Is the AFL allowing clubs to get bent over by their players?

Football Discussion Non Essendon Stuff
1

I reckon over the last 10 years we have seen too many players start to dictate where they go in both the draft and also during trade periods. This is becoming a joke, and in my honest opinion, a blight on the very foundation of what we believe to be the greatest game on earth. What happened to just playing for the love of the game? Now clubs just spend countless dollars, time and resources training kids (who they think will love playing for them and possibly lead them to a premiership) want to leave after 1 or 2 years to only 1 club of choice.

Think of Brisbane losing the likes of Polec, Karnezis, Yeo, Longer and Aish to name a few. All first round draft picks, gone in the space of 3 years for what? a bunch of second and third rounders and all dictated where they wanted to go which left Brisbane very little room to get a fair deal. How is this fair?

What about the likes of Luke Ball who chose to enter the draft and then dictate that he will only play for Collingwood, or Chad “Im too precious to leave South Australia” Wingard who told all the clubs before Port that he will not play for an interstate club?

I understand that players want more say about where they want to go, and as such the AFL have introduced free agency. But we still see players dictate and manipulate the system to get to their preferred destination (Tom Boyd anyone?).

If we want a fair system, I believe the only way to get this is to allow clubs the choice to have more control of players contracts or at least close loop holes and slap players with harsh penalties. If players want to leave before they are out of contract, why should they be able to dictate the exact club which gives their current no power when it comes to getting a fair deal. For example, Ryder and Polec wanting to get to Port? Why cant the club get 3 options of a preferred destination or simply follow most sports get compensation in the form of transfer fees or just simply trade a player to the club who offers the best deal (might not be the ideal club, but they get traded which is what they want and allows them to get the best deal possible). If a player tries to tamper the draft or refuses to play for their club, slap them with a ban and compensate their current club.

We have seen some clubs stick firm. GWS chose not to trade Cam McCarthy because he was still on contract. Yes it made them look like total p**cks and now he wants indefinite leave, but it told the media, fans and players that they were not going to be dictated to. Port took the other McCarthy in the rookie draft and stopped him getting to Richmond (his preferred destination) showed balls.

Yes it might not seem the nice thing to do with these young boys and men, but in the end clubs are a business. In the real word, you dont get to dictate what you do when you’re in a contract and are expected to honour it, or quit the profession. You cannot just go up to your boss and say “Hey I want out, send me to company abc” so why should these men? they get paid big bucks to play something they love.

2
Also the entire problem seems to be that the almighty dollar is having stuff all say in things.

Otherwise there’d be guys leaving squeezed teams to go to crap teams.

Quite the opposite is happening, guys leave coin on the table to go to successful clubs Hawthorn.


I can think of one very notable exception.

PICK FIVE.
3
Also the entire problem seems to be that the almighty dollar is having stuff all say in things.

Otherwise there’d be guys leaving squeezed teams to go to crap teams.

Quite the opposite is happening, guys leave coin on the table to go to successful clubs Hawthorn.


I can think of one very notable exception.
4

Yes, and deliberately.

AFL, players and clubs all know that the draft/trade system would not stand up in court, but that some version of it is required to keep the competition somewhat level and not dominated by the same half dozen rich clubs every year. It’s more a matter of degree than anything else.

Having said that, the AFL is generally always in favour of players finding it easier to switch clubs, for a few different reasons.

  • it keeps the AFL in the news more over the off-season
  • it weakens the clubs and forces them to fight one another over players, which means they’re less likely to band together against the AFL
  • it weakens the bond of player to club, which means that retired players in the media or business are less likely to feel loyalty and provide ‘their’ club with a power base, mouthpiece, and/or funding sources which would allow the club to more easily oppose or stand independent from the AFL

I strongly suspect that one day some player will challenge the whole trade/draft/cap edifice in court on the grounds of restraint of trade, and it’ll look very likely to come tumbling down, though I also suspect that if/when this happens the AFLs furious lobbying will result in govt passing an exemption measure and we’ll be back to status quo, except for the ‘brave’ player who would be best advised to be sure he has a source of income in an industry completely unrelated to footy, cos he’ll sure as hell never play again.

5

The rules are fine.

However, as with all their rules, the AFL either ignore or selectively enforce them based on their whim of the time.

6

Just treat football contracts as business contracts. Unless both parties agree, you keep your contract, or there is a penalty, including but not limited to the remaining portion of payments.

