Recommitted Michael Hurley?

[BRWB]

yes, but courts are incredibly loathe to overturn appropriate tribunals. Which, I understand, is pretty much what you're saying - but for me it's not even worth considering as an option

I agree that it's unlikely the DFA happens. But I'd think EFC fans above all would know all about courts overturning internal AFL tribunal decisions.

 

[Gumby2Hurley]

did you drop some jam in your keyboard or something? Every time you hit a full stop it seems to get stuck and pumps out three of them

Just like a certain blues supporter last year in the JC thread who used to end his sentences with psd ...

 

[Jade]

I agree that it's unlikely the DFA happens. But I'd think EFC fans above all would know all about courts overturning internal AFL tribunal decisions.

Whilst meant to be tongue in cheek, yes, you're right.

 

[Jobe Watson]

Then again, he is a year or two older than Carlisle, is coming off a year out of the game and I definitely believe Essendon got "overs" for Jake (for the above reasons in particular).

Am I the only thing that thinks that the impact of Hurley missing a year of footy is being vastly overstated?

You're not buying Hurley for what he'll give you in 2017, you're buying him for what he'll give you for the next 5-6 years... which, if 2015 is anything to go by, is an elite key defender. It's not as if he's missed this season due to an injury that could haunt him for the rest of his career like Fyfe this year or Libba last year; it's not as if he's going to miss more games in the future due to a drugs suspension.

Sure, a year without competitive football will have some short term impact. He'll have to put in a bit more work at training in the pre-season and may take a few games to get back up to speed in 2017. But it's not as if Hurley (or any of the suspended dozen) has lost all his football ability because he hasn't touched a Sherrin for a month. Will still be a great player when he gets back, will be a great player for the next half-decade, and any team that wants him will have to pay a hefty price.

 

[aussierulesrules]

I think it's the "unknown" of what a year out of the game will mean. I don't imagine it will be a big factor though, personally.

 

[cdcanman]

Am I the only thing that thinks that the impact of Hurley missing a year of footy is being vastly overstated?

You're not buying Hurley for what he'll give you in 2017, you're buying him for what he'll give you for the next 5-6 years... which, if 2015 is anything to go by, is an elite key defender. It's not as if he's missed this season due to an injury that could haunt him for the rest of his career like Fyfe this year or Libba last year; it's not as if he's going to miss more games in the future due to a drugs suspension.

Sure, a year without competitive football will have some short term impact. He'll have to put in a bit more work at training in the pre-season and may take a few games to get back up to speed in 2017. But it's not as if Hurley (or any of the suspended dozen) has lost all his football ability because he hasn't touched a Sherrin for a month. Will still be a great player when he gets back, will be a great player for the next half-decade, and any team that wants him will have to pay a hefty price.

It's the case Essendon will have to make at the trade table, should it even get there. I don't suspect it will be too much of a problem for them. Great thing for homer fans to argue on a forum, doubt it will have much impact at the negotiating table. He is too talented, and of a sufficiently young age that I don't think they will have too much trouble getting a reasonable deal. Will it be full value for what a player like Hurley could command on the open market? Perhaps. Perhaps slightly less than that, but it will be good enough for EFC to accept under these circumstances.
That's if he even goes, from everything I've heard it can't be any greater than a 50/50 chance, one way or another.

 

[Jade]

I'm looking forward to being enlightened.

I'd like to say I'm glad I can help, but the reality is, this has been going so long I no longer have any patience for it.

It's idiotic enough suggesting that Hurley would pursue the DFA option, but for people to show a clear lack of understanding on exactly what is required and STILL decide to speak astounds me.

But to then try and refute something that can be FACTUALLY proven? Pure utter stupidity.

I don't sound condescending. I AM condescending. I genuinely look down at people that lack the ability to research.

 

[Suma Magic]

I understand what you're saying, but I probably diametrically disagree on the last point.

Given that we've had a number of high profile players leave, each of which has been accompanied by the same tired "DFA clause" song and dance, and not a single one has come even remotely close to that occurring - with examples from where EFC have gotten top value AND gotten unders - then I think history clearly points to the likelihood of a it happening now as being virtually nil.

I do get, however, that you're talking about in the event of it actually getting there, that you think it's unlikely but you can't rule it out (for the admittedly very odd logic of it being something EFC supporters believe, ergo it's probably wrong) but let's go beyond the crayon drawing analysis (no offence to you personally) and look at it logically.

