-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Trade Week - Number of Trades??
- Thread starter The Boss
- Start date
Non-Trade Week is a blight on the AFL and an indictment on the professionalism of the clubs.
For once, I don’t blame the AFL for this farcical situation. To their credit, they have done everything to try and facilitate a period where the clubs can get together and sensibly and rationally work out deals of mutual benefit. But as has been well discussed, the clubs just act like kids in a schoolyard playing immature cloak and dagger games with each other thinking they’re gonna get one over the other.
How on earth do these multi million dollar “businesses” leave it with 5 minutes to go when making high level decisions on the most important facet of their operations i.e. the players that take the ground for them ? It just staggers me.
Do you reckon some large manufacturer like Ford, when it needs to acquire resources to put the best car it can out into the market, leaves it to the last minute to secure those resources before it goes into production ?
Despite its best intentions with these hapless/amateurish clubs, the AFL would be better off scrapping the Non-Trade Week altogether and going to some NBA style system as French Tiger suggests, or just simply giving them a deadline e.g. 31st October or whatever by which to submit their lists.
Let them wheel and deal over a period of weeks in private and get a bit of separation back into it. That might prevent them from running around like chooks with their heads cut off for a week trying to see if they can do this and that with 15 other clubs and ending up doing nothing. In other words get ‘em to focus on doing one or two deals with one or two other clubs in private over a few weeks rather than this school yard stuff.
For once, I don’t blame the AFL for this farcical situation. To their credit, they have done everything to try and facilitate a period where the clubs can get together and sensibly and rationally work out deals of mutual benefit. But as has been well discussed, the clubs just act like kids in a schoolyard playing immature cloak and dagger games with each other thinking they’re gonna get one over the other.
How on earth do these multi million dollar “businesses” leave it with 5 minutes to go when making high level decisions on the most important facet of their operations i.e. the players that take the ground for them ? It just staggers me.
Do you reckon some large manufacturer like Ford, when it needs to acquire resources to put the best car it can out into the market, leaves it to the last minute to secure those resources before it goes into production ?
Despite its best intentions with these hapless/amateurish clubs, the AFL would be better off scrapping the Non-Trade Week altogether and going to some NBA style system as French Tiger suggests, or just simply giving them a deadline e.g. 31st October or whatever by which to submit their lists.
Let them wheel and deal over a period of weeks in private and get a bit of separation back into it. That might prevent them from running around like chooks with their heads cut off for a week trying to see if they can do this and that with 15 other clubs and ending up doing nothing. In other words get ‘em to focus on doing one or two deals with one or two other clubs in private over a few weeks rather than this school yard stuff.
I realise your closeness to Ford Red but they are hardly a shining example these days:-Redford said:
Ford plans to sell subsidiary
The troubled automaker said it is 'prudent' to sell unit that provides extended-care warranties and service contracts.
October 11 2006: 4:41 PM EDT
DETROIT (Reuters) -- Ford Motor Co. said Wednesday it plans to sell a subsidiary that provides extended-care warranties and service contracts for new and used vehicles.
The No. 2 U.S. automaker, facing a deepening financial crisis, said it wants to offload Automobile Protection Corp. (APCO), which has access to Ford's distribution network and sells contracts through Ford dealers in the United States.
Shares of Ford (up $0.08 to $8.27, Charts) jumped 1.1 percent in afternoon trade on the New York Stock Exchange.
The move is the first since Alan Mulally, a former head of Boeing Co.'s (down $0.49 to $81.64, Charts) commercial airplane unit, took over as chief executive of the troubled automaker.
Ford has sold some noncore businesses in the last year, including car rental company Hertz Corp., to improve liquidity.
The company has previously said it was looking to sell a stake in Aston Martin, its British luxury unit.
Ford, which is in the process of closing 16 plants and cutting 45,000 employees to return its North American unit to profit, purchased APCO in July 1999.
"APCO is a strong company that has performed very well, achieving growth in sales and revenue since its acquisition," Ford Chief Financial Officer Don Leclair said. "As a result of our ongoing strategic review, we believe it is prudent now for us to consider a sale of APCO."
Shares of rival automaker DaimlerChrysler (down $0.19 to $49.80, Charts) edged lower, while General Motors (up $0.23 to $32.13, Charts) and Toyota (up $0.77 to $115.77, Charts) edged higher in New York.
http://money.cnn.com/2006/10/11/news/companies/ford_warranties.reut/?postversion=2006101116
Interesting article re the farcical nature of trade week, as the push towards a form of free agency grows.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20592809-36035,00.html
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20592809-36035,00.html
Thanks for the article T00, fascinating reading.
I was very interested in the comment from Pelchen regarding only trading for a clear win. He has hit the nail right on the head. Mind you, he is probably the biggest culprit in this area as well.
There would be a lot more trades if clubs took the view that they had too many ruckmen and not enough whatevers so they would look for a club that needs a ruckman and strike a fair deal. The players win and so do both clubs.
