It wouldn't be inconsistent with Free Agency. Players would still have the same options there. It'd just give the existing club the ability to put together a more attractive offer to keep players.
The first choice of almost every new coach taking over a shit side. Know you aren't good enough to win lots of games, so turn everything into a congested bore fest. Hope you get to mid-table, then spin the line 'now we aren't conceding so much, we'll start attacking!' to get the next contract. Of course, for most they then try and switch some players to being attacking and suddenly the no longer overloaded defense doesn't look so good.
I remember saying the same thing about Fagan even from his first year. The Lions were still a bottom 4 side, but you could tell that they had progressed more in one year under Fagan than perennial cellar dwellers like Carlton have progressed in five, because Fagan had them playing the right way. We've seen the rewards of that early approach over the last couple of years.
Oops sorry, I meant Trump
Where we see an empty forward line, the Janus crowd sees apparitions of Tony Lockett and Matthew Lloyd just ready to rip the game open.
Brett Chalmers says hi
Didn't his manager send the other clubs a letter saying he wouldn't go?
Bumps jones up the list of people the crows would look at as well. All players should play where they’re sent for the first 6 years in the system. No one is forcing them to play footy.
Because they are going all in crazy Vossy style.
No he just said to GWS that family is very important to him and didn't know how he would go being away from them.
