One-Eyed Richmond Forum
Football => Richmond Rant => Topic started by: Dougeytherichmondfan on May 24, 2016, 09:25:22 PM
-
Apparantly we're not into Hurley after all.
Richmond says it has no interest in trying to lure Michael Hurley from Essendon
30 minutes ago
JAY CLARK
Herald Sun
RICHMOND says it has no interest in luring banned Bomber defender Michael Hurley to Punt Rd.
The Tigers on Tuesday night scoffed at claims they had offered Hurley a five-year $900,000 a season contract.
A Richmond official said the club had no interest in the 2015 All-Australian centre half-back.
It is believed the Tigers have also made their position clear to Essendon to help stamp out increasing speculation Richmond was zeroing in on the 193cm key position player.
Hurley, 25, is contracted for next season but is yet to recommit to the Bombers.
He is one of 12 current Essendon-listed serving a one-year ban over the club’s 2012 supplement program.
Essendon is increasingly confident of keeping Hurley after securing the signatures of key pair Dyson Heppell and Cale Hooker.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/footy-form/richmond-says-it-has-no-interest-in-trying-to-lure-michael-hurley-from-essendon/news-story/68fcd6cae2166a690c98a67b62606986
-
He would be behind Astbury and Elton.
-
He would be behind Astbury and Elton.
Yep
-
We'll get Cloke instead and play him at CHB.....Tightarse Danny Pay Structures & MoneyBlair strike again.... :gotigers
-
So just so I have the timeline right
Barrett on Monday night said Tigers going hard at Hurley with a big offer
Tuesday night and Jay Clark from the HUN goes with we are not interested, quoting a "Richmond Official" no less
A lot of people on here believe the club always lies, so in this case is said "Richmond Official" lying or telling the truth
Funny stuff indeed
-
What benefit do we get out of saying we're not interested if we are? none bc he can walk for nada. So you have to take it at face value. Also, we actually went to the lengths of contacting essendon to ease their fears?
stuff me
-
What benefit do we get out of saying we're not interested if we are? none bc he can walk for nada. So you have to take it at face value. Also, we actually went to the lengths of contacting essendon to ease their fears?
stuff me
It does not say we contacted Essendon.
Anyway, it's May and I don't believe any poo that journos and the club supposedly says at this time of the year. It's all speculation.
-
It does say it - whether its true or just speculation... thats why I finished that statement with a question mark.
It is speculation, but answer this, why would we bother coming out and saying we are not interested in Hurley? To what end?
-
Would put the money on us NOT going after him, too scared sitting in the corner with the thumb in the mouth rocking back and forward..while the other clubs actively chase him. :help
-
It does say it - whether its true or just speculation... thats why I finished that statement with a question mark.
It is speculation, but answer this, why would we bother coming out and saying we are not interested in Hurley? To what end?
That's what they're expecting us to do....
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/y0X0ZYbnHxA/hqdefault.jpg)
-
If we chased him we wouldn't get him, same as Treloar, so we are doing the opposite ergo
Chase him and don't get him>
Don't chase him and he will come to us
Very very sneaky!!!
-
So just so I have the timeline right
Barrett on Monday night said Tigers going hard at Hurley with a big offer
Tuesday night and Jay Clark from the HUN goes with we are not interested, quoting a "Richmond Official" no less
A lot of people on here believe the club always lies, so in this case is said "Richmond Official" lying or telling the truth
Funny stuff indeed
From what I understand of the rules, it isn't trade week so we cannot admit talking to him or his management.
What purpose would it serve to admit to it apart from getting into trouble with the AFL? :whistle
-
So just so I have the timeline right
Barrett on Monday night said Tigers going hard at Hurley with a big offer
Tuesday night and Jay Clark from the HUN goes with we are not interested, quoting a "Richmond Official" no less
A lot of people on here believe the club always lies, so in this case is said "Richmond Official" lying or telling the truth
Funny stuff indeed
From what I understand of the rules, it isn't trade week so we cannot admit talking to him or his management.
What purpose would it serve to admit to it apart from getting into trouble with the AFL? :whistle
What are you going on about? no one said anything about having to come out and admit that we're interested....
My question is why bother going to the trouble of coming out and saying we're not interested? whatever happened to the old generic response "we don't like talking about opposition players"?
Did we go to the lengths of stating we weren't interested in Yarran or any of our other previous targets in recent years? No. If anyone thinks its just smoke and mirrors and we're secretly still into it, then you are extremely naive
-
It does say it - whether its true or just speculation... thats why I finished that statement with a question mark.
It is speculation, but answer this, why would we bother coming out and saying we are not interested in Hurley? To what end?
That's what they're expecting us to do....
