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..
Ryan Griffin and pick 5 is hardly nothing.
I don’t get what this solves? Are we suggesting players can be shipped off mid term against their will? If so I don’t like it. And it’s not fair I don’t think when some blokes are only [yes “only”] on 200-300k. For a sport where you’re on $4 mil a year you’d go shovel ■■■■ in Alice Springs but that’s not the case in AFL.
I don’t get how this affects the Ryder/Beams thing. We probably won’t see the ASADA/Illness thing again for a while at least but nothing would fix that. Your club trades them, or seems like total dicks. It’d still happen under this other system.
If it’s an overhaul to the whole “walk in the PSD” thing I can see how that’d help.
Players under contract should honour their contracts.
Unfortunately re: Paddy, we were in the middle of being screwed of our draft picks.
In a normal world we should’ve taken the hit and told Paddy - sorry you’re going nowhere. If he chose to sit out, bad luck to him. Put him on the long term injury list, take him to court for not honouring his contract and play a rookie. Clubs should stick strong on the issue. It would’ve taught his manager a lesson as well.
Did Beams break mid contract at the pies? If so, Eddie and Collingwood are weak and have pea hearts - i thought he was better than that.
Dimma obviously thinks Paddy is a cvnt.
I don't get what this solves? Are we suggesting players can be shipped off mid term against their will? If so I don't like it. And it's not fair I don't think when some blokes are only [yes "only"] on 200-300k. For a sport where you're on $4 mil a year you'd go shovel ■■■■ in Alice Springs but that's not the case in AFL.I don’t get how this affects the Ryder/Beams thing. We probably won’t see the ASADA/Illness thing again for a while at least but nothing would fix that. Your club trades them, or seems like total dicks. It’d still happen under this other system.
If it’s an overhaul to the whole “walk in the PSD” thing I can see how that’d help.
Beams, Ryder, Griffen, Boyd, Clark, Cooney all traded while under contract this season. Three of those are “special circumstances”, three of them aren’t, they’re just players wanting to leave and nominating a club. I don’t like where the power balance in trades sits at the moment, and it’s not going to change without some sort of rule change.
If anything it wouldn’t affect “walk to the PSD” at all, because it’s a discussion about contracted players, not players whose contract has run out.
Quoted PostDimma'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..
Ryan Griffin and pick 5 is hardly nothing.
GWS won that trade by a mile
Quoted PostQuoted PostDimma'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..
Ryan Griffin and pick 5 is hardly nothing.
GWS won that trade by a mile
Yep they got an elite AFL midflielder with at least 2-3 years of good football left, and they got the Bulldogs to still pay part of his salary (I believe) and they got a downgrade of a draft pick of 4 places on the draft pick they used on the guy who wanted out who they picked up the previous season, who had made it clear he would seek a trade at the end of the next season once out of contract. ’
So in summary, they got an already elite AFL midfielder and a draft pick to allow access to elite junior talent for a young kid who has not proven himself at AFL level.
On the other hand the Bulldogs have committed a serious chunk of their salary cap for 7 years on a kid who might not ever make it for some reason, whether that turns out to be that he is not good enough at AFL level or because his career is ruined by injury.
I think the trade worked out well for GWS too especially given the absurd contract Boyd got, but call pick 5 “elite junior talent” and Boyd “unproven young kid” is some serious editorialising. If pick 5 is “elite junior talent” then Boyd is also “elite junior talent”, in fact he’s “eliter junior talent”.
I think the trade worked out well for GWS too especially given the absurd contract Boyd got, but call pick 5 "elite junior talent" and Boyd "unproven young kid" is some serious editorialising. If pick 5 is "elite junior talent" then Boyd is also "elite junior talent", in fact he's "eliter junior talent".
true…but the point I was making out was that they were getting elite AFL talent and elite junior talent, for possibly slightly more elite junior talent which has significantly hamstrung an oppositions’ club ability to financially secure their own talent and poach other team’s talent in years to come.
Quoted PostI don't get what this solves? Are we suggesting players can be shipped off mid term against their will? If so I don't like it. And it's not fair I don't think when some blokes are only [yes "only"] on 200-300k. For a sport where you're on $4 mil a year you'd go shovel ■■■■ in Alice Springs but that's not the case in AFL.I don’t get how this affects the Ryder/Beams thing. We probably won’t see the ASADA/Illness thing again for a while at least but nothing would fix that. Your club trades them, or seems like total dicks. It’d still happen under this other system.
If it’s an overhaul to the whole “walk in the PSD” thing I can see how that’d help.
Beams, Ryder, Griffen, Boyd, Clark, Cooney all traded while under contract this season. Three of those are “special circumstances”, three of them aren’t, they’re just players wanting to leave and nominating a club. I don’t like where the power balance in trades sits at the moment, and it’s not going to change without some sort of rule change.
If anything it wouldn’t affect “walk to the PSD” at all, because it’s a discussion about contracted players, not players whose contract has run out.
But that’s the club’s fault. If they were under contract, the club doesn’t have to trade them at all.
I think the trade worked out well for GWS too especially given the absurd contract Boyd got, but call pick 5 "elite junior talent" and Boyd "unproven young kid" is some serious editorialising. If pick 5 is "elite junior talent" then Boyd is also "elite junior talent", in fact he's "eliter junior talent".
