TOPIC:

I presume that he is still contracted and I will be surprised if they do not take the same stance as we did with Cody. 
It does seem that Bush has passed the point of no return but if Claremont do play hardball he may have a difficult decision to make at some point.....play for Claremont or miss some football.

Claremont are entitled to refuse to negotiate, or to drive a hard bargain. However, given Busher is 29-30 years old, and only likely to have 1-2 seasons left, they may decide that getting some money for him is worthwhile. If he does come to us I think either he or Hill has to play forward. We couldn't have backline of Gibllett, Sinclair, Hill and Busher, too top heavy. If Busher plays back, Hill may struggle to keep his spot, especially if Hunter develops.

Yes DF, i agree. He should be played up forward as he can lead all day, take a grab and slot the goals.
I rate Jack Avery so highly i would have him at CHB despite his age. He is far too good to be playing colts, and a great get by the club

My view is that our most pressing need is a tall forward. We must kick goals and Bush will be important to achieving that. I would leave the defence as is. Hill can hold down CHB and there may be another option in La Fontaine who did not look out of place in last week’s scratchie.
Satan, Jack Avery is 19 an older age Colt. Still listed as a Colt. His Colts record last season was impressive with 33 touches in the Grand Final. No doubt he will get his opportunity hopefully sooner than later.
Ted, an interesting scenario you raise in regard to a clearance for Busher. Not sure that Claremont would see it that way.

Busher is a very good player, always played very well against us (Subi) big body and aggressive so would be a real asset to you blokes if he was able to get out of contract. As someone said, at his age it would be miserable of Cl to block him despite them being legally entitled to do so.

Wonder if Perth will pursue it, if it goes to a Leggett like tribunal....surely with Lee, Maister and Waterman gone, Cl will see Busher as a priority KP player to their 2021  chances....

A lot will depend on the remaining time of his contract. If he is still under contract, and I presume that he is, he would be bound to Claremont at least until the end of 2021 season if not longer.
That puts him in the same position as Leggett was in. The only difference is that Leggett was not disenchanted with Perth but rather was head-hunted and enticed vigorously by EF and he was 5 years younger than Busher. And EF were able to get him cleared following an unfortunate slip-up by Perth.
Busher IS disenchanted with Claremont and has nominated his original club Perth as his preferred option. He was not enticed by Perth. It was his preferred option.
IMO there is no reason why Perth should not pursue the matter all the way...whatever it takes. 
 

wrote:

Wonder if Perth will pursue it, if it goes to a Leggett like tribunal....surely with Lee, Maister and Waterman gone, Cl will see Busher as a priority KP player to their 2021  chances....

 

Maister hasn't played in the WAFL since mid-2018.
Lee played only 3 games in 2020.

wrote:

wrote:

Wonder if Perth will pursue it, if it goes to a Leggett like tribunal....surely with Lee, Maister and Waterman gone, Cl will see Busher as a priority KP player to their 2021  chances....


 

Maister hasn't played in the WAFL since mid-2018.
Lee played only 3 games in 2020.

No surprise that fkwit has no idea. The view aint great from the Waikato Grandstand. 

wrote:

wrote:

wrote:

Wonder if Perth will pursue it, if it goes to a Leggett like tribunal....surely with Lee, Maister and Waterman gone, Cl will see Busher as a priority KP player to their 2021  chances....



 

Maister hasn't played in the WAFL since mid-2018.
Lee played only 3 games in 2020.

No surprise that fkwit has no idea. The view aint great from the Waikato Grandstand. 

no truer statement ever posted mate cheers