Nick's Collingwood Bulletin Board

Great question E.

Makes a mockery of the anal thread moving when there are two equivalent threads running at the same time in two different forums.

I would still be prepared to deal with the Lions, but the price has gone up. If they tried to tweak up the 5-way deal to satisfy Geelong I'd be saying, "if only you had come up with that last week, o retarded amateurs."

IMO they've been running two, non-complimentary negotiation strategies concurrently. You can put up an offer you consider fair and then stick to it. You can lowball and then wind your offer slowly out to what you always considered fair.

What you can't do is lowball and then make bold statements about how unwavering you are going to be, then budge, just the once, making liars of yourself without getting to a place where the other party can realistically accept the trade, and then sook up when the guys who you thought you had at a disadvantage refuse to accept your bullshit offer just like they said they would.

And you certainly can't go around making policy declarations like 'kids will not be traded' on fricken social media platforms only to almost immediately violate one's own stated policies.

Collingwood needs to say, "Dayne. We understand that you want to go to Brisbane. The problem is that they are clearly a bit flucked in the head. We are still open to offers from them but to be honest it's a little embarrassing dealing with them. We tried to sell a crap deal to Geelong on their behalf and we are potentially harming our own credibility doing stuff like that.

Dayne, you've made a few interesting decisions lately and they've put a bit of a strain on your place here. It isn't unfixable though. For example, if you publicly threw your manager under the bus for recommending that you wag the Copeland, and sacked him, that might help people get over you doing that. You could stay then, and we'd help you see your Dad heaps, assuming you actually give any shits about that (how's the weather in Florida?)

Failing that, go with Harry to Melbourne. We can deal with them. Or GWS, or GCS. None of those guys are as diabolically incompetent as the Bears.

If you thought we were going to bend over and lube ourselves up for a guy who didn't have the simple grace to attend the best and fairest, well, I guess you got your arse educated on Friday, didn't you mate?"

Then we need to get on the phone to the Dees and talk dollars. How many they can afford to offer him, and if necessary, how many of them we will pay on their behalf for a year or two if they will give us picks 2 and 3 for Harry and Dayne

Breadcrawl wrote:Great question E.

Makes a mockery of the anal thread moving when there are two equivalent threads running at the same time in two different forums.

I would still be prepared to deal with the Lions, but the price has gone up. If they tried to tweak up the 5-way deal to satisfy Geelong I'd be saying, "if only you had come up with that last week, o retarded amateurs."

IMO they've been running two, non-complimentary negotiation strategies concurrently. You can put up an offer you consider fair and then stick to it. You can lowball and then wind your offer slowly out to what you always considered fair.

What you can't do is lowball and then make bold statements about how unwavering you are going to be, then budge, just the once, making liars of yourself without getting to a place where the other party can realistically accept the trade, and then sook up when the guys who you thought you had at a disadvantage refuse to accept your bullshit offer just like they said they would.

And you certainly can't go around making policy declarations like 'kids will not be traded' on fricken social media platforms only to almost immediately violate one's own stated policies.

Collingwood needs to say, "Dayne. We understand that you want to go to Brisbane. The problem is that they are clearly a bit flucked in the head. We are still open to offers from them but to be honest it's a little embarrassing dealing with them. We tried to sell a crap deal to Geelong on their behalf and we are potentially harming our own credibility doing stuff like that.

Dayne, you've made a few interesting decisions lately and they've put a bit of a strain on your place here. It isn't unfixable though. For example, if you publicly threw your manager under the bus for recommending that you wag the Copeland, and sacked him, that might help people get over you doing that. You could stay then, and we'd help you see your Dad heaps, assuming you actually give any shits about that (how's the weather in Florida?)

Failing that, go with Harry to Melbourne. We can deal with them. Or GWS, or GCS. None of those guys are as diabolically incompetent as the Bears.

If you thought we were going to bend over and lube ourselves up for a guy who didn't have the simple grace to attend the best and fairest, well, I guess you got your arse educated on Friday, didn't you mate?"

Then we need to get on the phone to the Dees and talk dollars. How many they can afford to offer him, and if necessary, how many of them we will pay on their behalf for a year or two if they will give us picks 2 and 3 for Harry and Dayne

Sounds all logical BC but if Dayne is serious about getting up nth again, he'd be insane to sign any contract with _anyone_ (other then GCS and the Bears, of course). We can't force him to go to Melbourne, even though he's contracted to us for another year.

I hope nobody at club has forgotten that Lumumba has a year left on his contract and thus provdes us with extra leverage against the Dees.

On Greenwood and Varcoe. They are 26 and 27 at the start of next season. If they are not involved in our next premiership acquiring them has sunk us deeper in to the future mire.