The clause, as I've repeatedly pointed out, doesn't exist. It's merely an expression of everyday contract law whereby if one party doesn't uphold its contractual obligations then the other party can apply to have the contract legally voided. This could be done in a court of law, but I'd imagine it would more often and normally occur in an industrial relations tribunal of some sort.

Because the AFL is the AFL, and are a closed system (this is important, and I'll return to it shortly), they have their own mechanism to resolve such issues. It's known as the Grievance Tribunal. So, the process would presumably be as follows:

• EFC, Hurley + management, and Club Y try to broker a deal
• Reasonable offers and counter-offers are made
• No resolution is successful (the 1:55 dash for the fax is unsuccessful)
• Hurley + management apply to the AFL to have their case heard in the Grievance Tribunal
• Case is heard at some point, decision reached

Right? That's about the only way I can see it happening.

Here's the problems with it being successful, as I see it.

The grievance tribunal will only be constituted to consider one issue only: whether Hurley should be released from his contract due to the contractual failings of EFC regarding his health and safety. In making this assessment there will be a number of factors to consider. First and foremost, the grievance tribunal is not a rubber stamp on this matter. It will, like all tribunals would, have a strong disposition to not unnecessarily overturning an existing system and existing mechanisms.

So, the point I mentioned earlier about the AFL being a closed system? Within that system exist particular mechanisms to allow a player to move clubs. This is the trade system. The grievance tribunal would be extremely loath to overturn this. So, if as in the example above, a trade has been negotiated, but been unable to occur, why would the tribunal override this? It is NOT there to make it easier for Club Y to get a cheap deal. If, as EFC have claimed, and in the example above, they have made reasonable attempts to get a trade done, then that's it. The tribunal will simply say no dice, you should have worked out a trade. If EFC had refused to trade it would be a different story, but they haven't and wouldn't.

The other key point is that usually trades and the trade period are the only way to move clubs. However, in this exact and particular instance, there is another way - and that is to void the contract and move as a DFA. So there is, in reality, no reason to wait until the trade period. If Hurley was so distraught at his contractual treatment he has no reason to wait a year - and this is what Caracella was referring to when saying the window has closed.

Now, personally, I'm not sure I completely agree; because I believe Hurley + management could reasonably argue the wait was for no other reason than to give EFC a fair chance to make a trade. But in that case, that's exactly what they have tried to do! It's not entirely on EFC to take any offer, whilst similarly they must entertain fair offers.

The simple fact of the matter is, the reason for Hurley leaving CAN ONLY BE that his contractual requirements were not met. It can not be because he craves success elsewhere, or his preferred club are unwilling to do a reasonable deal, or any other reason. So the general bullshit spouted around this issue is nothing other than ignorant twaddle.

And frankly, with all of the above, coupled with EFC's assurances that they won't stand in the way, I think it's blindingly obvious why it will never even get close to that point, and at the end of the day a deal will be made, that - just like all the other deals - will result in either EFC getting about right value or most likely a little bit unders.

******* simple innit

Thanks for the response. Agree with nearly all of it.

One thing that is interesting is the reason why a deal wasn't done (assuming it wasn't and they end up at the tribunal).

Bombers would be arguing that they were open to reasonable offers, but didn't get one. Hurley may argue that reasonable offers were made, which Essendon refused. But just because a deal wasn't done it doesn't make either side reasonable or unreasonable necessarily.
Assuming that this point actually became part of the unlikely tribunal case, how would the tribunal determine reasonableness? It's always so disputed.

It won't come to a tribunal, but if it did, that could be an interesting issue.

 

[Jade]

Thanks for the response. Agree with nearly all of it.

One thing that is interesting is the reason why a deal wasn't done (assuming it wasn't and they end up at the tribunal).

Bombers would be arguing that they were open to reasonable offers, but didn't get one. Hurley may argue that reasonable offers were made, which Essendon refused. But just because a deal wasn't done it doesn't make either side reasonable or unreasonable necessarily.
Assuming that this point actually became part of the unlikely tribunal case, how would the tribunal determine reasonableness? It's always so disputed.

It won't come to a tribunal, but if it did, that could be an interesting issue.

I don't think the 'reasonableness' of a deal matters.

Because whether a deal or isn't done is irrelevant on whether or not Essendon breached its contractual obligations to Hurley.

 

[Suma Magic]

I don't think the 'reasonableness' of a deal matters.

Because whether a deal or isn't done is irrelevant on whether or not Essendon breached its contractual obligations to Hurley.