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/y0X0ZYbnHxA/hqdefault.jpg)
No need to be a smartarse, especially given your track record..
-
So just so I have the timeline right
Barrett on Monday night said Tigers going hard at Hurley with a big offer
Tuesday night and Jay Clark from the HUN goes with we are not interested, quoting a "Richmond Official" no less
A lot of people on here believe the club always lies, so in this case is said "Richmond Official" lying or telling the truth
Funny stuff indeed
From what I understand of the rules, it isn't trade week so we cannot admit talking to him or his management.
What purpose would it serve to admit to it apart from getting into trouble with the AFL? :whistle
What are you going on about? no one said anything about having to come out and admit that we're interested....
My question is why bother going to the trouble of coming out and saying we're not interested? whatever happened to the old generic response "we don't like talking about opposition players"?
Did we go to the lengths of stating we weren't interested in Yarran or any of our other previous targets in recent years? No. If anyone thinks its just smoke and mirrors and we're secretly still into it, then you are extremely naive
TM, it's press speculation. Has the club officially released a statement saying we're not interested?
An unknown club official scoffed at offering Hurley 900k a season does not equate to being not interested.
-
It does say it - whether its true or just speculation... thats why I finished that statement with a question mark.
It is speculation, but answer this, why would we bother coming out and saying we are not interested in Hurley? To what end?
That's what they're expecting us to do....
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/y0X0ZYbnHxA/hqdefault.jpg)
No need to be a smartarse, especially given your track record..
:huh
Some people need to lighten up around here. The post was a joke from the Flying High movies. Just a joke.
All of a sudden, people get personal with name calling and then bring up track records which I have no idea of what they're talking about!
Sheeeeshhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!
-
Only have to look at Geelong to see how they have gone backwards since they recruited Dangerfield. Surely this highlights the folly of recruiting the "big fish" where the consequences can be catastrophic.
We better play if safe and secure the services of a bloke from GWS who no ones heard of , perhaps Port Adelaide have another muppet running around in their backline they can donate.
YOU ARE NOT WELCOME AT TIGERLAND HURLEY.
-
Geelong are not going backwards
-
So just so I have the timeline right
Barrett on Monday night said Tigers going hard at Hurley with a big offer
Tuesday night and Jay Clark from the HUN goes with we are not interested, quoting a "Richmond Official" no less
A lot of people on here believe the club always lies, so in this case is said "Richmond Official" lying or telling the truth
Funny stuff indeed
From what I understand of the rules, it isn't trade week so we cannot admit talking to him or his management.
What purpose would it serve to admit to it apart from getting into trouble with the AFL? :whistle
What are you going on about? no one said anything about having to come out and admit that we're interested....
My question is why bother going to the trouble of coming out and saying we're not interested? whatever happened to the old generic response "we don't like talking about opposition players"?
Did we go to the lengths of stating we weren't interested in Yarran or any of our other previous targets in recent years? No. If anyone thinks its just smoke and mirrors and we're secretly still into it, then you are extremely naive
TM, it's press speculation. Has the club officially released a statement saying we're not interested?
An unknown club official scoffed at offering Hurley 900k a season does not equate to being not interested.
Honestly how some people read this stuff and take it as gospel is beyond me
-
Geelong are not going backwards
Missed this me thinks
:sarcasm
-
Geelong are not going backwards
Missed this me thinks
:sarcasm
This is because Matt has switched camps.
-
Why doesn't anyone just ask who this "club official" is? Call the little prick out.
They get away with writing what they like without any proof of anything. Gutless little nerds the lot of them.
I'd hope our club isn't as stupid as to not try and chase an All Australian KP player when potentially he is available. Or maybe Hurley has already said no to us??
-
Why doesn't anyone just ask who this "club official" is? Call the little prick out.
They get away with writing what they like without any proof of anything. Gutless little nerds the lot of them.
I'd hope our club isn't as stupid as to not try and chase an All Australian KP player when potentially he is available. Or maybe Hurley has already said no to us??
I suspect we enquired and he has said no to us. He is trying to get the best deal from Essendon. If he can't get what he wants, at least we may have shown interest to indicate to his management that he may call back. At this stage I'm expecting him to honour his contract at Essendon.
-
Why doesn't anyone just ask who this "club official" is? Call the little prick out.
They get away with writing what they like without any proof of anything. Gutless little nerds the lot of them.
I'd hope our club isn't as stupid as to not try and chase an All Australian KP player when potentially he is available. Or maybe Hurley has already said no to us??
I suspect we enquired and he has said no to us. He is trying to get the best deal from Essendon. If he can't get what he wants, at least we may have shown interest to indicate to his management that he may call back. At this stage I'm expecting him to honour his contract at Essendon.
