Skipworth

[topsywaldron]

more classic topsy....again basic generalisations with no proof,,

Miniscule period of the 90's????? Hows 7 Prelim finals, 3 GF's and 2 flags and acknowledged as the best team of the 90's?....foolish foolish person, give your Husabnd back the PC Topsy he might actaully make more sense...

Interesting that you only ran with one small thing from my post.

Tell me that North aren't technically insolvent and I'll apologise and won't post about your beloved Gold Coast Kangas ever again.

[Dutchy]

If they were insolvent they wouldnt be able to trade and the Board Members would have some serious Legal Issues...last time I looked they were trading, for the first time in 5 years we are going to pay 100% of the salary cap in 2008 and are upgrading our facilities as I speak...a club that is insolvent or close to it wouldnt be commiting to this...try again

[topsywaldron]

So if the AFL reduced or stopped their grants the Kangas would be able to trade?

[Dutchy]

So if the AFL reduced or stopped their grants the Kangas would be able to trade?

IF is a wonderful word........

[finn]

If they were insolvent they wouldnt be able to trade and the Board Members would have some serious Legal Issues...last time I looked they were trading, for the first time in 5 years we are going to pay 100% of the salary cap in 2008 and are upgrading our facilities as I speak...a club that is insolvent or close to it wouldnt be commiting to this...try again

why would you pay 100% of the salary cap when a club only has to 92.5%? 100% means that the club really has no room to move in pre-season draft recruitment or topping up players who are coming along and coming out of contract without looking at pre-existing contracts and players (eg jon hay)?

If i was a club (and obviously I'm not), i'd sooner increase the amount paid slightly if the players deserve it and put the difference between 100% and the amount paid into better facilities and recruiting networks.

[Booney]

So if the AFL reduced or stopped their grants the Kangas would be able to trade?

IF is a wonderful word........

Got ya!

[Dutchy]

If they were insolvent they wouldnt be able to trade and the Board Members would have some serious Legal Issues...last time I looked they were trading, for the first time in 5 years we are going to pay 100% of the salary cap in 2008 and are upgrading our facilities as I speak...a club that is insolvent or close to it wouldnt be commiting to this...try again

why would you pay 100% of the salary cap when a club only has to 92.5%? 100% means that the club really has no room to move in pre-season draft recruitment or topping up players who are coming along and coming out of contract without looking at pre-existing contracts and players (eg jon hay)?

If i was a club (and obviously I'm not), i'd sooner increase the amount paid slightly if the players deserve it and put the difference between 100% and the amount paid into better facilities and recruiting networks.

well thats a footy department decision, what Im saying is the board are giving the option to pay the full 100%, what they do with it from there is up to them...with Archer and maybe Simpson gone at years end that will give some extra room also...also a good incentive to the young players coming out of contract that if they have a good season there will be increases in '08

[Rik E Boy]

I agree with Struttie, Skipworth and Ladhams should still be with the Crows LOL. A trio of guns!

regards,

REB