-
AFLW 2024 - Round 8 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Perfect example why Hase should get 1 year
- Thread starter Plugga
- Start date
- Tagged users None
seriously, we have heaps of salary cap space, we have about 8 guys to shed, probably another 4 at the end of next year and people are talking about Hase only getting 1 year? 2 years time, Hase will still be providing plenty of value.
I'm definitely in the 2 years camp. Long time servant, terrific player and smart enough to still be useful as he ages. Lets face it he was never fast to start with so he already knows how to play smart.
Seriously some of you should back the club abit more rather than go off at them. Unless your his mgr or his best mate you probably know jack all what the exact situation is, so lets just see what happens.
If the club wants to proceed with a cycle of 1yr renewals with players of his age and injury position then so be it. I personally believe hes worth two on performance based but thats the clubs call. The current Freo Mgt are a far cry from the useless hacks we have had down there.
If the club wants to proceed with a cycle of 1yr renewals with players of his age and injury position then so be it. I personally believe hes worth two on performance based but thats the clubs call. The current Freo Mgt are a far cry from the useless hacks we have had down there.
I can't believe there are people saying they wouldn't mind if Hasleby walked out on the club. This isn't Josh Carr or Heath Black we are talking about here, it's Paul ****ing Hasleby. Hase. Chops. Class. Whatever you want to call him, it should always be preceded by Fremantle Docker.
Hase stood under a pack yesterday and took an absolute hammering. Less than a minute later - after getting up, and telling the trainer to bugger off - he did exactly the same thing again. All you people saying you're thinking with your head instead of your heart (which is a weak argument anyway) are a disgrace. Just ask Hase, heart wins everytime.
Is that the same policy that they'll be using with Pavlich and Sandilands? It's bullshit.
Hear, ****ing, hear.
Hase stood under a pack yesterday and took an absolute hammering. Less than a minute later - after getting up, and telling the trainer to bugger off - he did exactly the same thing again. All you people saying you're thinking with your head instead of your heart (which is a weak argument anyway) are a disgrace. Just ask Hase, heart wins everytime.
Is that the same policy that they'll be using with Pavlich and Sandilands? It's bullshit.
Hear, ****ing, hear.
If there weren't 10 crabs in front of him for delist trade, 1 year might be appropriate, but there is so give him 2 on decent money
Or were offering Carr 2 years on more money than Hase...
- Banned
- #34
It should be a no-brainer.
1. As Lach said, we have about 10 players, maybe more, who are worse than him, and should be delist material.
2. The draft this year is shallow. There is no way we will be going as deep as we did last year and pull out the same quality players.
3. This means we probably can't delist all of those 10 players. That means there'll be plenty left over to delist next year.
4. The 2010 draft will also be shallow (because of the entry of the Gold Coast), meaning that even if Hasleby is on the cusp of delisting, he'll still probably make the cut to stay.
If the club doesn't want to publicly renege on this "1-year contracts only for those over 27 unless superstars" they should come out and say that Hasleby has exceeded all expectations for a return from a serious injury, has played his best season in years for the club (which he has), that we fully intend on having him here for his entire career, and that we see him as one of our stars. Because that is pretty much true. Another preseason into him and I reckon he'll be playing the best footy of his career.
1. As Lach said, we have about 10 players, maybe more, who are worse than him, and should be delist material.
2. The draft this year is shallow. There is no way we will be going as deep as we did last year and pull out the same quality players.
3. This means we probably can't delist all of those 10 players. That means there'll be plenty left over to delist next year.
4. The 2010 draft will also be shallow (because of the entry of the Gold Coast), meaning that even if Hasleby is on the cusp of delisting, he'll still probably make the cut to stay.
If the club doesn't want to publicly renege on this "1-year contracts only for those over 27 unless superstars" they should come out and say that Hasleby has exceeded all expectations for a return from a serious injury, has played his best season in years for the club (which he has), that we fully intend on having him here for his entire career, and that we see him as one of our stars. Because that is pretty much true. Another preseason into him and I reckon he'll be playing the best footy of his career.
I also noticed that Hase looked like pretty disinterested, peeved or angry when he was walking into the tunnel whilst the rest of the team were clapping and and high-fiving.
I hope he gets what he wants and signs a 2 year deal with Freo.
I hope he gets what he wants and signs a 2 year deal with Freo.
Kickett Punches Read
Norm Smith Medallist
....