The other problem is that clubs simply don't have enough to trade. Most clubs have taken the early draft picks off the table, they sign up all their required players beforehand and don't want unproven players. Everybody is paranoid about taking a risk in case it comes back to bite them so nothing happens. What do they have left to trade with anyway?
And then you get clubs like Essendon who try to get involved in everything hoping to make the exercise so complicated that something valuable will slip through to them. They are the trade "tyre-kickers."
I was very interested in the comment from Pelchen regarding only trading for a clear win. He has hit the nail right on the head. Mind you, he is probably the biggest culprit in this area as well.
There would be a lot more trades if clubs took the view that they had too many ruckmen and not enough whatevers so they would look for a club that needs a ruckman and strike a fair deal. The players win and so do both clubs.
The other problem is that clubs simply don't have enough to trade. Most clubs have taken the early draft picks off the table, they sign up all their required players beforehand and don't want unproven players. Everybody is paranoid about taking a risk in case it comes back to bite them so nothing happens. What do they have left to trade with anyway?
And then you get clubs like Essendon who try to get involved in everything hoping to make the exercise so complicated that something valuable will slip through to them. They are the trade "tyre-kickers."
Some ideas that can improve trading -
- Just have a cut-off date for trading. The clubs can deal all they want from their last game to say October 31. It will give the bottom 8 teams more time but they need more impovement to their list. This way clubs can trade in private. If you just have a week where everyone is in the same room, you are obviously gonna see what the next club has to offer and so on.
- Have a supplimentary list which all clubs place their potential delistings/tradeables into. These players can then nominate which club they want and can get there as a free agent if the club wants them. Don't have to waste a PSD pick.
- Have a trading period after the draft. This way needs can be filled if the clubs didn't fill them with the draft.
- Have a mid season trading period and/or draft. If a club is on the verge of finals, and are short on a key forward, they would then probably be willing to pay over the odds (in terms of aplayer or draft pick) for a player from another club to get them into the finals and towards a flag.
- Just have a cut-off date for trading. The clubs can deal all they want from their last game to say October 31. It will give the bottom 8 teams more time but they need more impovement to their list. This way clubs can trade in private. If you just have a week where everyone is in the same room, you are obviously gonna see what the next club has to offer and so on.
- Have a supplimentary list which all clubs place their potential delistings/tradeables into. These players can then nominate which club they want and can get there as a free agent if the club wants them. Don't have to waste a PSD pick.
- Have a trading period after the draft. This way needs can be filled if the clubs didn't fill them with the draft.
- Have a mid season trading period and/or draft. If a club is on the verge of finals, and are short on a key forward, they would then probably be willing to pay over the odds (in terms of aplayer or draft pick) for a player from another club to get them into the finals and towards a flag.
Harry said:
Some sound ideas there, Harry. I always liked the old Mid-season draft, it was a very good way to keep a squad solid despite injuries, loss of form to key players etc.
Could the basic problem be that squads are simply too small? Clubs have to choose between kids who are not ready for AFL action and depth players. IF they could carry squads of 50 or so players, they might try to have both.
With larger squads clubs could be quite happy to allow 2-4 year players an extra season to show something and might be tempted to recruit a player like Krakouer or Tivendale as insurance against injury, esp if the price was low.
With the squad size where it is, teams just can't afford to keep anyone who isn't playing regular senior footy for very long at all and can only recruit experienced players at the expense of youngsters. Once a player gets onto an AFL list he may need 4-5 years to develop properly but is under pressure after one. It looks like close to 100 careers might be over this year due to the strength of this particular draft and that is a bit of a pity. Some of them have barely been able to fire a shot in anger.
On the other hand, 2002 was a weak draft and recycled players were being recruited very early on in the draft. I guess it sorts itself out over time.
Couple of ideas to improve trade week;
1)Trade week should be done over two days and then the draft should happen and then there should be another five hour trade period for the new kids.
2) Have three trade periods of one day, like soccer but make them one day long instead of three months
a)One the day after the draft after the draft
b)One after the season like we have know but one day long
c)One before round 8 or the mid season break to allow teams to change things up to cover the injuries or holes.
1)Trade week should be done over two days and then the draft should happen and then there should be another five hour trade period for the new kids.
2) Have three trade periods of one day, like soccer but make them one day long instead of three months
a)One the day after the draft after the draft
b)One after the season like we have know but one day long
c)One before round 8 or the mid season break to allow teams to change things up to cover the injuries or holes.
I like the idea of a non-bias independant third party assisting with trades.
Part of this would be valuing players actual worth before any deals as opposed to the unreasonable expectations clubs have for their rejects.
Part of this would be valuing players actual worth before any deals as opposed to the unreasonable expectations clubs have for their rejects.
Harry said:
Didn't the clubs request trade week? Gets it all over for them and the players quickly. Don't think you can leave players in a quandary for 3 months.
Harry said:
Isn't this pretty much the PSD by another name?
Harry said:
I favour the US method of trading during/with the draft, both picks and players. But it is workable now.
Harry said:
Can't recall why this was abolished? Maybe too disruptive for clubs to suddenly take in new players mid-season. Still, it works for the Premier League so worth considering again.