It matters to us because they will need to pay a King's ransom to get him with three years to go on his contract. If he was out of contract, like Baker, that means he's a lot more gettable and you can't push for such a hard bargain...so I'd say contracts are particularly relevant in the case of Dan Rioli.
-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Welcome to the Tigers - Daniel Rioli
- Thread starter The_General
- Start date
Push all ya like, but if the player says he's done n wants out you obviously try to get the best deal, but the club he's going to still needs to agree to make the deal.
That Cam McCarthy kid was contracted at Gee Whizz but wanted to go back home to W.A. n stood out of the game for a year so Gee Whizz got bugger all for not doing a deal with the Frockers when the opportunity was there.
That happens on the odd occassion, a player stands out yes and once in a blue moon a player gets walked to the pre season draft. But they're exceptions. I'm not pushing, I'm stating a fact that you have to pay more when a player is contracted for three more years. That makes being contracted v not being contracted relevant.
Of course what you say is true but that doesn’t make it right.
At the time Trealor was pushed out he was suffering from depression and possibly other mental illness.
Knowing this McQuire and Collingwood still put a great deal of pressure on both he and his immediate family, and frankly anything could have happened as a result.
Not so long ago I heard of a case where a contracted player nearing the end of his career, was told he was being put up to trade.
The players response was to indicate he would reject all such offers, and then head overseas to Europe returning only after the trade period was over.
My view is that contracts are put in place to protect both parties and anyone who wishes to be given the opportunity to complete a contract has the right to do so. The threat of a court hearing on the matter would pull most club officials into line!
No it’s not. It is a totally different conversation and negotiation.
If we don’t like the deal then FRO.
That’s the advantage of a contracted player. He can’t go to the PSD, the ultimate power and leverage is with the contracting club.
So you force a contracted player to stay where he doesn't want to be n you end up with a $ 600,000 or more a year player sitting in the magoos for three years n quite likely being a quite disruptor of team harmony. That'll do a shitload of good.
It's all nothing more than hypothetical discussion around a meedjia gossip click as no-one has any real idea what's going on with the Sausage at the moment. But talk of having a piece of paper n forcing either party written up on the paper to abide by it's rulings when there's a disharmony between the parties is just rubbish that lawyers love because they can make a shitload of money out of the ensuing bun fight. Far simpler, cheaper n better for all involved to cut the most satisfactory deal for all involved n get the *smile* over themselves.
Josh Dunkley was contracted when he asked to be traded to Essendon in 2020. From memory the Bulldogs said no, but in the end offered him for 2 first round draft picks. Essendon didn’t offer enough to get the deal done, so Dunkley stayed and was ultimately traded in 2022.
Contracts can be enforced successfully. The question is really, what is best for the Richmond Football Club?
Contracts can be enforced successfully. The question is really, what is best for the Richmond Football Club?
Didn’t Papley want to go to Carlton, but they couldn’t reach an acceptable agreement, so he stayed at the Swans, and that worked out well.
The negotiating leverage is much more when your player is contracted.
Crazy talk. A contract must be honoured one way or the other, full stop. Parties can mutually agree to trade, that doesn't mean contracts are worthless. Plenty of examples of aborted or fallen through trades of contracted players and they continue to play good footy at their original club, they are pros. To say a contract is worthless because players can still change clubs is like saying a house deed is worthless because you can sell it and you won't live in it forever.
there would be 25 high profile every year we never hear about. thats a managers job.
reading the job ads when you have a job doesn't make your workplace untenable
Just don't let the boss catch you reading them in the smoko room.
Heard something different of sorts.
Suns VERY KEEN but Dan wants to continue to play with MRJ.Conflicted
The sticking point is the Suns too accommodate that will have to give up someone decent for list & cap purposes.
I don't doubt there is a strong bond, not in the slightest, doesn't necessarily follow that he isn't going anywhere though.
Keep him. To me, this is not even up for debate. There is no guarantee we will get a better player for the draft pick we get. And triple premiership 170 game half backs don't fall off tree's.
The only circumstance i would agree to let him go is if Ben King wanted out.