Wizard
Brownlow Medallist
Shouldn't be such a loud mouth then.
He was probably quite happy until some moron spruiked up and carried on.
Truth is he can't afford to leave WA. Once he leaves WA he looses all his off-field appeal. He won't be on the news every week and on TV shows if he goes to Melbourne like he is in WA. Very surprised if he leaves the club and shocked if he was so bold to leave WA, he would ultimately loose money from it.
He was probably quite happy until some moron spruiked up and carried on.
Truth is he can't afford to leave WA. Once he leaves WA he looses all his off-field appeal. He won't be on the news every week and on TV shows if he goes to Melbourne like he is in WA. Very surprised if he leaves the club and shocked if he was so bold to leave WA, he would ultimately loose money from it.
Kickett Punches Read
Norm Smith Medallist
ouch, a loud mouthed moron hey, the way i said was definetly not in a loud mouth way and i certainly wasnt carrying on, it was a question which i expected to be laughed off, but fair enough if you see it that way, whatever. any money that hasleby would lose by not being in the media i would have thought would be offset by the increased wage he is after, i also think hase may be a little disgruntled by the lack of success we are in for over the next 4 years, if he leaves i think it will be to a club on the up like carlton
That's the way the club see it, but it's understandable that Hase figures that he's given ten years good service and is averaging good numbers this year.
Scott Thornton is just a year younger than Hase, has health issues and is at best a mediocre footballer and he got 2 years.
Moo
Premium Platinum
If Hase is the dud/worst player on our list in 2011 - we will be winning a flag.
Give him 2 years.
Give him 2 years.
Well when you put it like that you can't help but ask the question if you are Hase. Having said that there must be something else going on for him only to be offered a 1 year deal. Probably asking for too much money maybe?? Not sure.
Dom, thats misinformation and your smarter than that mate.
Chops, thats misleading as well.
This is beside the point but 12mths ago we were looking at massive changes and a string of experienced players retiring and delistings. The club knew it couldnt cut every piece of dead wood at the same time and they needed to do it progressively otherwise we'd be getting belted for the next few seasons with a bunch of unknown kids who were expected not to be AFL fit and physically capable of being ready to play, not to mention having the skill to play AFL. Hindsights a wonderful thing.
The club knew they needed to buy time and minimise the beltings to buy time whilst they overhaulled the list.
Players like Murphy, Thornton, Carr were needed in the short to medium term to buy time for the young guys to bulk up and take their places. Carr was still thought of as a leader at the time
and a player that was needed around the new kids. Thats why they were kept on, part leader ( Carr didnt show it but thats not FFC's fault); depth part (Murphy, Thornton) being percieved to be a better bet in the short term than pick 250. They were stocking fillers .I cant agree with those grumbling about the list and why players were delisted. It cant be done overnight.
Hase 12ths ago was coming off a knee recon and at his age who knew what form he would come back with and longevity. Of course Carr would be offered more. Fairly probably not, but realistic.
I'm no apologist for the FFC. But I have faith in the current management that they have things under control. All Clubs on the cusp of generational change have players who are let go or are unhappy with their part in the clubs future...tis life.
That being said, I'm a romanticist I'd love to see Hase finish his career here at FFC but whats wrong with being offered a series of 1yr deals nothing much except 2yrs provides security. If he plays well in 2010 he gets another year. Does he deserve 2 straight off I reckon hes earnt it but maybe 1yr with a nice $kick say $400k is fair. We just dont know whats the sticking point does he want 2 yrs on $600k.
Guys frothing at the mouth saying give Hase whatever he wants is rediculous we dont know exactly what he wants. Let trust Bond and Harvs.
Moo
Premium Platinum
I can trust in Harves and Bondy but I certainly will not be backwards in putting forward an opinion and if the 0.1% of pressure that as members we exert helps - I am all for Hase getting a 2-year deal on around a median cash deal.
Not many players fall into the category of deserving, but Hase is one of these. Plus it is not a stupid - unwarranted extension ...Hase is playing decent football and is capable of taking a grab/kicking a goal and I could name a dozen who I would shoot in the head before him.
If the worst case scenario is Hase is a depth player in 2011, then roger me with a large pineapple - as we wilkl be flying.
In 2-5 years time when we are challenged to keep a Palmer or a Hill ...I'd rather point of a track record of looking after dedicated servants of the FFC like McManus, Haselby, Sandi and Pavlich. I'd be a bit concerned if Hase leaves or stays with a a negative tood.
