Alright, lets see what people think about the Shane Mumford Trade. The basics: Trade five saw the following transaction: Eden Whalers send Ben Brown and PSD9 to Serengeti Buffalos for Shane Mumford, Jarrod Harbrow, and MSD R1 It has since come to light that Shane Mumford may not play on next year, due to injury. If Mumford plays on, then in my opinion Eden just traded in a player with an injury risk, and if he plays 22 games then Eden are lucky, and if he doesn't play a single game (or goes down with a season-ending injury in round 1) then Eden are unlucky. So, if Mummy plays on then the trade definitely stands, and this poll has no bearing or importance. The question is: What happens if Mumford isn't even on a team list next year (retired / delisted)? Do we accept that a trade is a trade, and the risk you take at this time of year is that maybe the player changes clubs or doesn't even have a club. Is this the same as an unfortunate injury during pre-season that rules a player out for the entire year? Injuries happen at any time, and we all know this risk. Or Should there be a "Gentleman's Agreement" whereby Eden and Serengeti reverse this trade? As we haven't had any games, or any further trades involving any of these players or picks, its not difficult to reverse the trade, as there's no side-effects to the rest of the 'FU. We don't have a precedence for this. The only rule we have is that all trades are final if both coaches agree (which both Eden and Serengeti posted in the trade thread that they did agree to this trade), and if the veto quota is not met (and no-one vetoed this trade). In my personal opinion, the polite thing to do is to follow the "Gentleman's Agreement" and reverse the trade, due to interesting circumstances. However I don't think this is the right thing to do. Every coach can manage their list as they see fit, and make trades with whoever they like, however they like (within the rules). Both Eden and Serengeti agreed to this trade, and if due diligence and proper investigations were not undertaken, then that's just tough luck. If due diligence was undertaken, and the decision was to take the risk anyway, to trade in Mummy, a player with a known injury and injury history, then that is a coaches prerogative. So yeah, let us know what you think, by voting in the poll, and commenting below (if you want to), and we'll see where things stand. Thanks guys
As far as I'm concerned, the trade was completed in good faith and posted to our Trades Thread the day before Mummy's condition was made public. Therefore the trade stands.
Not any of my business but FWIW, all trades in the FA are caveat emptor The policy is that all trades stand once completed and can only be reversed by a reverse trade by the parties involved. The rest of the leagues thoughts may be of interest but are irrelevant to the outcome.
Totally agree. It then just becomes another trade. This is entirely dependent on the 2 coaches involved and no one else.
Looks like @HOLKY and @wrightbrendan will know this afternoon presser has been called https://coupler.foxsports.com.au/ap...t/news-story/05fbf738ab169016bab7a890b98cb8a0
the word due diligence is being throwing around quite a bit, but no one could have known his injury would force a retirement, disappointed in the result of this poll
Not sure I understand your point here, mate. Of course no one could have known at the time of the trade that Mummy would retire. It was just good/bad luck for both Coaches. That's why I voted for the trade to stand. I would have voted differently if one of the Coaches had prior knowledge of the said injury. But it was not made public until the day after the trade was completed. However if both Coaches want to talk and reverse the trade, then that is up to those 2 coaches involved.
That's my point of view too; I don't think the league should intervene. I can't speak for any other coaches, if I was involved in such a trade then I'd speak to the other party about trading back. The ball is in their court.