Confirmed Bailey Smith: 4-way trade: B. Smith (WB) & pick 45 to Geel / pick 38 to Carl / Macrae (WB) to StK / pick 17 & Kennedy (Carl) to WB

[Art Vandelay_]

But you're wording it in a way that "the buying club" (in this case Geelong) should presumptively have any sort of priority over Smith, which isn't the way the rules are set up until he becomes a free agent.

We all know he's requested a trade and talked to Geelong, and he has an indication of how much money he's willing to play for and that Geelong can fit him in the salary cap at that amount, but that alone doesn't mean that Geelong have priority over another club that's willing to draft him with an earlier pick and is also capable of fitting him into their salary cap at an equivalent amount.

You can keep playing that tune from that 1 string banjo - as you have done for a week now - or you could get into the real world where OOC players can and do nominate a club, and invariably one way or another, do in fact get there.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

This is the key point that is missed in all this.

Smith had an opportunity as part of the AFLPA to bring forward free agency benefits from 8 years to 6 years. His union couldn't get that over the line at the time of the previous collective bargaining agreements in 2022. The AFL has a competitive balance interest in preventing free agency until 8 years that they were able to successfully hold onto in the previous negotiations with the AFLPA in 2022, and that they would also likely win in some wider restraint of trade legal challenge outside of the CBA.

Smith's continuing to benefit from the other elements of his union membership - his actual salary as part of this (as represented as being able to be fit into the salary cap, as an example of this), without wanting to accept the fact that he only served six years post being drafted to the Dogs.

It really isn't that surprising though - everyone knows he all but draft tampered by telling interstate clubs not to draft him when he was 17, anyway. The AFL should have been harder on him then too, even accepting that the Bulldogs benefitted from it.

Whether you’re an underage draftee or mature AFL player, I’m fine with honesty - interstate clubs will generally ask a player if they’re happy to move… if they’re not, I don’t think they have to lie. They can say no, I’d prefer to stay here.

If clubs don’t want to know the answer, then don’t ask.

But the refusal to meet with or speak to clubs, or not make your medical condition known or undergo an AFL-run test… that is a step too far. Only making yourself or your information available to one club is blatant tampering and not in the spirit of a draft.

Smith can sit there on interview day, act like a prick and tell every club except Geelong he doesn’t want to play for them - that’s okay. But blocking access and information is tampering. He should have to answer questions and submit to a neutral medical. It’s a draft.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

You can keep playing that tune from that 1 string banjo - as you have done for a week now - or you could get into the real world where OOC players can and do nominate a club, and invariably one way or another, do in fact get there.

But the "invariably" does a lot of heavy lifting here.

People are allowed to point out the fact that the rules are either flawed in the sense of a consistent set of overall list management rules (the draft, the salary cap, free agency compensation) and understand the Smith trade and the rules that allow it in that context. For instance, it is absurd that the Dogs might "invariably" accept a trade (pick 17) that is less than the pick 14 they would receive if he were a free agent, despite the fact that Smith is two years younger and only giving six years service, vs 8.

If the rules are not flawed and that he should in theory be available to all teams in the draft, then the fact on pure footballing talent teams will overlook him with a given pick in the teams is effectively draft tampering - you're using the word "invariably" to gloss that over.

Every Dogs fan (including myself) understand that he's likely to get to Geelong. The fact that we're pointing out the inconsistent rules that serve to benefit bigger (e.g. Geelong) over smaller (e.g. Bulldogs), more successful (Geelong finished higher than Dogs in the preceeding year) clubs or draft tampering doesn't mean we're not realistically looking at the fact he's going to get to Geelong, just that it will be a product of either bad rules, tampering, or both.

 

[Footy Smarts]

Fair bit different from pick 17 in the national draft to pick 3 in the PSD . I'd be disappointed if Carlton didn't have a long hard look at him with pick 14.

Yeah it's much much easier to get through to pick 17 in the national draft cause those picks actually have value.

Carlton aren't going to give up the chance of getting a gun youngster just so they can sign a guy who doesn't want to be there on a big contract. It would be completely nuts.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Whether you’re an underage draftee or mature AFL player, I’m fine with honesty - interstate clubs will generally ask a player if they’re happy to move… if they’re not, I don’t think they have to lie. They can say no, I’d prefer to stay here.

