Speculation Jake Stringer

Remove this Banner Ad

Pricks for holding him to a contract he agreed to?

People really have weird opinions on contracts.

They don't want him and have said they won't offer another deal.

Surely you let the bloke explore options.
 
They don't want him and have said they won't offer another deal.

Surely you let the bloke explore options.
He wanted a trigger in his contract, which he's met.

They're not obliged to offer him another contract after that.

They can keep him, or let him explore his options if they want, yes.

But he can't feel aggrieved if he's made to fulfill the contract he signed.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

For a 42 goal forward who's still contracted? If a club wants him so badly then they've gotta pony up a bit more than that.

Didn't you tell me in the other thread he's an injury prone 31 year old who has only kicked 40 goals once or twice in the last 8 years or something along those lines?

He'll be massive for Collingwood with their functional system, but we won't get more than pick 32 imo.
 
Last edited:
Didn't you tell me in the other thread he's an injury prone 31 year old who has only kicked 40 goals once in the last 8 years or something along those lines?

It was in regards to justifying holding firm on the 1 year deal or offering more. That possible good year is there regardless at no risk to us.

If Collingwood want that year to take place at their club, then they've gotta offer more than that. They just don't have anything unless they either upgrade their picks to a better one or add in a player.
 
Last edited:
They don't want him and have said they won't offer another deal.

Surely you let the bloke explore options.
Uh no. They said they won't extend him beyond 2025 now.

This time next year who know what he'll be offered.
 
It was in regards to justifying holding firm on the 1 year deal or offering more. That possible good year is there regardless at no risk to us.

If Collingwood want that year to take place at their club, then they've gotta offer more than that. They just don't have anything unless they either upgrade their picks to a better one or add in a player.

I hope we get overs, because I'm tired of getting unders for players due to having no trade leverage.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Nothing should be based on what was given for Schultz. That trade was egregious.

You say that now but at the time Collingwood didn't see themselves slipping. The same mindset they're approaching with now.

If they're going for Stringer then they see themselves as contending, and if they see themselves as contending then they don't see their future picks as worth much again. Time to pony up.
 
Yet you want to offer him more than 1 year.

So this cognitive dissonance with the motive of wanting to pay less is a bit of an insult tbh. Based on what was given for Schultz and what he produced it should be more in the middle.

Bombers are setting the price on this one.

30 won't get another contract and told to explore options.

Tom Mitchell price is about right.
 
Bombers are setting the price on this one.

You set the precedent on Schultz, not us. Should be more in the middle. And, it's you that wants him for more than 1 year, not us.


So are like 50% of your list, and you want to give him multiple years. So clearly it isn't an issue for you. Can't factor that in to lower your offer.

won't get another contract

Has a contract, and would get more if he can do well in 2025. As it stands keeping him to 1 year for the 400k for that possibility is of no risk to us.

and told to explore options.

Allegedly and if the price is right.

Having been burned by Stringer into giving him multiple contracts based on false dawns in the past we have earned the right to hold him to his 1 year contract in order to get something reasonable back.
 
Purely in terms of fit and role, I think Sydney would be the best fit I can think of.
Give them the chance to play one fewer tall forward and replace them with a hybrid like Stringer. Can also take his turn through the middle obviously which is a bonus.
Can't see Sydney having the cap space to satisfy Stringer, especially considering he'd have to move states
 
You set the precedent on Schultz, not us. Should be more in the middle. And, it's you that wants him for more than 1 year, not us.



So are like 50% of your list, and you want to give him multiple years. So clearly it isn't an issue for you. Can't factor that in to lower your offer.



Has a contract, and would get more if he can do well in 2025. As it stands keeping him to 1 year for the 400k for that possibility is of no risk to us.



Allegedly and if the price is right.

Having been burned by Stringer into giving him multiple contracts based on false dawns in the past we have earned the right to hold him to his 1 year contract in order to get something reasonable back.

Guess we will see what you guys get...
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Speculation Jake Stringer

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top