Watts likely to re-sign

[deeflog 679]

bloody great news for both the guys, both important players going forward

[45HG 1,539]

My money would be on Bate, as his demise has been rather rapid (e.g.- told-the-club-he-was-going-and-hasn't-been-seen-since type of demise).

That house is for Brad Miller, or actually Pia.

McKenna is trying to make a move.

On a separate note, I love me a Jack Watts thread. Definitely long overdue for one.

Hope you didn't have too much money on it!

This is good news, but anyone who's surprised is kidding themselves.

[Redleg 40,925]

But...but..Bate hasn't been playing and Mckenna bought an extra house...

That was for Bock, Brown, Harbrow, Krakouer and their mates.

Edited August 20, 2010 by Redleg

[Redleg 40,925]

Bate and Watts. Lovely.

Further good news for the MFC.

[Jaded No More 68,915]

Hope you didn't have too much money on it!

There goes my new pair of Prada shoes

All comments made in that silly Rumour Thread were made with a big portion of "taking the [censored]".

Seriously, there is not a single believable rumour in there.

[DeezMan 4]

All comments made in that silly Rumour Thread were made with a big portion of "taking the [censored]".

Seriously, there is not a single believable rumour in there.

Brucey boy to GC?

[Jaded No More 68,915]

Brucey boy to GC?

That tops the stupid list!

[Red Sox 2]

Gold Coast can only take one player from any club, in any fashion. They cannot take an un contracted and also a trade.

Matt Bate is obviously going nowhere.

Cam Bruce is obviously going nowhere.

Brad Miller is obviously the Gold Coast player from Melbourne. IMO.

I thought, here we go, yet another JW thread, but in this case a good thread. Good to see two young guys signed up.

Congrats Bater and Killer!!

[daisycutter 29,616]

Gold Coast can only take one player from any club,

Are you absolutely sure on this?

I know that this is explicitly stated for GWS (over 2 years starting next year) but I couldn't see it stated for GC17, just a max of 16 uncontracted players

Do you have a reference?

[old dee 23,791]

Are you absolutely sure on this?

I know that this is explicitly stated for GWS (over 2 years starting next year) but I couldn't see it stated for GC17, just a max of 16 uncontracted players

Do you have a reference?

My understanding is that GC can take up 12 uncontracted players this year. the max. is one per club.

Eg. they cannot take anymore players from Adelaide

This rule applies GWS next year.

[DemonWorshipper 304]

My understanding is that GC can take up 12 uncontracted players this year. the max. is one per club.

Eg. they cannot take anymore players from Adelaide

This rule applies GWS next year.

This is true, if they want any other players from the same club, they will need to trade for them.

[Inner Demon 1]

My understanding is that GC can take up 12 uncontracted players this year. the max. is one per club.

Eg. they cannot take anymore players from Adelaide

This rule applies GWS next year.

Max of 16 uncontracted. Max 1 per club.

It should be noted this is a maximum, not also a minimum.

GC officials have mentioned in multiple interviews that they are only looking at taking 8 uncontracted players this year. A lot of people seem to consider the GC situation in terms of 'who will they take' rather than 'will they take someone'. This is an error.

On topic, great to have these two signed up. Particularly Watts for 3. I like it.

[daisycutter 29,616]

Max of 16 uncontracted. Max 1 per club.

It should be noted this is a maximum, not also a minimum.

GC officials have mentioned in multiple interviews that they are only looking at taking 8 uncontracted players this year. A lot of people seem to consider the GC situation in terms of 'who will they take' rather than 'will they take someone'. This is an error.

On topic, great to have these two signed up. Particularly Watts for 3. I like it.

not that I don't believe you, would still like a reference (link) for the max 1 bit for GC17 (not GWS)

[Deeoldfart 8,033]

Continuing to stoke the fire which started earlier in the year. Great to hear.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

But...but..Bate hasn't been playing and Mckenna bought an extra house...

You know you will have to expand your routine sometime.... B)

not that I don't believe you, would still like a reference (link) for the max 1 bit for GC17 (not GWS)

http://www.afl.com.au/tabid/208/default.aspx?newsid=76855

Its all there.

[old dee 23,791]

Max of 16 uncontracted. Max 1 per club.

It should be noted this is a maximum, not also a minimum.

GC officials have mentioned in multiple interviews that they are only looking at taking 8 uncontracted players this year. A lot of people seem to consider the GC situation in terms of 'who will they take' rather than 'will they take someone'. This is an error.

On topic, great to have these two signed up. Particularly Watts for 3. I like it.

Yes you are correct it is 16, this is a rare event I was "wrong"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Just joking

Edited August 20, 2010 by old dee

[daisycutter 29,616]

http://www.afl.com.au/tabid/208/default.aspx?newsid=76855

Its all there.

Sorry to be a pain, maybe my eyesight is off, but I couldn't see any statement re max 1 per club wrt 16 uncontracted players

any other links?

[e25 5]

In addition to that, I believe the AFL in the past few days has clarified that it is a maximum of 1 player from each club, including the draft.

So, for instance, if both Jared Brennan and Rischitelli wanted to go to GC17 (which I believe is the case), they could not take one as an uncontracted player and then the other nominates for the draft and GC17 takes them there.

That would not be allowed.

For good reason, but I find it strange the AFL can stipulate there are players in the draft that one club alone is not able to pick.

[daisycutter 29,616]

In addition to that, I believe the AFL in the past few days has clarified that it is a maximum of 1 player from each club, including the draft.

So, for instance, if both Jared Brennan and Rischitelli wanted to go to GC17 (which I believe is the case), they could not take one as an uncontracted player and then the other nominates for the draft and GC17 takes them there.

That would not be allowed.

For good reason, but I find it strange the AFL can stipulate there are players in the draft that one club alone is not able to pick.

I agree it all makes sense and people have been saying so, but everytime I read an "official" statement of rules I never see it spelt out.

Would just like to see it in black and white somewhere

Of course we wont have to wait long now for it all to play out

[Red Sox 2]

In addition to that, I believe the AFL in the past few days has clarified that it is a maximum of 1 player from each club, including the draft.

So, for instance, if both Jared Brennan and Rischitelli wanted to go to GC17 (which I believe is the case), they could not take one as an uncontracted player and then the other nominates for the draft and GC17 takes them there.

That would not be allowed.

For good reason, but I find it strange the AFL can stipulate there are players in the draft that one club alone is not able to pick.

Correct!

[gOLLy 401]

Don't see Bate as a preimership player.

[old dee 23,791]

Don't see Bate as a preimership player.

You need to look a little harder, Bate is a good half forward.

People have wanted him to be a KPF which I do not think he is however if he were playing in a side were he is the third or fourth best forward

he would get the third or fourth best defender.

under those conditions you would not be expecting him to win the game every week and he woul;d look much better.

[jayceebee31 761]

Great to see that Bate is signing and Watts extremely likely. I'd like to see Jurrah stichd up for a further 3 years too.

[Inner Demon 1]

Great to see that Bate is signing and Watts extremely likely. I'd like to see Jurrah stichd up for a further 3 years too.

Liam signed through 2012 already.

[jayceebee31 761]

Liam signed through 2012 already.

THANK YOU -I said three years.

Edited August 20, 2010 by jayceebee31