Ohio USA - David

I totally agree it is inappropriate and surely a development Coach could not apply himself 100% on 25 hrs a week to as low as 10 hrs a week. Poor judgment by the Club

does not look like a full time role.. The add says between 10 - 25 hrs a week. Surely Egan was employed for a longer stint per week than that ?

Do you think Yze may be a better development Coach seeing he played that role at Hawthorn and find a replacement mid field coach. ??

Oh grow up. You know what I mean.. To spell it out in baby English... A Contracted player is a player whose 100% loyalty is to the Club ... As his 100% loyalty is to the Club therefore the Club own the terms of the contract for that player for the term of the contract

Contracted employees are in fact "owned" by the Club ... and so the employee carries out everything included in the Contract for the Employer - The Club... end of conversation. You are entitled to your opinion but allow me to have mine and stop lecturing me your views...

My advice is to appreciate that every one has a right to state what they believe so I suggest you leave it at that and stop trying to lecture people around your line of thinking.

Are you insane ? Personally your comments above are a rambling piece of nothing and it amazes me that people like you comment in the way you do. My advice is read what I said and do not misrepresent me because I just state facts about a guy who presumably retired. They are my views and I will stick by them.

Read what I said and stop "reading" into my comments your desired end result..

Read what I wrote please. I never said that players are committed for life at a Club. In fact they are only committed to the Club 100% while under Contract and Contracts do not typically run for three years as you say. Some and many are year by year and some are even longer @ four or five years. Facts matter

The contracting of football players. Under current AFL Regulations, a player is owned by the club who holds their registration. End of story..

Facts are they are the property of the footy Club when under contract. That is a given..

Agree but in this instance I am talking about a guy who "retired" and then signs with St Kilda. Read what he said on the St Kilda Web site to their members.. He is two faced and its all about the money not the BS he said to their members.

Under Contract they are the property of the Club.. That's a fact...

no need for abuse

Treloar and Stephenson were on Contracts as distinct from Frawley at Hawthorn where he chose to retire. Treloar had no reason to leave he could have stayed there and ran out his Contract. Frawley on the other hand left Melbourne at the end of his contract and chose to retire from Hawthorn as I said then he writes this bizarre piece on the St Kilda Web site that makes him out to be such a fallen soldier. A martyr for the Club and how he just loves being at the Club that his cousin Danny played for... What he should have said to St Kilda fans is that " I am here for the money and if you think you can get an extra year out of me then fine... I will still take the money but I have no loyalty to the Club despite what I just said ...." I stand by my comments and please respect my point that I too have views - it is not a one way web site here. People have opposite views - so be it.