Regarding Taranto. We still have the list gap that motivated the Dunkley trade. The development of Parish and Stringer has made it less critical, but we could still benefit from a strong contested player.
I don’t think it’s a critical need, drafting probably solves the problem, but we would get value from the mythical Taranto trade.
I’m more old school in that the clubs should have more power than the player…. I used to curse at Sheeds for trading my favourite players. But it was often best for the club.
The argument is always “the players should be able to choose their work place.”
This bullsh!t. The AFL is the employer. If you choose to enter the AFL system, you’ll lose the right to choose which team you play for.
This also doesn’t happen in the real world. I can’t decide who I work for. I can’t decide to walk up to an Apple store, and say I’m working for you…. But I can choose where I live.
But imagine you were the best mobile phone seller in Melbourne and for whatever reason everyone knew it. You’d be able to walk from your job in the Telstra store to the Apple store and say ‘hey I want to work here now and here are my terms’ and if they could afford it they would employ you.
Yeah except this is a false equivalency since there is no competitor employer in the footy industry that you can go to if you don’t like the terms laid out by either party.
With footy, it is the AFL and if you don’t like it then tough ■■■■
Good point, so I think it is appropriate/good that the 800 best players negotiate as a unit and if the AFL tries to take away some part of the CBA then they can all say tough ■■■■ back to the AFL.