Mitch McGovern (please read OP)

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
Realistically Carlton only have 4 things we want. Pick 1, next years first pick, c curnow and Cripps. Obviously they won’t give any up and I just can’t see any way he gets there.
SOS wanted to teach us a lesson with his behaviour, now it come back to bite him in the ass.
We so need a different club to want and ask for him. Full stop


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

Next year's Carlton pick does nothing for us this year in helping us get Luko or Rankine. So, we won't want it unless it is an immediate part of a three-way to get a high pick this year.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Where in any of my posts did i state, or imply, that standard player contracts are not enforceable?
Regardless, that the issue has nothing to do with the enforceability of player contracts generally, but rather whether your club fulfilled its own obligations to the player, was made clear to you by another poster immediately following my post. You have either not read my initial post in the context of the post to which I was replying. or you are purposely misrepresenting what I have said so as to steer this discussion onto another subject.

Now you're asking me to provide the rational behind the legal concept of good faith, its relationship to contract, and its ability to void a contract?

All the while you refuse to provide your own interpretation of the subject to which this post relates; Barrett' comment regarding the crows having been "warned."

Either stay on point or let it go, as others on your board have already made it clear they are not interested reading anymore posts on this issue.

You made 2 points. The second was an issue about our ability to enforce the contract. When questioned on that you rambled on about bad faith. Now you're saying you never mentioned it in the first place. You did, you've just been cornered and have no way out except deny and deflect. Knob, shuffle off back to your board where you collect likes instead of being called out for your bullshit.
 
Ive been told tonight from a credible source that Sydney are making a huge play for Gaff and our very own Mitch Mcgovern.
McGovern makes a lot of sense .....Will Hayward ????
 
Where in any of my posts did i state, or imply, that standard player contracts are not enforceable?
Regardless, that the issue has nothing to do with the enforceability of player contracts generally, but rather whether your club fulfilled its own obligations to the player, was made clear to you by another poster immediately following my post. You have either not read my initial post in the context of the post to which I was replying. or you are purposely misrepresenting what I have said so as to steer this discussion onto another subject.

Now you're asking me to provide the rational behind the legal concept of good faith, its relationship to contract, and its ability to void a contract?

All the while you refuse to provide your own interpretation of the subject to which this post relates; Barrett' comment regarding the crows having been "warned."

Either stay on point or let it go, as others on your board have already made it clear they are not interested reading anymore posts on this issue.
You are pretty much just puffing out a non relevance at this stage. Which in turn makes all your cadence with prose handsome but worthless.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

McGovern to Sydney
Hannebery, Pick 16 to Saints
Pick 4 to Adelaide

Would Lukosius slide past GC? If not Pick 4 + 20 for 2.
Leaves us with Pick 8 and hope Rankine slides.
That works !.....Isn't SYD current pick, #13 ? (14 after Lynch) .....still won't get us Lukossius, but WOW ..picks #4, #7, #17, #19 :)
 
You made 2 points. The second was an issue about our ability to enforce the contract. When questioned on that you rambled on about bad faith. Now you're saying you never mentioned it in the first place. You did, you've just been cornered and have no way out except deny and deflect. Knob, shuffle off back to your board where you collect likes instead of being called out for your bullshit.
FFS, read the post i was responding to before commenting; the poster, a crows poster, asked what might determine whether a club must keep a player, and whether another club must let a player go. The poster was referring to Barrett's comment. I raised 2 possible issues that might go toward that distinction; first point being whether doing so would be adverse to the clubs reputation, second point being whether the circumstances were such that the club's ability to enforce its contract may possibly be at risk.

Stop asking me to respond, and ill gladly refrain from doing so
Another point, go hard on issues by all means, but there's no need to be offensive.

cheers
 
There are facts and there is conjecture

Facts
Gov has asked for a trade
He's contracted and historically that virtually always means higher trade value as no PSD threat - see Gibbs, Charlie Cameron
The Crows are on record as saying if they aren't well compensated, they'll enforce his contract
The Lachie Weller trade, as silly as it was, did actually happen and is some sort of recent precedent

Conjecture
His new club will be paying him a significantly higher salary - very likely
He's unhappy with his injury management - possible
He's lazy and wants to go to a club with lower training standards - Carlton does fit this category
He'll threaten us with a tell all book - LOL
He was tied to a tree +/- molested by bears - really?
He'll stand out for 2 years if not traded - not a chance

The only ones who believe the hype are Damien Barrett, Terry Wallace, Mark Williams and Carlton supporters - all of whom have a vested interest or are complete fools
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top