jathanas
Premium Platinum
Hey it could always be worse such as Matt Owies.
That’s uncalled for.
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.
Hey it could always be worse such as Matt Owies.
All I’ve read is that they won’t be offering him a new contract and Merrett went and had a whinge about it. If that’s correct then presumably?Will Essendon delist him?
Boobs are fat, yet people make fun of our beer guts. It's bullshit.Ok, I’ll use technical terms.
His skin folds are unforgivable for a professional athlete.
You ought to stop making everything about how unfair life is for men, and how much women can get away with.
Girls are paid a pittance compared to the boys and most of them are leaner than Stringer.
I could live with thatSorry mate it’s too far gone.
Better off starting a new trade thread and renaming this one.
I thought the story was that they want him on 1 year contracts, but he wants longer?All I’ve read is that they won’t be offering him a new contract. If that’s correct then presumably?
If it was on SEN it will be podcast under Crunchtime. I'm guessing it will either be under Gerard's editorial on Petracca or part of the discussion on "The State of Play at Melbourne, Dan Houston and Kozzie Pickett". If it's not in either of those they have also podcast the entire 1hr and 31 minutes.Whateley and Co this morning said they think CP has a strong case. Only problem is that I was only half listening to it so I don't really know if he has a case or not
Ah okay, more info than I was privy to.I thought the story was that they want him on 1 year contracts, but he wants longer?
With the latest being he'd actually hit a trigger and is thus already contracted for next year.
I think it'd have to be a trade - unless I've missed something or got it wrong.
I could be totally off the mark but just feel like Stringer beats up on lowly teams under the roof at Marvel. Which we don’t get much of a chance to do.
Your reliance on “ no case with what we know”, is just naive - there is no way all the facts have been publicly disclosed.
Apparently he had a trigger clause in his contract which he hit so he has a contract at Essendon for next year. That doesn't stop him delisting him if they really want him gone, it just means they are on the hook for his salary unless he can find another home. And if he does they may be on the hook for some of it depending on what he is getting paid at his new home (not sure on the delist rules as far as salary goes where a delisted in contract player finds another home but for less money, but I presume Essendon would have to pay the difference, given that they would have to pay the full salary if he didn't find another home).All I’ve read is that they won’t be offering him a new contract and Merrett went and had a whinge about it. If that’s correct then presumably?
THANK you!Mods
If someone can be bothered I think the Petracca debate should be moved to its own thread:
Off track on Trac
For the sake of the rest of the trade discussion.
He torched us on Anzac Day.
Agree but Only if you believe we know all the facts, can you have unassailable belief that there are no legal options, and we are a long way from that point IMO.I’m no lawyer, but Swipey has been emphasising the legal pathways which are - or are not - available to Petracca to argue negligence in terms of voiding his contract. The facts are not necessarily in dispute here. It’s about legal options.
I think if we were to fit him in it would be a case of someone upfield e.g Lipinski being squeezed rather than a forward for a forward. Many of our forward options are capable of playing HFF rotations.From what I've read, bombers won't delist Stringer as he has a contract for next year worth $400,000. No point paying that out and delisting him when he provides solid depth for a forward option, and the contract is **** all. But they would likely trade him for a late pick, as Scott doesn't want him there. So he could be a cheap option. But we have Elliot, Hill, McCreey, and Schultz, who would all be picked before him. He would only be an option for depth if we think injuries would be a concern and we have salary cap to throw around, but not a priority.
Not sure how the legal options can be categorically be dismissed without all the facts ie I don’t think we have them all.
Works for me!Sorry mate it’s too far gone.
Better off starting a new trade thread and renaming this one.
Vicky Please - if you don’t want me to offer the COURTESY of replying then why quote my post?You never stop.
Sideswipe’s position, whether you agree with it or like it or not, has been pretty clear. It’s about the available legal pathways. Based on my non-existent legal knowledge, these tend to be fixed.
True. There are innumerable potential contract breaches to speculate about. Can we be certain that they've been paying him?Agree but Only if you believe we know all the facts, can you have unassailable belief that there are no legal options, and we are a long way from that point IMO.
Why? They have offered him a contract for 2025 but have not offered him a contract extension post 2025Will Essendon delist him?
Many people have seen the light from hospitals around East Melbourne - turns out to be the MCG light towers
I’ve sat back on the Stringer stuff because it’s a genuinely tough one. On the one hand you have a guy with an amateur approach to professional sport, but on the other he is as gifted as any in the league (to rank 12 and 19 league wide for goals and score involvements when you look maybe 70% match fit is insane).
If the club chooses this path I have faith that it can work because as a unit our forward mix is more hard working than brilliant so I think we can accommodate some more magc. He’s a contract year footballer so I’d keep him hungry with a triggered two year deal and unlike Essendon I just wouldn’t play him if he’s the Jake Stringer show.
I can’t help feeling that he’s a big stage performer that only needs 10 possessions in a PF to win us a game and is the type of guy that in the right environment can do a Brian Harris. I’m not gunning for it as I would Peatling or Petracca, but I say go for it if the club are keen.
Merrett wants Essendon to be a boys' club for him and his buddies, so he tackled Scott after they delisted Hind, who is one of the aforementioned buddies, along with Stringer and Laverde.All I’ve read is that they won’t be offering him a new contract and Merrett went and had a whinge about it. If that’s correct then presumably?