Neil Balme

[Yeahright]

He should be stopping the obviously poor decisions like maric and conca.  Otherwise I could do his job.

Conca? I think you're a bit premature on that one....

Why? He was offered a contract under Balmes watchful eye

[YellowandBlackBlood]

He should be stopping the obviously poor decisions like maric and conca.  Otherwise I could do his job.

Conca? I think you're a bit premature on that one....

Why? He was offered a contract under Balmes watchful eye

Firstly, we don't know what the contract is worth. It may be for minimal money to make him want to be traded. As far as I'm aware he hasn't signed it. Are you aware of anything different? Secondly all clubs may have said no to trade and the club doesn't want to lose him for nothing because he has been injured and may have some reasonable footy left in him. Maybe two years on minimal is worth the risk then.

So there is a lot we don't know and I still think it's premature to be making comments like the above. Have I explained it simply enough?

[Yeahright]

Firstly, we don't know what the contract is worth. It may be for minimal money to make him want to be traded.

Mate, I am not reading the rest of that post after this point. Don't give me the "lets give them a poo deal so they don't sign it" crud that was said in the Lade scenario. Absolute cop out. You either want someone because they are good enough or you don't offer them squat.

[YellowandBlackBlood]

Firstly, we don't know what the contract is worth. It may be for minimal money to make him want to be traded.

Mate, I am not reading the rest of that post after this point. Don't give me the "lets give them a poo deal so they don't sign it" crud that was said in the Lade scenario. Absolute cop out. You either want someone because they are good enough or you don't offer them squat.

What? You have no idea of how it works. You offer someone what they are worth to you. They either take it or ask to leave if they have a better offer. If they have a better offer they leave. If they don't they stay. Their only other option is to delist themselves and hope they get picked up. However, that's a huge risk for them.
Sure we can delist him but the club feels he is still worth something. So we make him that offer. Everything is graded from dud delist to elite. We obviously value him above dud delist, and hence a low offer.

Is that easy enough to comprehend?

[Diocletian]

I'd take a pick in the 60's for Fatty Conca....Mick Ablett said this draft bats fairly deep for mids "40's and even beyond" was his quote....and even if it doesn't, a pick in the 60's could still be used for the likes of Kirby, Ratugolea or blokes like Darcy Cameron, Tom Goodwin or even a Shane Nelson who'd all more than likely offer more than Garfield going forward IMO....

[Yeahright]

Firstly, we don't know what the contract is worth. It may be for minimal money to make him want to be traded.

Mate, I am not reading the rest of that post after this point. Don't give me the "lets give them a poo deal so they don't sign it" crud that was said in the Lade scenario. Absolute cop out. You either want someone because they are good enough or you don't offer them squat.

What? You have no idea of how it works. You offer someone what they are worth to you. They either take it or ask to leave if they have a better offer. If they have a better offer they leave. If they don't they stay. Their only other option is to delist themselves and hope they get picked up. However, that's a huge risk for them.
Sure we can delist him but the club feels he is still worth something. So we make him that offer. Everything is graded from dud delist to elite. We obviously value him above dud delist, and hence a low offer.

Is that easy enough to comprehend?

You're original point said "It may be for minimal money to make him want to be traded" not that "we rate him above dud delist". We can trade him during this trade period whether he's contracted next year or not so it is a completely separate issue whether we rate him enough to give him a contract. Not rating him enough to warrant a contract was exactly Harry's point but your first response was to provide a complete cop out. Is that easy enough to comprehend?

[YellowandBlackBlood]

Firstly, we don't know what the contract is worth. It may be for minimal money to make him want to be traded.

Mate, I am not reading the rest of that post after this point. Don't give me the "lets give them a poo deal so they don't sign it" crud that was said in the Lade scenario. Absolute cop out. You either want someone because they are good enough or you don't offer them squat.

What? You have no idea of how it works. You offer someone what they are worth to you. They either take it or ask to leave if they have a better offer. If they have a better offer they leave. If they don't they stay. Their only other option is to delist themselves and hope they get picked up. However, that's a huge risk for them.
Sure we can delist him but the club feels he is still worth something. So we make him that offer. Everything is graded from dud delist to elite. We obviously value him above dud delist, and hence a low offer.

Is that easy enough to comprehend?

