Search results for query: *

Dangerfield was a free agent

Thank you. You’re the first person to have provided an example. Tippett got there in the end. What was the revised deal?

I've just heard Andy Maher and Andrew Gaze on SEN completely confusing themselves about this deal. It's no wonder so many on BF don't understand how contracts work if they're being subjected to that kind of horsesh1t everyday.

Really sorry to see him go. Thought he played really well when he was given a good run at it (6-7 games) in the middle of the season. Really strong over the ball, good quick hands, good vision. Hope he does well at the hawks.

Huh? You do realise Geelong have to pay the 1.6M as well, right? The total deal (allegedly) is $2.2M from Geelong to Bowes for 4 years. Did you really think the cats weren't responsible for the 1.6M as well? No wonder you think it's an outrageously good deal for Geelong.

Have they ever denied one (on the basis of "fairness")?

Does the AFL have that power? Any actual examples of it being used in the past? (not interested in vague recollections - actual examples please)

On what basis could the AFL overrule it? It complies with the trading rules. Don't get me wrong. As a supporter, I'm very happy with the deal. I just don't get this idea that the AFL could overrule it, even if they wanted to. To my knowledge, no such powers exist.

I didn't say Port was the club that would have been in breach of the rules.

No worries. On the last bit, the contract Bowes had with GC is irrelevant to the contract Geelong have offered him, other than Geelong needed to make it "worth his while" to nominate them as his preferred destination. Hence the increase in $ overall. The downside for the cats is they are...

I appreciate the response, but I'm not convinced there are any rules based on "fairness". Would be interested to hear more about the swans/dees pick swaps you mentioned.

Sigh. Another genuine question then: Have they ever intervened before, on the basis of "fairness"?

A lot of people here think the league can (and should) veto this deal on the basis of "fairness". Genuine question: Do the league even have that power? And don't say they did it on the "mega deal". My understanding is that was initially vetoed specifically to prevent one of the clubs...

Genuine question: Do the AFL have the power to reject a trade on the basis of "fairness"? My understanding of the rejection of the initial "mega deal" was that it would result in one of the clubs actually breaking the rules of trading (i.e. trade away rather than use a certain number of...

do you know how contracts work?

got a link?

Yep - I wasn't addressing that part. I was only addressing the bit about why GC don't restructure Bowes' contract.

"Hold bowes the 2 years or extend him on more favourable terms same as Cats did." The Suns can hold him to the existing contract (2 years) but he is under no obligation to alter his existing contract with the Suns, so they don't have the option of extending him as per the Cats proposed contract.

I'll bite. What was the gutless dog act?