Rawlings may ask for $800,000

I_love_Clokey · Post by **I_love_Clokey** » Fri Oct 31, 2003 2:25 pm

I don't think Jade Rawlings is worth that much!!! really no player is unless it is your captain!! I think he is really greedy to ask for that much and I also think that stevens was greedy for asking for what he did too!!!

Sultan of spin · Post by **Sultan of spin** » Fri Oct 31, 2003 4:24 pm

North Melb would have to be crazy to pay that sort of money for a player like Rawlings. Rawlings is nothing more than a solid senior player he isn't going to win AFL matches off his own boot so such a wage would be ridiculous. I thought North were were recieving AFL assistance so how could they afford it anyway? I could understand it if Stevens put $500,000 - $600,000 to try and scare off Carlton but even that sort of money for a top liner like Stevens is probably still excessive and you would have to question whether it would be worth it for a club to be paying that sort of money to anyone other than maybe their stand out player

TRELOS · Post by **TRELOS** » Sun Nov 02, 2003 10:44 am

But couldnt he put that price tage on his head and then if North choose him he accepts a much lower wage than what he has said??

Woey2 · Post by **Woey2** » Sun Nov 02, 2003 1:10 pm

The 800 is for the first season only.

Ie he says I want 800 for year 1, then 100 for year 2, meaning 900 over two years, which is around what he probably would have got anyway.

Apparently only North and Geelong can afford to fit the 800 in for next season, so he'd probably get his wish and go to North.

TRELOS · Post by **TRELOS** » Sun Nov 02, 2003 3:12 pm

could Stevens do that to get to us???

Sultan of spin · Post by **Sultan of spin** » Mon Nov 03, 2003 12:50 pm

I dunno how much room we have in our salary cap but I think it would have to be a bit with Buckley going to the vet's list and the retirements of Freeborn and Molloy. I dunno how much room Carlton's got either they did delist and trade a heap of players and I imagine guys like Allan, Beaumont and Murphy were all getting paid fairly good money but they also recieved a heap of experienced players in trade week that probably put a fair dent in their cap.

stoid · Post by **stoid** » Mon Nov 03, 2003 2:51 pm

Member · Post by **Member** » Tue Nov 04, 2003 12:53 am

When you nominate a figure in the pre season draft you must specify a minimum two year contract

you can front load it back load it whatever you feel like it

Culprit · Post by **Culprit** » Wed Nov 05, 2003 12:22 pm

It's a joke if Rawlings gets 800k for a season.

piedys · Post by **piedys** » Wed Nov 05, 2003 5:37 pm

I'd like to see him nominate that price and see if the AFL really have the guts to prosecute a player for draft tampering. Bet he get's away with it!
I don't want to go on about it like a broken record, but as i've said before it only takes a letter from the player's solicitor to the AFL stating "restraint of trade".... and we might just see some fine tuning done regarding the rules of player trading.

commonwombat · Post by **commonwombat** » Wed Nov 05, 2003 6:52 pm

Piedys,

Hate to soung like a broken record too but the only people who would receive satisfaction from any ensuing court battle would be the respective lawyers who'll be lighting their cigars with $100 notes on the size of their bills.

piedys · Post by **piedys** » Wed Nov 05, 2003 7:05 pm

commonwombat wrote:Hate to sound like a broken record too but the only people who would receive satisfaction from any ensuing court battle would be the respective lawyers who'll be lighting their cigars with $100 notes on the size of their bills.

CW, but what do we care how much money it would cost the AFL in legal fees?
I don't think "scissors/rock/paper" type games will resolve it! If it doesn't come out of our pockets or taxes, i say bring it on!

commonwombat · Post by **commonwombat** » Wed Nov 05, 2003 7:11 pm

Until a workable alternative can be found, we're stuck with it. Reckon it was wrong to knock back free agency, but it won't be the last we hear of it and should be reconsidered under poss different terms.

Also, the Afl would not be the only parties facing tasty legal bills, what about the player(s) concerned and also the club(s)??

piedys · Post by **piedys** » Wed Nov 05, 2003 7:24 pm

commonwombat wrote:Also, the Afl would not be the only parties facing tasty legal bills, what about the player(s) concerned and also the club(s)??

Tell me, after a legal case is decided, aren't court costs always allocated to the loser? I would back the defending club to win legally should push ever come to shove in court.
I guess the AFL would just have to scalp a few more Grand Final tickets away from the public hands to their corporate mates to fund their legal bill.
Ya wanna keep sparring CW?

This is an unofficial Bulletin Board - owned and run by its users. We welcome all fans of the Mighty Collingwood Football Club.

Rawlings may ask for $800,000

Rawlings may ask for $800,000