You're original point said "It may be for minimal money to make him want to be traded" not that "we rate him above dud delist". We can trade him during this trade period whether he's contracted next year or not so it is a completely separate issue whether we rate him enough to give him a contract. Not rating him enough to warrant a contract was exactly Harry's point but your first response was to provide a complete cop out. Is that easy enough to comprehend?

You are inconrrect yet again. We cannot trade him if he is contracted unless he agrees to the trade. If he is uncontracted, he has much less leverage. We can choose to not renew his contract or tell him we will recontract him at a very low salary to force him to either accept a trade or at the very least we keep him for next to nothing and as a back up mid.
The problem we have had is that Sydney did not want him as an exchange for Nankervis. If he was contracted at a healthy wage, he would have said no to moving anyway and we wouldn't have even offered him.
We also rate him enough to offer him a contract at a much reduced wage. That's the point I was making. Understood?

[(•))(©™]

Look.

Can someone just be correct, please.

[Yeahright]

Firstly, we don't know what the contract is worth. It may be for minimal money to make him want to be traded.

Mate, I am not reading the rest of that post after this point. Don't give me the "lets give them a poo deal so they don't sign it" crud that was said in the Lade scenario. Absolute cop out. You either want someone because they are good enough or you don't offer them squat.

What? You have no idea of how it works. You offer someone what they are worth to you. They either take it or ask to leave if they have a better offer. If they have a better offer they leave. If they don't they stay. Their only other option is to delist themselves and hope they get picked up. However, that's a huge risk for them.
Sure we can delist him but the club feels he is still worth something. So we make him that offer. Everything is graded from dud delist to elite. We obviously value him above dud delist, and hence a low offer.

Is that easy enough to comprehend?

You're original point said "It may be for minimal money to make him want to be traded" not that "we rate him above dud delist". We can trade him during this trade period whether he's contracted next year or not so it is a completely separate issue whether we rate him enough to give him a contract. Not rating him enough to warrant a contract was exactly Harry's point but your first response was to provide a complete cop out. Is that easy enough to comprehend?

You are inconrrect yet again. We cannot trade him if he is contracted unless he agrees to the trade. If he is uncontracted, he has much less leverage. We can choose to not renew his contract or tell him we will recontract him at a very low salary to force him to either accept a trade or at the very least we keep him for next to nothing and as a back up mid.
The problem we have had is that Sydney did not want him as an exchange for Nankervis. If he was contracted at a healthy wage, he would have said no to moving anyway and we wouldn't have even offered him.
We also rate him enough to offer him a contract at a much reduced wage. That's the point I was making. Understood?

Incorrect? Yet again ? So you think we can't trade him if he's contracted? So why the stuff are we offering him a contract again? Well no stuffing poo we cannot trade him unless he agrees - thanks again Dr Obvious. I didn't think I'd have to clarify that because it's the exact same whether he's uncontracted or contracted for the next 20 years. What do you think the big difference is between 'here's a new contract so you better agree to a trade' or 'we think you're no good, agree to a trade or we're delisting you'. I think he'd be smart enough to take the trade because he can have some degree of a say in what happens. Except with the former we say here's a contract but you better want a trade, he signs it but doesn't agree to a trade or one doesn't get done and we're stuck with him. Only Richmond supporters seem to think offering players/coaches is a good idea to make them want to be traded
Stop with the backflips. Harry's original point was criticising them for offering Conca a contract to which you responded "It may be for minimal money to make him want to be traded." That was your first retort and it's a cop out. Now you want to talk about us rating him which is a completely separate issue because your point about offering him a contract so he'd agree to a trade then becomes moot. Can you comprehend that? I don't think I can make it any clearer

[YellowandBlackBlood]

Look, you really don't understand the most basic concepts it seems. Just for the record, because you don't understand the difference between Grigg's and Conca's situation, I'll explain it for you. With Grigg, we were told that he had signed a 2 year extension. That's it. He accepted the conditions of pay whatever they were. With Conca, we've been told he has been offered a 2 year contract, not accepted. What possible reason would there be for him not to sign? Don't you think it may be about the amount of pay considering he had not expressed a wish to be traded before hand? So the club offers him a reduced contract hoping that he either responds by wishing to be traded or accepts a low rate of pay making more room in our TPP. Pretty bloody obvious I would have thought. If he was contracted, neither of those two options would be encouraged or possible.

