2014 Non-Crows AFL Discussion

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
Funnily enough, no mention of the thousands of Adelaide and West Coast supporters who want Richmond to lose. I'm beginning to think that they don't give much of a shit about us...

haha, you can be sure that tomorrow's games will be full of mentions of richmond fans should sydney get up.
 
Did Freo kick 9 unanswered goals at the most critical point of the match? '

Either freo are heaps good or port are heaps shit
 
God damnit Sydney.

Tell you what, I'd be nervous if I were a Port fan! Playing the Tiges when they're up is no easy feat...
 

Log in to remove this ad.

His second contract has nothing to do with the first, whatever the truth of how much it is.

He also played only 3 games in the last year of his first contract, not sure how much he's worth after that time.

He's also played 13 & 16 games under this one, where his leadership has been worth more than his actual play.

Nothing to see here I maintain

Cool, we probably turn our attention to heavy drinking.
 
The Sids are doing us no favours, they are rucking a midget cos they don't want Skirt or Reid to get knocked around.

Oh well we blew our chances - we had enough of them.

Good thing is Poort play Richmond, Boak said about Chaplain enjoying the season the last time they played - should be some bad blood.
 
Season over I reckon, can't see Sydney winning from here with the way they are playing. Malceski's kicking has gone to shit
 
Out of us, West Coast and Richmond the tigers are definitely the ones to knock Port off in the first week of finals.

I don't think I'd be able to contain myself if that happened, would be hysterical.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

If Sydney play like this in the finals they are going out in straight sets, look worse then us.
 
Sorry what article was that? You posted an opinion piece that did not add any new facts or contradict any of the known facts.

It did not in anyway support your cries of how it was all so unfair.

There was nothing wrong. STK chose not to deal every club had a chance to draft. the contract even front loaded was not huge despite what a flaky opinion piece claims. clubs chose not to match on an old player with only a couple of years left and had slowed down considerably through injury.

Btw if you weren't aware the league does not permit renegotiation of contracts nominated in a draft. So his 3 years contract was served exactly as it was nominated.


Sorry - wasn't it a two-year contract, that then had a third year added at below market rates once Ball was drafted?

My memory is the whole point was it was a TWO year deal that he put on his head for the draft which was considered above market rates, and the third year discount wasn't offered to just anyone who might draft him.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top