Remove this Banner Ad

List Mgmt. 2022 Trade Thread - Part II

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Dam closed
My eyes and all I could see was Dunstan and Billing’s [emoji23]

You may need to seek professional help [emoji33]

NDGCbZg.gif
 
What would Darcy Gardiner do for us?
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot_20220915-170238~2.png
    Screenshot_20220915-170238~2.png
    46.8 KB · Views: 178

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

Collingwood set for a very busy trade period. McStay, Frampton, Hill, anyone else coming in?
A few going out too.
 
Wide open to rorting, what would you suggest should happen to players who are due to retire, ( ie Frankln )?
I'm not sure ot would be that open to rorting because if the player didn't want to be traded out, they're still going to want to get paid what they're entitled and their manager too - if clubs started playing funny buggers then player managers will become hard to deal with and clubs will be limited in getting players traded in.

In terms of Franklin, I'm not sure what you're referring ro, but with him specifically, the AFL told Sydney at the time that even if he retired, his salary would count towards their cap for the life of that 10 year contract because they wanted hom at GWS and were pissed about it.

If we looked at Hill, the $900k p.a. is an anchor in our negotiations. If he wants to go, I just think we shouldn't be burdened with that as it should be up to Hill and his manager to negotiate new terms and we deal at club level with North to satisfy a trade as compensation for losing him - what we paid him should be irrelevant.
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

I've said numerous times, that I would want Hill to stay on our list and is a required player.

All I am saying is that the words on the AFL website saying "there are no contract discussions between Hill and the Saints" is an interesting use of words.

I'm happy that you report these new "facts".
To be fair, that article says no trade talks, not no contract talks - there's a difference and I think that's causing the conflict here
 
I'm not sure ot would be that open to rorting because if the player didn't want to be traded out, they're still going to want to get paid what they're entitled and their manager too - if clubs started playing funny buggers then player managers will become hard to deal with and clubs will be limited in getting players traded in.

In terms of Franklin, I'm not sure what you're referring ro, but with him specifically, the AFL told Sydney at the time that even if he retired, his salary would count towards their cap for the life of that 10 year contract because they wanted hom at GWS and were pissed about it.

Main problem is that the contracts are effectively with the AFL rather than with individual clubs, and if they AFL rocks the boat on them too much then they risk the AFLPA deciding it's time to challenge AFL contracts in court. (The AFL has been pretty convinced they'd lose that under restraint of trade or something for a long time.)
 
I completely understand your point, I'm happy the club are saying that Hill is a required player. Lets hope the media speculation about this slows down.
Why? The media speculates, that's what it does.

So at least you now understand these points

1) Saints say Hill is a required player
2) Hill is contracted for 2 more years.
3) there is NO NEED for Saints to have contract talks as Hill is already contracted
4) Clarkson met Hill
5) Hill met Simkons
6) Hill has not talked to the Saints about a trade.

How does this equate to some on here repeating time after time after time that

'The Saints are pushing out Hill'. In what deluded universe does the above equate to the above statement?

Hill may well leave but for some on here to blatantly lie and spread bs ( not directly aimed at you) just to enhance their own skewed agenda is mind boggling.

Hope Hill goes BTW, but that is not the argument.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top