I think we must start to question the mindset of Derek Hine for wanting a player like Varcoe. He constantly displays flawed logic when he this player we didn't use a high pick on so it didn't cost us anything or this player is the steaknives. Well every spot on the list counts! We keep shooting ourselves in the foot by not utilising his obvious vast knowledge of the 18 year olds on offer.

I also don't see why they don't think our club is one that can handle spending a few years slid down the ladder. Clubs that can't afford this are the Bulldogs, the Saints et al but ours can easily take the bump and rebound without doing any damage to the supporter base so why not do it.

E wrote:can someone explain why there is a Beams thread on this trade board AND the General discussion forum, when all other threads get moved around to one or the other?

Better still, can someone tell me why there's a "Beams for???" thread AND a "The 'What do we get for Beams?' thread" both in THIS forum? What possible nuance justifies that particular duplication?

Dave The Man wrote:http://www.theage.com.au/afl/beam-him-up-north-20141012-115149.html

Concern had arisen at the weekend that should a Beams deal not be done Varcoe could not get to Collingwood and therefore there would be problems satisfying a deal for Lumumba to Melbourne.

That concern prompted renewed contact between Lumumba and North Melbourne at the weekend. North had been interested in the former premiership player and All-Australian as he had a relationship with coach Brad Scott and football director Geoff Walsh from their time at Collingwood.

Looks like a straight swap of Lumumba for Greenwood could be possible. That'd be fair for both parties I reckon.

As I've said in other threads. Pick 5, Greenwood and Crisp is not enough for Beams. Especially if all we get out of Lumumba is Varcoe.

Hopefully Hine has something else up his sleeve.

So that looks like we may be getting Crisp? And that he is the only addition to the Lions deal.

That's kinda crappy.

The Beams part of the deal is: 5, 25 and Crisp.

Is Jack Crisp any good???

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2014-10-12/t ... s-eye-hawk

Industry speculation suggests the Magpies might engage in discussions with Greater Western Sydney in relation to Beams, having left the door open for other clubs to enquire about its star midfielder.

This is what we need. Get at least two clubs chasing Beams and we can get a decent deal out of it.

AN_Inkling - Yep and the Lumumba part is only Varcoe. Wouldn't be surprised if it sees us give up picks 30 and 48 too, because we only have so many spots on the list. It's a really bad deal.

Domesticated_Ape wrote:http://www.afl.com.au/news/2014-10-12/t ... s-eye-hawk

Industry speculation suggests the Magpies might engage in discussions with Greater Western Sydney in relation to Beams, having left the door open for other clubs to enquire about its star midfielder.

This is what we need. Get at least two clubs chasing Beams and we can get a decent deal out of it.

AN_Inkling - Yep and the Lumumba part is only Varcoe. Wouldn't be surprised if it sees us give up picks 30 and 48 too, because we only have so many spots on the list. It's a really bad deal.

Short answer? Not yet.

He was taken in the Rookie draft and has played 18 games in 3 years.

He's a good-sized midfiedler (190cm) with good pace, but so far has not shown much.

Too many different threads with about 100 pages to sift through, but the AFL website is reporting the Lions have offered picks 5, 25 and Jack Crisp for Beams. No word if it's Beams and pick 30. If it's for just Beams I reckon it's a great deal, as we can trade on 25 for Greenwood.

Essentially its Beams for pick 5, Crisp and Greenwood.

Let's not forget Buckley would be making the call on Crisp, just like he did on every other dud FA we've picked up during his reign.

If we accept this deal I will spew!!

Rick wrote:Too many different threads with about 100 pages to sift through, but the AFL website is reporting the Lions have offered picks 5, 25 and Jack Crisp for Beams. No word if it's Beams and pick 30. If it's for just Beams I reckon it's a great deal, as we can trade on 25 for Greenwood.

Essentially its Beams for pick 5, Crisp and Greenwood.

If we get Varcoe for picks 30 + 48 and Lumumba gets us Greenwood. Then I suppose picks 5, 25 and Crisp for Beams is better than nothing, but I'm not happy if we don't get to keep pick 25 at the very least.

Rick wrote:Too many different threads with about 100 pages to sift through, but the AFL website is reporting the Lions have offered picks 5, 25 and Jack Crisp for Beams. No word if it's Beams and pick 30. If it's for just Beams I reckon it's a great deal, as we can trade on 25 for Greenwood.

Essentially its Beams for pick 5, Crisp and Greenwood.

Great deal?

No way we'll be giving pick 30 to Brisbane, the deal is already a weak one. It's the deal we rejected last week (5 + 25) with the addition of a player worth a 4th rounder at best. That does not back up our tough talking.

Maybe it could be considered "great" in an alternate universe where Crisp is more than a delist candidate. That may be a bit harsh, he's still young enough to become something, but the fact is he's not yet.