Retire / Trade / Delist

[The Big Richo]

The decision by the AFL to permit the transfer of former 1st pick JHF to Port Adelaide, is perhaps a matter the authority felt it couldn’t interfere with.
Intentionally or not however this transfer has created a significant precedent.

From this decision it is now clear that
1) contracts continue not to mean much as far and the players are concerned, and that the current AFL approach invites players to seek a transfer whenever they please notwithstanding any prior existing contractual obligation.
2) The preservation of any contractual obligation to remain a player at the drafting club, not only isn’t applicable to players who are into their second and third contracts, but also now to kids of 18 or so who are in the very first year of their very first contract.

Suggest that there will soon be some pushback from the clubs as the above situation causes the competition to become more and more lopsided.
This may include the introduction of a US style arrangement where players can be traded to another club (and city) irrespective of the wishes of the player concerned.

Either North or JHF could have refused the trade though because of his contract.

I do think we will see the introduction of clubs being able to trade contracts before long though.

 

[Redford]

Either North or JHF could have refused the trade though because of his contract.

I do think we will see the introduction of clubs being able to trade contracts before long though.

You’d think so. With the new tv rights deal and massive increase in revenue the AFLPA will be sticking its hand out. (They already think the % split of current revenue is all wrong.) The AFL will then say, well ok but we need to introduce tradeable contracts. Full trade no restriction, no trade clubs and then no trade at all without player permission like all contracts currently are. The latter type of contract will result in less $ for the player v more $ with a tradeable contract that the club can act on at any time.

 

[TrialByVideo]

Hmm... someone's opinion.. fair enough and they're sort of putting blokes in position but.... biased as I am, how could anyone ever think that Motlop was a better starting option than Lambert who fell in on the bench....
Extraordinarily underatted by the outside world was Kane.
Just the opposite for the other bloke!

Farewell to champions: The Retired Best 22 of 2022 - https://www.afl.com.au/news/858704

 

[momentai]

Either North or JHF could have refused the trade though because of his contract.

I do think we will see the introduction of clubs being able to trade contracts before long though.

The thing doesn’t get off the ground unless the player wants it, so we are not talking about a JHF who wants to play on at North.

As for the club, in theory of course North could have refused but as things currently stand on receiving such a request it’s failure to then try and find a solution (that allowed for the transfer to take place), would have led to a howl of protest.

To actually prevent this kind of arrangement from becoming the norm would have required the AFL to exercise its power and refuse the application.
This failure to intervene has created a situation where strong clubs can now let it be known to footy managers that they have an interest in a player in his very first year.

Such a situation is a new one and, we agree, will add to the pressure to give clubs a right to trade players without their consent.

 

[Brodders17]

The thing doesn’t get off the ground unless the player wants it, so we are not talking about a JHF who wants to play on at North.

As for the club, in theory of course North could have refused but as things currently stand on receiving such a request it’s failure to then try and find a solution (that allowed for the transfer to take place), would have led to a howl of protest.

To actually prevent this kind of arrangement from becoming the norm would have required the AFL to exercise its power and refuse the application.
This failure to intervene has created a situation where strong clubs can now let it be known to footy managers that they have an interest in a player in his very first year.

Such a situation is a new one and, we agree, will add to the pressure to give clubs a right to trade players without their consent.

You wanted the AFL to refuse a trade the player and both clubs agreed to? nah.

on trading players without consent, I cant see the players agreeing to it unless there is a massive boost to their pay.

 

[The Big Richo]

As for the club, in theory of course North could have refused but as things currently stand on receiving such a request it’s failure to then try and find a solution (that allowed for the transfer to take place), would have led to a howl of protest.

Clubs refuse to trade contracted players all the time. Off the top of my head last year you had Lobb at Fremantle, Hill at GWS and Dunkley at the Bulldogs who all had to play the next season before getting a trade done.

 

[momentai]

You wanted the AFL to refuse a trade the player and both clubs agreed to? nah.

on trading players without consent, I cant see the players agreeing to it unless there is a massive boost to their pay.

Clubs refuse to trade contracted players all the time. Off the top of my head last year you had Lobb at Fremantle, Hill at GWS and Dunkley at the Bulldogs who all had to play the next season before getting a trade done.

It happens certainly but the current situation requires the clubs to try and reach a solution and all clubs now at least present as having tried.

It has never happened before however that a first rounder in fact a first picked has wanted out after 1 year his very first 2 year contract. The AFL is there to supervise and it could have said no.

This is leading to a situation where a the GWS’s of the league and say North are always going to be vulnerable.

In these circumstances the AFL will persevere with existing rules but ultimately will push the players to submit to the sale of contracts without their consent.

As I see it the massive boost to wages that players will receive as part of the new media deal, will be a perfect setting in which to do so.

 

[spook]

You wanted the AFL to refuse a trade the player and both clubs agreed to? nah.

on trading players without consent, I cant see the players agreeing to it unless there is a massive boost to their pay.

Boost in pay and earlier free agency, say six years instead of eight.

 

[Brodders17]

Boost in pay and earlier free agency, say six years instead of eight.

i dont think players will accept being sent across the country without their consent for anything near the wages most get now.
young players study, players have young families, partners have jobs etc.

