Swans pushing for walsh hard

AnythingsPossibleSaints · Sat 15 Oct 2011 3:46pm

BigMart wrote:It is embarrassing we are even in this position

I mean, what clubs have problems keeping their rookies....most just upgrade them....

Even other clubs realise he could be a player and are making a play for him.....yet we wouldnt give the boy a shot.....with a dysfunctional fwd line...

belies belief.....the management and development of;
Walsh, Lynch, Armitage, Stanley, Heyne, Johnson, Smith and Geary has been disgraceful in the 2008-2011 period....they have almost gone backwards as players....and they really have been starved of opportunity and little belief in them has been appharant....great for confidence

Collingwoods use of their 18-22 yo players is in complete contrast...

whilst scott showed confidence in 0-40 gamers

Hawthorn trusted kids

we went with tried and true GOP's

Well put. I'd find it hard to argue with any of that. We've done some things extremely well in the past few years, obviously, but the development of the younger ones on the list has pretty much been the opposite and has probably cost us at least one premiership (2010, when we persisted with the likes of out of form McQualter and not up to it Eddy, for instance).

Sobraz · Post: # 1162939Post **Sobraz** » Sat 15 Oct 2011 3:51pm

If he is in fact going up for a medical, he is gone.

No doubt about it..

A shambles of a situation we've created for ourselves, yet again..

It looks like its upto Blake to take the next step next year in that key forward/back, pinch hit ruck role..

SainterK · Post: # 1162941Post **SainterK** » Sat 15 Oct 2011 3:53pm

If you're on twitter...

@tommywalshkor

Send him a message to stay!

Maybe we can start a Chris Grant kind of campaign, like the kid who sent him his pocket money to stay

dragit · Post: # 1162944Post **dragit** » Sat 15 Oct 2011 4:04pm

SainterK wrote:
dragit wrote:This isn't looking good, going up for a medical is pretty seriousâ€¦

I would like to see us make room for him salary-wise somehow - Blake?
Who said that?

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/s ... 1lpc0.html

"Walsh has undergone medical tests with the Swans' doctors as a final step before the club sought to open talks with St Kilda."

westy · Post: # 1162945Post **westy** » Sat 15 Oct 2011 4:04pm

Didn't the club just say that they are not prepared to let Tommy go? Hopefully the next piece of news is that of an upgrade to the senior list with a watertight contract.

AnythingsPossibleSaints · Sat 15 Oct 2011 4:05pm

westy wrote:Didn't the club just say that they are not prepared to let Tommy go? Hopefully the next piece of news is that of an upgrade to the senior list with a watertight contract.

This!

savatage · Post: # 1162948Post **savatage** » Sat 15 Oct 2011 4:09pm

AnythingsPossibleSaints wrote:
westy wrote:Didn't the club just say that they are not prepared to let Tommy go? Hopefully the next piece of news is that of an upgrade to the senior list with a watertight contract.
This!

That!

saintspremiers · Sat 15 Oct 2011 4:09pm

AnythingsPossibleSaints wrote:
westy wrote:Didn't the club just say that they are not prepared to let Tommy go? Hopefully the next piece of news is that of an upgrade to the senior list with a watertight contract.
This!

Perhaps.

OR is it a smokescreen to get an above the odds pick for him?

Give me pick 30 for Walsh and I'd take it in a heartbeat.

samuraisaint · Sat 15 Oct 2011 4:28pm

I wouldn't accept pick 30. I would do my best to keep a player who we brought over to this country, set up, then developed for two years. I would ask the coach to speak to him reasonably about his plans for him, and then if his heart is really set on living in Sydney, I would deal, but like for like. In other words a player with enormous potential who Sydney have spent years developing.

sainterinsydney · Sat 15 Oct 2011 4:30pm

Its a matter of principle to hang on to this guy. We spent all this time developing Tommy, just for the Swines to poach him right when he will start playing. Saints have to make a stand!

Buckets · Post: # 1162969Post **Buckets** » Sat 15 Oct 2011 4:35pm

All a medical does is make sure that if said club wants to try and trade they aren't trading for a broken down player. Lot of water to go under the bridge stillto go!

Dr Spaceman · Sat 15 Oct 2011 4:38pm

sainterinsydney wrote:Its a matter of principle to hang on to this guy. We spent all this time developing Tommy, just for the Swines to poach him right when he will start playing. Saints have to make a stand!

Exactly!

plugger66 · Post: # 1162973Post **plugger66** » Sat 15 Oct 2011 4:43pm

Dr Spaceman wrote:
sainterinsydney wrote:Its a matter of principle to hang on to this guy. We spent all this time developing Tommy, just for the Swines to poach him right when he will start playing. Saints have to make a stand!
Exactly!

