Nah, I disagree. Too many variables and influences and indirect pressures, and finances, and residual income, and alternate support, and… well, totally different.
Adelaide are well within their rights to ask for the piddly pick 10 and 27. FFS he was around pick 10 only a couple of years ago and has shown that he is about as sure a bet for the next 10 years as there is. That is worth a top 5 pick and then some probably.
With respect Deckko, you know nothing about employment contracts then.
I “drafted” a guy from MIT in Boston to come and work for us, his contract has more clauses in it than anything a footballer does.
It includes performance, training criteria, even character and attitude. Based on his previous contract with that esteemed USA University.
And before you start about footy clubs being different, our group has it own supporter bases, sponsors and all the intrigues of any club.
I agree completely, however they are all conditions of employment.
There isn’t a different set of legislation for contracts in the AFL though.
How sure a bet was he on Grand Final day when Jacob Townsend gave him a bath???
Seriously, lot of people frantically over eating this kid if they think he’s worth two 1st round picks. It laughable.
Do those pictures mean what I think they mean?
That some nutter Crows fan has gone to that location and found the clothes?
My god there are some genuine nuffers that follow football
Its Adelaide bro
Is that the town where parents allow players from the team they support to come in to their home and have intercourse with their school age daughters, or is that another town?
In time when the dollars are big enough Clubs should be able to move on players regardless of whether they want to leave
The easiest solution in the afl that is, is restrict clubs ability to trade in players.
Maybe only allow 2 tradeable players in. Or there at at least be a working equation on if you legitimately need more.
They don’t wanna restrict players cos of restraint of trade issues , which I think is mostly just noise by the minority.
But restrict clubs ability to trade , and then they only go chasing players they really really need. Plus also restricting 10 players every off season nomination Geelong or the hawks.
Not until Abby Gilmore says it is
Because he is not eligible for Free Agency!
We have free agency in place because players sooked and wanted it. Now they basically want free agency as soon as they finish a contract (now not even then - Boyd, McCarthy, Gibbs, Ablett). Clubs are wasting top picks and getting half the value back in return. Lever was a top 10 talent and already they are getting screwed by getting lower picks in a weaker draft.
As soon as a player nominates one club only the bargaining power is lost for their current club just like Polec when he demanded to go to Port (all brisbane got back was a pick in the 20s for a top 5 pick). Happened to us with Ryder and Crameri.
You are saying yes he honoured his contract… whoopy freaking dooo. But its not the real world. In the sport industry the AFL/NBA/FIFA are all the main organisation. You sign up to play for this brand. The clubs are all sub branches that live under this umbrella. Just like entering the draft, you sign up not knowing where you are gonna end up.
Now it’s all fair and well to say a player should be able to go to whoever pays them the most money, BUT why cant a club canvass the offers on him and take whats best for them (keep in mind that the player is playing for the AFL). The club is the one who drafted, invested time and money in getting him to where he is in diet, training, rehab etc.
No club wants to end up like the Lions and GCS where they are a revolving door. Just like in any real world organisation, no club would be happy to let go of someone who is valuable to go to a cross town rival. Just in the real world you have 100s of people who can replace you. In the AFL there is less.
If it works for the nba, NFL and MLB and players dont mind being traded against their wishes, why cant it work here? The company comes first because the players are happy to be playing in the organisation.
Ok shared power:
- players can request a trade anytime in the offseason.
- need to nominate 3 clubs OR in the case of wanting to return home, the state.
None of this BS of “Im homesick… but want to play for Xyz club only.” Each state has 2 clubs so make it fair to both.
I don’t disagree with that.
And I thought slavery was abolished. Silly me, Silly Bill
How the ■■■■ is playing the sport you love and getting paid more than the average wage slavery? How is it fair to the club to have to deal with one club only? Why cant they say “we will grant your request to return to VIC, but if North offer better, thats where your going?” He will still he getting more than the average wage.
Players got free agency, but he doesnt meet that criteria of being in the comp at least 6 years.
He knew what he signed up for when he entered the National Draft.
Quit while you’re behind…
Just out of curiosity, are you still strong on that now that Smith has nominated Essendon as his club of choice only?
What happens, happens. Doesnt make it right. Happened to us many a time:
Whatever Bill, but Lever will win, as it is still his body and he can go to the Club he chooses. Just because you enter the Draft, the Club nor AFL don’t own you. And they only have you for as long as the contract says and your body allows.
I wish the day when someone takes the AFL to court over restraint of trade happens soon, and brings the whole rotten house AFL down. I know they are shi tting bricks about it.