If the bombers were making reasonable trade offers then they wouldn't be standing in the way of him leaving. That could work against Hurley in the case.

 

[Jade]

If the bombers were making reasonable trade offers then they wouldn't be standing in the way of him leaving. That could work against Hurley in the case.

Yeah solid point.

 

[Lance Uppercut]

Thanks for the response. Agree with nearly all of it.

One thing that is interesting is the reason why a deal wasn't done (assuming it wasn't and they end up at the tribunal).

Bombers would be arguing that they were open to reasonable offers, but didn't get one. Hurley may argue that reasonable offers were made, which Essendon refused. But just because a deal wasn't done it doesn't make either side reasonable or unreasonable necessarily.
Assuming that this point actually became part of the unlikely tribunal case, how would the tribunal determine reasonableness? It's always so disputed.

It won't come to a tribunal, but if it did, that could be an interesting issue.

in one sense, that is the interesting point - but more so because it's the point central to the argument that you, I, and most rational people are making. The deal will get done. It's so much in everyone's interests that it's inconceivable to me that it wouldn't. And I'm on record as stating that I believe if EFC have to accept unders for Hurley, as much as it sucks, then that's what will happen, and it will be a direct consequence of what's happened over the last 3 years. The final knife-twist, if you will.

However, let's get hypothetical - I agree with your point on the subjectiveness of "reasonable", but only to a point. Here's why:

Everyone knows roughly what Hurley's market value is. Even on here, with all the bullshit, there's a pretty general consensus. Eliminating the outriders, I think we would all agree that Hurley's value is, broadly, somewhere between a mid first rounder and a top 5 pick. Fair? Somewhere between probably pick 5 and pick 15 depending on what garnishes are added. (Personally, I don't think even a pick 5 is nearly enough, but I'm recusing myself due to bias). So any offer made by Club Y in that range - with whatever extras are involved - should be enough. I don't see that as being particularly subjective; and even as a biased EFC supporter I can cop that because I understand the context, and that the usual rules around denying a contracted player delivery to his preferred club don't apply in this case.

So in the weird and wonderful circumstances a deal doesn't get done, I can only see it as being the result of Club Y trying to get an unreasonable deal. Sure, I can see EFC playing hardball early in negotiations, the "Rance type" thing, and I can even see a progressive club coming to the party with something approaching that maybe (although not quite that good of course - it is, after all, an ambit claim); but at the end of the day EFC can't turn down, let's say for arguments sake, pick 15 and a player or something - and I'm purposefully giving a pretty shitty deal for EFC as an example.

But what's gotten my goat, and that I hope we've now dispelled, is the tiresome theory that this can dangle over EFC as an implied or explicit threat - because it can't. Hurley and Club Y simply can't go, you know what, **** you EFC, take our pick 36 and a bag of dicks or Hurley's coming for free. It can't happen, and it won't happen

 

[Dr Whoooooooo]

in one sense, that is the interesting point - but more so because it's the point central to the argument that you, I, and most rational people are making. The deal will get done. It's so much in everyone's interests that it's inconceivable to me that it wouldn't. And I'm on record as stating that I believe if EFC have to accept unders for Hurley, as much as it sucks, then that's what will happen, and it will be a direct consequence of what's happened over the last 3 years. The final knife-twist, if you will.

However, let's get hypothetical - I agree with your point on the subjectiveness of "reasonable", but only to a point. Here's why:

Everyone knows roughly what Hurley's market value is. Even on here, with all the bullshit, there's a pretty general consensus. Eliminating the outriders, I think we would all agree that Hurley's value is, broadly, somewhere between a mid first rounder and a top 5 pick. Fair? Somewhere between probably pick 5 and pick 15 depending on what garnishes are added. (Personally, I don't think even a pick 5 is nearly enough, but I'm recusing myself due to bias). So any offer made by Club Y in that range - with whatever extras are involved - should be enough. I don't see that as being particularly subjective; and even as a biased EFC supporter I can cop that because I understand the context, and that the usual rules around denying a contracted player delivery to his preferred club don't apply in this case.

So in the weird and wonderful circumstances a deal doesn't get done, I can only see it as being the result of Club Y trying to get an unreasonable deal. Sure, I can see EFC playing hardball early in negotiations, the "Rance type" thing, and I can even see a progressive club coming to the party with something approaching that maybe (although not quite that good of course - it is, after all, an ambit claim); but at the end of the day EFC can't turn down, let's say for arguments sake, pick 15 and a player or something - and I'm purposefully giving a pretty shitty deal for EFC as an example.

