Remove this Banner Ad

Recommitted Michael Hurley?

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Dr Whoooooooo said:
LMAO ... is that before or after you used him as a human pin cushion?

He wont give a rats clacker about what Bombers get ...
Click to expand...

I'm starting to think you were part of some drugs program and you copped all of the side effects.
 
Vindicater said:
Nope. He won't give a shit once he decides to leave. Neither should he.
Click to expand...
It was suppose to be a tongue in cheek post buddy... with all the "recruiters" we have here who all say he is a gun defender but not worth more than a late 1st rounder is a bit of nonsense.
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

Pea Nut said:
Have you been in a coma for the last 2 years or do you not understand the situation they are in ?? The banned players have the option of invoking a clause in their contract and instantly becoming delisted free agents if they choose. So it aint chalk and cheese at all when being compared with Danger. Danger was a restricted free agent, which at least gave the Crows a move in regards to trade talks. If Hurley wants out, he is gone. So thinking he stays cos he is contracted or has tradability similar to Treloar is ridiculous. Why do you think the club had to get all the banned players to re-commit to the club ???
Click to expand...

Well said, but suppose we have to accept "they the supporters" have also been the innocent party in all this. Facing, losing your better players is hard at the best of times for some ... but nobody is really buying their bluff and bravado, their only hope it talking the players into staying by any means. Essendon know they have an unwinnable tribunal/court case if they try to play toooooo hard ball ... they will deal.
 
Pea Nut said:
Have you been in a coma for the last 2 years or do you not understand the situation they are in ?? The banned players have the option of invoking a clause in their contract and instantly becoming delisted free agents if they choose. So it aint chalk and cheese at all when being compared with Danger. Danger was a restricted free agent, which at least gave the Crows a move in regards to trade talks. If Hurley wants out, he is gone. So thinking he stays cos he is contracted or has tradability similar to Treloar is ridiculous. Why do you think the club had to get all the banned players to re-commit to the club ???
Click to expand...

No, they don't.

May I suggest you educate yourself on the facts of things before speaking on them.
 
Pea Nut said:
Well your club doesn't post on it's website on the facts of the case. I was going off what I have read in the media. And they stated as such, basically word for word to be exact.
Click to expand...

Maybe you should have stuck with word for word, because what you posted is incorrect.
 
Pea Nut said:
Have you been in a coma for the last 2 years or do you not understand the situation they are in ?? The banned players have the option of invoking a clause in their contract and instantly becoming delisted free agents if they choose. So it aint chalk and cheese at all when being compared with Danger. Danger was a restricted free agent, which at least gave the Crows a move in regards to trade talks. If Hurley wants out, he is gone. So thinking he stays cos he is contracted or has tradability similar to Treloar is ridiculous. Why do you think the club had to get all the banned players to re-commit to the club ???
Click to expand...
choofed.gif


You forgot they would need to take it to the Grievance Tribunal to prove this (I mean that it was Essendon's fault and not just a rogue Dank who even when told to stop, kept doing said injections... And you forgot that it was the AFL that found Essendon Not guilty by the AFL once we appealed ASADA's finding.


Waiting now for the pin cushion remarks and same drivel.
waiting.gif
 
Jack Richards said:
You forgot they would need to take it to the Grievance Tribunal to prove this (I mean that it was Essendon's fault and not just a rogue Dank who even when told to stop, kept doing said injections... And you forgot that it was the AFL that found Essendon Not guilty by the AFL once we appealed ASADA's finding.
Click to expand...

And furthermore, people who actually know anything on the subject have said the whole grieavcne tribunal bullshit story wont hold up anyways.

Essendon will do a deal knowing how much they screwed up and stalled the 12 players banned for the year.
 
fargothegreat said:
I'm not saying Essendon should take unders at all and I'm not saying that they should just hand him over.

All I'm saying is that they need to accept a FAIR deal with this one because otherwise they will lose him for nothing. A fair deal is not two first rounders or Alex Rance, that is just typical Essendon being hard to deal with talk. A fair deal is one top ten pick, with possibly a fringe player as a sweetener. I bet most here that aren't Essendon supporters would agree with me.

Asking for the equivalent of Rance or two firsts just helps to fuel the argument that Essendon is hard to deal with because Hurleys not worth that and won't fetch that in a trade, especially when he's been out of the game for 12 months and doesn't look to be in great physical shape
Click to expand...
Out of curiosity, when did Essendon last not accept a fair deal? The last time a deal with us fell over was with Caddy, and we offered Hooker and #19 and they got less for him the next year. Before that you have to go back to the idiotic, Sheedy induced Scott West fiasco, or one or two where both clubs agreed and the player said they didn't want to move.

If you look at the other side of the ledger, who have we done over in the Polec/Yeo/Crameri/Ebert/Gunston/Gibson/Ryder sense of the world? Melksham most would agree but that was hardly due to our hard bargaining. Lovett, but plenty of players of his on-field quality go for a similar price.

