Maybe I'm just a bit jaded - The response implies a value judgement I wasn't making, so I'll clarify:Teflon wrote:This logic I dont get.BAM! (shhhh) wrote: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.
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...
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.