The individual that goes the AFL for restraint of trade will be considered an absolute ■■■■ in my books. The system isn’t anywhere near perfect, but it is workable.
I want to see AFL house burn for many reasons, but that is not one of them.
When you draft them, at age 17 or 18, are they running at a loss to your company, for a year or two (or more), while you train them up with the very best facilities and medical care - which you do for free) while paying them exceedingly well, pay their medicals, and then after 2 years, are you ok with giving them up to your direct opposition? Because if that’s a ‘yes’, then we are getting closer. Do you have a few hundred thousand ‘shareholders’/stakehoders watching your every move, holding you to task if you falter, idolising these new employees, investing their emotion as well as their cash? Is your company run by a board that is elected from these shareholders - a public company? Are you and your employees scrutinised to the nth degree by the starving media? Do your employees have a ‘use by date’ which limits their usefulness to ~10years, but more likely ~5years? Is your ‘public company’ actually owned and ultimately run by a ‘mother organisation’ which also runs your direct competitors, who are constantly trying to poach your best employees? I may not be an contract lawyer, Bacchus, but I have employed many and I have run a couple of companies, and I still do.
How about this?
After the initial contract, no player should be forced to earn less than they could, or think they could, at another club.
However, if they are not a free agent, they would have to go to another club via a pre-draft draft (if a suitable trade cannot be arranged).
In this pre-draft draft they can set their own contract requirements. Any club who picks them, would be accepting those conditions.
However, the contract price is associated with a draft point cost. The greater the contract worth, in both dollars and years, the greater the amount of draft points that will need to be used to obtain the player. The choice of expending those points and drafting the player, goes in nominal draft order.
These draft points come from the main draft, and if selected, the points used go to the team who had the previous contract for them to either use in the main draft, or to pre-draft draft any of the other available players.
If a player isn’t selected who nominates for this process, they can either remain at their existing club for the contract they offered, or sit out for a year and retry the same process the following year.
This has Kurt Tippet written all over it.
For Melbourne’s sake I hope so!
Well then you must understand this; if you have a great employee that is critical to your business then you make sure that they never want to leave, or you take out keyman insurance.
1 Like
It’s not always possible. It’s a gamble and a juggling act. You make the call, chose the core, and wear the result. In an ever-shifting landscape, with moving goal posts.
When he nominated the Dees I think he meant the Dons. We get all the players!!!
Are you sure you don’t work in the Public Service.
That was a Yes Minister reply. All you left out was “in the fullness of Time”
1 Like
hahahaha
Ok - how’s this -
How does the one-way footy contracts weigh up against traditional employment contracts? There isn’t really any way (that has been shown to date) to enforce the ‘employment contract’ agreed to by a player, with regards to contract term. Basically, if and when a player wants to leave, then they leave. There are no financial repercussions. Not even on front-ended contracts. What would happen if one of your employees broke their contract in that way, and took your IP to your competitor?
Easy Peasy Deckboy
I will sue his ■■■■, take his home, sell his Wife and Daughter to white slavers, and show his Mother the compromising photos that we took of him in Hong Kong.
And the Company in China that took the IP would also have a visit from my good friends from Hong Kong.
1 Like
I’m fully on board with player fluidity, however if you nominate go home factor, clubs are allowed to shop you to any club that offers you in that home state/city.
2 Likes
Exactly.
And the clubs who likely have best trade offer, say north for example with pick 4 can then offer least contract value.
Won’t see players jumping ship so quickly anymore then.
Sydney and Melbourne will always be ok because they are bigger markets and offer more opportunities to players post-footy.
Not so sure about that.
Sydney have been in the comp for nearly 40 years and still get propped up by the AFL both on the field and off it.
Take away the success and then we will get to see if players will go there.
GWS already smells of a plastic club and it’s going to take decades before they get any credibility.
Luckily for both those clubs the AFL will do all they can to ensure they are successful on field.
1 Like
Fark you lads… let the minnow clubs worry about that peasant ■■■■.
We’re a destination club now biatches. It suits our agenda for players to move for ■■■■■ and giggles.
1 Like
Melbourne will have to cough up two first rounders.
Adelaide will again get a bunch of picks for players and back their recruiters to find more. The coaching group are good at developing them too.
It will bring them back a peg, but they will still be strong next year.
Tex walker saying Lever chose money over success in an article. Really paints Tex as a sulking child in my opinion.
3 Likes
I think Adelaide are just trying to draw a line in the sand. Anyone who leaves from this point on will be burning a bridge. No more golden handshakes. Fair enough when you look at the talent that has walked out on them.
3 Likes