You are on 4 years, $500 pa, and want to leave after 2. If club agrees, great… You go, club stops paying. Club disagrees, you either come to terms, or you lose your previous two years pay. You broke the contract. Your next club can pick up the tab, or you wear it.

Clubs must pay your contract regardless of your performance, you health, or your attitude. They can’t just say "see you later, we’re replacing you’ until the contract is up. If they do, they need to pay out the contract. It should apply both ways. You leave, you pay back your contact.

7

The balance of power has definitely shifted heavily into the player’s and player’s managers favour, but clubs haven’t completely lost power in the process. They are still attracting players to their clubs, it’s just that the club losing the player has lost power in the trade by having their hand Forced. In this era clubs are too busy trying to scew each other over in trades and rarely looking to find a mutually beneficial outcome. It’s a case of get the player and manger on side then fark the club we’re getting him from. port and the saints did exactly that with us.

Brisbane is a different issue to the one you raise for me. Brisbane is haemorrhaging because the system is forcing kids to move to another state away from their family and friends. Now either Brisbane just isn’t interviewing these kids right upfront to ensure they will cope with the move, or their support and culture isn’t good enough to help them work through the homesickness.

8
Yes, and deliberately.

AFL, players and clubs all know that the draft/trade system would not stand up in court, but that some version of it is required to keep the competition somewhat level and not dominated by the same half dozen rich clubs every year. It’s more a matter of degree than anything else.

Having said that, the AFL is generally always in favour of players finding it easier to switch clubs, for a few different reasons.

  • it keeps the AFL in the news more over the off-season
  • it weakens the clubs and forces them to fight one another over players, which means they’re less likely to band together against the AFL
  • it weakens the bond of player to club, which means that retired players in the media or business are less likely to feel loyalty and provide ‘their’ club with a power base, mouthpiece, and/or funding sources which would allow the club to more easily oppose or stand independent from the AFL

I strongly suspect that one day some player will challenge the whole trade/draft/cap edifice in court on the grounds of restraint of trade, and it’ll look very likely to come tumbling down, though I also suspect that if/when this happens the AFLs furious lobbying will result in govt passing an exemption measure and we’ll be back to status quo, except for the ‘brave’ player who would be best advised to be sure he has a source of income in an industry completely unrelated to footy, cos he’ll sure as hell never play again.

Silvio Foschini

9

In a fantasy world where sll players were equal in all things, the current system would be fine. Like for like. However, in the real world the system can never work fairly. Club A will sacrifice a hefty percentage of their cap to lure an individual, in doing so, taking away potential earnings from the rest of the team. Club B will use this vulnerability to lure player from Club A, and the roundabout goes on.

Attraction of premiership success may retain some players, but equalisation works against that. It’s unrealistic to expect ‘loyalty to a club’ to trump livelihood, with young men. Yet migrating players weakens supporter loyalty.

10
The balance of power has definitely shifted heavily into the player's and player's managers favour, but clubs haven't completely lost power in the process. They are still attracting players to their clubs, it's just that the club losing the player has lost power in the trade by having their hand Forced. In this era clubs are too busy trying to scew each other over in trades and rarely looking to find a mutually beneficial outcome. It's a case of get the player and manger on side then fark the club we're getting him from. port and the saints did exactly that with us.

Brisbane is a different issue to the one you raise for me. Brisbane is haemorrhaging because the system is forcing kids to move to another state away from their family and friends. Now either Brisbane just isn’t interviewing these kids right upfront to ensure they will cope with the move, or their support and culture isn’t good enough to help them work through the homesickness.

You cant say the AFL forcing kids to move away from home is a reason. These kids sign up to play afl and should be willing to move. Unless the afl are prepared to go back to zones, kids should serve their contract tenure and then move.

11

Playing AFL is a job. Average career lasts a couple of years. Players should be able to maximise their earning potential in those few years before they join the rest of us plebs in the workforce. And most of us plebs know that the best way to a pay increase is to switch jobs. Why should it be different for footballers?

12
Playing AFL is a job. Average career lasts a couple of years. Players should be able to maximise their earning potential in those few years before they join the rest of us plebs in the workforce. And most of us plebs know that the best way to a pay increase is to switch jobs. Why should it be different for footballers?

Because, sport is an entertainment industry, and supporters are the audience. It’s a delicate balance.
I’m not necessarily against players maximising their income, though I am against minimising supporters’ enjoyment.

13
Playing AFL is a job. Average career lasts a couple of years. Players should be able to maximise their earning potential in those few years before they join the rest of us plebs in the workforce. And most of us plebs know that the best way to a pay increase is to switch jobs. Why should it be different for footballers?

