come back with another negative response.

[matrix]

[markp]

RL has gambled away our future.

[Dr Spaceman]

RL has gambled away our future.

If our future relies on one kid picked at #16 in a weak draft then god help us

[ausfatcat]

Just a question guys, when did the memo come out about the draft picks being a sure thing? And your guareenteed to pick up a gun with each pick?

[Richter]

I actually reckon Rodger makes a lot of sense - in this instance. maybe we should read his posts for what they are rather than assuming that everything he writes is attempting to bait someone?

Who did Geelong 'gamble' on for their success? The hawks went for Stuey Dew but gave up nothing to get him, bit like Gardiner for us.

Sydnet and W.C. before them? If they recruited a player for premiership success I can't think of one. And if you include Hall, well how old was he when he went to the swans 23-24? Hardly a gamble I would have thought.

The lions before them? Can't think of anyone recruited for that 'window'? Maybe Martin Pyke, but hardly a superstar and they gave up nothing for him.

The argument isn't so much as to why did Lyon (and co) recruit Lovett. It's why did we give up so much to get him? Historically, despite what others say, premiership clubs haven't loaded up for a premiership tilt, rather they have generally trusted their lists. If they have gone for an older player, they have taken them well down the draft order, so any risk is almost neutralised by the fact that they are giving up nothing and paying the bloke peanuts.

Believe it or not - we're not the only club out there desperate for a flag. The good clubs always have one eye to the future.

Selective memory.

Lyon has given up #16 for Lovett. Very little else for our top-ups.

Sydney gave up #13, #17 and #45 for Hall in 2001.

Geelong gave up #12, #16 for Brad Ottens in 2004.

Hawks bottomed out and got lucky.

West Coast snagged 3 superstars mids in Cousins, Judd and Kerr all at once.

The Brions has salary cap concessions that allowed them to keep their stars.

[SydneySainter]

It could be a case of .... can't see the forest for the trees....

Some people seem to think we either will

win the flag next year or need to make sure we do...not a guarantee..... what I am saying is that being short-sighted can come at a cost and there is a risk involved when you do not continue to bring the best young talent in..... a long term negative effect....even if lovett worked (which was very speculative) it still would have hurt long term....and it will take more than 1 more year at the top to win the GF

example
Sydney picked up Hall for Dal....Hall has left (with a cup) we have a dual AA who has another possible 120 games left.....short term it worked for sydney.....long term it has benefited us...Dal may play in 2 flags yet.....IF HALL was delisted before he played a game.....who would have been the winner?????

there is also the effect of breaking up a tight knit group for results....and how that effects group loyalty down the track....we expect players to remain loyal and stick by the jumper even when their income is at stake, yet it seems we think the club has NO responsibility to do the same?????

Supporters even Boo players who gave great service to the jumper in their time.....

anyway that is another argument.....

Fact is
Ball gone for Zero.......LOSS
Lovett gone for Pick #16.......LOSS
Clarke gone for pick #60.....Ridiculous and pointless.
Maguire for pick #90......was he a better gamble than the kid from Sandy....time will tell....maybe that was worth the risk
Peake.....fair enough, as a back up for X if he did not work

I would have preferred
Pick #16, Pick 30, Pick 32, X.Clarke, Pick 63, Pick 77
in the last uncomprimised draft.....considering the next few years we will get zilch

You lost your aguement as soon as you used Hall and Dal as an example. Sydney short term gain won them a flag. We have one won in 112 years. Big deal if in the short term we only win one flag because of a short term recruitment. And dal may win 2. He could also win none. Why use those 2 to prove short term recruitment isnt good for a club.

Agree on this, we have played finals 5 out of the last 6 years and whilst it has been a good ride, its time to deliver, a premiership or bust for mine.

Agreed. Our time for the flag is now or never.

Whilst we have several promising kids in development, spending a long time playing finals gives you limited drafting options and unless we start trading players like Roo, Dal, BJ and Chips for early draft picks, it's cyclical that we will face a rebuilding phase in the near future.

Anyone who thinks that we can still challenge for a flag in two to three years time, that's wishful thinking and if the club focuses the entirety of it's recruiting on the future, we may not have a flag by the time our rebuilding phase begins.

Madness.

"Anyone who thinks that we can still challenge for a flag in two to three years time"

The problem with that is that if you sacrifice your medium to long term list improvement for a short term crack, you can rule yourself out of contention for far longer than 2-3 years.

And clearly a kid taken at pick 16 in a compromised draft would have been our salvation for years to come.

[BigMart]

I believe I did not use HINDSIGHT when making a call on Lovett...

If I could be f'd I would dig up a few few posts from trade week where I called it a disgrace that we would go down the path.....called him a MORON and was absolutely critisised in doing so......howled down by the same posters who are now wanting to sack him in HINDSIGHT....

I have made many controversial calls and been roundly critisised for having those opinions....by the same posters......perhaps because they are early calls ....not safe and not with the benefit of fact.....I give an opinion...which is what a footy forum is about.....if I wanted to hear about facts I will read the actual website....I like to hear supporters OPINIONS and give mine.....

I have been wrong numerous times, Barry Brooks, Fergus watts, Matt Ferguson....although injury played a huge part in all cases..

But recieved huge critisism for an honest assessment on
J.Sweeney, Phil Raymond, Brad Howard, Ben Cousins, A Lovett.....have been proved right and never heard a word....from the same people who wanted me to eat humble pie if I was wrong...... because I stuck my neck out ......

I wil continue to put myself out there for abuse......


BTW - Plugger you missed the point on the Hall/Dal Trade.....and it was not an argument to win or lose....it was a comment...about trading away the long term future of the club for a shot at an unguaranteed flag....which can work if done intelligently - was it done intelligently this TIME!!!!

[rodgerfox]

And clearly a kid taken at pick 16 in a compromised draft would have been our salvation for years to come.

I'm tipping he'd be adding more value to the club in 5 years time than Andrew Lovett will be.