http://m.afl.com.au/news/2015-02-21/clubs-deserve-power-dimma.mobileapp
Well thought out. Basically:
Kids who aren’t free agents shouldn’t dictate where they want to go.
by allowing clubs to trade players against their wishes, would allow clubs to be more competitive and get fairer value.
I like this idea. Think about the clubs who got bent over due to players wanting to go to their preferred club (usually premiership contenders)…
Quoted PostPlayers should have somewhat of a say in where they work.If they are under contact and want to leave, then they should not. They have a contract and unless the club is not meeting their side of the contract, then the player should either fulfil their side of it or if they can’t, the club should be able to choose where they go.
Bullshit.
no worker should ever be forced to work where they no longer wish to.
that said their should be a clause protecting the clubs interest in so far as compensation is concerned.
Agree wholeheartedly.
The voice of reason - well said Dimma. Such a glaring problem - must be addressed ASAP. Hopefully now one coach has come out in support the majority will add voice and force the AFL’s hand.
Ryder is a classic case of why this needs to be fixed.
Pandora’s box is open now - can’t imagine the precious players signing up to this.
Logic would suggest it would be a natural balance to FA coming in. Anyone with eyes could tell you while everyone wants to get to Hawthorn or Sydney, it’s not a healthy market. Contracts mean less than nothing, a guy with 2 years left can up and go, because Hird.
So… I can’t see it happening.
I reckon the players will sign up to it if they get a concession they want like owering the eligibility requirements for free agency, or a bigger percentage of the revenue.
Pandora's box is open now - can't imagine the precious players signing up to this.Logic would suggest it would be a natural balance to FA coming in. Anyone with eyes could tell you while everyone wants to get to Hawthorn or Sydney, it’s not a healthy market. Contracts mean less than nothing, a guy with 2 years left can up and go, because Hird.
So… I can’t see it happening.
100% spot on. With players able to break their contracts for little compensation, clubs should be able to do the same thing. As long as the players current terms are met, then the club should be allowed to ship him off for wherever they get the greatest return.
Contracted players also should not be allowed to dictate where they go either if they want to be traded.
Absolutely ridiculous that Ryder and Port and Beams and Brisbane were basically allowed to ■■■■ us and Collingwood over.
If things at your current club are so bad and you want out so badly then surely you will be happy to go whereever to get out of that environment. You are breaking a contract with the club, you shouldn’t be allowed to give an opposition club the upper hand in negoitations by then stating you will only go to that one club.
If players don’t want to ever play for a particular club they can build that into their contract when the sign with a club. For example, it is commen in professional Leagues in the US for players to have no trade clauses built into their contracts. For example, the Seattle Mariners were interested in trading for Justin Upton a few seasons ago, but it never went anywhere because when they talked to his club at the time it was found that the Mariners were one of the clubs listed in his no trade clause in his contract.
Players should have somewhat of a say in where they work.
Players should have somewhat of a say in where they work.
If they are under contact and want to leave, then they should not. They have a contract and unless the club is not meeting their side of the contract, then the player should either fulfil their side of it or if they can’t, the club should be able to choose where they go.
Yeah I agree with Dimma. I do think Free Agency should stay, because if you have served a reasonable length of time in the AFL system, you deserve the right to move to the club of your choice once you are out of contract. But if you are under contract, I don’t think the player should have the power. AFL is a business more than ever before, so therefore players should be able to be traded against their wishes if another club makes a trade offer that is commensurate to that player’s worth. Unless a player has a “no-trade clause” or that a trade can only take place by mutual consent in his deal, then it should be open slather.
Contracted players should not be able to go wherever they want. The Ryder and Beams situations last year were a disgrace.
I support anything that addresses that issue.
Quoted PostQuoted PostPlayers should have somewhat of a say in where they work.If they are under contact and want to leave, then they should not. They have a contract and unless the club is not meeting their side of the contract, then the player should either fulfil their side of it or if they can’t, the club should be able to choose where they go.
Bullshit.
no worker should ever be forced to work where they no longer wish to.
that said their should be a clause protecting the clubs interest in so far as compensation is concerned.
Tell that to military personnel 
Regardless - I kinda agree with you anyway. I want the sport to remain parochial. I don’t want teams to blend in with each other, swapping players at will, all for the goal of a flag and the lure of a dollar. I don’t just follow the Red&Black - I also follow those players I’ve grown to know and love over time. Fark this changing uniform mid-stream bullshit.
