GWS should play hardball and find the best trade. They should be dictated by the players club of choice.

In the Adams situation. GWS should go with the best offer on the table from any club. They need to make a stand and not allow these kids to dictate where they go or it will send a message to the rest of the playing group that we will send you home to your club of choice if you desire.

Agree with this. GWS are setting a precedent for the expansion clubs allowing this to occur.

In the Adams situation. GWS should go with the best offer on the table from any club. They need to make a stand and not allow these kids to dictate where they go or it will send a message to the rest of the playing group that we will send you home to your club of choice if you desire.

Given that the player has to agree to any mooted trade, I can't see how the club has much in the way of bargaining chips in these cases.

Josh Caddy is a spud, so is Wellingham, so is Savage

Its just the losers like them that dont wanna talk to us

Meanwhile actual footballers who can play such as Mitch Clark and Chris Dawes are happy to come to the MFC

Haha yeah OK - this reminds me of the Voltaire quote "if god did not exist it would be necessary to invent him" for some reason - any player that doesn't want to play for us is a spud but anyone we recruit can play.

Josh Caddy is a spud, so is Wellingham, so is Savage

Its just the losers like them that dont wanna talk to us

Meanwhile actual footballers who can play such as Mitch Clark and Chris Dawes are happy to come to the MFC

Josh Caddy showed in the preliminary final why Geelong went after him. He will be a very good footballer for them.

Josh Caddy showed in the preliminary final why Geelong went after him. He will be a very good footballer for them.

Exactly, young midfielder with a hard body, can kick goals. Gee, wish we had spuds like that in our team...

Given that the player has to agree to any mooted trade, I can't see how the club has much in the way of bargaining chips in these cases.

Yes Nasher, unfortunately that is the case. Maybe in this instance they could just not do the trade, and if he doesn't re-sign, pick him up in the PSD??

GWS should make a stand and take pick two for Shiel and send Adams to the PSD.

It's about principle, people.

GWS should make a stand and take pick two for Shiel and send Adams to the PSD.

It's about principle, people.

Give them a call for us please?

GWS should make a stand and take pick two for Shiel and send Adams to the PSD.

It's about principle, people.

That would teach them good and proper.

Given that the player has to agree to any mooted trade, I can't see how the club has much in the way of bargaining chips in these cases.

Is that written or just convention?

Obviously there needs to be contractual stuff eked out so a forced trade would be impractical, but it is actually written somewhere?

Is that written or just convention?

Obviously there needs to be contractual stuff eked out so a forced trade would be impractical, but it is actually written somewhere?

of course it is written otherwise how could players ever choose to go in the draft? The cub would refuse and trade them to whoever they want.

That would teach them good and proper.

I think rpfc was alluding to the fact that it would net us two gun mids, principles aside.

GWS should make a stand and take pick two for Shiel and send Adams to the PSD.

It's about principle, people.

And trade pick 1 to us for Teddy Strudwick so they don't have this "go-home" problem in future.

of course it is written otherwise how could players ever choose to go in the draft? The cub would refuse and trade them to whoever they want.

where?

I think you will find that it's an issue of both good will and practicality.

The player has to accept the trade and sign the contract.

I think if they refuse, then the trade can't be done...

The player has to accept the trade and sign the contract.

I think if they refuse, then the trade can't be done...

That's a given but there is nothing to prevent the club only dealing with the clubs with the deal it wants, thus presenting the player with a single contract or the choice of a couple.

My point is that the clubs shouldn't be held to ransom by a player that has been in the system for three years.

It's free agency without having earnt the right.

I know that its an argument that has been going on for donkeys, I just think the expansion clubs are making it a bit too easy.

I think rpfc was alluding to the fact that it would net us two gun mids, principles aside.

I understood that clearly. Sorry, I was playing with the emotions of that actually being a realistic outcome..

Given that the player has to agree to any mooted trade, I can't see how the club has much in the way of bargaining chips in these cases.

Mitch Clark?

"We know you want to go to team A, but listen to team B's offer, they have a good offer for you, they will give a fair trade to us (that team A aren't willing to match) and if you don't agree, we'll stick you in the PSD where you'll get picked up by MFC, who you won't even talk to, because you're a spoilt little brat %#$&@"

How about we get Cross and Chapman

tell Shiel he will be working with the best to take over from them with Jones and Viney to support him

They can all develope their delivery skills pumping the ball all day down to Clarke Dawes Hogan and Howe

He can join Watts and Trengove as high draft picks in the premier team of the future and leave his mark

Perhaps we could get P roos to present the message with an indicator of the sort of club culture that will be developed

Heck he can have even choose wether or not to wear the blazer

That's a given but there is nothing to prevent the club only dealing with the clubs with the deal it wants, thus presenting the player with a single contract or the choice of a couple.

My point is that the clubs shouldn't be held to ransom by a player that has been in the system for three years.

It's free agency without having earnt the right.

I know that its an argument that has been going on for donkeys, I just think the expansion clubs are making it a bit too easy.

That's not whatyou said. You used the phrases forced trade and goodwill.

No one can be force traded anywhere. That is a written rule.

They can be force drafted in national or psd.

Clubs do show players goodwill because the alternative is to lose them for nothing in draft.

That is a written rule.

Where?

Alternately other than free agency where is it written that a player goes to a club of their choosing?

You used the phrases forced trade

I said what now?

Where?

Alternately other than free agency where is it written that a player goes to a club of their choosing?

I believe you're right in a way.

As I understand it the player can only choose if their contract is up and they can walk for nothing if the club don't get them to the club of choice.

If they're half way through a contract, it's either go where you're told or stay and play in the 2's.

Moloney didn't want to be traded to us.

Here.

Is that written or just convention?

Obviously there needs to be contractual stuff eked out so a forced trade would be impractical, but it is actually written somewhere?

A player cannot be traded anywhere without his permission. He has to sign a contract the new club, without agreeing.

Just as a player can say "trade me to x because iwant to go there for money/success/family/coach or I walk for nothing and try my luck in the psd" a club can say "we are trading you here because they are offering us a better deal or you can try your luck in the draft."

I believe you're right in a way.

As I understand it the player can only choose if their contract is up and they can walk for nothing if the club don't get them to the club of choice.

If they're half way through a contract, it's either go where you're told or stay and play in the 2's.

Moloney didn't want to be traded to us.

Moloney may not have wanted to but he agreed to it. Was told he wouldn't get a game behind the rest of their available mids.