And what is a stand? Surely we dont want to lose Ray and another player to keep a complete unknown.

AnythingsPossibleSaints · Sat 15 Oct 2011 4:48pm

plugger66 wrote:
Dr Spaceman wrote:
sainterinsydney wrote:Its a matter of principle to hang on to this guy. We spent all this time developing Tommy, just for the Swines to poach him right when he will start playing. Saints have to make a stand!
Exactly!
And what is a stand? Surely we dont want to lose Ray and another player to keep a complete unknown.

A "complete unknown"? Are you not aware that we've been watching and developing him for two years? I would say this is far less of an "unknown" than trading someone like a Ray for draft pick, or draft picks and that happens all the time. I know you said you "don't have guts" but come on, this would not require that much courage.

Dr Spaceman · Sat 15 Oct 2011 4:51pm

plugger66 wrote:
Dr Spaceman wrote:
sainterinsydney wrote:Its a matter of principle to hang on to this guy. We spent all this time developing Tommy, just for the Swines to poach him right when he will start playing. Saints have to make a stand!
Exactly!
And what is a stand? Surely we dont want to lose Ray and another player to keep a complete unknown.

Do you know that's what we need to do to keep him?

There may already be room to offer him more but we're trying to get him on the cheap, or simply don't rate him high enough.

Anyway, on another note, it has been suggested that Tadhg Kennelly is a driving force behind the Swans attempt to lure Tommy north. Why don't we poach Tadhg from the Swans to be an assistant coach and totally stuff em?

Plugger, there's no need for you to respond to that last bit. That's just there for those of us who sometimes like to think beyond the logical and rational.

#1GILL · Post: # 1162979Post **#1GILL** » Sat 15 Oct 2011 4:52pm

plugger66 wrote:
Dr Spaceman wrote:
sainterinsydney wrote:Its a matter of principle to hang on to this guy. We spent all this time developing Tommy, just for the Swines to poach him right when he will start playing. Saints have to make a stand!
Exactly!
And what is a stand? Surely we dont want to lose Ray and another player to keep a complete unknown.

Tommy is not a complete unknown. The club will have a fair indication of what he is capable of at the top level, and it is clear that we are desperate to hang on to him.

I liken this situation to Geelong losing Mumford to Sydney (yes I know Mumford had been given games at AFL level but the principle is the same).

Geelong knew that Mumford had what it takes and in no way did they want him to leave, infact, they were very keen to hang on to him. But Sydney offered Mummy a contract he couldn't turn down as well as the role of first ruck. He took it and he has shone. They poached him right when he was ready to perform and he has done exactly that.

I can see the same thing happening to Tommy if Sydney do manage to get him from us. I will be devastated if we lose this bloke.

plugger66 · Post: # 1162981Post **plugger66** » Sat 15 Oct 2011 4:55pm

#1GILL wrote:
plugger66 wrote:
Dr Spaceman wrote:
sainterinsydney wrote:Its a matter of principle to hang on to this guy. We spent all this time developing Tommy, just for the Swines to poach him right when he will start playing. Saints have to make a stand!
Exactly!
And what is a stand? Surely we dont want to lose Ray and another player to keep a complete unknown.
Tommy is not a complete unknown. The club will have a fair indication of what he is capable of at the top level, and it is clear that we are desperate to hang on to him.

I liken this situation to Geelong losing Mumford to Sydney (yes I know Mumford had been given games at AFL level but the principle is the same).

Geelong knew that Mumford had what it takes and in no way did they want him to leave, infact, they were very keen to hang on to him. But Sydney offered Mummy a contract he couldn't turn down as well as the role of first ruck. He took it and he has shone. They poached him right when he was ready to perform and he has done exactly that.

I can see the same thing happening to Tommy if Sydney do manage to get him from us. I will be devastated if we lose this bloke.

The problem with that is it didnt effect Geelong at all. If they went all out to keep Mumford they may have lost a guy who played well in the last GF. It is a team sport and not for individuals especially ones who we have no idea about at the top level.

Moorabbin Man · Sat 15 Oct 2011 4:57pm

defacto wrote:we need to play hard ball with walsh. we need to tell him he isnt going anywhere.

worst case scenerio he doesnt re-sign and nominates for the draft. the chances of him going to sydney are f*** all given our draft picks:

21. Sydney Swans (committed to Tom Mitchell as a father-son selection)
25. St Kilda
37. St Kilda
42. St Kilda
43. Sydney Swans

we can use pick 42 on him and stop him going to the swans. if he doesnt want to play for us then he doesnt play at all. we need a bit of mongrel

here and send a clear message to sydney we will not tolerate them trying

to poach our players.

