Opinion Non-Crows AFL 7

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
Nope

Finals in 2020 triggered till 2023. Even though contracted for 2021.


January 2021.


Caro and the media told us in 2020 he had the clause.


I don't see why such a clause wouldn't exist in any future contract.

On SM-A325F using BigFooty.com mobile app
Port Adelaide coach Ken Hinkley confirmed he has a clause inserted in his contract where playing finals is a requirement for him to keep his job beyond 2020.

AFL journalist Caroline Wilson reported on Channel Nine’s Footy Classified on Monday night that Hinkley must make finals in one of his first three years in his contract to trigger a 2021 extension.


The clause above extended him after he made the 2020 finals to end of 2021. Then in 2021 signed a two year deal (with no Clause) till end of 2023.
 
I wonder if growing the grass longer may have been considered but dismissed due to concerns that it could result in more ankle and knee injuries..

The NRL is a very straightline game… there’s definitely some sidestepping involved but most ball carries involve the player just running in one direction toward the opposition and offloading sideways by hand to team mates.

The AFL is more 360.. lots of sideways movement, lots of twisting of the body, lots of sidestepping and, in the case of some players like keays and crouch, even running in full circles!..

Longer grass would slow the play but also result in more friction on the feet.. feet getting “stuck” in the grass whilst twisting the body making side movements and running in quick changes of direction could result in more ligament injuries with ankles and knees giving way as the torso goes one way and the feet dont move with it..
Yes, that's a good point ...and maybe the reason the grass hasn't been grown longer
 
Imagine the massive inferiority complex of Port supporters and WillemDaDrew in particular, your first thought after a win is to visit the Crows board.

I love trolling Port, but never ever have I sat on their forum reading their posts. Its beyond stupid why I would even entertain that in the first place.

Its indicative of their desperate need to seek attention and validation from the bigger brother.
EFA:)
You can set your clock as to how Port manage to self sabotage each year.:think:

Look at the new leading thread on the Port board now.........:oops:

The comedy writes itself over at Alberton.:D
View attachment 1694716
:thumbsu:
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Hardwick is good mates with Clarkson and will see the damage taken by trying to rebuild - not that Clarksons legacy can be too tarnished

He will also see what taking a year off did to Clarksons mind set on coaching . He will see that Buckley is set in the media and wonder if it is for him.

While I think Hardwick is a prick ly person I think he is a good analyst of the game and would be an asset to some of the more thinking football shows

I guess I am shocked a bit ( like most) and just trying to figure out his next move
 
Port Adelaide coach Ken Hinkley confirmed he has a clause inserted in his contract where playing finals is a requirement for him to keep his job beyond 2020.

AFL journalist Caroline Wilson reported on Channel Nine’s Footy Classified on Monday night that Hinkley must make finals in one of his first three years in his contract to trigger a 2021 extension.


The clause above extended him after he made the 2020 finals to end of 2021. Then in 2021 signed a two year deal (with no Clause) till end of 2023.
Why would his manager, a shrewed operator in Peter Blucher, not maintain the same clause.


Clauses are his speciality..... images.jpeg-15.jpg

On SM-A325F using BigFooty.com mobile app
 
The clause above extended him after he made the 2020 finals to end of 2021. Then in 2021 signed a two year deal (with no Clause) till end of 2023.
Source for the bolded?

Anyway my view is that clause or not, it's going to be very, very difficult for Port to terminate a coach who has made the finals - unless of course they bomb out before a PF at least, in which case they could play the "we need a new voice to take the next step" card.

I'm not sure the clause exists either, though - if only because why would you (the club) give a coach an automatic extension just for making finals, when that coach has been there for 11 years with 0 GFs?
 
Scott Stevens and Talia Radan have joined the tribunal panel.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Its an interesting situation at the moment. Hardwick I believe left Richmond before his brand gets damaged by a rebuild. The only question I have is whether Port are in secret negotiations to lure Hardwick across as they don't believe Ken has what it takes to get them a premiership.

Ballsy to get out of your contract 18 months early to try and go to another club. Can’t imagine Richmond would let that go if he tried to jump on another club next year


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com
 
Ballsy to get out of your contract 18 months early to try and go to another club. Can’t imagine Richmond would let that go if he tried to jump on another club next year


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

I imagine the club would have to pay Richmond to allow that to happen
 
Do people actually believe that if we get some new blood in there, the tribunal will cease being a farce because I don't see anything changing. It never does.
Isn’t the mro the problem?
 
I imagine the club would have to pay Richmond to allow that to happen
Imagine we adopted the US System where you give draft picks for the privilege of hiring a coach ie if Port do get Hardwick in the US Port would give Richmond ( as an example) 2 1st round draft picks or one 1st and a few 2nds and 3rds

kirky
AmericanCrow
 

Hunter is bang on here. Sick of players getting themselves hurt because they don’t take the appropriate care for their own well being and the bloke who is doing that getting pinged.
“It’s not a genuine attempt to contest the ball. It’s reasonably foreseeable a player chasing the ball like Rozee was - bent down and low to the ground - was going to be impacted in the manner he was.”


And this is the problem. Rozee leads with the head, and the AFL says you can’t then initiate contact with him because in doing so, he will get hurt.
 
“It’s not a genuine attempt to contest the ball. It’s reasonably foreseeable a player chasing the ball like Rozee was - bent down and low to the ground - was going to be impacted in the manner he was.”


And this is the problem. Rozee leads with the head, and the AFL says you can’t then initiate contact with him because in doing so, he will get hurt.
And Hunters lost

Next time, lead with the head too. Clash heads. Claret. 2 concussions. That’s what the AFL want.
 
Do people actually believe that if we get some new blood in there, the tribunal will cease being a farce because I don't see anything changing. It never does.
We need to get rid of Christian if we are a change of significant change.
 
“It’s not a genuine attempt to contest the ball. It’s reasonably foreseeable a player chasing the ball like Rozee was - bent down and low to the ground - was going to be impacted in the manner he was.”


And this is the problem. Rozee leads with the head, and the AFL says you can’t then initiate contact with him because in doing so, he will get hurt.

The "reasonably forseeable" line is a perfectly lawyered phrase that basically means "we get to make up the outcome we want". They've used it countless times this year.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top