ELITEST
Quoted PostQuoted PostI don't get what this solves? Are we suggesting players can be shipped off mid term against their will? If so I don't like it. And it's not fair I don't think when some blokes are only [yes "only"] on 200-300k. For a sport where you're on $4 mil a year you'd go shovel ■■■■ in Alice Springs but that's not the case in AFL.I don’t get how this affects the Ryder/Beams thing. We probably won’t see the ASADA/Illness thing again for a while at least but nothing would fix that. Your club trades them, or seems like total dicks. It’d still happen under this other system.
If it’s an overhaul to the whole “walk in the PSD” thing I can see how that’d help.
Beams, Ryder, Griffen, Boyd, Clark, Cooney all traded while under contract this season. Three of those are “special circumstances”, three of them aren’t, they’re just players wanting to leave and nominating a club. I don’t like where the power balance in trades sits at the moment, and it’s not going to change without some sort of rule change.
If anything it wouldn’t affect “walk to the PSD” at all, because it’s a discussion about contracted players, not players whose contract has run out.
But that’s the club’s fault. If they were under contract, the club doesn’t have to trade them at all.
It’s not our fault Paddy desperately needed to just get out of Essendon… and only going to the best up and coming side in the league could fix his issues.
If a player wants to leave mid contract, they shouldn’t be able to handpick where they go. Imagine if we could have actually traded with GWS last year?
I’m saying Paddy and Beams are outliers, they will happen once every 5 years. And there’s not much you can do and the whole thing shouldn’t change because of it. You’d hope ASADA would never happen again and in the Beams situation both clubs would play ball and work out a fair trade to fix a genuine family issue.
Excluding those two irregular occurrences, players cannot “handpick where they go” bar free agency. So again, what’s the point of this article/discussion?
I'm saying Paddy and Beams are outliers, they will happen once every 5 years. And there's not much you can do and the whole thing shouldn't change because of it. You'd hope ASADA would never happen again and in the Beams situation both clubs would play ball and work out a fair trade to fix a genuine family issue.Excluding those two irregular occurrences, players cannot “handpick where they go” bar free agency. So again, what’s the point of this article/discussion?
I agree with you in principle. Players under contract can’t demand a trade. Except they do, regularly, and almost always go to where they want, not to where the best trade is. So, yeah, a lot of it could be dealt with by clubs telling players to suck it up more often, and maybe that will start to happen more, considering more and more contracted players are requesting trades. If clubs just tell them they’re ■■■■ out of luck, maybe that will sort out the problem.
Brisbane got screwed 2 years ago too. 5 first round draft picks demanded out to a particular club… (polec, Karnezis, Yeo etc) only got 2nd and 3rd rounders in return…
can see both sides, I’m not sure giving clubs an excuse to break contracts is going to make players not break contracts to begin with.
Sure it may give clubs more power, but it also opens it up to abuse.
That being said I also don’t agree with players dictating where they go, for the sole fact the clubs can be bent over, and there’s been more cases than just ryder and beams ( whether they were on contract or not).
I think if a player wants to break a contract, the club should be able to get the best deal for themselves, not the player, and vice versa, if a club wants to trade a player mid contract it should be to the players best interest.
but i’m not sure any system will really work, as most clubs are out to get one over the other, instead of just doing a fair deal.
Makes me laugh when people roll out the ‘the time we invested in these kid’. These kids did not asked to go to your club, you picked them anyway, so don’t play the unfair card or they owe us something if they decide to leave after their first contract.
Makes me laugh when people roll out the 'the time we invested in these kid'. These kids did not asked to go to your club, you picked them anyway, so don't play the unfair card or they owe us something if they decide to leave after their first contract.
What you’re implying by your statement would lead to the most lopsided competition ever
Eagles & Dockers would have a monopoly on every WA kid, same for Crows, Ports, Suns, Lions & Giants
Then Vic would be split into 2 - with all the best kids ending up at Collingwood, Carlton, Richmond, Essendon, Cats & Hawks with Dees, Dogs & Roos left to pick up the scraps
Might as well abolish the draft, and just give clubs 2 weeks to do tryouts for everyone that wants to play with them
Quoted PostQuoted PostQuoted PostI don't get what this solves? Are we suggesting players can be shipped off mid term against their will? If so I don't like it. And it's not fair I don't think when some blokes are only [yes "only"] on 200-300k. For a sport where you're on $4 mil a year you'd go shovel ■■■■ in Alice Springs but that's not the case in AFL.I don’t get how this affects the Ryder/Beams thing. We probably won’t see the ASADA/Illness thing again for a while at least but nothing would fix that. Your club trades them, or seems like total dicks. It’d still happen under this other system.
If it’s an overhaul to the whole “walk in the PSD” thing I can see how that’d help.
Beams, Ryder, Griffen, Boyd, Clark, Cooney all traded while under contract this season. Three of those are “special circumstances”, three of them aren’t, they’re just players wanting to leave and nominating a club. I don’t like where the power balance in trades sits at the moment, and it’s not going to change without some sort of rule change.
If anything it wouldn’t affect “walk to the PSD” at all, because it’s a discussion about contracted players, not players whose contract has run out.
But that’s the club’s fault. If they were under contract, the club doesn’t have to trade them at all.
It’s not our fault Paddy desperately needed to just get out of Essendon… and only going to the best up and coming side in the league could fix his issues.
If a player wants to leave mid contract, they shouldn’t be able to handpick where they go. Imagine if we could have actually traded with GWS last year?
Should’ve sent him to EDFL or WRFL shitkickers at the bottom of div 3.
I like the idea of judas playing in the vfl for 2 years.