Dealing with Hawthorn ???????? !!

[BAM! (shhhh)]

There are some nice high horses going around this thread. I think GrumpyOne nailed it in the 4th post or so of the thread...

Caveat Emptor. Buyer beware. If it's in latin, we know it's nothing new.

Due diligence is a process for either party to complete independantly in order to assess risk. The sum of the story for me is that St Kilda is doing so, which I would have hoped, and now I know.

If any club doesn't make doing a physical part of their diligence on trades, they have nobody to blame but themselves.

This logic I dont get.

Yeah I understand the "do the whole due dilligence things" - no shyte sherlock but theres such a thing as ethics and that doesnt always come down to "due dilligence" and is bigger than doing your homework.

The above logic to me simply says " if I can screw you over in any way shape or form and you miss the fine print tough shyte"....what a world that is....should be simple taking cash of the less fortunate under this logic cause you did your "due dilligence"....

and nowadays thats dismissed as "moral high horse"

shame we havent a few more of those running round this spring carnival...

Maybe I'm just a bit jaded - The response implies a value judgement I wasn't making, so I'll clarify:

Not offering an independant medical opinion that disagrees with their own is possibly a sin of omission, but not necessarily dishonest or immoral. That's a value judgement we're making here without all the facts.

When someone's trying to sell me something, I expect them to make it sound virtuous. When I'm doing my research, I'm expecting to hear some absolute horror stories. Somewhere between the two is where I expect my end assessment to be, and I'll make a decision accordingly. The second aspect is setting expectations, where I believe the argument those angy at Hawthorn would like to make lies. Diligence is imperfect, experience is the real evaluator of trading partners, business or otherwise... but I'd still do diligence on Jesus Christ if I were going to trade players with him. If he failed, I wouldn't buy - but whether I'd hold a grudge would depend on how far off the mark the representations were.

So yes, I honestly think that anyone who doesn't go to the trouble of doing independant medicals is asking to get hosed. I think anyone expecting Hawthorn to volunteer the results of a negative St Kilda medical on a Hawthorn player is bound to be dissapointed. I think that the situation actually represented a case for getting Sydney (or other interested) medicos to check the guy out and assess risk with a view to bargaining down the price on the back of the St Kilda medical... taking the Saints report as gospel is not any more savvy than taking Hawthorn's.

Is there a good argument for being totally up front in trade negotiations? Absolutely, you gain the trust of your partners. But I question whether any anger at Hawthorn would really be because they didn't volunteer information to their detriment - which was bound to be found out anyway. From the rumours of trade week, it would strike me more likely that it would be based on Hawthorn negotiation in poor faith - knowing a 1st rounder was part of the O'Keefe asking price, and then taking theirs off the table in an attempt to strongarm.

When trading, it would be nice to think that everyone at the table prioritiesed good ongoing relationships... it's more realistic to expect everyone at the trade table to play to win.

[yipper]

Buddy Roughie also signed at same time did not go chasing money either !

The real question is; Did either/both of them have a real choice? !!

Indeed. This is an amazing situation - just staggering. I wonder how long it will be before this becomes a rather large news story??[/quote]

It nearly did. Seven, not two !!

But I think there is more to tell!! Quite a bit more!!

[bob__71]

Fid,

The reason you look like you have lower morals than eastern would be because you do have lower morals on this issue. If you think business should be conducted in a secretive underhanded manner, and eastern thinks people should be not act in such an underhanded manner, then to my reasoning that would mean your moral stance is different (lower imo) to easterns.

[golden hawk]

Buddy Roughie also signed at same time did not go chasing money either !

The real question is; Did either/both of them have a real choice? !!

yes they could have held out like say fev or john brown knowing hawks did not want to lose them , i know buddy said he wants to stay at one club the whole of his career and i am sure that will happen .

[Teflon]

Hawthorns morals have been questioned a few times this year - the "supplying medical evidence so players got rubbed out at tribunal" did it for me.

Osbournes a woman and I do hope he gets a smashing before hes done.

just curious if the foot was in the other shoe would you be unhappy if your player did the same ?

i have no quams on your opinion you have a right to but i want to know if it was the other way around how would you feel then ??????????

Maybe Im just a traditionalist - I believe,to a point, what happens on field stays there.

Osbourne and Hawthorn went squealing. If we did that I would be against it - I can not recall St Kilda EVER doing this.

I hope clubs start to understand Hawthorn have these ethics at their club and deal with them accordingly.

Im not surprised I have not heard this type complaint levelled against any othetr club but Hawthorn. If the shoe fits...

Also recall a bloke called Polkinghorne dobbed in the culprit at the tribunal back a few years ago - did he play for Hawthorn??

