2 hours ago, bing181 said:

i.e., break his contract.

Not difficult.

The comparison is broken contracts on both sides vs broken contract on one side and low value draft picks on the other side.

Not difficult.

Edited 2 hours ago2 hr by old55

I think a stumbling block in the trade with GC is that 7 and 8 aren't liquid assets outside the Petracca trade. Sure they could trade them back for more points but they've got plenty of points already with them. No-one really wants to trade future picks into this year's first round and there isn't anyone else of merit to trade them for.

If they wanted to go all-in they could do Humphrey for Petracca + 23 + 28 + 41 and then offer Carlton 7 + 8 + F1 for Curnow and forget JUH.

2 hours ago, BoBo said:

Breaking a contract would mean one party is failing to fulfil an obligation stipulated by a contract.

BH asking to be traded whilst still under contract, isn’t breaking or ‘a breach’ of contract.

I.e., same as Petracca.

3 hours ago, BoBo said:

Breaking a contract would mean one party is failing to fulfil an obligation stipulated by a contract.

BH asking to be traded whilst still under contract, isn’t breaking or ‘a breach’ of contract.

It's a repudiation of the contract (ie anticipatory breach), if we want to get technical about things...

Damo referring to Tracc as Brand Petracca, must be a DL reader like the rest of the media.

4 minutes ago, Redleg said:

Damo referring to Tracc as Brand Petracca, must be a DL reader like the rest of the media.

Once he’s at the suns that will stop and he’ll be back to being referred to as a champion. Damo trying to downgrade his value right now… on behalf of the AFL… and because he hates the dees.

E

Edited 8 minutes ago8 min by DoubleH
Wrong post

12 hours ago, BoBo said:

This is where I get a bit conflicted. I agree with what you’re saying, but on the flip side, (this is the opposite side of the paying contracted players that leave the club coin), players have also signed contracts with clubs that they are required to fulfil. So if we don’t get to a stage that we feel like we have gotten a good deal… then he’s a contracted player and that’s kinda that.

That’s flattening dynamics a hellava lot I realise, but if the players are going to try and leave on contracts and do it in a ‘this is just the business’ sense, then conversely, that attitude/ethos also applies the opposite way.

He signed a massive, long term contract with us so that can’t only cut one way IMO.

The whole contract system is a joke. It seems to me it is only binding when it suits the player. Some of these long contracts currently being offered are ridiculous. Take Oliver, the club tells him his role will change next year, he spits the dummy and wants out. If he does achieve this desire he can claim mental problems and simply refuse to take the field. The MFC has no choice but to pay him. IMO if a player wants out and club agrees then the contract should end there and he negotiates a new deal with the new club. This porting your salary from the old team to the new one is [censored].