TOPIC:

Freezin wrote: Yet DD you keep getting on that same bus to come back here mate....perhaps strono was late getting to the Leggett party because he was busy mate crossing the t's and dotting the i's on that 7K deal for Quill for EF with Perth....why in fark Perth paid 7K for a fringe reserves player staggers me, but great work strono, keep it up mate....

BS and BS, as far as I’m concerned the Leggett saga is over until new information comes to hand, your mate strono is on delay. 7k for Quill don’t think so matey, but hey you blokes will get excited about anything. Whatever rocks your boat.

I just think strono is an idiot for dragging this topic back up, I think most people are over it including neutral supporters but here you are saying great work strono, keep up the good work mate....

Freezin wrote: Yet DD you keep getting on that same bus to come back here mate....perhaps strono was late getting to the Leggett party because he was busy mate crossing the t's and dotting the i's on that 7K deal for Quill for EF with Perth....why in fark Perth paid 7K for a fringe reserves player staggers me, but great work strono, keep it up mate....

Perhaps Perth has foresight, reminds me of Richmond grabbing a player no one wanted & now he's a premiership player..

Strono, you decided to revive this and, like every other EF fan, you got it totally wrong. A few brief points: It is not just Perth fans who think we have done nothing wrong. It is the arbitrator and every other WAFL fan. Responses from all fans of other clubs on this site have supported Perth. The WAFL is not the loser should Leggett play amateurs. On the contrary, the WAFL wins by having the importance of contracts affirmed - something else recognised by the arbitrator and other WAFL fans. If Leggett chooses to forego match payments and ruin his draft chances once and for all, that is a puzzling decision, but up to him. We have said he is contracted to us and welcome back. That is all we can do. Leggett did not approach EF, you approached him. You treated PFC with complete disrespect, continuing to court him for 2 years despite being repeatedly told by PFC to back off.

Now, a "get out" clause. I'm intrigued by this concept. Perhaps you could give me a couple of examples of the sort of clause you think might work. To suggest, as EF fans have, that a contract can be broken any time a player is angry, or any time another club offers more money, or pisses in a player's pocket would seem to create a wholly meaningless contract rather than a get out clause. But, please, tell me the circumstances where you think a player can break a contract.

Pretty sure Pickett played league, at a pretty good standard from memory, before heading over to Richmond LS....tho being an EF fan I could be wrong with the facts there....but hey kudos to Perth's foresight....think Troppo might of been a better example....but he won 3 spoons I think...not a premiership.

Why not revive the Leggett saga I say....good on strono for coming out of his busy "hush hush" EFFC duties and providing an "official" say....unlike the Joe Bloggs hearsay and innuendo from the Perth fans.....all we want is banter on these forums...new, old and very old....as strono says round 5 should be a cracker....why don't we hire a bus for the big game and all jump on and have a few beers to celebrate the day....make sure Wiley is invited, about time us EF boys offered the fella an olive branch.....

Ted Nugent wrote: Strono, you decided to revive this and, like every other EF fan, you got it totally wrong. A few brief points: It is not just Perth fans who think we have done nothing wrong. It is the arbitrator and every other WAFL fan. Responses from all fans of other clubs on this site have supported Perth. The WAFL is not the loser should Leggett play amateurs. On the contrary, the WAFL wins by having the importance of contracts affirmed - something else recognised by the arbitrator and other WAFL fans. If Leggett chooses to forego match payments and ruin his draft chances once and for all, that is a puzzling decision, but up to him. We have said he is contracted to us and welcome back. That is all we can do. Leggett did not approach EF, you approached him. You treated PFC with complete disrespect, continuing to court him for 2 years despite being repeatedly told by PFC to back off.

Now, a "get out" clause. I'm intrigued by this concept. Perhaps you could give me a couple of examples of the sort of clause you think might work. To suggest, as EF fans have, that a contract can be broken any time a player is angry, or any time another club offers more money, or pisses in a player's pocket would seem to create a wholly meaningless contract rather than a get out clause. But, please, tell me the circumstances where you think a player can break a contract.

Nice sweeping generalization about public opinion on the matter Ted - more than just a little convenient that it just happens to a person to completely side with you though innit? Pretty sure the Arbitrator was ruling on Leggett v PFC and the accusation of a breach of contract and not whether or not your club has done anything wrong in the handling of the situation. Welcoming the player back is probably all you can do now but before the matter reached arbitration plenty could of been done. One example would simply be to renegotiate terms as has happened countless times before between sportspeople and sporting institutions all over the world. Maybe an attempt was made in this particular case - maybe it wasn't, who knows? The player certainly seems to have a bee in his bonnet though. Also where is your proof that EFFC approached Leggett? If EFFC had been courting the player dating back 2 years ago why suddenly does the player want to join them well before the end of a 2 year contract? Why the sudden change of heart? Does this not suggest PFC have done something wrong - at least in the players eyes. Lets not bury our heads in the sand. With regard to the get out clause a simple example might be on a 2 year contract if at the end of the 1st year if a another club offers an amount equal to or more than the particular amount being paid then the player is free to leave.

we are talking about a bloke who it was said wanted to go to EF to get drafted and was complaining over payments and is now happy to play ammos where there isnt meant to be player payments and he wont get drafted from there.
poorly advised one would think, where that advice came from - EF, manager, family who knows but it has been proved Perth were not at fault.

MarkOlsen wrote: we are talking about a bloke who it was said wanted to go to EF to get drafted and was complaining over payments and is now happy to play ammos where there isnt meant to be player payments and he wont get drafted from there.
poorly advised one would think, where that advice came from - EF, manager, family who knows but it has been proved Perth were not at fault.

Oh without any shadow of a doubt! Get us a violin for the Perth Football Club - completely without blame and the victims in this travesty of justice.

no victims at all - a footballer wants to change clubs, held to his contract.
happened plenty of times before and no doubt will happen again.
maybe you should move on like Leggett has done, he cant be too fussed about money or playing AFL if he has gone to the ammos..

MarkOlsen wrote: no victims at all - a footballer wants to change clubs, held to his contract.
happened plenty of times before and no doubt will happen again.
maybe you should move on like Leggett has done, he cant be too fussed about money or playing AFL if he has gone to the ammos..

Yet these along with having his mind poisoned were the very reasons he left MRP. Weird.

So it's fine for you to comment on the matter but I can't and should just move on. Does not seem very fair.

whats weird is a bloke wanting to get drafted and chasing money from Perth is now playing ammos for free.