The point is IMO it hasnt been a part of the game - outside the exceptions - and shouldnt be.

[Teflon]

There are some nice high horses going around this thread. I think GrumpyOne nailed it in the 4th post or so of the thread...

Caveat Emptor. Buyer beware. If it's in latin, we know it's nothing new.

Due diligence is a process for either party to complete independantly in order to assess risk. The sum of the story for me is that St Kilda is doing so, which I would have hoped, and now I know.

If any club doesn't make doing a physical part of their diligence on trades, they have nobody to blame but themselves.

This logic I dont get.

Yeah I understand the "do the whole due dilligence things" - no shyte sherlock but theres such a thing as ethics and that doesnt always come down to "due dilligence" and is bigger than doing your homework.

The above logic to me simply says " if I can screw you over in any way shape or form and you miss the fine print tough shyte"....what a world that is....should be simple taking cash of the less fortunate under this logic cause you did your "due dilligence"....

and nowadays thats dismissed as "moral high horse"

shame we havent a few more of those running round this spring carnival...

Maybe I'm just a bit jaded - The response implies a value judgement I wasn't making, so I'll clarify:

Not offering an independant medical opinion that disagrees with their own is possibly a sin of omission, but not necessarily dishonest or immoral. That's a value judgement we're making here without all the facts.

When someone's trying to sell me something, I expect them to make it sound virtuous. When I'm doing my research, I'm expecting to hear some absolute horror stories. Somewhere between the two is where I expect my end assessment to be, and I'll make a decision accordingly. The second aspect is setting expectations, where I believe the argument those angy at Hawthorn would like to make lies. Diligence is imperfect, experience is the real evaluator of trading partners, business or otherwise... but I'd still do diligence on Jesus Christ if I were going to trade players with him. If he failed, I wouldn't buy - but whether I'd hold a grudge would depend on how far off the mark the representations were.

So yes, I honestly think that anyone who doesn't go to the trouble of doing independant medicals is asking to get hosed. I think anyone expecting Hawthorn to volunteer the results of a negative St Kilda medical on a Hawthorn player is bound to be dissapointed. I think that the situation actually represented a case for getting Sydney (or other interested) medicos to check the guy out and assess risk with a view to bargaining down the price on the back of the St Kilda medical... taking the Saints report as gospel is not any more savvy than taking Hawthorn's.

Is there a good argument for being totally up front in trade negotiations? Absolutely, you gain the trust of your partners. But I question whether any anger at Hawthorn would really be because they didn't volunteer information to their detriment - which was bound to be found out anyway. From the rumours of trade week, it would strike me more likely that it would be based on Hawthorn negotiation in poor faith - knowing a 1st rounder was part of the O'Keefe asking price, and then taking theirs off the table in an attempt to strongarm.

When trading, it would be nice to think that everyone at the table prioritiesed good ongoing relationships... it's more realistic to expect everyone at the trade table to play to win.

Any club that trades without doing an evaluation of what they are trading for is negligent - thats fairly obvious I woulda thought. All clubs play to win - that too fairly obvious

That doesnt excuse deliberate attempts to offload players who have serious medical conditions (lets not forget Hay suffered severe depression - was there any consideration for his ongoing well being from Hawthorn and the President whose head of Beyond Blue?). Its an interesting point - where does the duty of care to an employee end in this case? Surely there's grounds for an ethical discussion around Hawthorns behaviour here?

And what about the "strongarm" tactics Hawthorn attempted to employ at trade? I mean if your putting up a list of untouchables only to reneg on this when a player not on the list YOU put forward is requested...whats that really saying about your integrity in the trade? arent you really just saying "we are here to screw you.....somehow.."

I find it interesting reading about business and sustainable ones and the whole ethos of "screw over who you can" and how this invariably results in short term wins and longer term difficulties. Business is built on relationships and the best ones based on trust - they prosper long term. Sure everyone likes to profit and will do what they can to succeed...but ultimately the manner in which you conduct yourself (cause your behaviour is judged externally whether you like to think so or not) has an enormous bearing on your long term success.

Well done to Hawthorn of recent times - they've played hard on field and deservedly got the results, ran a fine line doing so and got away with plenty, succesfully offloaded players with severe medical conditions to prosper, dobbed in players to the tribunal and entered into trade negotiations with no intent to seriously trade at all. In the dog eat dog world according to some its all just "good business".....I guess had Carlton not been caught for salary cap fraud that too could be deemed "playing to win" or maybe just "sin by omission".....

Maybe all that is just me making value judgements..but in the end isnt that really all any of us have to live by?

I only hope that clubs note Hawthorns new found commercial edge and return the favour.