 

[momentai]

i dont think players will accept being sent across the country without their consent for anything near the wages most get now.
young players study, players have young families, partners have jobs etc.

It is going to cost but in 2 years the AFL will have the carrot and it is likely to get done.

 

[TOT70]

I would be happy with Free Agency after 6 years. Why should we have to wait 8 years before poaching a star from the feeder clubs?

 

[Tigerfan]

Connor McFayden delisted by BLFC
WE bid on Connor at pick 42 in 2018 but bris matched
What do you think bully?

 

[The Big Richo]

I'd give draftees 4 years contracts to start with, with the third paid at competition average wage and fourth year bumping over it.

That way every draftee would leave the system with at least a million bucks earned over 4 years, which would put them in a good position in their lives if their careers end early.

Then I'd put a salary cap penalty in for trading within those first four years, and for Gold Coast, GWS and anyone else who needs it at any stage if a player they are prepared to match terms with is leaving. Something like a 10% penalty on their wage out of their salary cap which isn't actually paid. So if we brought Taranto and Hopper in on 700 each, we would lose 140k in cap space.

Throw in unrestricted free agency after 6 years, ability to trade under contract, no rookie list, 20 rotations per game and unlimited bench sizes and you have a game.

TBR for AFL CEO.

 

[code yellow and black]

Hmm... someone's opinion.. fair enough and they're sort of putting blokes in position but.... biased as I am, how could anyone ever think that Motlop was a better starting option than Lambert who fell in on the bench....
Extraordinarily underatted by the outside world was Kane.
Just the opposite for the other bloke!

Farewell to champions: The Retired Best 22 of 2022 - https://www.afl.com.au/news/858704

U can add dahlhaus as well. Think he played two good years of football (all before moving to cats). Lambert far superior.

 

[TrialByVideo]

TBR for AFL CEO.

Dunno about anyone else but @TrialByVideo has never been a fan of those who speak of themselves in the 3rd person.

 

[TigerFurious]

I'd give draftees 4 years contracts to start with, with the third paid at competition average wage and fourth year bumping over it.

That way every draftee would leave the system with at least a million bucks earned over 4 years, which would put them in a good position in their lives if their careers end early.

Then I'd put a salary cap penalty in for trading within those first four years, and for Gold Coast, GWS and anyone else who needs it at any stage if a player they are prepared to match terms with is leaving. Something like a 10% penalty on their wage out of their salary cap which isn't actually paid. So if we brought Taranto and Hopper in on 700 each, we would lose 140k in cap space.

Throw in unrestricted free agency after 6 years, ability to trade under contract, no rookie list, 20 rotations per game and unlimited bench sizes and you have a game.

TBR for AFL CEO.

Not the worst ideas I ever read. Only reservation is 4 year contracts for (presumably all?) draftees. There are plenty of draftees where it’s apparent after 3 years and sometimes even 2 that they are not up to it. That’s a long time for clubs to be carrying dead weight.

 

[TrialByVideo]

U can add dahlhaus as well. Think he played two good years of football (all before moving to cats). Lambert far superior.

Think someone on here renamed him Dahlshithouse which always gave me a chuckle whenever I saw him from that point on.
Whoever named this imaginary team sounded shattered that Tippy and Mitch *smile* Robinson have expressed a desire to play on so they couldn't get a gig...... give us a spell...!

 

[The Big Richo]

Not the worst ideas I ever read. Only reservation is 4 year contracts for (presumably all?) draftees. There are plenty of draftees where it’s apparent after 3 years and sometimes even 2 that they are not up to it. That’s a long time for clubs to be carrying dead weight.

Yeah, I've done that intentionally, as a bit of a tickle for the players to balance the slap of being able to be sent to Tassie against their will.

The quick exits are a significant welfare issue in the game. If you walked away after 4 years having earned a million bucks and owning a house outright it would help take care of that.

 

[momentai]

I'd give draftees 4 years contracts to start with, with the third paid at competition average wage and fourth year bumping over it.

That way every draftee would leave the system with at least a million bucks earned over 4 years, which would put them in a good position in their lives if their careers end early.

Then I'd put a salary cap penalty in for trading within those first four years, and for Gold Coast, GWS and anyone else who needs it at any stage if a player they are prepared to match terms with is leaving. Something like a 10% penalty on their wage out of their salary cap which isn't actually paid. So if we brought Taranto and Hopper in on 700 each, we would lose 140k in cap space.

Throw in unrestricted free agency after 6 years, ability to trade under contract, no rookie list, 20 rotations per game and unlimited bench sizes and you have a game.

TBR for AFL CEO.

And salary dumping within the first four years?

Your suggestion would leave the clubs stuck with a lemmon and having to pay him an increased wage over the final two years of a four year term.

It would also slow down rather than enhance a player’s ability to move on.

At least with the selling of a players contract you give the clubs some sort of out.

TBR’s departure imitates UK PM.

 

[The Big Richo]

Your suggestion would leave the clubs stuck with a lemmon and having to pay him an increased wage over the final two years of a four year term.

Pretty simple solution, don't draft lemons.