I agree that they are moving forward from the mess that was inherited contract wise but personally there is a bit of a fine line. If you can grab a player this year for whatever you have left in the cap and then 21’ 22’ offer him a lot more say $200 this year $400k 21 and $400k 22 I think that’s actually smart management. Obviously you can’t do that all the time cause you end up with players out of form on massive dollars like Eastwood was but you also got to play the recruitment game with all available options and maybe they are. Just my 2c
Yes, of course mate - very valid.
Two ways to look at it - you either do it on a limited basis just as you suggested when certain talent becomes available or you have a policy of not at all.
The question is - do you make exceptions or do you make everyone play by the same rules?
For instance - one of the new governance policies is that any change in player salary above $100k/year must go to the board for approval - so for example, Hilly couldn't make that call on his own, or even Hilly and Lynne (based on your 200k/400k model - the board has to approve that by majority).
What happened to us previously was obviously an extreme case of mis-management, and hopefully if any exceptions to the policy were to be made, it's the exception and not the rule. I'm sure all supporters never want to see us in the same situation again - I know I don't.