Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
AFLW 2024 - Round 10 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Geez, I’d love to have a guy like Dylan Moore in the Rowe/Murphy roleAlso know how to kick straight for goals.
We'll be able to watch first hand next weekAbsolutely cracking move by the club to get rid of Stengle and then he heads to Geelong and is banging goals in for them.
It's just a quintessential over the top reactionary move by the club. Lot of posters on here me included, said it would come back to bite us.
Pick 67, forget Rowe/Murphy, we used pick 16 the following year on a guy playing a similar role who is no way near as goodGeez, I’d love to have a guy like Dylan Moore in the Rowe/Murphy role
You seem to forget he already had a strike from the club with his DUI infringement and this was his 2nd offense within 12 months period so was given a warning by the club and decided to do it again, if you were an employer and this happened to one of your employee wouldn't you sack them? Had he didn't have the first strike, he probably would have had a few games suspensions like what was handed to B.Crouch by the AFL and given his first warning by the club.Absolutely cracking move by the club to get rid of Stengle and then he heads to Geelong and is banging goals in for them.
It's just a quintessential over the top reactionary move by the club. Lot of posters on here me included, said it would come back to bite us.
The back story is that Adelaide were happy to keep Stengle for that third year of his contract on the proviso that he play SANFL for the year. The club would then look at offering another contract if behavioural standards were met. He wasn’t interested per se as he thought he should be playing AFL and both parties negotiated a settlement.Absolutely cracking move by the club to get rid of Stengle and then he heads to Geelong and is banging goals in for them.
It's just a quintessential over the top reactionary move by the club. Lot of posters on here me included, said it would come back to bite us.
You seem to forget he already had a strike from the club with his DUI infringement and this was his 2nd offense within 12 months period so was given a warning by the club and decided to do it again, if you were an employer and this happened to one of your employee wouldn't you sack them? Had he didn't have the first strike, he probably would have had a few games suspensions like what was handed to B.Crouch by the AFL and given his first warning by the club.
The back story is that Adelaide were happy to keep Stengle for that third year of his contract on the proviso that he play SANFL for the year. The club would then look at offering another contract if behavioural standards were met. He wasn’t interested per se as he thought he should be playing AFL and both parties negotiated a settlement.
In other words Adelaide wanted to keep him but wanted their requirements met.
Trust? You will be keeping an eye on him all the time after the 2nd infringement.If it's not impacting performance, no.
AFL will confirm it was the correct decision and will send a video to all 18 clubs of other similar incidences which weren't paid over the weekend, and let them know they are all on notice.That's embarrassing, not even a free in Auskick. If that ump doesn't get dropped and that gets condoned by the AFL, I am done.
Has any player ever done that before?The back story is that Adelaide were happy to keep Stengle for that third year of his contract on the proviso that he play SANFL for the year. The club would then look at offering another contract if behavioural standards were met. He wasn’t interested per se as he thought he should be playing AFL and both parties negotiated a settlement.
In other words Adelaide wanted to keep him but wanted their requirements met.
I don't think this is true. My memory tells me there were only a few of us that rated Stengle in the first place and not too many cared if he got the boot after that incident.Absolutely cracking move by the club to get rid of Stengle and then he heads to Geelong and is banging goals in for them.
It's just a quintessential over the top reactionary move by the club. Lot of posters on here me included, said it would come back to bite us.
You seem to forget he already had a strike from the club with his DUI infringement and this was his 2nd offense within 12 months period so was given a warning by the club and decided to do it again, if you were an employer and this happened to one of your employee wouldn't you sack them? Had he didn't have the first strike, he probably would have had a few games suspensions like what was handed to B.Crouch by the AFL and given his first warning by the club.
The back story is that Adelaide were happy to keep Stengle for that third year of his contract on the proviso that he play SANFL for the year. The club would then look at offering another contract if behavioural standards were met. He wasn’t interested per se as he thought he should be playing AFL and both parties negotiated a settlement.
In other words Adelaide wanted to keep him but wanted their requirements met.
Has any player ever done that before?
Has any player ever done that before?
I don't think this is true. My memory tells me there were only a few of us that rated Stengle in the first place and not too many cared if he got the boot after that incident.
Maybe the realisation of it being his 3rd club and an SANFL season made him think he better be more professional at Geelong?Absolutely cracking move by the club to get rid of Stengle and then he heads to Geelong and is banging goals in for them.
It's just a quintessential over the top reactionary move by the club. Lot of posters on here me included, said it would come back to bite us.
I am happy for him. Won't waste his talent. But it took us delisting him to get there.