Well I'll be!

I apologise for my previous comments, didn't know this was an option. Is this a new change?

Well I'll be!

I apologise for my previous comments, didn't know this was an option. Is this a new change?

Not too sure if it new or not. If it is, I think it would have came about when the new rule regarding being able to rookie list players previously on a senior list was brought in.

Certainly brings the nature of a conract into dispute IMO, making it a bit more of a grey area.

It can happen to a coach, so I guess it can happen to a player.

There is still an unexplained divide between theory and practice...

I highly doubt it is a recent inclusion given all the argy bargy re free agency going on at the moment.

Hey i got shot down buy a few for suggesting Newton to the rookie list, but ive heard him and Meeson will be on the rookie list next year.

Why did you get shot down for that suggestion -I confirmed it before the club did and I know who put Meeson there as well.

Certainly brings the nature of a conract into dispute IMO, making it a bit more of a grey area.

Bloody strange industry.

It is my understanding that the AFLPA do not and never have accepted that under performing players can simply be sacked & paid out. We required their co-operation to get rid of serial drongo Nathan Carroll and MFC actually had grounds to sack him.

My understanding is the issue with Carroll was whether or not we had to pay him out under the circumstances, not whether we could terminate him.

My understanding is the issue with Carroll was whether or not we had to pay him out under the circumstances, not whether we could terminate him.

Perhaps.

Still doesn't assist with the main query, if the contracts allow players to get delisted for poor performance how come it has never been an accepted option until now?

Probably just because you used to just lose them completely and pay them for nothing.

This way, they are paid as normal and remain on the list in a way, with the possibility they will play AFL footy next year.

Edited November 10, 200916 yr by deestroyers

Perhaps.

Still doesn't assist with the main query, if the contracts allow players to get delisted for poor performance how come it has never been an accepted option until now?

Because it is tacit acceptance that those doing the termination erred when they recruited said player or extended the contract of said player.

Because it is tacit acceptance that those doing the termination erred when they recruited said player or extended the contract of said player.

Same applies now both re normal contracts and demotions to rookie list?

Why did you get shot down for that suggestion -I confirmed it before the club did and I know who put Meeson there as well.

I dunno mate ask the people that shot me down?

It was in the Buckley and Valenti thread.

What do u mean u know who put Meeson there? I do as well Tim Harrington.

Just a quickie regarding rookies....as even im bloody confused on this a bit now.

How are we fixed re rookie spots should we have to pick up Meesen and/or Newton as promised. Are there any more slots left for rookies ?

Just a quickie regarding rookies....as even im bloody confused on this a bit now.

How are we fixed re rookie spots should we have to pick up Meesen and/or Newton as promised. Are there any more slots left for rookies ?

No.

Unless Newton or Meesen can convince another club to put them on their PL, which is unlikely, to say the least...

Just a quickie regarding rookies....as even im bloody confused on this a bit now.

How are we fixed re rookie spots should we have to pick up Meesen and/or Newton as promised. Are there any more slots left for rookies ?

8 players allowed outside the primary list.

We've got our full lot.

6 rookies Healy, Spencer, Newton, Meesen, Mckenzie, Hughes + 2 VL Jmac and Bruce.

8 players allowed outside the primary list.

We've got our full lot.

6 rookies Healy, Spencer, Newton, Meesen, Mckenzie, Hughes + 2 VL Jmac and Bruce.

thankyou...thought that might be the case.. so any smokies will have to be in the ND ( most likely )