But what's gotten my goat, and that I hope we've now dispelled, is the tiresome theory that this can dangle over EFC as an implied or explicit threat - because it can't. Hurley and Club Y simply can't go, you know what, **** you EFC, take our pick 36 and a bag of dicks or Hurley's coming for free. It can't happen, and it won't happen

Settle down Lancey mate ... you are taking this way too serious, have a few days off, play some Pokemon or whatever .... chill, relax ....

What will be will be - never worry about something out of your control. Your going to blow a heart valve otherwise ... oh and thanks for asking - yes my Strawberry jam and toast was awesome this morning cheers.

 

[Lance Uppercut]

Settle down Lancey mate ... you are taking this way too serious, have a few days off, play some Pokemon or whatever .... chill, relax ....

What will be will be - never worry about something out of your control. Your going to blow a heart valve otherwise ... oh and thanks for asking - yes my Strawberry jam and toast was awesome this morning cheers.

settle down? What, not enough winkie emoticons or ominous ellipses to be taken seriously?

The hilarity of you calling a logical rundown of what will actually be happen as blowing a valve over something that will never happen - you!l - is enormous. How many posts have you made in this thread? I'm on single figures, you're in triple figures!

 

[Suma Magic]

in one sense, that is the interesting point - but more so because it's the point central to the argument that you, I, and most rational people are making. The deal will get done. It's so much in everyone's interests that it's inconceivable to me that it wouldn't. And I'm on record as stating that I believe if EFC have to accept unders for Hurley, as much as it sucks, then that's what will happen, and it will be a direct consequence of what's happened over the last 3 years. The final knife-twist, if you will.

However, let's get hypothetical - I agree with your point on the subjectiveness of "reasonable", but only to a point. Here's why:

Everyone knows roughly what Hurley's market value is. Even on here, with all the bullshit, there's a pretty general consensus. Eliminating the outriders, I think we would all agree that Hurley's value is, broadly, somewhere between a mid first rounder and a top 5 pick. Fair? Somewhere between probably pick 5 and pick 15 depending on what garnishes are added. (Personally, I don't think even a pick 5 is nearly enough, but I'm recusing myself due to bias). So any offer made by Club Y in that range - with whatever extras are involved - should be enough. I don't see that as being particularly subjective; and even as a biased EFC supporter I can cop that because I understand the context, and that the usual rules around denying a contracted player delivery to his preferred club don't apply in this case.

So in the weird and wonderful circumstances a deal doesn't get done, I can only see it as being the result of Club Y trying to get an unreasonable deal. Sure, I can see EFC playing hardball early in negotiations, the "Rance type" thing, and I can even see a progressive club coming to the party with something approaching that maybe (although not quite that good of course - it is, after all, an ambit claim); but at the end of the day EFC can't turn down, let's say for arguments sake, pick 15 and a player or something - and I'm purposefully giving a pretty shitty deal for EFC as an example.

But what's gotten my goat, and that I hope we've now dispelled, is the tiresome theory that this can dangle over EFC as an implied or explicit threat - because it can't. Hurley and Club Y simply can't go, you know what, **** you EFC, take our pick 36 and a bag of dicks or Hurley's coming for free. It can't happen, and it won't happen

Good post. I agree that unless a club really low-balls (less than pick 8ish equivalent in my opinion) then it will have to be seen as reasonable IMO.

It won't get to that, but nothing wrong with a bit of hypothetical musings.

 

[Dr Whoooooooo]

settle down? What, not enough winkie emoticons or ominous ellipses to be taken seriously?

The hilarity of you calling a logical rundown of what will actually be happen as blowing a valve over something that will never happen - you!l - is enormous. How many posts have you made in this thread? I'm on single figures, you're in triple figures!

Ok mate ... Im off to play Pokemon ... Chill bro ... Does this count as another post?

 

[bennyg12]

Will sign 5 year deal with Essendon very soon

 

[compact72]

Will sign 5 year deal with Essendon very soon

Good on you. Join BigFooty to post such breaking information.

Credibility +1

 

[BRWB]

Will sign 5 year deal with Essendon very soon

Thanks 'Benny'

 

[cecil]

But what's gotten my goat, and that I hope we've now dispelled, is the tiresome theory that this can dangle over EFC as an implied or explicit threat - because it can't. Hurley and Club Y simply can't go, you know what, **** you EFC, take our pick 36 and a bag of dicks or Hurley's coming for free. It can't happen, and it won't happen

Good post.

