Don’t know what you do for a living, but how about you want to move back to your home State after finishing a work contract, and your Employer says no way ?
Players have Fark all power. They start their careers being forced into a club not of their choice, maybe have to move 3000 km from their Mum, and get treated like a commodity if the Club see a better opportunity.
There are ten other clubs to move back to in melbourne. Adelaide is saying ok to trade you but I want to maximise value given the years I have developed you. All the Crows said yesterday is we want to optimise value - you can still be back in Victoria. He isnt a free agent that has earned the right to choose which team you go to. I think players should have to nominate 2-3 options where possible. Every state has at least 2 teams. I can’s see how you compare a professional sports person to normal work conditions. What 21 year old is earning $750k?
I don’t get it.
If a player is gonna be delisted does he get to say, “But you’ve only given me three years?”*
* Obviously wouldn’t happen at Essendon, but, you know, other clubs that don’t give everyone seven** years to blossom.
**Alright, nine.
I don’t see how that’s fair. Let’s say melbourne are offering $750k, and the next highest bidder in Victora are only prepared to pay $500k, why on earth should Lever be penalised $250k because the two clubs, over whom he has zero control, can’t get a deal done? What if the crows decided to take a worse deal from the lower offer team just to spite him, should there be rules to prevent that? And realistically, which club is going to choose to be the second or third nominee knowing that he only wants to go to melbourne? As it stands, clubs generally won’t take players in the PSD who haven’t nominated them because nobody wants a player who doesn’t want to be there.
In terms of creating a fair (or at least even) competition from the point of view of the clubs, I don’t know what the solution is but at least the AFL is in good company, because there isn’t a notable league in the world that’s solved the problem.
Great points splitround.
My thoughts are:
Your draft contract tenure should be at least 3 years and probably 4 for first round picks.
if you are very good then the club will often extend your contract and add in more $ on existing contract. Its up to the player if they sign that. Draft picks first few seasons should also get paid substantially higher match fees than average IMO as well.
if you are out of contract you should be able to go wherever you like.
if you are in contract your current club should be able to trade you to any club of their choosing as long as the key financial (and associated) contract requirements are met or exceeded. The only exceptions of this should perhaps be in your first 2 years after being drafted for the first time and if you make $ under a nominated cut off level.
as AFL becomes more professional and wages increase we will see Clubs attain far more power. However giving clubs power over the destination of players when they are paid under 100k is in some ways immoral. If someone signed up for a Grad programme and then got told 6 months later that they needed to go to Adelaide or they are in breach of contract that would be crap. I understand however the idiosyncrasies of the draft and that is exactly what happens. Which is a contradiction. But a contradiction all potential draftees sign up for anyhow.
Can you clarify on this point L2L? I assume you mean “if you are in contract and want to leave”… If that’s the case, I agree.
As far as I’m concerned, the party breaking the contract shouldn’t get a say. So if the club says they want to trade away a contracted player (eg. Stringer), he can choose where he goes. But if a contracted player decides to walk (eg. Ryder) he should get no say in his destination.
Uncontracted players I agree, should be able to go where they like.
It’s a moot point, given that every Club faces the same salary cap.
The Crows have been playing the Cats/Dawks game, i.e. asking all players to keep their salaries in check (if they wish to chase flags). And, it almost worked! They (allegedly) offered him $650K as their final offer. And it was suggested that this amount would have made him the (or close to the) highest paid player at the Crows. Wow! Awesome list management (if true).
Dees are losing the plot. $800K for a young bloke, who isn’t considered a key defender. Double the money (?) & contract length we were offering Pig. Keeping Hogan? Keeping their talented mids happy?
I think we are heading in the right direction. I reckon Joey and Zerrett accepted less than Lever, as they want success. It is clear as day that Lever is chasing the ‘ka-ching’. If Dees fall for it, so be it. They will suffer LT (if his potential doesn’t meet/exceed his earnings). Not our problem, so chill.
You are ignoring that it is a job to play AFL, and that in many occupations, big dollars are available for top performers even at a young age. I have seen post graduates straight out of university take jobs of over $500k in the finance industry as an example, and some young IT gurus get contract work at $3000 per day.
You get an AFL contract due to your talent, and while Clubs provide coaches and facilities, Players develop their own talents to improve their performance. The harder they work the luckier they get !
Lever has done the correct and honourable thing and fulfilled his contract. He surely has the right to continue his profession where he likes and to negotiate the best deal.
In my view, he is a gun and worth whatever Melbourne will pay. Pity he will not become a Bomber.
Based on your argument that should give clubs the ability to trade players in contract to whomever they like.
The players have far too much power.
Why ?
Lever is out of contract. He has honoured the previous one and wants a new deal at a club of his choice. Clubs should honour contracts as well. Trying to sell blokes, like Watts on contract is just wrong.
Players have the right to as much power as any other employee. Young guys in the draft have no rights or power.
Clubs always have the option to give ten year contract with a performance clause to lock players in.
But Watts can’t be traded without his permission.
I question what the worth of free agency is if you can force a trade whenever you like.
Rules need to be fairer. As a supporter I prefer the power to make decisions to be in the clubs hands not the players. And considering the money generated for this game comes from us we should be respected.
Well BF and myself disagree with you so the power is our hands 2 to 1 so you lose out.
The power shouldn’t be in the hands of players or clubs, it should be a shared power as both are impacted by decisions made. It is about getting that right rather than trying to keep it as one or the other.
Poor little Adelaide. A player out of contract wants to go and work somewhere else… diddums.
Reminds me of something a famous philosopher said:
“If you liked it then you shoulda put a ring on it”.
EAD, Adelaide.
But the power is clearly in the hands of the players. That’s the point.
When was the last time a club traded a player without their permission?
When was the last time a player changed clubs without permission?
Do you think Adelaide want Lever to go?
What options do they have?
Gibbs wanted to leave mid contract. Bloos wanted to keep him but were willing to give him a chance to leave. Crows behaved like children so Bloos told Gibbs he couldn’t move.
He is OUT OF CONTRACT, he can leave if he wants. Crows have a chance to trade him, if they don’t then they delist him and he moves anyway. It is fair and reasonable for a player who isn’t working for them anymore to head off if they want. That doesn’t give the player power, it just gives him his rights.
What is free agency?
