You brought up duty of care, ie you're suggesting that we had a moral / legal obligation to ensure Jake Lever's well-being in this case. If you weren't referring to psychological damage, are you suggesting Adelaide were going to break Jake's legs? Maybe "duty of care" wasn't the phrase you were looking for?Who said anything about psychological damage? We paid the market rate rather than trying to screw Adelaide over for unders which they probably wouldn't have accepted anyway. I don't understand how everyone is still so hung up over the Lever deal when it was definitely a fair price to pay and if this is the kind of thing that upsets you you're probably better off finding another hobby.