Moderators: Saintsational Administrators, Saintsational Moderators
+1stkfc1 wrote:Just swap 'good' for 'unbelievable' and you're on the money.Johnny Member wrote:I also saw that we got Hickey and Membrey for Goddard.
Another good result for us I reckon.
Blues? possibly Dees?tony74 wrote:Don't just think it's the Dogs. There's another club around about our rebuilding stage that he's quite interested in. Not too hard to work out.
Why don't you just say Melbourne.tony74 wrote:Don't just think it's the Dogs. There's another club around about our rebuilding stage that he's quite interested in. Not too hard to work out.
About an 8.5 with a degree of difficulty of 10.fugazi wrote:Blues? possibly Dees?tony74 wrote:Don't just think it's the Dogs. There's another club around about our rebuilding stage that he's quite interested in. Not too hard to work out.
Any idea what we might offer Tony? And on a scale of 1 -10 our interest level?
Are we that 1 other club that has spoken to him Tony??tony74 wrote:Don't just think it's the Dogs. There's another club around about our rebuilding stage that he's quite interested in. Not too hard to work out.
If the Doggies do land Hurley then I would expect the club to start talking to the managers of some of their young stars. Between Hurley and Boyd there wont be much left over and we could dangle a nice carrot. Adams or Collins would be good gets. Smith or Johannisen also. At least make some noise around these players and drive up their next contracts. That would stuff them up good and proper.Linton Lodger wrote:It all comes down to our needs.
Does the Footy Dept/ List Management team want Hurley (or another quality key defender)? If it is a priority, then we should be ruthless in getting him and denying the Bulldogs, who could be a Premiership rival in the coming years.
The Bulldogs must be hamstrung by their Boyd contract folly and have a limited budget, despite Peter Gordon's recent announcement that the Boyd contract had not impacted on their ability to recruit, which is utter bulls***!
Gordon wouldn't be making comment on that if there were not an issue. The fact that he's making comment, is probably plain posturing.
So if we really want Hurley, we offer a tad overs and knock The Bulldogs out, or at least force them to pay more. If we pull it off, we'd have ourselves another quality/elite key defender and The Bulldogs would still be lacking a key defender they need more than we do.
Wow, I didn't know we intended to get Gresham with that pick. That means it was the second consecutive year that the draft gods smiled on us. Someone at the club told me we intended to get Sinclair with our last pick (I think it was 41) the year before but took Lonie, who they didn't think would last that long so were pleasantly surprised to see him available. We were resigned to losing out on Sinclair only for him to slip through the net altogether.The Recruit wrote:+1stkfc1 wrote:Just swap 'good' for 'unbelievable' and you're on the money.Johnny Member wrote:I also saw that we got Hickey and Membrey for Goddard.
Another good result for us I reckon.
Duped buy Essendon is wrong.
Always going to get greesham even with pick 6. Pick 6 for an Agrade defender and midfielder when they got a young defender who will need time with our pick 6...
Seriously duped....???!!! Sometimes I just don't undertones what people are thinking on this site
I don't know where you saw that. We got Hickey, Pick 25 (Spencer White) and pick 46 TDL for pick 13 (Goddard) 36 and 55Johnny Member wrote:I also saw that we got Hickey and Membrey for Goddard.
Another good result for us I reckon.
So we had a 28 year old Goddard (with 4 to 5 years left) pick 36 and Pick 55.kosifantutti wrote:I don't know where you saw that. We got Hickey, Pick 25 (Spencer White) and pick 46 TDL for pick 13 (Goddard) 36 and 55Johnny Member wrote:I also saw that we got Hickey and Membrey for Goddard.
Another good result for us I reckon.
Nice Olympic feelmagnifisaint wrote:About an 8.5 with a degree of difficulty of 10.fugazi wrote:Blues? possibly Dees?tony74 wrote:Don't just think it's the Dogs. There's another club around about our rebuilding stage that he's quite interested in. Not too hard to work out.
Any idea what we might offer Tony? And on a scale of 1 -10 our interest level?
Con Gorozidis wrote:Hutchi claiming Hurley is keen on the Dogs.
Judd claiming Saints would be a good fit for Hurley.
Lloyd claiming Essendon will want a mature gun player in return and not a draft pick.
FlogJacks Back wrote:Timmy Watson on SEN this morning also mentioned that the dopers want a player(s) in return for Hurley. A texta put up Billings. Watson said they would also have to add Ross.
Plus a zillion.SaintPav wrote:FlogJacks Back wrote:Timmy Watson on SEN this morning also mentioned that the dopers want a player(s) in return for Hurley. A texta put up Billings. Watson said they would also have to add Ross.
That Essenbum want anything or more accurately - if they get anything - that will be a total disgrace. Why the f*** should they get anything in return? Jaysus Christ and f*** me. What a farce if they end up with quality players as compo for losing one or more of theirs because they tried to cheat their way to success.Con Gorozidis wrote:Hutchi claiming Hurley is keen on the Dogs.
Judd claiming Saints would be a good fit for Hurley.
Lloyd claiming Essendon will want a mature gun player in return and not a draft pick.
He's on a drip feed of fawning and ingratiation from Channel 7, various other media and head in the sand Essendon loving types..Zed wrote:What drugs is Tim Watson on ?
That would give the Dees 2 really good key defenders.tony74 wrote:Don't just think it's the Dogs. There's another club around about our rebuilding stage that he's quite interested in. Not too hard to work out.