God IsThatYou
Senior List
- Aug 3, 2016
- 274
- 467
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
they have no say in it. it's down to a European Court ruling, that affects all clubs in Europe and not a premier league decision.
Just had a quick read of the free agency rules. i should have read them before ranting.
" a player who is contracted after his seventh year for one, two, three, four or five years will be eligible for restricted free agency when next out of contract having completed either eight, nine, 10, 11 or 12 seasons respectively.."
danger should have been offered either 2 at market, or 4 at above market. if he wanted 3 it should have been below market, with his intentions obvious. We got reamed because we extended him upto RFA in 2012, when free agency was introduced. Both danger and sloane were signed to 3 year extensions, with the difference being sloane OOC at 7 years.
Our stars should all be contracted up to 7 years of service at which point the outcome of negotiations (3 or 5 years) would put us in the best position, should RFA be exercised. Its either an early extension during the 9th year, and if not, then by trading in the 9th year, it gives us the best chance to get fair value, if both parties acted in good faith.
These two situations will play out, the former being tex, and the latter being sloane. sorry for being so daft. Trade week will be gangbusters for us if this is true and our club has played Tex and Sloanes extensions perfectly and both are true clubmen.
Last edited: