David the Cat
Moderator
- Moderator
- #1,676
Wasn't there an article in The Sun the other day saying he'd committed to finishing his career at GC, or was I dreaming?
Gary's "commitment" is quite flexible it seems.
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.
LIVE: Richmond v Melbourne - 7:25PM Wed
Squiggle tips Demons at 77% chance -- What's your tip? -- Team line-ups »
Wasn't there an article in The Sun the other day saying he'd committed to finishing his career at GC, or was I dreaming?
Gary's "commitment" is quite flexible it seems.
I think it was after the Buddy Franklin 10 Year 10 million trade to Sydney that the AFL "clarified/introduced/made up" the rule that if Buddy retires before the 10 years is up his wage still has to count under the Swans salary cap even if he's not being paid. My interpretation of this is if Gary does retire at the end of this year what would make it difficult for him to play anywhere else is that 1 million dollars has to be in someone's cap. If he does retire it would be GCS's. It may be possible (but I think unlikely) for a minimal trade trade to be worked out and the cats and suns pay half his wage each. The adv for the suns is they get $500,000 salary cap relief.
After talking to one of the Ablett's, seems the father/son rule may have played a part in why GC denied Gary's request of a trade back to Geelong.
While i'm not in favour of the money hungry prick returning to Geelong and even though i think there could be changes to the father/son rule in years to come at the moment i am happy for Geelong to have sole rights to any future father/sons of his. If there is any truth in that not reaching 100 games for GC is the best outcome for us and a kick in the gut to them.
4 games shy is he not? By the looks of things that's a given.After talking to one of the Ablett's, seems the father/son rule may have played a part in why GC denied Gary's request of a trade back to Geelong.
While i'm not in favour of the money hungry prick returning to Geelong and even though i think there could be changes to the father/son rule in years to come at the moment i am happy for Geelong to have sole rights to any future father/sons of his. If there is any truth in that not reaching 100 games for GC is the best outcome for us and a kick in the gut to them.
I'm pretty sure that's the reason we left him stranded on 99... So we didn't make the same mistake again.Seriously doubt whether that would come i into considerations. Otherwise we would have given Mark Blake one last game!
You don't see the irony in disliking a fellow that gave 100% to the club, helped us to a couple of premierships, whilst you haven't done anything near to it as a supporter? Fair suck of the sav.I do genuinely dislike him, he may have robbed us of another flag. We could easily have wom with him in the side in 2013 but he put paid to that.
And FYI I have spoken to him and I also told him face to face what I thought of him which he wasn't pleased about.
I would have seen the irony if he had left under different circumstances but he lied his way to the GC to line his pockets with cash. And he didn't give 100%, if you remember he was singled out by the playing group to put in like the rest of them.You don't see the irony in disliking a fellow that gave 100% to the club, helped us to a couple of premierships, whilst you haven't done anything near to it as a supporter? Fair suck of the sav.
i've dug deep for this club over the years when they've asked, and that will also stop if they get him back.
After talking to one of the Ablett's, seems the father/son rule may have played a part in why GC denied Gary's request of a trade back to Geelong.
While i'm not in favour of the money hungry prick returning to Geelong and even though i think there could be changes to the father/son rule in years to come at the moment i am happy for Geelong to have sole rights to any future father/sons of his. If there is any truth in that not reaching 100 games for GC is the best outcome for us and a kick in the gut to them.
but by 2020 he will be better than mumfordI'm pretty sure that's the reason we left him stranded on 99... So we didn't make the same mistake again.
I think if the Gold Coast have another average year and Gary has injury problems again he'll retire early at the end of next year.
Sicko.but by 2020 he will be better than mumford
late developer
i still remember those wonderful words
PS has anyone received the blake sms for christmas
I would take anything that Cochrane says was told to him with the respect it deservesJust thought an article where he apparently told the GC hierarchy he was committed to staying there would put the rumours about his impending return to rest, but as you say, not sure you can take anything he says as gospel.
Can this 68 page thread please be added to not worthy of its own thread thread. As this thread ain't worthy of its own thread. Why are people still discussing it? It's just as likely as gary ablett (the better one) making a comeback in his fifties.
A little disrespectful nakia. His old man rod was a solid ruckman and mark a premiership player. Granted mummy should have been selected, and get the humour but his kid may be a star of the future. Keeping a lookout for the blake file.I'm pretty sure that's the reason we left him stranded on 99... So we didn't make the same mistake again.
Well that will add another 450 pages here....gaz's gold coast house is up on the market...
Upgraded has he?gaz's gold coast house is up on the market...