Abyssal

Was at the match, for 57 years I’ve held the memory of Hassa kicking the winning goal by snapping over his shoulder from deep in the left hand forward pocket in heavy traffic. The video says otherwise. If only there was a replay of Queen’s Birthday Round 9 1967 v South Melbourne, Hassa kicked 7 in a big win.

Ditto

“WITHOUT WORRYING ABOUT THE FACTS” That being the case, surely it is unreasonable for you to criticise anybody on this site who makes an unsupported statement or even just for expressing their opinion.

Has the 2025 draw been announced? I must have missed it.

As an observer I think you will find he said a lot more than that amongst his numerous vitriolic posts.

This is the third post today by Jay Clark that has left me wondering, who does Jay Clark work for, Geelong FC or Clayton Oliver’s management.

No, I totally agree. If we genuinely want him gone I think we should fight tooth and nail for the best deal until the last minute of trading. And pay zero of his salary. I also think we should be working overtime with every other club and not giving Geelong the time of day. If no suitable deal can be done, he stays. If he then plays at Casey for the whole year @ $1,000,000- + it would bring into focus player contracts and farce the really are.

My concern with this is, if he chooses not to get fit and firing, has more off field troubles and/or holds the club in contempt resulting in him making no effort ( even begin happy to front up weekly at Casey) would MFC still be required to PAY HIS FULL SALARY? If so, player contacts are clearly too heavily stacked in the players favour to the point of being farcical.

D

That might be the case but my referencing of Jay Clark’s post was to question how Oliver could out if we didn’t agree. If Geelong really want him they need to compensate us. Also, MFC should not be conned into paying a cent of his salary.

“Can Melbourne hold him to his contract if the price isn’t right?” Bewildering. Surely he’s our player until MFC say he’s not or his contract is up. Or perhaps “journalist” Jay Clark meant to ask ‘should’ and not “can”.

Too right, and why in that case should he receive all of his $1,000,000 + salary next year?

Many things would need to be considered and that would probably be one of the most important. Off the cuff I would say, the cap is not affected, monies saved go into the club’s coffers. Any variance to a players salary would be decided by an independent panel after the Club put its case.

I have absolutely NO idea how AFL player contracts work however if they are not very, very heavily based on PERFORMANCE, they should be. If any player underperforms because of questionable off field behaviour or bad attitude or a gripe against their club, why should they receive 100% of their pay?

In the famous words of Norm Smith ”I’m MELBOURNE” I’m not Clayton Oliver I’m not Christian Petracca