by DOC » Mon Jul 16, 2012 6:09 pm
by Turbo » Mon Jul 16, 2012 6:18 pm
DOC wrote:From Adelaide now:
Geelong's brazen approach challenges AFL rule 4.7 which demands no club "enter into any contracts, agreements, arrangements or understandings'' with a player from a rival club from the end of the pre-season draft and his current club's last game of the season.
The AFL can fine a club up to $50,000 for any breach.
by Psyber » Mon Jul 16, 2012 6:20 pm
I guess that doesn't preclude a few colleagues (or mates) having coffee together so long as there is no official involved, and no intent to negotiate anything..DOC wrote:From Adelaide now:
Geelong's brazen approach challenges AFL rule 4.7 which demands no club "enter into any contracts, agreements, arrangements or understandings'' with a player from a rival club from the end of the pre-season draft and his current club's last game of the season. The AFL can fine a club up to $50,000 for any breach.
by overloaded » Mon Jul 16, 2012 6:23 pm
therealROSSCO wrote:Now listen to this loud and clear.....
I have not been approached to coach at the WFC this year, next year or any year. I have not approached the WFC to coach this year, next year or any year. This is an unconditional statement.
by scoob » Mon Jul 16, 2012 6:23 pm
Turbo wrote:stan wrote:Turbo wrote:What's the record for a port home games lowest attendance?
I think they got about 14k when they played north.
The club is in massive trouble if this doesn't improve. Problem is port don't really have any stand out players who are a drawcard that most people want to go watch
by Sorry Dude » Mon Jul 16, 2012 6:30 pm
by DOC » Mon Jul 16, 2012 6:35 pm
Sorry Dude wrote:There is no proof that Geelong were here to see Boak! And even if they were they have every right to catch up for a "coffee" and find a nice eatery for next time they come to Adelaide!
If I was in Ports position it would go as follows:
You are showing no commitment to the club and it is starting to affect the team, so your services aren't required until a decision is made.
He has made his mind up and there is no point in playing him if he is going.
Same with the close saga at collingwood!
by scoob » Mon Jul 16, 2012 6:39 pm
DOC wrote:Sorry Dude wrote:There is no proof that Geelong were here to see Boak! And even if they were they have every right to catch up for a "coffee" and find a nice eatery for next time they come to Adelaide!
If I was in Ports position it would go as follows:
You are showing no commitment to the club and it is starting to affect the team, so your services aren't required until a decision is made.
He has made his mind up and there is no point in playing him if he is going.
Same with the close saga at collingwood!
Maybe they were here to see Pearce
by Turbo » Mon Jul 16, 2012 6:41 pm
by scoob » Mon Jul 16, 2012 6:43 pm
Sorry Dude wrote:Simon Phillips maybe?
by stan » Mon Jul 16, 2012 6:59 pm
Sorry Dude wrote:There is no proof that Geelong were here to see Boak! And even if they were they have every right to catch up for a "coffee" and find a nice eatery for next time they come to Adelaide!
If I was in Ports position it would go as follows:
You are showing no commitment to the club and it is starting to affect the team, so your services aren't required until a decision is made.
He has made his mind up and there is no point in playing him if he is going.
Same with the close saga at collingwood!
by stan » Mon Jul 16, 2012 7:00 pm
scoob wrote:Sorry Dude wrote:Simon Phillips maybe?
Have heard he is dissapointed with limited oppurtunities at the power - may want to move on... LOL
by Sorry Dude » Mon Jul 16, 2012 7:41 pm
stan wrote:Sorry Dude wrote:There is no proof that Geelong were here to see Boak! And even if they were they have every right to catch up for a "coffee" and find a nice eatery for next time they come to Adelaide!
If I was in Ports position it would go as follows:
You are showing no commitment to the club and it is starting to affect the team, so your services aren't required until a decision is made.
He has made his mind up and there is no point in playing him if he is going.
Same with the close saga at collingwood!
They came to see Tippett![]()
Actually they could do with a forward/ruckman.
by Lightning McQueen » Tue Jul 17, 2012 11:17 am
Turbo wrote:DOC wrote:From Adelaide now:
Geelong's brazen approach challenges AFL rule 4.7 which demands no club "enter into any contracts, agreements, arrangements or understandings'' with a player from a rival club from the end of the pre-season draft and his current club's last game of the season.
The AFL can fine a club up to $50,000 for any breach.
How can freo offer cloke $1,000 000 a year while it's in season then?
by CoverKing » Tue Jul 17, 2012 12:24 pm
Lightning McQueen wrote:Turbo wrote:DOC wrote:From Adelaide now:
Geelong's brazen approach challenges AFL rule 4.7 which demands no club "enter into any contracts, agreements, arrangements or understandings'' with a player from a rival club from the end of the pre-season draft and his current club's last game of the season.
The AFL can fine a club up to $50,000 for any breach.
How can freo offer cloke $1,000 000 a year while it's in season then?
Because Travis Cloke is a free agent.
by CoverKing » Sun Aug 05, 2012 11:11 am
by westcoastpanther » Sun Aug 05, 2012 11:14 am
by woodublieve12 » Sun Aug 05, 2012 12:33 pm
by Booney » Sun Aug 05, 2012 12:39 pm
CoverKing wrote:*** points and laugh ***
![]()
![]()
![]()
Is that how it goes Booney?
Competitions SANFL Official Site | Country Footy SA | Southern Football League | VFL Footy
Club Forums Snouts Louts | The Roost | Redlegs Forum |