- Oct 10, 2012
- 6,905
- 13,113
- AFL Club
- St Kilda
If that’s the case then surely that’s on the AFL? “Exploited” - why wouldn’t the receiving clubs pay them on the new cap . “Sorry Josh, media has a problem , so you can take what you get at the lower cap level”.Though the articles claims that St Kilda and GWS exploited:
""Battle and Perryman are signing contracts based on the 2025 cap, which went up by 12.6% compared to the 2024 cap, but they’re being measured against deals under the 2024 cap.
How so?
- The Hawks and the Pies set the $$$ contract amount...not St Kilda and GWS
- Both Battle and Perryman were UFA, so St Kilda and GWS could not match the $$$ to force a trade.
- I doubt GWS would have paid Perryman anywhere near what he the Pies are paying him.
- In St Kilda's case we offered more, but Battle still went (Though may have been front end loaded so that initially Hawks deal may have netted him more)
Now maybe, just maybe one could argue that the Saints pre-season where always going to let Battle go, and so did not stump up a high $$$ offer till later. But they still did.