If he used this situation to try and get another contract, I'd be amazed. If he's really trying to do that then I'd say that he and his management would fail the integrity test. If he leaves, it's a matter of principle, then team success, then money.
-
It does say it - whether its true or just speculation... thats why I finished that statement with a question mark.
It is speculation, but answer this, why would we bother coming out and saying we are not interested in Hurley? To what end?
That's what they're expecting us to do....
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/y0X0ZYbnHxA/hqdefault.jpg)
No need to be a smartarse, especially given your track record..
:huh
Some people need to lighten up around here. The post was a joke from the Flying High movies. Just a joke.
All of a sudden, people get personal with name calling and then bring up track records which I have no idea of what they're talking about!
Sheeeeshhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!
a joke that is inferring Im a dummy? thats how I perceived it anyway.
-
So just so I have the timeline right
Barrett on Monday night said Tigers going hard at Hurley with a big offer
Tuesday night and Jay Clark from the HUN goes with we are not interested, quoting a "Richmond Official" no less
A lot of people on here believe the club always lies, so in this case is said "Richmond Official" lying or telling the truth
Funny stuff indeed
From what I understand of the rules, it isn't trade week so we cannot admit talking to him or his management.
What purpose would it serve to admit to it apart from getting into trouble with the AFL? :whistle
What are you going on about? no one said anything about having to come out and admit that we're interested....
My question is why bother going to the trouble of coming out and saying we're not interested? whatever happened to the old generic response "we don't like talking about opposition players"?
Did we go to the lengths of stating we weren't interested in Yarran or any of our other previous targets in recent years? No. If anyone thinks its just smoke and mirrors and we're secretly still into it, then you are extremely naive
TM, it's press speculation. Has the club officially released a statement saying we're not interested?
An unknown club official scoffed at offering Hurley 900k a season does not equate to being not interested.
I disagree GR, whilst the press are parasites one and all, they will rarely if ever fabricate the total story. There is always an element of truth/fact and then they embellish and build an entire story around it. They wouldnt have written the article if we didnt say we're not interested imv - I just cant fathom why we would bother giving any comment bar the standard flat bat "we dont speak about opposition players"
-
They'd better be blowing a smoke screen.
If we're not into him then FO this list management team...
-
It does say it - whether its true or just speculation... thats why I finished that statement with a question mark.
It is speculation, but answer this, why would we bother coming out and saying we are not interested in Hurley? To what end?
That's what they're expecting us to do....
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/y0X0ZYbnHxA/hqdefault.jpg)
No need to be a smartarse, especially given your track record..
:huh
Some people need to lighten up around here. The post was a joke from the Flying High movies. Just a joke.
All of a sudden, people get personal with name calling and then bring up track records which I have no idea of what they're talking about!
Sheeeeshhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!
a joke that is inferring Im a dummy? thats how I perceived it anyway.
I'm sorry if you took it that way. It was not intended to indicate that at all. I'm not sure how you interpreted that way either. Obviously you haven't seen the scene...
-
:lol at getting all ansty at what some journo attributes to a "Richmond Official"
-
It does say it - whether its true or just speculation... thats why I finished that statement with a question mark.
It is speculation, but answer this, why would we bother coming out and saying we are not interested in Hurley? To what end?
That's what they're expecting us to do....
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/y0X0ZYbnHxA/hqdefault.jpg)
No need to be a smartarse, especially given your track record..
:huh
Some people need to lighten up around here. The post was a joke from the Flying High movies. Just a joke.
All of a sudden, people get personal with name calling and then bring up track records which I have no idea of what they're talking about!
Sheeeeshhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!
Shirley your not taking this forum seriously? And stop calling me shirley.
-
So just so I have the timeline right
Barrett on Monday night said Tigers going hard at Hurley with a big offer
Tuesday night and Jay Clark from the HUN goes with we are not interested, quoting a "Richmond Official" no less
A lot of people on here believe the club always lies, so in this case is said "Richmond Official" lying or telling the truth
Funny stuff indeed
From what I understand of the rules, it isn't trade week so we cannot admit talking to him or his management.
What purpose would it serve to admit to it apart from getting into trouble with the AFL? :whistle
Is he a contracted player atm? Do the rules apply?
-
:lol at getting all ansty at what some journo attributes to a "Richmond Official"
To be fair though, it does sound awfully like something this club would actually do.....
-
So just so I have the timeline right
Barrett on Monday night said Tigers going hard at Hurley with a big offer
Tuesday night and Jay Clark from the HUN goes with we are not interested, quoting a "Richmond Official" no less
A lot of people on here believe the club always lies, so in this case is said "Richmond Official" lying or telling the truth
Funny stuff indeed
From what I understand of the rules, it isn't trade week so we cannot admit talking to him or his management.