I can't make it easier for you to understand.

[Yeahright]

Look, you really don't understand the most basic concepts it seems.  Just for the record, because you don't understand the difference between Grigg's and Conca's situation, I'll explain it for you. With Grigg, we were told that he had signed a 2 year extension. That's it. He accepted the conditions of pay whatever they were. With Conca, we've been told he has been offered a 2 year contract, not accepted. What possible reason would there be for him not to sign? Don't you think it may be about the amount of pay considering he had not expressed a wish to be traded before hand? So the club offers him a reduced contract hoping that he either responds by wishing to be traded or accepts a low rate of pay making more room in our TPP. Pretty bloody obvious I would have thought. If he was contracted, neither of those two options would be encouraged or possible.

I can't make it easier for you to understand.

Look, if you want to say we offered him a pooty contract so he would agree to a trade then try and defend that (poorly I might add) then power to you but don't go changing your argument.

[The Machine]

I'd take a pick in the 60's for Fatty Conca....Mick Ablett said this draft bats fairly deep for mids "40's and even beyond" was his quote....and even if it doesn't, a pick in the 60's could still be used for the likes of Kirby, Ratugolea or blokes like Darcy Cameron, Tom Goodwin or even a Shane Nelson who'd all more than likely offer more than Garfield going forward IMO....

Nelson constantly gets passed on every draft.....move on

[one-eyed]

Neil Balme: "I haven't been at Richmond too long. We haven't lost a game yet and we've already won a Brownlow!"

https://twitter.com/3AWSportsToday/status/800607895834357761

 

[Owl]

some seriously salty bummer fans out there.  The sense of drug assistant entitlement is strong. 

[one-eyed]

Yarran progressing as stars hit the track in scorching heat

AFL.com.au
21 November 2016


CHRIS Yarran has continued his progression back into Richmond's main training group as a number of stars returned to the track on Monday.

After a difficult first season at Tigerland that saw him dealing with personal and family issues, Yarran is working his way back to full fitness with a tailored program.

As temperatures pushed above 30 degrees on Monday morning, Yarran joined his teammates – including club champion Dustin Martin – for the first hour of a lengthy session at Punt Road Oval.

He completed the warm-up, tackling drills and kicking exercises before stepping out when the main group moved into ball movement.

The 25-year-old joined recruit Dion Prestia, who is also being eased into pre-season training, for a series of full-pace run-throughs and agility exercises.

Yarran finished by running laps of Punt Road Oval, escorted by a trainer and pushing himself to the limit, before signing autographs after a session that lasted almost two hours.

Tigers general manager of football Neil Balme was enthused by Yarran's efforts but conceded his quest to return to the game would be a long process.

"He did a reasonable amount (of training). It's a challenge for him, he's got a fair way to go, but we'll give him every opportunity to do it," Balme told 3AW on Monday night.

"It's just good to see him turning up and having a crack at it. There's more to it than just playing footy.

"Physically he's got a reasonable amount of work to do but you can only do it bit by bit."

Asked what it would take for Yarran to be selected in the pre-season competition, Balme said the former Blue needed to "put the body of work together" and show he had "the appetite for it".

"There will be objective measures of where he's going – what's his fitness like, what are his skin-folds like ... but probably the most important thing about it will be what does he really want to do?" Balme said.

"Is he able to cope with this? Does he want to do that? Where's the best place for him – is it here (or) is it somewhere else? Obviously we'll have those open discussions.

"If he can do the work and he can get himself fit and give himself a chance, obviously we're keen for him to play."

Prestia, who is recovering from a minor knee complaint, also spent a large portion of training running laps and was joined by young midfielder Corey Ellis.

Midfield recruit Josh Caddy also joined teammates for his first official session.

The majority of Richmond's list has now returned to training, with senior players who have played eight or more seasons to filter back in the next week.

Martin, who won his first best and fairest and All Australian selection in 2016, returned in good condition and settled mid-field in the running drills.

Kane Lambert, Nick Vlastuin and Kamdyn McIntosh were the standout runners when the players were pushed. 

The two-and-a-half hour session was run by Richmond's mostly new panel of assistants, with coach Damien Hardwick in the United States for a study tour.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2016-11-21/yarran-progressing-as-stars-hit-the-track-in-scorching-heat