To be fair though not a lot of people are suggesting trades like that, and there are also some going the other way (I've seen trades suggesting we trade Macrae and our first rounder for him, or Tom Boyd and our first). I stand by my claim it'll be our first and something else of value if he comes to us. Big name players are rarely traded for other players, and trades like this normally dictate SLIGHT unders but it still has to be reasonable and fair.

 

[cdcanman]

I understand what you're saying, but I probably diametrically disagree on the last point.

Given that we've had a number of high profile players leave, each of which has been accompanied by the same tired "DFA clause" song and dance, and not a single one has come even remotely close to that occurring - with examples from where EFC have gotten top value AND gotten unders - then I think history clearly points to the likelihood of a it happening now as being virtually nil.

I do get, however, that you're talking about in the event of it actually getting there, that you think it's unlikely but you can't rule it out (for the admittedly very odd logic of it being something EFC supporters believe, ergo it's probably wrong) but let's go beyond the crayon drawing analysis (no offence to you personally) and look at it logically.

The clause, as I've repeatedly pointed out, doesn't exist. It's merely an expression of everyday contract law whereby if one party doesn't uphold its contractual obligations then the other party can apply to have the contract legally voided. This could be done in a court of law, but I'd imagine it would more often and normally occur in an industrial relations tribunal of some sort.

Because the AFL is the AFL, and are a closed system (this is important, and I'll return to it shortly), they have their own mechanism to resolve such issues. It's known as the Grievance Tribunal. So, the process would presumably be as follows:

• EFC, Hurley + management, and Club Y try to broker a deal
• Reasonable offers and counter-offers are made
• No resolution is successful (the 1:55 dash for the fax is unsuccessful)
• Hurley + management apply to the AFL to have their case heard in the Grievance Tribunal
• Case is heard at some point, decision reached

Right? That's about the only way I can see it happening.

Here's the problems with it being successful, as I see it.

The grievance tribunal will only be constituted to consider one issue only: whether Hurley should be released from his contract due to the contractual failings of EFC regarding his health and safety. In making this assessment there will be a number of factors to consider. First and foremost, the grievance tribunal is not a rubber stamp on this matter. It will, like all tribunals would, have a strong disposition to not unnecessarily overturning an existing system and existing mechanisms.

So, the point I mentioned earlier about the AFL being a closed system? Within that system exist particular mechanisms to allow a player to move clubs. This is the trade system. The grievance tribunal would be extremely loath to overturn this. So, if as in the example above, a trade has been negotiated, but been unable to occur, why would the tribunal override this? It is NOT there to make it easier for Club Y to get a cheap deal. If, as EFC have claimed, and in the example above, they have made reasonable attempts to get a trade done, then that's it. The tribunal will simply say no dice, you should have worked out a trade. If EFC had refused to trade it would be a different story, but they haven't and wouldn't.

The other key point is that usually trades and the trade period are the only way to move clubs. However, in this exact and particular instance, there is another way - and that is to void the contract and move as a DFA. So there is, in reality, no reason to wait until the trade period. If Hurley was so distraught at his contractual treatment he has no reason to wait a year - and this is what Caracella was referring to when saying the window has closed.

Now, personally, I'm not sure I completely agree; because I believe Hurley + management could reasonably argue the wait was for no other reason than to give EFC a fair chance to make a trade. But in that case, that's exactly what they have tried to do! It's not entirely on EFC to take any offer, whilst similarly they must entertain fair offers.

The simple fact of the matter is, the reason for Hurley leaving CAN ONLY BE that his contractual requirements were not met. It can not be because he craves success elsewhere, or his preferred club are unwilling to do a reasonable deal, or any other reason. So the general bullshit spouted around this issue is nothing other than ignorant twaddle.

And frankly, with all of the above, coupled with EFC's assurances that they won't stand in the way, I think it's blindingly obvious why it will never even get close to that point, and at the end of the day a deal will be made, that - just like all the other deals - will result in either EFC getting about right value or most likely a little bit unders.

