TOPIC:

MarkOlsen wrote: its pretty simple Barney or did you not read the whole article ?

"But WAFL arbitrator Brendan Taylor found the rules were clear on the matter and allowed Keitel to move clubs.

It is understood that Taylor advised the WAFL to rewrite their rules if they did not reflect the competition’s view on transfer eligibility." MO the very little I know abt it was that most clubs, including yours had an interpretation of the rules, hence the FM from Swans being a little ansty towards WP and Perth, the rules regarding players coming out of colts needs to be clear and whilst I know and others hate EP and the alignment it needs to be cleared, ERT cannot recruit from out side their zone so players within the zone need to be available. This is not taking into account the issue of signing or not and would he or not.

and Keitel is not a colts player, he is too old for colts which is why under the current rules (that is the question being sought to be answered or clarified) he was allowed to move to West Perth.

Why would the WAFC and the clubs vote on something before they and the WAFC got independant advice on the matter ?
We all know some people there and running clubs are not very bright and this doesnt help them.

I am sure their are 18year olds at Swans who if offered better payments would jump at the chance and that is not good for you or the comp, the subi's et al would become even stronger.

As for this boy it will be interesting to see how he grows and develops over the next years but one thing I am sure of, playing at Waneroo would have been fraught with risk.

MarkOlsen wrote: and Keitel is not a colts player, he is too old for colts which is why under the current rules he was allowed to move to West Perth.

Why would the WAFC and the clubs vote on something before they and the WAFC got independant advice on the matter ?
We all know some people there and running clubs are not very bright and this doesnt help them.

Nope he is not a colt, neither will all Swans current crop of colts the day they turn 19. According to this ruling all uncontracted players are free game the day they turn 19. So clubs will talk to their "advisors" when they are 18, tell them not to sign any contract and swoop on their birthday.

Get the idea now why your own club (and most of the others) didnt want this transfer to go through? Get the idea why your own football manager has been one of the most vocal against this ruling? And you think their not the bright ones?

Some one should ask why Keitel wanted out of EP. EP themselves should be questioning this.

Reminds me of the George Michalczyk episode years ago mate the bitterness of it anyway if not the age thing

astro wrote: Some one should ask why Keitel wanted out of EP. EP themselves should be questioning this.

The people you need to ask are his mother and his manager. ERT wanted him but he listened to those folk and the rest is history.

[Nope he is not a colt, neither will all Swans current crop of colts the day they turn 19. According to this ruling all uncontracted players are free game the day they turn 19. So clubs will talk to their "advisors" when they are 18, tell them not to sign any contract and swoop on their birthday.

Get the idea now why your own club (and most of the others) didnt want this transfer to go through? Get the idea why your own football manager has been one of the most vocal against this ruling? And you think their not the bright ones?[/quote]

Barney - the thing you dont get or any of these genius footy managers is they obviously dont understand the rules as the arbitrator pointed out.

he applied the rules as they stand and clearly pointed out if that is not the intent then change the rule - pretty simple and hopefully you and the genius footy managers out there understood that point clearly.

MarkOlsen wrote: Barney - the thing you dont get or any of these genius footy managers is they obviously dont understand the rules as the arbitrator pointed out.

he applied the rules as they stand and clearly pointed out if that is not the intent then change the rule - pretty simple and hopefully you and the genius footy managers out there understood that point clearly.

There were failsafes in place to protect clubs from the glitch in that rule including the protected 40 list that every club has. Now with this ruling all the clubs have been asking what is the point of the 40 list and are even those players free game for poaching.

I'll take the opinion of my teams football managers and 6 of the other football managers thanks. Maybe you should actually talk to your own fm and see what he tells you about the situation. Otherwise dont whinge and complain early next season when Swans lose players who should be safe because you cant keep up with what other teams offer. Swans are the most vulnerable thanks to this decision.

well maybe you and the genius football managers should listen to the WAFL appointed arbitrator Brendan Taylor who is a leading Perth lawyer and has clearly stated that the rules need to be amended if the intent of the current rule is wrong.

you and the football managers are giving an opinion, the arbitrator has given a ruling.
unfortunately for you an opinion isnt worth anything in this instance.

and if Phil Smart and the other foot managers have any any brains they would take the advice of the arbitrator and push to get the rules changed, pretty simple to me.

Rules are rules. You can talk loopholes and glitches till cows come home. Clean cut and Taylor has seen it that way. Seems WP n Taylor get understand them clearly.

I think old barney has spat the dummy, grasping at straws. I wonder if hes tom percy penguin.