Jon Anderson's Herald-Sun Trade Teaser -

[Pants & Rowdy]

It would be unforgivable to give up out pick seven and Tex. He is coming on in a big way and Jon Andersons logic is laughable and tells me clearly he has no idea about Collingwoods processess and where it is in its process of managing its list. As mentioned before we are bringing in a midfield Group to succeed the Buckley's Burns and Woewodins, therefore to inject a crawford is defeatist. Hell , why would I give Hawthorn two potential 10-12 year servants (pick 7 & Tex)for a player, that barring ,injury may get 2 years out off and whose main concern is his burgeoning media career. Jon Anderson is another Herald Sun commentator who is just that a commentator!!!

Footnote: To pay crawford 750000 grand would be dangerously silly. Crawford is better off at Hawthorn where he has the goodwill of his supporters. We will/would be ferral if he came to us and played even one shocker for that money.

And finally, since Iam bitching about this article how could Jon Anderson seriously give us 8/10 for memebership and when we have the highest membership figure of all melbourne clubs and second only to Adelaide.
Additionally he gives our financil position an 8/10...laughable given our success off the field
He discredits himself to no end .

[Cannibal]

And finally, since I am bitching about this article how could Jon Anderson seriously give us 8/10 for membership and when we have the highest membership figure of all Melbourne clubs and second only to Adelaide.
Additionally he gives our financial position an 8/10...laughable given our success off the field

Agreed that you would think our off-field success deserves 9 or maybe 9.5. Hell, even Demetriou admitted a few weeks back when talking about club requests for 2005 that every other side has asked for a home game against Collingwood!

However, Adelaide's end of season report is in today's Hun and he's given them but an 8 for these as well, despite saying, "The Adelaide Crows brand is a licence to print money".

Both clubs ended up with 49/100, or "Fail" in his lexicon, and I suspect he scored these deliberately just to reach the result he wanted.

[sq3]

Only 2 basics errors in the story -
1. Tex will not be traded - as he and Max will be permanent players in 2005,
2. Pies would not take on Crawfish at his age and more importantly his backloaded and over priced contract.

[Johnson#26]

I don't know where he pulled that one from. It will never happen. We wouldn't do it and the Hawks would ask for more.

I think 4/10 was unfair on the backline - I'd give them a 6, as Jonno, Clemo, Cole, Presti, Tex, Wakes, C1 and Maxy did great jobs.

[Culprit]

Teh opnly way we would get Crawford is the same way we got Woey and that includes the Dawks paying most of his contract. It won't happen IMO.

[molloymagic]

Don't take it that seriously,he along with alot of other paper writers are just annoyed that they can;t write 'colliwobbles in the finals'this year.

[Johnson#26]

The Hawks won't trade Crawford, because any new coach would want him.

[Cannibal]

Don't kid yourself. I think if anyone came to the Hawks with an offer, they would entertain it.

In reality, even though they get salary cap relief on his $750k by having him on the veteran's list, they still have to pay out the whole amount in cash and they are in financial sh*t. Don Scott is right; their true operating financial position has been obscured in recent years by the payments they have been receiving from the AFL in return for giving up Waverley as their home ground. Take that out of consideration and they have been making operating losses for years. Getting Crawford off their list would free up an awful lot of dollars they would surely be able to use more wisely.

As a player, there is no compelling reason for them to retain him; he is now on the wrong side of 30, he has a crook back (and don't kid yourself, it will restrict him very badly next season and I wouldn't count on him playing any more than a dozen games at best) and I would think he has no more than two years left at the most.

Actually, the Hawks wouldn't just entertain the offer, they would jump at it. The only hindrance to them obtaining a deal is that no club will take Crawford at $750k per year. His true market value is probably $350k but that is only to the Hawks; to any other club, you wouldn't want to pay maybe even $200k. And there is no chance the Hawks would agree to trade him elsewhere if it means still having to fork out $550k to someone who doesn't even play for them.

It's a salutary lesson to all clubs on the perils of backloading contracts for players. We are lucky with Bucks because he is so professional and works astonishingly hard on his fitness but even we are going to have to better manage his playing time over the next couple of seasons as his career comes to an end.