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.

I believe that playing a Team sport is different at the AFL sporting level and is quite different than a "day job" in some ways that you and I enjoy. These players are on performance contracts and that contract encompasses a Team attitude to win ultimate glory - a Premiership flag for The Team and its members. There is little loyalty in a Club these days......Should a player leave a Team for another Club then he does it selfishly for money and other glory and not for the spirit of the Team he left behind. Just read the St Kilda Web site where Frawley speaks of how lovely it is to be at St Kilda and his reasoning... Wipe away the BS and you begin to see it is for money $$$ There is no loyalty to The Team.. You can disagree with me all you like but I am entitled to my own opinion.

The Club is bigger than the individual player and Frawley decided he did not accept that Group value. That does not go well for the man then or now.. Dollars speak bigger values for Frawley.. If you do not believe me just go to the Saints web site ( after he "retired" and signed with St Kilda.....and read the BS he told their supporters... ) One could ask from those comments if he thought so much of St kilda now why did he go to Hawthorn... Oh, yeah, to get away from the "mismanaged Melbourne" - BS it was for fame and fortune.....at Hawthorn.. I have no time for this type of player who shows no Club loyalty... and I totally disagree with the excuses made in the post above. Facts are Facts...

For one reason only.... $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Totally agree., Facts are he came out of retirement for the money first and love of the game second I reckon. Good luck to him. Just wish when he moved from Melbourne that he did it for the love of the game.. Some here think otherwise...

Read what I said

He is a selfish individual who left the Demons for wealth and "his" flag. Yeah a get rich individual who cares about money not the game

That's all good BUT how does the proposed mid season (2) drafts work ? Can a Club with 44 players compete in those Drafts ?

I could join you in Zoom on the committee... I live in Ohio.. ha h a

I really like your Team selection. Just wonder if you would consider a position on the Match Committee ?

You are so correct in what you say.. Shortening the rotations will only make players play harder and facts are they will be "fatigued" even more..and quicker.... Such a stupid rule change. Fortunately for the MFC we have players like Salem and especially Ed Langdon who can play 100 minutes. I cannot understand the Leagues logic in reducing Interchange to 75 frankly..