Regarding contracts - stfu and do your time, ■■■■■. You signed up as an adult - live with it.
AFL employees not club employees.
Quoted PostQuoted PostQuoted PostPlayers should have somewhat of a say in where they work.If they are under contact and want to leave, then they should not. They have a contract and unless the club is not meeting their side of the contract, then the player should either fulfil their side of it or if they can’t, the club should be able to choose where they go.
Bullshit.
no worker should ever be forced to work where they no longer wish to.
that said their should be a clause protecting the clubs interest in so far as compensation is concerned.
Tell that to military personnel
Regardless - I kinda agree with you anyway. I want the sport to remain parochial. I don’t want teams to blend in with each other, swapping players at will, all for the goal of a flag and the lure of a dollar. I don’t just follow the Red&Black - I also follow those players I’ve grown to know and love over time. Fark this changing uniform mid-stream bullshit.
Regarding contracts - stfu and do your time, ■■■■■. You signed up as an adult - live with it.
I am ex Army
I am also now an advocate for workers
Quoted PostQuoted PostQuoted PostQuoted PostPlayers should have somewhat of a say in where they work.If they are under contact and want to leave, then they should not. They have a contract and unless the club is not meeting their side of the contract, then the player should either fulfil their side of it or if they can’t, the club should be able to choose where they go.
Bullshit.
no worker should ever be forced to work where they no longer wish to.
that said their should be a clause protecting the clubs interest in so far as compensation is concerned.
Tell that to military personnel
Regardless - I kinda agree with you anyway. I want the sport to remain parochial. I don’t want teams to blend in with each other, swapping players at will, all for the goal of a flag and the lure of a dollar. I don’t just follow the Red&Black - I also follow those players I’ve grown to know and love over time. Fark this changing uniform mid-stream bullshit.
Regarding contracts - stfu and do your time, ■■■■■. You signed up as an adult - live with it.
I am ex Army
I am also now an advocate for workers
Not sure that has anything to do with anything.
I’m agreeing with you.
Quoted PostQuoted PostPlayers should have somewhat of a say in where they work.If they are under contact and want to leave, then they should not. They have a contract and unless the club is not meeting their side of the contract, then the player should either fulfil their side of it or if they can’t, the club should be able to choose where they go.
Bullshit.
no worker should ever be forced to work where they no longer wish to.
that said their should be a clause protecting the clubs interest in so far as compensation is concerned.
So the protection is provided by who in this situation? Where does the guaranteed compensation come from?
Quoted PostQuoted PostPlayers should have somewhat of a say in where they work.If they are under contact and want to leave, then they should not. They have a contract and unless the club is not meeting their side of the contract, then the player should either fulfil their side of it or if they can’t, the club should be able to choose where they go.
Bullshit.
no worker should ever be forced to work where they no longer wish to.
that said their should be a clause protecting the clubs interest in so far as compensation is concerned.
All workers should think about that when they sign contracts.
Quoted PostQuoted PostPlayers should have somewhat of a say in where they work.If they are under contact and want to leave, then they should not. They have a contract and unless the club is not meeting their side of the contract, then the player should either fulfil their side of it or if they can’t, the club should be able to choose where they go.
Bullshit.
no worker should ever be forced to work where they no longer wish to.
that said their should be a clause protecting the clubs interest in so far as compensation is concerned.
Clubs have genreally shown that when a player wants to leave, either at the end of a contract or during, they do the right thing. Nobody wants a player/worker around that doesn’t want to be there anymore if it can be helped.
FA is not the problem clubs can work around that, and i wouldn’t go as far as allowing clubs to ship people off mid-term, but if a payer wants to leave during a contract fine you go where the best deal is for the club or fulfil your contract.
If a pure draft pick/player swap cannot be met you should be allowed to supplement this with financial coverage where the buying club pays salary comensation to the selling club with adjustments in the cap to adjust on both sides. (ie the selling club reduces their cap spend by the amount)
Players who are front loaded should also have to pay back any difference. Opposite for the club on backended deals.
Dimma’s point is you have the utterly ridiculous Tom Boyd situation, whereby the Dogs will (hopefully) benefit from having him and GWS basically get nothing for their initial investment in him.
Yes, FA must stay, but, only for those who have rightly earned it through experience. Not for 20-21 year olds.