SA Footy

redyellow&blue wrote:

Q. wrote:

Maddog17 wrote:I had troubles changing clubs because of the 3 player rule but ended up getting there in the end after a few tries

All it takes is a courtesy phone call from a player to the club they're leaving from prior to lodgement of clearance and most clubs will do the right thing.

Define "the right thing"

Let a bloke play footy instead of sitting out a year

Q. wrote:

redyellow&blue wrote:

Q. wrote:

Maddog17 wrote:I had troubles changing clubs because of the 3 player rule but ended up getting there in the end after a few tries

All it takes is a courtesy phone call from a player to the club they're leaving from prior to lodgement of clearance and most clubs will do the right thing.

Define "the right thing"

Let a bloke play footy instead of sitting out a year

so you're of the opinion that the individual's want's and needs should override the best interests of a club at that point in time?

redyellow&blue wrote:

Q. wrote:Let a bloke play footy instead of sitting out a year

so you're of the opinion that the individual's want's and needs should override the best interests of a club at that point in time?

I'm of the opinion that clubs shouldn't force someone to be somewhere they don't want to be. And if that's the approach you take to be sustainable then you're just wallpapering over the cracks.

Q. wrote:

redyellow&blue wrote:

Q. wrote:Let a bloke play footy instead of sitting out a year

so you're of the opinion that the individual's want's and needs should override the best interests of a club at that point in time?

I'm of the opinion that clubs shouldn't force someone to be somewhere they don't want to be. And if that's the approach you take to be sustainable then you're just wallpapering over the cracks.

it's not about whether player is playing or not. that's irrelevant to the question.

If the player in question is leaving a club that pays exorbitant amounts of $ to players to play low div Football and is going to a club that isn't offering any $ at all and the clearances are blocked on the 3 player rule then your Football morals are screwed up..

redyellow&blue wrote:

Q. wrote:

redyellow&blue wrote:

Q. wrote:Let a bloke play footy instead of sitting out a year

so you're of the opinion that the individual's want's and needs should override the best interests of a club at that point in time?

I'm of the opinion that clubs shouldn't force someone to be somewhere they don't want to be. And if that's the approach you take to be sustainable then you're just wallpapering over the cracks.

it's not about whether player is playing or not. that's irrelevant to the question.

It is relevant, we're in the business of getting blokes to play footy.

If you can't or won't meet a player's needs, then why be spiteful and deny him the right to choose a place where they are met.

Clubs that resort to punitive measures for player retention need to reconsider their approach.

eric wrote:If the player in question is leaving a club that pays exorbitant amounts of $ to players to play low div Football and is going to a club that isn't offering any $ at all and the clearances are blocked on the 3 player rule then your Football morals are screwed up..

And if $$ are being offered?

just because fitzroy have been trying to get players with big money offers doesnt mean every club is doing that mate,your club & coach have a history of it,west croydon do not.

lol at peoples tangents and acrobatic acts being utilised..people creating their own arguments and assumptions to justify their answer on a simple question...

" you're of the opinion that the individual's want's and needs should override the best interests of a club at that point in time?"

response 1-

"If the player in question is leaving a club that pays exorbitant amounts of $ to players to play low div Football and is going to a club that isn't offering any $ at all and the clearances are blocked on the 3 player rule then your Football morals are screwed up.."

don't know how you came up with that, but ok from what i can make out of your algebra, your answer is " yes the individual takes precedence"

response 2-

"It is relevant, we're in the business of getting blokes to play footy.
If you can't or won't meet a player's needs, then why be spiteful and deny him the right to choose a place where they are met.
Clubs that resort to punitive measures for player retention need to reconsider their approach."

nothing to do with punitive, vindictive, spiteful, player retention, the sky being blue or wanting quokkas as pets.

response 3 -

'just because fitzroy have been trying to get players with big money offers doesnt mean every club is doing that mate,your club & coach have a history of it,west croydon do not."

Wow, was so totally blown away at the sheer level of intellect in this response I almost fell out of my chair. Again nothing to do with the question and so far off the mark you may as well stop posting and quit the internet.

mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

Well.

Apart from owing money, why would you deny clearing someone who doesn't want to play at your club?

The_Informer wrote:Apart from owing money, why would you deny clearing someone who doesn't want to play at your club?

Judging by the above post maybe because they can do backflips or somersaults?

Maybe recruit the right people the first time and not money chasers or club hoppers?

The_Informer wrote:Maybe recruit the right people the first time and not money chasers or club hoppers?

Or provide a sustainable environment with a culture where players want to stay long term?

Sounds good to me and i never think money is the answer to that

redyellow&blue wrote:

Q. wrote:

Maddog17 wrote:I had troubles changing clubs because of the 3 player rule but ended up getting there in the end after a few tries

All it takes is a courtesy phone call from a player to the club they're leaving from prior to lodgement of clearance and most clubs will do the right thing.

Define "the right thing"

Don't even know why this is a discussion point. Fitzroy President gave a verbal that clearing more than three wouldn't be a problem. I'd classify 'doing the right thing' as following through with that verbal.

redyellow&blue wrote:lol at peoples tangents and acrobatic acts being utilised..people creating their own arguments and assumptions to justify their answer on a simple question...

I've answered your question you muppet. If your club culture is shit and blokes want to leave, maybe you should think about changing the culture.

I don't see the point in stopping blokes from playing footy. It's div6 footy this argument shouldn't even be happening! If you don't want them and they don't want to play for you then let them go. Should trust in the group you have that wants to play for you to get the job done.
Only way I could see a club from denying blokes from playing would have to be a financial issue.

Q. wrote:

redyellow&blue wrote:lol at peoples tangents and acrobatic acts being utilised..people creating their own arguments and assumptions to justify their answer on a simple question...

I've answered your question you muppet. If your club culture is shit and blokes want to leave, maybe you should think about changing the culture.

" you're of the opinion that the individual's want's and needs should override the best interests of a club at that point in time?"

No, you did'nt. you beat around the bush talking about anything and everything except the question. As I said, it has nothing to do with retaining players, vindictiveness, culture, money, whether they play or not, or anything else. but if you believe you answered, I must of missed the yes or no somewhere back in this thread, so then lets leave it at that.

The_Informer wrote:Sounds good to me and i never think money is the answer to that

Only one club in the entire compettion does not play players. Take it with a grain of salt when told "oh nah we don't pay"...