I remember watching Hase against Port Adelaide try his guts out whilst senior players did frick all.
Pav has given up a lot to stay with us, cash aint an issue - the reward of an extra year for a player within our best 22 is hardly asking for the world.
If you want to treat footy as a business - I am living proof that it is an employers best interests to look after it's employees. My last company squeezed my contract when times were tough, when the market turned well that is why they are my last company.
If we want to act mercenary to Hase, let's not all whine when Palmer says GC are offering me more and hey it's all business isn't it?
Not many players fall into the category of deserving, but Hase is one of these. Plus it is not a stupid - unwarranted extension ...Hase is playing decent football and is capable of taking a grab/kicking a goal and I could name a dozen who I would shoot in the head before him.
If the worst case scenario is Hase is a depth player in 2011, then roger me with a large pineapple - as we wilkl be flying.
In 2-5 years time when we are challenged to keep a Palmer or a Hill ...I'd rather point of a track record of looking after dedicated servants of the FFC like McManus, Haselby, Sandi and Pavlich. I'd be a bit concerned if Hase leaves or stays with a a negative tood.
I remember watching Hase against Port Adelaide try his guts out whilst senior players did frick all.
Pav has given up a lot to stay with us, cash aint an issue - the reward of an extra year for a player within our best 22 is hardly asking for the world.
If you want to treat footy as a business - I am living proof that it is an employers best interests to look after it's employees. My last company squeezed my contract when times were tough, when the market turned well that is why they are my last company.
If we want to act mercenary to Hase, let's not all whine when Palmer says GC are offering me more and hey it's all business isn't it?
What's inaccurate? Murphy and Thornton were re-signed for 2 years at the end of 2008.
But why give them 2 years? If Port were offering Josh 2 years and we wanted him to stay then fair enough match the offer, but why give Murphy and Scottie 2 years?
There's more chance of a rival club offering Hase a deal this year than there was anyone chasing Thornton last year.
You are a dead set muppet.
What was wrong about what I said? Considering you actually agreed with what I said, verbatim.
I just saw Eddie spruiking all his Collingwood propaganda on 10HD's show just now and the thing he said most often was "Collingwood look after their own" blah blah blah, "tight knit", blah blah blah, "work together" etc.
But it's true. If Freo see themsleves as the people's club, then we must look after our champions and our heroes. Hasleby is as much Freo as Pav is - they're best mates, they run a business together, they are FREMANTLE through and through.
I find it absurd, shocking and downright RUDE if the FFC are unwilling to consider offering Hase a 2 year deal.
What does he have to prove? His form is good and his fitness is the best it's ever been. Just last year he even had a semi-coaching role with our mids as he recovered from his ACL injury FFS.
He is a leader of our club, one of our best ever players, and he deserves to be treated as such. 2 years aint much to ask.
But it's true. If Freo see themsleves as the people's club, then we must look after our champions and our heroes. Hasleby is as much Freo as Pav is - they're best mates, they run a business together, they are FREMANTLE through and through.
I find it absurd, shocking and downright RUDE if the FFC are unwilling to consider offering Hase a 2 year deal.
What does he have to prove? His form is good and his fitness is the best it's ever been. Just last year he even had a semi-coaching role with our mids as he recovered from his ACL injury FFS.
He is a leader of our club, one of our best ever players, and he deserves to be treated as such. 2 years aint much to ask.
Chops FFS argue the point dont resort to name calling! I said it was misleading because I disagreed with the slant you put on Carr being offered more money than Hase and somehow that was an example of bad FFC management. I just put my interpretation on the situation.
What is misleading?
Carr was on about 400k as far we can tell, from memory. Was offered 2 years. Hase has been on or about 300k. He has been offered 1.
Carr has a seriously poor disciplinary record. He has probably missed an amount of games due to suspension/ discipline similar to what Hase has over his career due to injury.
Hase has shown an ability to play in tremendous pain, and has been remarkably resilient despite what he has been up against his entire career, with his only long term injury keeping him out of games, his ACL, which he has recovered brilliantly from.
Hase is an AA quality player, and was close to that for the first half of the year.
He is still our best midfielder by the length of the freeway.
He is one of our few genuine big game players.
Do you now see why your position, and that of the club's, is absurd?
Similar threads
