TOPIC:

touch wood WP are begging the arbritator to send the boy back to EP come the seasons end

Barney is really struggling with this one, he thinks his and the footy managers opinions are more valid than a ruling by an arbitrator.

if they were that smart they wouldnt be footy managers, no pun intended.

No i have no dog in this race, if anything Subiaco will be one of the main beneficiary to the rule adaptation and precedence. Just trying to explain the situation to those who aren't able to comprehend why nearly every club was against this move.

Absolutely looking forward to the eventual dummy spits that will come next January though. Can't wait for the complete breakdowns when supporters realise they lost their best young talent for a $2k transfer fee and then blame the WAFC/alignment because they allowed it to happen. Funny thing is the posters that are furiously supporting the transfer are going to be the loudest complainers in 8 months. Can't wait.

Then just wait until you find out that a hidden by product of this transfer will be the scrapping of the limits on alignment teams recruiting!

Barney you are incorrect. If the 18 or 19 year old is/was contracted then there would be no transfers. That is the rule. Check it out

astro wrote: Barney you are incorrect. If the 18 or 19 year old is/was contracted then there would be no transfers. That is the rule. Check it out

Absolutely correct.

Also if a team names a player in their protected 40 he is untouchable. Is that correct as well astro?

here you go again Barney, I think you need to take this up with Brendan Taylor the WAFL arbitrator - its he you dont agree with.
have Ron and Bruce given you any advice over this ?

btw the transfer rules are quite simple even for you Barney:

A player is eligible to transfer between WAFL Clubs should they satisfy the following criteria.
d) Is 19 years or older, is a 40 listed player, is not contracted and satisfies one of the following:
vi. Has not played 40 games in any grade in five (5) seasons. Games missed while suspended or included on the long term injury list do not count.

Kietel had played 37 games of colts.

Barney....who out of the SD colts do you think you guys would be interested in?.....plenty to choose from......SD need the coin...Subi have plenty of it.....will be an interesting scenario.....take the money or keep the kids?.....

I reckon if it was EF I'd want them to sell the kids and use the money to buy older ready to go players like McGough, Dalziell, Anthony, ROB, Hampson and BOB......

if a kid doesnt sign a contract its a pretty good indicator he doesnt want to be at your club.
we will just make sure all our good ones get to 40 games even if it means playing 2 games a day

MarkOlsen wrote: here you go again Barney, I think you need to take this up with Brendan Taylor the WAFL arbitrator - its he you dont agree with.
have Ron and Bruce given you any advice over this ?

btw the transfer rules are quite simple even for you Barney:

A player is eligible to transfer between WAFL Clubs should they satisfy the following criteria.
d) Is 19 years or older, is a 40 listed player, is not contracted and satisfies one of the following:
vi. Has not played 40 games in any grade in five (5) seasons. Games missed while suspended or included on the long term injury list do not count.

Kietel had played 37 games of colts.

Excellent work at the selective quoting MO. Didn't quote all of it because it kind of proved my point about there being two contradicting aspects of the legislation? I'm sure all the FMs were smart enough to know all the rules.

For those playing at home here is both sections of the transfer rule that were argued.

A player is eligible to transfer between WAFL Clubs should they satisfy the following criteria.
b) Is 19 years or older and is not included on the current WAFL Club 40 list.
d) Is 19 years or older, is a 40 listed player, is not contracted and satisfies one of the following

Now one says you can't transfer if you are in the protected 40, the other says you can. So both teams are correct and the other 6 teams were arguing section B of the transfer rules should over ride section D. In fact the WAFC argued that the word "not" was left out of section D.

Now after the arbitration decision all clubs have to do is contact the players parents, tell them to not sign any contract with their current club and the day their boy turns 19 we'll have a contract for you that is double what your current team is offering.

Whether I think that is right or wrong is irrelevant. The fact I am waiting for the fallout of this verdict come next years transfer season is all that matters. Just trying to let you know what is ahead of you so it will be all the more enjoying to watch your dummy spit.

Freezin wrote: Barney....who out of the SD colts do you think you guys would be interested in?.....plenty to choose from......SD need the coin...Subi have plenty of it.....will be an interesting scenario.....take the money or keep the kids?.....

I reckon if it was EF I'd want them to sell the kids and use the money to buy older ready to go players like McGough, Dalziell, Anthony, ROB, Hampson and BOB......

Well looks like they have a young ruckman in Jarrad Mason? Turns 19 next March as well.

Might rings his folks. Tell them that their son should do all the pre season with Swans, refuse to sign a contract and then drop past Leederville Oval on his 19th birthday and we'll have a shiny new contract on the front counter waiting for him. Would $500 a game and a new fridge freezer be ok? We'll even take him out to Siennas for his birthday lunch.

Would only cost us $2k max in a transfer fee as well.