What purpose would it serve to admit to it apart from getting into trouble with the AFL? :whistle
Is he a contracted player atm? Do the rules apply?
Yes. Yes.
We can talk but make no formal offers.
-
UPDATE:
RICHMOND great Kevin Barlett is surprised the Tigers have no interest in luring banned Bomber defender Michael Hurley to Punt Rd.
The Tigers on Tuesday night scoffed at claims they had offered Hurley a five-year $900,000 a season contract.
A Richmond official said the club had no interest in the 2015 All-Australian centre half-back.
It is believed the Tigers have also made their position clear to Essendon to help stamp out increasing speculation Richmond was zeroing in on the 193cm key position player.
Hurley, 25, is one of 12 current Essendon-listed serving a one-year ban over the club’s 2012 supplement program.
He is contracted for next season but is yet to recommit to the Bombers, with Bartlett saying the Tigers must be “ready to pounce” if Hurley decided the leave.
“I would have thought the All-Australian centre half back at 25 years of age who is yet to commit to the Bombers despite having a year to run on his contract was worth strong consideration,” Bartlett said on SEN on Wednesday morning.
“Like his suspended teammates, the high-profile Hurley appears to be in no rush to pledge his allegiance to the red and black.
“Unless Hurley has told the Tigers he has no interest in Punt Road, then there’s no point in dropping off the star defender.
“If he decides to leave Windy Hill (sic) for whatever reason, Richmond should be ready to pounce, for an Alex Rance-Hurley led backline sounds pretty juicy to me in a time when captain Trent Cotchin says they’ve got a group that can win the flag.”
Essendon is increasingly confident of keeping Hurley after securing the signatures of key pair Dyson Heppell and Cale Hooker.
Richmond, however, is believed to be a leading candidate to lure star Gold Coast midfielder Dion Prestia back to Victoria.
Prestia’s future will become clearer around the bye period, with Melbourne also in the race to sign the gun ball-winner.
Bartlett said the club’s “strike rate” with such targets hasn’t been flush in recent times, but Hurley should be Richmond’s No.1 target.
“Talk says Richmond is keen on Suns star Dion Prestia, and he’d be a great acquisition, but Richmond’s strike rate at getting big-name match winners hasn’t been good in recent years,” he said.
“You can’t have too many irons in the fire. My advice would be don’t drop off Hurley.”
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/footy-form/richmond-says-it-has-no-interest-in-trying-to-lure-michael-hurley-from-essendon/news-story/68fcd6cae2166a690c98a67b62606986
-
"RICHMOND says it has no interest in luring banned Bomber defender Michael Hurley to Punt Rd"
Should actually say; Hurley says he has no interest in going to Punt Rd just like Treloar and many others.
-
"Bartlett said the club’s “strike rate” with such targets hasn’t been flush in recent times, but Hurley should be Richmond’s No.1 target."
What does this tell us about the club, where they are at and where they are going?
-
Hardwick would not discuss the club's level of interest in banned Essendon defender Michael Hurley after reports the Tigers would not pursue the All Australian.
"He's a very good player Michael Hurley, there's no doubt about that, but that's where it'll stay for this conversation today," the coach said.
Hardwick also refused to buy into speculation linking the Tigers to out-of-contract Gold Coast midfielder Dion Prestia.
http://www.afl.com.au/news/2016-05-26/vickery-safe-from-the-chop-confirms-hardwick
-
Here we go, talking themselves out of it again already, must be preparing for a big fish. :lol
-
Here we go, talking themselves out of it again already, must be preparing for a big fish. :lol
It's not even four days before the end of trade week.
-
I would have taken the no comment to mean we are more than interested.
If we truly weren't interested, he would have slammed the door on the rumour.
That's my take at least.... :shh
-
No. If anyone thinks its just smoke and mirrors and we're secretly still into it, then you are extremely naive
Don't you think it's extremely naive to adamantly argue that we aren't talking to him?
-
I would have taken the no comment to mean we are more than interested.
If we truly weren't interested, he would have slammed the door on the rumour.
That's my take at least.... :shh
:gobdrop wow you reckon
I agree ;D ;) ;)
-
No. If anyone thinks its just smoke and mirrors and we're secretly still into it, then you are extremely naive
Don't you think it's extremely naive to adamantly argue that we aren't talking to him?
never said that - reckon we were talking to him but now we're not - probably bc it will blow our pay structures to the outhouse :clapping
-
OP makes sense why would they even look at Hurley after all we have Chaplin, Elton, Astbury and ???? in support of Rance. Absolute FFFFIIIINNGG JOKE OF A F/D
Have said it the last few years who but the RFC would go into a season with that lot of KPD's???? anyone? and still expect to make top 4. It is stuffin hilarious.