Where are these examples of unfair deals?
Pea Nut said:
Have you been in a coma for the last 2 years or do you not understand the situation they are in ?? The banned players have the option of invoking a clause in their contract and instantly becoming delisted free agents if they choose. So it aint chalk and cheese at all when being compared with Danger. Danger was a restricted free agent, which at least gave the Crows a move in regards to trade talks. If Hurley wants out, he is gone. So thinking he stays cos he is contracted or has tradability similar to Treloar is ridiculous. Why do you think the club had to get all the banned players to re-commit to the club ???
Click to expand...
On the whole leave for nothing that fargothegreat and you mentioned, you do need to read more. There is no clause in the players contracts. What does exist is standard contract law, where any employee can take a grievance to court and have their contract broken (if successful). The AFL has stated that they will let players who want to seek this to go through their system, and if they are successful they will be treated as DFAs.

It should be noted that there is no guarantee a player would win (as they must offer proof they suffered harm from the club's actions and haven't re-signed a new contract), nobody knows what the timescales would be, and it would be open to further delays if the losing party chose to appeal through the courts (which over-ride the AFL on contract law). It would be a long, messy process that no club or player is likely to seriously entertain unless they have no choice, or the benefits are so great to mitigate the costs.

Does anyone really think a club will want to tie themselves up in the courts for months post the trade period, leaving aside a list spot and salary cap space in case they win, having the player unable to train with them, with no guarantee they will win? Essendon doesn't like that scenario either, which is why there would be a trade. As has happened with Crameri, Ryder, Carlisle and Melksham.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Pea Nut by name, peanut by nature.
 
Jade said:
Mmmmm..... now go right on ahead and READ the source, not the headline.
Click to expand...
So, does a clause exist in the players contract that could be enacted that would eventuate in the players becoming a delisted free agent ?? Sure, it might not say, "If we load you up with drugs and are found guilty of it, you will be allowed to break your current contract no questions asked", but it does exist. Spin it how however you like.
 
Pea Nut said:
So, does a clause exist in the players contract that could be enacted that would eventuate in the players becoming a delisted free agent ?? Sure, it might not say, "If we load you up with drugs and are found guilty of it, you will be allowed to break your current contract no questions asked", but it does exist. Spin it how however you like.
Click to expand...
You're implying it to be as simple as Hurley signing a form and walking out the door... and it won't be. It's a process that would take months and likely see him miss out on playing football in 2017.
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

If only there was an epipen for stupidity.
 
Pea Nut said:
So, does a clause exist in the players contract that could be enacted that would eventuate in the players becoming a delisted free agent ?? Sure, it might not say, "If we load you up with drugs and are found guilty of it, you will be allowed to break your current contract no questions asked", but it does exist. Spin it how however you like.
Click to expand...

I will spin it to the view that it is yet to actually be inacted and would take weeks and even months to actually prove in a court that we intentionally went to harm a player with substances that will cause long last damage by the same court that actually found us not guilty.

It says they can go to the grievance tribunal.
 
Pea Nut said:
So, does a clause exist in the players contract that could be enacted that would eventuate in the players becoming a delisted free agent ?? Sure, it might not say, "If we load you up with drugs and are found guilty of it, you will be allowed to break your current contract no questions asked", but it does exist. Spin it how however you like.
Click to expand...

Now you see friend, the 'spin' is yours.

I know the facts. I'm an Essendon supporter that has been subjected to this shit for four years. You don't think maybe, once or twice, I and other Essendon fans have studied every possible detail we can?

So here's your choice. Keep going, and get hammered for how obtuse you have been; OR maybe consider, 'well shit, I probably spoke before I REALLY knew', and take my word for it.

For both our sakes, go the latter, eh?
 
Jack Richards said:
Damn click bait gets the nuffies all the time
Click to expand...
You didn't even bother opening the article did you ?? I quoted lines from that article. The heading was 'Essendon’s 12 banned players make calls over return to Bombers in 2017'. Who's the nuffy now. Don't comment on something you didn't even look into.
 
Jade said:
Now you see friend, the 'spin' is yours.

I know the facts. I'm an Essendon supporter that has been subjected to this shit for four years. You don't think maybe, once or twice, I and other Essendon fans have studied every possible detail we can?

So here's your choice. Keep going, and get hammered for how obtuse you have been; OR maybe consider, 'well shit, I probably spoke before I REALLY knew', and take my word for it.

For both our sakes, go the latter, eh?
Click to expand...
I had a fair idea of where the situation lie, but this all developed from the argument regarding Hurley's true trade value, which is the most important factor now, whether he stays or goes. Sure, it is highly unlikely he will entertain the clause to end up a DFA, but if he does want to leave the club, there is no way the club tries to get absolute top dollar for him, and then holds him to his current contract if a trade is not agreed upon. His situation is very similar to Dangerfield's in my opinion if he chooses he does not want to be at the club, and chooses a different club for 2017.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top Bottom