I'm not sure how you drew that conclusion. I'll assume you're not misconstruing my post in bad faith.
A player will generally publicly nominate a club only if they're certain a deal can be done.
It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if there's an "in principal" deal wasn't already agreed between Smith's manager, his chosen club and the Digs.
Correct and they will pay reasonable value.
You may not think it's reasonable value, but the Bulldogs will.
As to contract status - it means everything. The threat of making Smith stay to finish his contract is 100 times more likely than throwing him into the PSD.
Holding a player to their contract is entirely reasonable and nobody would seriously begrudge the Dogs doing it if it were the case. But it's not the case.
At the end of the day they, as an employer, haven't made a compelling case for an employee to stay with them before his contract finished. So he's off to find somewhere that suits him better. That's his right.
The clubs will figure it out and I'm sure you'll be dissatisfied regardless.
If the deal is reasonable I will not be dissatisfied at all.
Your logic around culture, cooler heads prevailing, etc are perfectly pragmatic. Adding grenades like “won’t be the deal Dogs are after” infers you believe the Dogs should and will accept under fair market value. This context is not bad faith on my part, these are the words you’ve chosen.
It does appear we are saying much the same thing regarding a reasonable deal being struck. Your verbiage holds a lean towards a preferable outcome for the Cats, this partiality weakens your argument.