******* simple innit

You make some good points, some slightly confusing points, as well as some pretty EFC biased points, which is all pretty understandable. You're trying to be as reasonable and level-headed as possible which I always appreciate and we don't always get that on these here forums so kudos to you for that.
One problem that I have with your perspective is to do with a presumption that you are making, or that your post implies at least, particularly in regards to the timeline of how things would likely play out. Your post seems to imply that you think that Hurley will allow the trade period to play out, and only if a suitable deal does not eventuate, will he go to the grievance tribunal.
I think it is more likely that should Hurley have a desire to leave, and his management and any legal advisors that they seek are even remotely competent (which lets take it as being safe to say that they are) then any Grievance Tribunal action and indeed decision would likely be completed prior to the player movement period even commencing. In this event, Essendon will know ahead of time what the outcome will be should they not be able to reach a trade agreement for Hurley. The tribunal can indeed uphold the pre-existing trade mechanisms, allowing a deal to be struck between EFC and Hurley's club of choice if possible, but having already decided that Hurley can (or can't) void his contract in the event that this does not eventuate. So I think a lot of your arguments relating to a tribunal not granting Hurley a release if Essendon and club X can't negotiate a trade because; he should have left earlier if so aggrieved, EFC negotiated in good faith, shouldn't have to accept an unfair deal, not their fault negotiations didn't succeed etc. etc. aren't necessarily wrong (albeit a little Essendon biased) but they are just a little moot perhaps.

Ultimately, IF he chooses to leave, I suspect a suitable deal will get sorted so this hole conversation is moot really

 

[Lance Uppercut]

Good post.

To be fair though not a lot of people are suggesting trades like that, and there are also some going the other way (I've seen trades suggesting we trade Macrae and our first rounder for him, or Tom Boyd and our first). I stand by my claim it'll be our first and something else of value if he comes to us. Big name players are rarely traded for other players, and trades like this normally dictate SLIGHT unders but it still has to be reasonable and fair.

yeah but internets gonna internet.

 

[Lance Uppercut]

You make some good points, some slightly confusing points, as well as some pretty EFC biased points, which is all pretty understandable. You're trying to be as reasonable and level-headed as possible which I always appreciate and we don't always get that on these here forums so kudos to you for that.
One problem that I have with your perspective is to do with a presumption that you are making, or that your post implies at least, particularly in regards to the timeline of how things would likely play out. Your post seems to imply that you think that Hurley will allow the trade period to play out, and only if a suitable deal does not eventuate, will he go to the grievance tribunal.
I think it is more likely that should Hurley have a desire to leave, and his management and any legal advisors that they seek are even remotely competent (which lets take it as being safe to say that they are) then any Grievance Tribunal action and indeed decision would likely be completed prior to the player movement period even commencing. In this event, Essendon will know ahead of time what the outcome will be should they not be able to reach a trade agreement for Hurley. The tribunal can indeed uphold the pre-existing trade mechanisms, allowing a deal to be struck between EFC and Hurley's club of choice if possible, but having already decided that Hurley can (or can't) void his contract in the event that this does not eventuate. So I think a lot of your arguments relating to a tribunal not granting Hurley a release if Essendon and club X can't negotiate a trade because; he should have left earlier if so aggrieved, EFC negotiated in good faith, shouldn't have to accept an unfair deal, not their fault negotiations didn't succeed etc. etc. aren't necessarily wrong (albeit a little Essendon biased) but they are just a little moot perhaps.

Ultimately, IF he chooses to leave, I suspect a suitable deal will get sorted so this hole conversation is moot really

I appreciate that you're thinking about it, but I think it's pretty easy to point out why it's not going to happen like that.

How can Hurley + management go to the tribunal before the trade period? On what grounds could they do so? The tribunal would simply point out that EFC have publicly stated, many times, that they will not stand in the way of a player leaving. So therefore Hurley has a path to get where he wants to go, via the normal channels.

As I've said, the tribunal have only one question that they will consider. Should Hurley's contract be voided due to EFC failing to meet its contractual requirements to him. The outcome can't be: yes, but we're not going to take action, however should EFC fail to agree to any trade whatsoever then at that moment we will somehow void the contract. That is, all due respect, a bizarre outcome to come up with. Either they will void the contract or they won't.

That is why it would necessarily take place after the trade period, and it's safe to assume that will be the case.

As I've said, any decision would be made on a very narrow and focused question. Hurley has had 9 months to take the course of action you seem to think he could make - why hasn't he done so already? Either he is waiting to use the proper channels or he isn't. The tribunal isn't going to void his contract for any other reason; not that he wants to go to club y, or that he thinks success will be found elsewhere. That would fall outside the very narrow terms the tribunal would consider the decision on

 

[adsla69k]

1 week to go

 

[Vindicater]

I think it's the "unknown" of what a year out of the game will mean. I don't imagine it will be a big factor though, personally.

Guys sit out a year all the time with Injury.

He will be fine.