Yep. Totally understand that they are contracted and they can say no. That they likely would initially.
But also remember that there contract is also to perform to a certain level.
They haven’t. We should be clear and we owe it to them as well to say you know what, based on last year’s form and our expected trade inclusions we no longer see you in our best 22. Perhaps your opportunities are going to be very very limited. Now you can stay, or we can facilitate a trade.
That is actually more honest and holds more integrity than not having the conversation. Now you have that with 3-4 players and it is likely 1-2 will choose to move on.
That is not treating them like crap. That is respecting them. Had they of performed as was expected the conversation wouldn’t be needed anyway.
But like you say, contracted, but when a club pushes a little many players read the writing.
Tell me.how many people have Myers or Colyer in our best 22 next year with the expected inclusions??? They would likely be best served going elsewhere.
The industry will shift to view contracts more as guaranteed money. It’s what a player agrees to play for until a certain point. Clubs will then trade players more and more as long as those contracts are met (in principal) or only changed in agreement with said player.
On TREATING PLAYERS LIKE TRASH
Treating players like trash is not exploring all options to make the club and all involved more successful.
Imagine telling BJ, yeh we could have got Schache but we didn’t feel right telling Colyer and Myers they weren’t in our plans anymore so we didn’t try. That is treating BJ’s commitment to our club like trash.
Obviously a balance must be cut though…