Nick's Collingwood Bulletin Board

qldmagpie67 wrote:Howdy all I'll give you all the tip the reason he nominated Brisbane is his dads treatment is in Brisbane on a ongoing basis (he is still undertaking treatment) which gives Dayne the chance of being close to his father and allowing his dad to stay over if required and it's only a 45 minute drive either way from Brisbane to Gold Coast now with the motorway.
All this talk of it being about money isn't actually factual as he would be handsomely rewarded with his next contract at the pies considering since he signed his last deal was done prior to him being a AA, Copeland winner and his output has increased markedly since the beginning of 2012.
I don't blame the club for rejecting the lions offer we all agree it is not fair and reasonable.
Many have pointed out that he is under contract and the club didn't put him up for trade Dayne requested it.
I said before I am like many others and am very upset by the way this has been played out and I'm squarely laying the blame at the feet of his management group as anyone with a ounce of scruples would have told there client to attend his current clubs awards night not advise him differently which has been reported.
I said before if Dayne stayed for 2015 I wouldn't expect anything less than the effort he has given weekly sin he arrived at the club.
He wouldn't play dead nor would he sit out a year as that would send a very bad message to any perspective club.
I hope he stays and the club then has 12 months to change his mind and find a way if giving him the chance to see his father more without impacting on his club commitments.
Correct me if I'm wrong but at the end of 2015 if he decides to leave he has to go into the national draft and could be picked up by any club ?
If he stayed for 2016 then he becomes a RFA and we have the right to match any offer ?
I hope this can be sorted out so the club doesn't loss out and Dayne can have some of his personal issues appeased.

swoop42 wrote:

BucksIsFutureCoach wrote:

swoop42 wrote:I dare say Brisbane are hoping Geelong are interested in Crisp and that our pick 30 and Crisp is enough for Christensen with pick 21 then going to us.

In that scenario I would hope we could keep pick 48 but wouldn't scuttle a deal over it.

Better yet pick 48 and Crisp for Christensen and we keep 30.

Screw em the best we can.

LOL.

If Crisp's name is being thrown up as a trade, what's wrong with Collingwood securing him, as well as pick's 5 and 25 from Brisbane? I think I would prefer Crisp to Varcoe if it came to that. We need another big bodied mid who has scope to improve. Crisp fits that description. We still try to secure Greenwood from North with a second round pick. That's another hard nut type similar to Adams. Goes some way to replacing Beams, doesn't it?

I agree if Hine rates Crisp enough on the back of 18 games in 3 years but I'm not sure his name was thrown up as coming to us or being traded for a pick around the mark of 21.

For me if we get Crisp we say no to Varcoe and look to Trade Lumumba and pick 30/48 to Melbourne for 23 or something along those lines.

While I prefer we don't trade with Brisbane at all now unless Aish becomes included in the deal I think I'd prefer 5, 23, 25 and Crisp
ahead of 5, 21, 25 and Varcoe which I believe would have included us losing pick 30 anyway.

Like you say Crisp has scope for development and improvement while Varcoe looks to be on the wane to me.

Get Crisp and so no to Varcoe. I don't want both and would prefer an extra pick to take to the draft.

Still hoping it'll be Beams to GWS, GC or the dees.

bwphantom wrote:

swoop42 wrote:

BucksIsFutureCoach wrote: If Crisp's name is being thrown up as a trade, what's wrong with Collingwood securing him, as well as pick's 5 and 25 from Brisbane? I think I would prefer Crisp to Varcoe if it came to that. We need another big bodied mid who has scope to improve. Crisp fits that description. We still try to secure Greenwood from North with a second round pick. That's another hard nut type similar to Adams. Goes some way to replacing Beams, doesn't it?

I agree if Hine rates Crisp enough on the back of 18 games in 3 years but I'm not sure his name was thrown up as coming to us or being traded for a pick around the mark of 21.

For me if we get Crisp we say no to Varcoe and look to Trade Lumumba and pick 30/48 to Melbourne for 23 or something along those lines.

While I prefer we don't trade with Brisbane at all now unless Aish becomes included in the deal I think I'd prefer 5, 23, 25 and Crisp
ahead of 5, 21, 25 and Varcoe which I believe would have included us losing pick 30 anyway.

Like you say Crisp has scope for development and improvement while Varcoe looks to be on the wane to me.

Get Crisp and so no to Varcoe. I don't want both and would prefer an extra pick to take to the draft.

Still hoping it'll be Beams to GWS, GC or the dees.

I agree somewhat concerning Varcoe, but to even allude to preferring Crisp to Varcoe?
Thinking you need to change your avatar to a blonde.

AN_Inkling wrote:

bwphantom wrote:

swoop42 wrote: I agree if Hine rates Crisp enough on the back of 18 games in 3 years but I'm not sure his name was thrown up as coming to us or being traded for a pick around the mark of 21.

For me if we get Crisp we say no to Varcoe and look to Trade Lumumba and pick 30/48 to Melbourne for 23 or something along those lines.

While I prefer we don't trade with Brisbane at all now unless Aish becomes included in the deal I think I'd prefer 5, 23, 25 and Crisp
ahead of 5, 21, 25 and Varcoe which I believe would have included us losing pick 30 anyway.

Like you say Crisp has scope for development and improvement while Varcoe looks to be on the wane to me.

Get Crisp and so no to Varcoe. I don't want both and would prefer an extra pick to take to the draft.

Still hoping it'll be Beams to GWS, GC or the dees.

I agree somewhat concerning Varcoe, but to even allude to preferring Crisp to Varcoe?
Thinking you need to change your avatar to a blonde.

The reason we're interested in Varcoe is he's a line-breaking runner who's ready to go now. He'll replace Lumumba in our best 22 you'd expect, and because we seriously lack for these types, replacing Lumumba is important. Crisp on the other hand is no guarantee to even get a game in 2015. He may have scope for improvement, but we're looking for an established player not someone who may be a player sometime later.

AN_Inkling wrote:^^The thinking is that, even for the short term, we have a lack of experience. A balance is required even when you are rebuilding. There is no way we can be accused of not going young enough. Varcoe himself is only 26, there's every chance he's still around when we are competing again.