Nathan Lonie

jokster265 · Post by **jokster265** » Sun Sep 12, 2004 2:54 pm

Collingwood has approached Hawks and Nathan Lonie for possible trade.
Do we really want another Lonie - surely one is enough. Are we trying to build a team composed only of people who are related to each other.

Nathan Lonie turned the Pies down and said that he would rather take his chances at the Hawks. What is going on?

Post by **Cam** » Sun Sep 12, 2004 3:09 pm

Brothers can get the best out of each other. Watch when both the Clokes are on the park how they fire each other up.

BigVman77 · Post by **BigVman77** » Sun Sep 12, 2004 4:55 pm

A poor man's Ryan Lonie - no thanks if we're talking about building a premiership team. Like comparing The Voss's, relative to each other that is..

Big T · Post by **Big T** » Sun Sep 12, 2004 7:22 pm

Great size for AFL for a variety of positions. Great kick on the run. Can read the play. Just aren't tough enough. But the Lonies have so much for the right coach to mould. I reckon Ryan came along more than anyone this year and if MM thinks he can get Nathan to improve in a similar vane then its worth a go.

Johnson#26 · Post by **Johnson#26** » Sun Sep 12, 2004 7:32 pm

No thanks. He may be a good kick (tecniequie), he isn't the best 'user' of it. (If people understand what I mean).

If we got him real cheap, yes. But otherwise, no.

maggies2003 · Post by **maggies2003** » Sun Sep 12, 2004 10:51 pm

ive heard he has recently extended his contract with the hawks... could be wrong though..

Joel · Post by **Joel** » Mon Sep 13, 2004 8:20 am

Where did you hear this jokster?

Cannibal · Post by **Cannibal** » Mon Sep 13, 2004 9:17 am

There was a piece in the paper last week (Age or Hun, can't remember which, probably the Hun), which said Lonie and a couple of other Hawthorn players had been signed up again.

Daks · Post by **Daks** » Mon Sep 13, 2004 11:41 am

Cannibal wrote:There was a piece in the paper last week (Age or Hun, can't remember which, probably the Hun), which said Lonie and a couple of other Hawthorn players had been signed up again.

Bugger.

no fear · Post by **no fear** » Mon Sep 13, 2004 12:01 pm

Why on earth would we want another Lonie. Surely one is enough. It's like having two Wakelins; one is good but two players exactly the same doesn't work.

And from the players' perspective, it cheapens their value to the club and works against them when negotiating contracts. That's the eason Justin Madden left Essendon and went to Carlton years ago; one Madden was valuable, but two Maddens cheapened their worth to Essendon.

Culprit · Post by **Culprit** » Mon Sep 13, 2004 12:50 pm

The idea to get Nathan is a good one. They play a half each as no one will know who is playing. Use the same jumper, fresh legs in the last half.

Nath · Post by **Nath** » Mon Sep 13, 2004 1:03 pm

Nathan Lonie, along with Nick Ries and Luke Brennan signed two year contracts last Thursday, eliminating them all from trade

Johnson#26 · Post by **Johnson#26** » Mon Sep 13, 2004 5:13 pm

Problem is that they are too much the same.

jokster265 · Post by **jokster265** » Tue Sep 14, 2004 9:50 am

Was out with a mate of mine in Frankston a couple of weeks ago. We met up with Ryan and Nathan, my mate went to school with them, and it was a big topic of discussion. Apparently Malthouse had worded Ryan up about it during the year that they might make a play for Nathan.

Culprit · Post by **Culprit** » Tue Sep 14, 2004 2:40 pm

Ryan may got to the Hawks, you just never know.

This is an unofficial Bulletin Board - owned and run by its users. We welcome all fans of the Mighty Collingwood Football Club.

Nathan Lonie

Nathan Lonie