Ti Em, the point is that if Leggett had signed a one year contract, none of this discussion would have taken place. But to suggest that a multi-year contract can be broken because a player receives a higher offer from a rival club is madness. It gives all the power to the player and none to the club. It gives a positive incentive for rival clubs, especially cashed up ones, to poach players. If you include that as a get out clause, you may as well have no contract at all. It is the dumbest thing I have ever heard. However, I'm pleased to see you finally concede that EF did indeed offer Leggett more money. What's nuts is that you think he should be released from his contract because PFC won't match it.
KCEF, Leggett agreed to his match payments. If he later has buyer's remorse, that's his problem. You guys don't live in the real world if you think PFC should re-negotiate his match payments. That means that any WAFL player can solicit offers from other clubs, and use those offers to either force his existing club to increase his payments, or release him from his contract. Again, that would be a contract hopelessly skewed in favour of the player. I assume you guys don't understand this, but contracts are meant to be for mutual benefit of the parties to it. Finally, with the match payments, Leggett was paid above the WAFL average prior to playing 50 games, and that is the reason why he agreed to his current match payments - in other words, it all evens out.