Absolutely, f**k the Swans sick of them poaching our players, tell them to f**k off and make it absolutely clear to Walsh that if he nominates for the draft, we'll take him at pick 42 if he's still there, but those parasites the Swans will not get him. I hope the introduction of GWS sees the eventual death of AFL in Sydney.

BE RUTHLESS SAINTS!!

#1GILL · Post: # 1162984Post **#1GILL** » Sat 15 Oct 2011 4:58pm

plugger66 wrote:
#1GILL wrote:
plugger66 wrote:
Dr Spaceman wrote:
sainterinsydney wrote:Its a matter of principle to hang on to this guy. We spent all this time developing Tommy, just for the Swines to poach him right when he will start playing. Saints have to make a stand!
Exactly!
And what is a stand? Surely we dont want to lose Ray and another player to keep a complete unknown.
Tommy is not a complete unknown. The club will have a fair indication of what he is capable of at the top level, and it is clear that we are desperate to hang on to him.

I liken this situation to Geelong losing Mumford to Sydney (yes I know Mumford had been given games at AFL level but the principle is the same).

Geelong knew that Mumford had what it takes and in no way did they want him to leave, infact, they were very keen to hang on to him. But Sydney offered Mummy a contract he couldn't turn down as well as the role of first ruck. He took it and he has shone. They poached him right when he was ready to perform and he has done exactly that.

I can see the same thing happening to Tommy if Sydney do manage to get him from us. I will be devastated if we lose this bloke.
The problem with that is it didnt effect Geelong at all. If they went all out to keep Mumford they may have lost a guy who played well in the last GF. It is a team sport and not for individuals especially ones who we have no idea about at the top level.

It didn't affect Geelong because they were well stocked with rucks at the time.

Question- Do you believe we are well stocked with full forwards who can make an influence in 2012?

Moorabbin Man · Sat 15 Oct 2011 4:59pm

defacto wrote:we need to play hard ball with walsh. we need to tell him he isnt going anywhere.

worst case scenerio he doesnt re-sign and nominates for the draft. the chances of him going to sydney are f*** all given our draft picks:

21. Sydney Swans (committed to Tom Mitchell as a father-son selection)
25. St Kilda
37. St Kilda
42. St Kilda
43. Sydney Swans

we can use pick 42 on him and stop him going to the swans. if he doesnt want to play for us then he doesnt play at all. we need a bit of mongrel

here and send a clear message to sydney we will not tolerate them trying

to poach our players.

Absolutely, f**k the Swans sick of them poaching our players, tell them to f**k off and make it absolutely clear to Walsh that if he nominates for the draft, we'll take him at pick 42 if he's still there, but those parasites the Swans will not get him. I hope the introduction of GWS sees the eventual death of AFL in Sydney.

BE RUTHLESS SAINTS!!

borderbarry · Sat 15 Oct 2011 5:00pm

There is a bit oh history as well. With Sydney luring both Plugger and Barry Hall, both power forwards, it looks like they dont want to develop their own but just to keep stealing ours. One reason why Roo is on such a good contract.

Moorabbin Man · Sat 15 Oct 2011 5:02pm

defacto wrote:we need to play hard ball with walsh. we need to tell him he isnt going anywhere.

worst case scenerio he doesnt re-sign and nominates for the draft. the chances of him going to sydney are f*** all given our draft picks:

21. Sydney Swans (committed to Tom Mitchell as a father-son selection)
25. St Kilda
37. St Kilda
42. St Kilda
43. Sydney Swans

we can use pick 42 on him and stop him going to the swans. if he doesnt want to play for us then he doesnt play at all. we need a bit of mongrel

here and send a clear message to sydney we will not tolerate them trying

to poach our players.

Absolutely, f**k the Swans sick of them poaching our players, tell them to f**k off and make it absolutely clear to Walsh that if he nominates for the draft, we'll take him at pick 42 if he's still there, but those parasites the Swans will not get him. I hope the introduction of GWS sees the eventual death of AFL in Sydney.

BE RUTHLESS SAINTS!!

borderbarry · Sat 15 Oct 2011 5:06pm

If he wants to go to Sydney, and is willing to enter the Draft, the other Sydney club has 14 picks before Sydney has their first. I think Sydney will be aware of that, and will have to come to the trade table if they want him.

westy · Post: # 1163021Post **westy** » Sat 15 Oct 2011 5:43pm

Tommy won't go, there has been too much time spent on brilliant nicknames for him to go!

matrix · Post: # 1163029Post **matrix** » Sat 15 Oct 2011 5:57pm

f****** hell
unreal if he goes

another one let go
ill be pissed off