SA Footy

Have just been informed that Josh has officially signed up with Fitzroy, which is handy for him & not too far away from North Adelaide. A VERY handy pick-up, as he is still only 27 years of age. Good luck Josh!

Hope he can control his temper in the ammos, otherwise there could be a few interesting games played at Fitzroy.

He'll probably set fire to someone!!

CENTURION wrote:He'll probably set fire to someone!!

Or try and eat them

Big Phil...

So I presume North wont clear him until the 2 game suspension has been served?

Dutchy wrote:So I presume North wont clear him until the 2 game suspension has been served?

My "mail" tells me that is presently being negotiated.

Why shouldn't they?
What's a non-league ban got to do with Fitzroy, or any other club?
How can they make a player serve a ban that has been enforced by a club and not an official league?

Didn't he quit the club prior to the incident that incurred the suspension?

Dogwatcher wrote:Why shouldn't they?
What's a non-league ban got to do with Fitzroy, or any other club?
How can they make a player serve a ban that has been enforced by a club and not an official league?

North could refuse to clear him thus meaning he is ineligible to play. That's how they can enforce it. I'm only saying this is how it could be enforced by the way i am not suggesting this is how it should be handled.

Dogwatcher wrote:Why shouldn't they?
What's a non-league ban got to do with Fitzroy, or any other club?
How can they make a player serve a ban that has been enforced by a club and not an official league?

He can't play in any case unless North release him or clear him so they could make that happen over a two week period to be stubborn but personally speaking they should release him to play as a "tit for tat" response after all that has happened doesn't help either party.

Fitzroy have supplied North with Johnny Boras- one would think in the interest of inter-club harmaony, that the boat wouldn't be rocked.

rod_rooster wrote:

Dogwatcher wrote:Why shouldn't they?
What's a non-league ban got to do with Fitzroy, or any other club?
How can they make a player serve a ban that has been enforced by a club and not an official league?

North could refuse to clear him thus meaning he is ineligible to play. That's how they can enforce it. I'm only saying this is how it could be enforced by the way i am not suggesting this is how it should be handled.

Hmm. That's interesting. I didn't realise you had to get a clearance from a league club back to SAAFL.
Does that mean a player who has a bust up with his AFL club would need a clearance?

Is it a clearance he requires from North, or just a release from his contract? The latter makes more sense.

If you have signed a contract with a SANFL club, you need to be released from that contract by the club before you can play ammos or country footy

smac wrote:Didn't he quit the club prior to the incident that incurred the suspension?

quitting/retiring- same outcome?
he's given great service to the club, you would think they would allow him to move on peacefully?

Punk Rooster wrote:

smac wrote:Didn't he quit the club prior to the incident that incurred the suspension?

quitting/retiring- same outcome?
he's given great service to the club, you would think they would allow him to move on peacefully?

Yes, I agree - what I was getting at is that they shouldn't penalise a player who does something against their rules after he has left the club.

There are many players that are on both league/reserves lists and SAAFL lists. We have one. Therefore it would be a contract he is released from as has been said previously.

rod_rooster wrote:

Dogwatcher wrote:Why shouldn't they?
What's a non-league ban got to do with Fitzroy, or any other club?
How can they make a player serve a ban that has been enforced by a club and not an official league?

North could refuse to clear him thus meaning he is ineligible to play. That's how they can enforce it. I'm only saying this is how it could be enforced by the way i am not suggesting this is how it should be handled.

no longer an issue.

Punk Rooster wrote:

rod_rooster wrote:

Dogwatcher wrote:Why shouldn't they?
What's a non-league ban got to do with Fitzroy, or any other club?
How can they make a player serve a ban that has been enforced by a club and not an official league?

North could refuse to clear him thus meaning he is ineligible to play. That's how they can enforce it. I'm only saying this is how it could be enforced by the way i am not suggesting this is how it should be handled.

no longer an issue.

Glad to hear it. No good would come of blocking him playing.

CENTURION wrote:Have just been informed that Josh has officially signed up with Fitzroy, which is handy for him & not too far away from North Adelaide. A VERY handy pick-up, as he is still only 27 years of age. Good luck Josh!

Josh trained with the boys last night & there was a real buzz about the place right through the whole coaching & playing group especially from alot of the younger players at our club so hopefully they can tap into his wealth of experience.
Will be great to see him getting back to enjoying his footy again playing along side his mates so from everyone at the club,
Welcome to The Mighty Fitzroy Lions Champ!