Because, sport is an entertainment industry, and supporters are the audience. It’s a delicate balance.
I’m not necessarily against players maximising their income, though I am against minimising supporters’ enjoyment.


The only measurable metrics of “supporter enjoyment” are attendance and TV ratings. Unless either of them decrease dramatically, expect nothing to change.
14
Playing AFL is a job. Average career lasts a couple of years. Players should be able to maximise their earning potential in those few years before they join the rest of us plebs in the workforce. And most of us plebs know that the best way to a pay increase is to switch jobs. Why should it be different for footballers?

Because, sport is an entertainment industry, and supporters are the audience. It’s a delicate balance.
I’m not necessarily against players maximising their income, though I am against minimising supporters’ enjoyment.

The only measurable metrics of "supporter enjoyment" are attendance and TV ratings. Unless either of them decrease dramatically, expect nothing to change.

No, that’s a measure of income and profit, not of supporter enjoyment. They are related and connected, but not the same.
I never expect anything to change unless financial pressure comes to bear, don’t worry.

15
Yes, and deliberately.

AFL, players and clubs all know that the draft/trade system would not stand up in court, but that some version of it is required to keep the competition somewhat level and not dominated by the same half dozen rich clubs every year. It’s more a matter of degree than anything else.

Having said that, the AFL is generally always in favour of players finding it easier to switch clubs, for a few different reasons.

  • it keeps the AFL in the news more over the off-season
  • it weakens the clubs and forces them to fight one another over players, which means they’re less likely to band together against the AFL
  • it weakens the bond of player to club, which means that retired players in the media or business are less likely to feel loyalty and provide ‘their’ club with a power base, mouthpiece, and/or funding sources which would allow the club to more easily oppose or stand independent from the AFL

I strongly suspect that one day some player will challenge the whole trade/draft/cap edifice in court on the grounds of restraint of trade, and it’ll look very likely to come tumbling down, though I also suspect that if/when this happens the AFLs furious lobbying will result in govt passing an exemption measure and we’ll be back to status quo, except for the ‘brave’ player who would be best advised to be sure he has a source of income in an industry completely unrelated to footy, cos he’ll sure as hell never play again.

Silvio Foschini

Dennis Tutty

16
The balance of power has definitely shifted heavily into the player's and player's managers favour, but clubs haven't completely lost power in the process. They are still attracting players to their clubs, it's just that the club losing the player has lost power in the trade by having their hand Forced. In this era clubs are too busy trying to scew each other over in trades and rarely looking to find a mutually beneficial outcome. It's a case of get the player and manger on side then fark the club we're getting him from. port and the saints did exactly that with us.

Brisbane is a different issue to the one you raise for me. Brisbane is haemorrhaging because the system is forcing kids to move to another state away from their family and friends. Now either Brisbane just isn’t interviewing these kids right upfront to ensure they will cope with the move, or their support and culture isn’t good enough to help them work through the homesickness.

You cant say the AFL forcing kids to move away from home is a reason. These kids sign up to play afl and should be willing to move. Unless the afl are prepared to go back to zones, kids should serve their contract tenure and then move.

They’re forced , in rhe sense that unless they sign away rights they don’t get to play. Thus first port of call thereafter if any disputes arise is court action. Goly gosh surely every Essendon fan must know this.Judge Mud ground Hird into the sewer over thisi.e. his first port of call was not court action.This is why the awful will always find a solution just as the courts steps appear.

17

Looks like Brisbane are going to sign Schache on for another 5 years on top of the 2(?) you get as an initial draftee
Pumping up my own tyres here, but I did call that this would happen more often as clubs try to stop players walking after their initial contract

18

Surely he can walk at any time due to the hazards of living in Queensland?

19
Looks like Brisbane are going to sign Schache on for another 5 years on top of the 2(?) you get as an initial draftee Pumping up my own tyres here, but I did call that this would happen more often as clubs try to stop players walking after their initial contract

I think in that scenario the 5 years replaces the 2

20
Looks like Brisbane are going to sign Schache on for another 5 years on top of the 2(?) you get as an initial draftee Pumping up my own tyres here, but I did call that this would happen more often as clubs try to stop players walking after their initial contract

I think in that scenario the 5 years replaces the 2

According to AFL site the initial contract is 23 months, which can’t be negotiated/changed.

Based off that I would be willing to estimate that it is a new 5 year deal on top of the initial 2