....and what a sook he is. Doubt the Swans would be too fussed.....he doesn't fit the clubs 'no dickheads' policy. FFS, the guy should just move on.....and basically stop lying about why we didn't match the Dogs bid, as this article, previously posted by ugg, proves.Originally Posted by KSAS
The generous deal that got Dunkley to the Dogs - AFL.com.au
Last edited by stevoswan; 7th August 2019 at 06:54 PM.
100% AGREE. Mike really led AD with his interview to push the animosity angle. My impression, on the conclusion,is that he just needs a 'bit of love' and he'll be back in the Swans team. He don't like Roos but that's history. He likes Colless and he was a great-ish player for us. Plus he appears to be nice bloke and supportive of our culture always. He is ,and never was,a dickhead.
That's the funny thing about this situation. Andrew seems like a nice country guy but he really has a bee in his bonnet about the Roos decision on when to end his career. He needs to suck it up and move on. No AFL player likes being told when their career is over but to not only hold a grudge against Roos, but also the club as a whole after two decades is absurd.
An anonymous recruiter NOT affiliated with the Swans or Bulldogs is hardly a rolled gold source I'd want to stake my reputation on. Yet that is the source of the information you are using to call AD basically a liar. Some caution may be warranted.
But it is difficult to reconcile what the recruiter allegedly says with what is attributed to AD (I haven't watched Open Mike).
I just don't get why he is so upset with our club.....sounds like he got a bit ahead of himself at the end of his career and subsequently, threw his toys out of the cot when things didn't turn out as he expected. Besides, does any player who takes in a new recruit into their home get paid for it? You don't walk into a coaching role just for being a 'good clubman', which every Swans player would be expected to be. If he doesn't change his attitude, he will regret it later in life.....but that's entirely up to him. I don't think the club owes him anything.....especially now.
The 'recruiters' story is basically the one which was going around at the time of the relevant draft. It makes sense that this was our clubs attitude.....so it's a pity AD won't acknowledge the reason his son is 'at home in Victoria' and that he 'can see him play most weekends', is actually due to his old clubs generosity and empathy.....empathy he probably actually didn't deserve (but maybe his son did). When you recruit a player, you probably want the whole family on board.
If the Swans and/or the Dunkley's made any comment about this supposed arrangement between them, they'd both get hit on the head so hard they'd struggle to get up. The AFL would deem it to be draft tampering. They deemed Tippett's side agreement with Adelaide to be draft tampering, even though that was much less obviously so that an arrangement that actually might have influenced the draft. Josh would probably receive a half-season suspension and we'd be stripped of draft picks. That doesn't means that discussions weren't held between family and club. Just that neither will admit to it. And the "story" from another recruiter could be based on the same reasoning as why the Swans were abusing the COLA - it was possible therefore it was true.
In terms of whether the Swans ever had much intention of drafting Dunkley, I guess we'll never know unless someone manages to get Beatson a bit tipsy one function night and gets him to spill the beans. I don't think where he was drafted was a surprise, or would have been a surprise to the club. If anything, it seemed a little late, based on his stellar junior career. Coming into their U18 year, both he and Mills were touted as top-10 probables, maybe even top 5. Dunkley suffered from a back injury that curtailed his U18 year and probably accounted for him slipping down the draft order. But he still played a lot more football that season than Mills did. Maybe playing under duress did him more harm in terms of his perceived draft value than Mills almost sitting out the entire season. Indeed, not maybe. The results (of the draft) indicate that was clearly the case.
The Swans assessment of the points cost was likely tied up as much in Mills as in Dunkley. Given that Mills played almost no football in his U18 year, they possibly hoped he would slip a little further down the order. But once Melbourne bid at him at no 3, the Swans had to stump up heavily for him in points terms. The points gradient is very steep at the top end of the draft. Had Mills slipped even a few places down in the draft order, that would have made Dunkley more affordable without losing all the rest of our picks and going into deficit.
Also, at the time, we'd just off-loaded Bird to Essendon for almost nothing - possibly to ease the salary cap but also because our midfield was very one paced. He was a pretty decent midfielder at the time - not a star but solid. I have no idea why Essendon didn't both playing him. They seemed obsessed with speed but their contested ball work back then was very ordinary. (And it's still not great.) That still left us with a starting midfield of Kennedy, Hanners, Parker and Mitchell. And Mills (even seen as a future midfielder) wasn't (isn't) blessed with pace. So Dunkley was probably the last thing we needed.
Of course now, a few years later on, with Mitchell departed (for what explanation you wish to attribute), Hanners' body worn down and out (and now departed), and Kennedy starting to resemble a mere mortal, he's exactly what we could do with. But that's after the Dogs have put four years of development into him, frequently played him as a forward, and even played him for spells in the VFL. And he's still slow. (And so are Parker and Kennedy.)
As has been oft discussed on here, we may already have the answer for a tallish, though lacking in pace, natural ball winner already in our senior team. He's just not playing in the guts.
I think the Dunkley's would have gone for draft tampering.....not the Swans. We just didn't match the Dogs bid.....hardly draft tampering. The Dogs, by bidding, would be more likely to become complicit in any tampering if any evidence of tampering was indeed exposed.....morally anyway but we know that's not how this league works......morally that is.
I think the Dunkley's would have gone for draft tampering.....not the Swans. We just didn't match the Dogs bid.....hardly draft tampering. The Dogs, by bidding, would be more likely to become complicit in any tampering if any evidence of tampering was indeed exposed.....morally anyway but we know that's not how this league works......morally that is.
I'm not sure how you could make a case that the Dogs were guilty of anything. They just drafted a player they wanted. They had no more rights to him than any other club, except that he was still on the draft board when their pick came along.
Had the Swans and Dunkley family reached an agreement that Dunkley would nominate as a FS but the Swans would only match the bid (or think about matching the bid, depending on where it came) if he was drafted by another non-Victorian team, there would be a very strong case that that was draft tampering. Which is why - if any such agreement was made, and I am not suggesting it was - neither party would ever admit to it.
Henry Playfair is the guest on this week’s AFL Trends podcast. He talks more about his coaching career, which included the Swans, than his playing career. Interesting listening particularly about the differences in coaching the backline versus the forward line.
Last edited by ugg; 8th August 2019 at 08:07 PM.
Not sure if anyone has thought that his hatred of Roosey may have been that MEL bid on Mills forced our hand which cost Josh playing for the team that he loves? Can't see how a bloke that is mates with Colless, Kelly, etc can't still love his club. If that is the case, the club need to extend the olive branch, much as it has with Peter Bedford and the other diehards. Dunks played through some of the worse years our club has endured and was a foundation stone for the success we have enjoyed, just as much as any other greats of the past.
I certainly don't want to besmirch Dunks playing career....I loved him for his deeds for our team but I just can't understand how a bloke can hold a grudge (that probably wasn't warranted in the first place) so solidly for so long. I just think it shows an unfortunate level of maturity. I'm not sure the club should feel they have to make the first move....if indeed solving the Dunkley situation ranks highly in their priorities. With both Dunkley juniors now safely ensconced in Melbourne, it's quite possible the Swans have just moved on.....
Highly likely I'd say. I think when you induct a player into your Hall Of Fame and the bloke doesn't show up for the ceremony,
"moving on" is the most likely (and probably only) scenario.
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks