Remove this Banner Ad

News Urquart delisted by North

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

I quite like Urquart but as a matter of interest, who was the last player genuinely delisted (as distinct from traded) by one club who went on to make a real career (100+games) at another club?

I understand your point completely and agree with you. I like Urquhart and would love to see him at our club, but him returning home to QLD, is not going to turn him into a star player, we may get some improvement, especially after being delisted, but he'll be the same player who has struggling for games at the Roos.

However, there are some good stories of players getting a second chance and being serviceable/potential list cloggers...
Danny Stanley
Joel Patfull
Tom Logan
Ed Curnow
Kepler Bradley
Simon Buckley
David rodan
Zac dawson

There are a lot more failed stories, than winners, but if the list management team think that Urquhart is a better player than any player we could get late in the draft or in the rookie draft then we'll probably see him on our list.
 
I think he is worth rolling the dice on, a PSD or even rookie pick is worth it for him he is a very capable player if he gets fit. Like CMT26 said above there are a number of success stories when it comes to recycling players, Nick Lower this year is a good example.
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

Wasn't Nick Lower previously on a list before Freo picked him up?

Podsiadly anyone?


Yeah he was on Port Adelaide's senior list, but he was delisted at the end of 2010 and came good for Freo and I bet that mid way through the year Port were regretting that decision.

The Jpod spent time on Collingwood and Essendons rookie lists before he got a chance at senior level
 
Would rather Macaffer but he'd definitely add some depth. If we can't get Macaffer then PSD would be worthwhile I reckon.
 
So, Brad Scott labels him as a 'required player' going into trade week and then delists him straight afterwards? Man, I'm tired of the shennanigans that go on at trade time...

FWIW I think that we should have a good look at him. He'll come cheap and at least we know that he understands the requirements of an AFL club. That puts him in front of a lot of similiar aged rookie prospects.
 
So, Brad Scott labels him as a 'required player' going into trade week and then delists him straight afterwards? Man, I'm tired of the shennanigans that go on at trade time...

Someone can correct me here, but I think it was last season that Scott called Urquhart a required player? Unless he said it before this trade period as well?
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Roos to foot Urquhart bill

NORTH Melbourne is committed to paying the bulk of Gavin Urquhart's $300,000-plus contract next year even if he is taken by another club, despite de-listing the midfielder.

But the club has agreed to re-draft Urquhart as a rookie and retain him if he is not picked up earlier in the drafts (national or rookie).

Urquhart has one year to run on a three-year contract, which did not stop the Roos from cutting the running defender after the trading period, when he was put up for trade but did not find another club.
 
Lions should pick up Gavin, great value and as mentioned most of the $$ covered by North.

Brisbane local with tremendous upside. Upgrade on guys like Raines, Hawksley etc.
 
Can a club continue to pay another player's salary if a trade is not involved? Not sure I can recall a situation where a draftee is still paid by the club that delisted him once he has been re-drafted by another club. It could happen, I suppose. It just seems unusual.
 
Can a club continue to pay another player's salary if a trade is not involved? Not sure I can recall a situation where a draftee is still paid by the club that delisted him once he has been re-drafted by another club. It could happen, I suppose. It just seems unusual.


Pretty sure we did it with Hooper...
 
Can a club continue to pay another player's salary if a trade is not involved? Not sure I can recall a situation where a draftee is still paid by the club that delisted him once he has been re-drafted by another club. It could happen, I suppose. It just seems unusual.

Delisted while on contract is a nice word for "sacked". If he isn't drafted by another club then North are obliged to payout his contract. If he is drafted then he shouldn't have to take a pay cut - otherwise he'd be forced to stand out for a season to get his money.
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Delisted while on contract is a nice word for "sacked". If he isn't drafted by another club then North are obliged to payout his contract. If he is drafted then he shouldn't have to take a pay cut - otherwise he'd be forced to stand out for a season to get his money.
That's the way that I think it would work. Some sort of settlement deed to allow the contract to be terminated but with any future earnings of GU (during the contract period) deducted from the amount of the financial settlement paid by North to GU.
 
Link ....

Any club willing to draft Urquhart would pay him only the bargain-basement minimum wage, leaving North to pick up the balance of his $300,000-plus final year.
 
Can a club continue to pay another player's salary if a trade is not involved? Not sure I can recall a situation where a draftee is still paid by the club that delisted him once he has been re-drafted by another club. It could happen, I suppose. It just seems unusual.

It's happened. To us no less.

527213-rhan-hooper.jpg


Hawthorn paid him minimum wage and we were forced to pay out the balance.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

News Urquart delisted by North

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top