SSSSSS
Brownlow Medallist
- Apr 18, 2011
- 19,592
- 42,288
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
- Other Teams
- Six decades of domination
Remember when GC took the best player in the league off us, at zero cost to them?
Still got way more than we did for Buddy.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Remember when GC took the best player in the league off us, at zero cost to them?
FMD. It’s not that tough.
GC got into this mess in the first place by renegotiating Bowes initial deal. Moving around salary.
But now the Cats can’t do it because they won the flag? It’s pure jealousy, nothing else!
Buddy was a free agent.Still got way more than we did for Buddy.
The AFL needs to remove the option of front loading and back ending contracts, whilst removing this 95% minimum salary requirement. A trade like this should never happen again.
Ok I disagree.i have not said geelong have done anything wrong. get it through your head.
no one is saying the trade is illegal. it is 100% legal
people are just saying it needs to be changed going forward.
We're not in America. The only way the AFLPA agree to something like this is if the players get a massive pay rise.the contracted player shouldn't just get to demand his team of choice in this situation.
AFL needs to change the rules so if this occurs again the player goes where the suns can get the best deal.
I've heard that if you angle the tinfoil just right, you can pick up Foxtel signal for free.It is easy now.
When foxtel says why you cancel service, i say, Jack Bowes trade
Signed a deal with Brisbane for 3 years under RFA then the next year they smoothed the deal to 5 years.Daniher was a free agent
Staggers me that the afl approve this yet the mega super dooper four club trade can’t go through without a future 4th round pick.
Don't let the truth get in the way of a good melt.Genuine question: Do the AFL have the power to reject a trade on the basis of "fairness"?
My understanding of the rejection of the initial "mega deal" was that it would result in one of the clubs actually breaking the rules of trading (i.e. trade away rather than use a certain number of picks over a certain number of years). I.E. It wasn't rejected based on "fairness".
ExactlyFMD. It’s not that tough.
GC got into this mess in the first place by renegotiating Bowes initial deal. Moving around salary.
But now the Cats can’t do it because they won the flag? It’s pure jealousy, nothing else!
People keep forgetting this very pertinent fact.Bowes didn't want to play for North or Essendon. They could not trade him there. End of story.
this happening at any club is off putting, regardless if its north melbourne or the premier.
Salary cap has been a consideration in a player’s value since forever.
This deal is not a once off, it’s just an extreme. They will happen more often in the future
And 1 club that would have taken that contract on without a sweetener thrown in?I think if GC didn't volunteer #7, Bowes would have found it in his heart to nominate a club able and willing to take on his salary as-is without the most lopsided trade in history accompanying it.
And 1 club that would have taken that contract on without a sweetener thrown in?
Doubt it, GC, better off keeping Bowes. Who they have brought in is immaterial and the club has become irrelevant
Crows, North, probably Hawks too.And 1 club that would have taken that contract on without a sweetener thrown in?
Daniher was a free agent
For the six millionth time, Bowes was contracted and as such, could choose where he was traded to.Crows, North, probably Hawks too.
GC didn't read the room.