If clubs don’t want to know the answer, then don’t ask.

But the refusal to meet with or speak to clubs, or not make your medical condition known or undergo an AFL-run test… that is a step too far. Only making yourself or your information available to one club is blatant tampering and not in the spirit of a draft.

Smith can sit there on interview day, act like a prick and tell every club except Geelong he doesn’t want to play for them - that’s okay. But blocking access and information is tampering. He should have to answer questions and submit to a neutral medical. It’s a draft.

I agree with your broader point but I'm fairly certain his contract terms (including salary). upon nominating for the draft would be available to all clubs. He doesn't have to speak with the clubs but he can't prevent literally every club in the AFL knowing the terms as to which he nominates for the draft.

Of course, he can work with Geelong to structure his contract in such a way that Geelong can be certain he'll fit under their salary cap, while other clubs won't for certain be sure that that same contract will fit under theirs. That of course, would be tampering, as you state, but clubs will still have to go to the effort of interpreting Geelong's pre-arranged contract terms.

This effectively happened with Luke Ball. If a St Kilda trade went through, he would have gone to Collingwood for marginally more but effectively similar money to what St Kilda were offering on a three year deal. Suddenly, he nominates for a lot more money on only a two-year deal, which dissuades Melbourne (who were considering) from drafting him ... and lo and behold, his third-year gets re-signed by Collingwood for a third year. That was tampering too at the time, though it sort of got lost in the shuffle of people trying to understand how the GC and GWS entry conditions would impact the draft and salary cap.

 

[Art Vandelay_]

But the "invariably" does a lot of heavy lifting here.

People are allowed to point out the fact that the rules are either flawed in the sense of a consistent set of overall list management rules (the draft, the salary cap, free agency compensation) and understand the Smith trade and the rules that allow it in that context. For instance, it is absurd that the Dogs might "invariably" accept a trade (pick 17) that is less than the pick 14 they would receive if he were a free agent, despite the fact that Smith is two years younger and only giving six years service, vs 8.

If the rules are not flawed and that he should in theory be available to all teams in the draft, then the fact on pure footballing talent teams will overlook him with a given pick in the teams is effectively draft tampering - you're using the word "invariably" to gloss that over.

Every Dogs fan (including myself) understand that he's likely to get to Geelong. The fact that we're pointing out the inconsistent rules that serve to benefit bigger (e.g. Geelong) over smaller (e.g. Bulldogs), more successful (Geelong finished higher than Dogs in the preceeding year) clubs or draft tampering doesn't mean we're not realistically looking at the fact he's going to get to Geelong, just that it will be a product of either bad rules, tampering, or both.

This just shows me you weren't reading.
I agreed with Bunk on a lot of what he said about the draft and OOC players.

Just disagreed with "pay the price". No. Two clubs need to agree a price otherwise its just an exercise of the club losing a player setting a high price and expecting to get it every time. That's not how it works, the other club can say that's too high and both clubs agree to a compromise.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Yeah it's much much easier to get through to pick 17 in the national draft cause those picks actually have value.

Carlton aren't going to give up the chance of getting a gun youngster just so they can sign a guy who doesn't want to be there on a big contract. It would be completely nuts.

The whole point of this discussion though is Smith already is a gun youngster.

You can't just say "give up the chance of getting a gun youngster", because, by definition, if they were to draft Smith, it isn't a chance any more - they will have a gun youngster, Smith. They are giving up the chance to draft a gun youngster in order to actually recruit a gun youngster.

Putting aside the "big contract" - because lets assume if they do successfully draft a gun 18 year old they will have to pay them a big contract anyway, and "doesn't want to be there", at least for the purposes of nominating for the draft where you sign legal documentation that you're willing to play for any team, is draft tampering.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Two clubs need to agree a price otherwise its just an exercise of the club losing a player setting a high price and expecting to get it every time.

The Dogs are entitled to ask for a high enough price that Geelong might be willing to meet, in order to avoid the risk of not eventually recruiting him, should another team draft him before Geelong does.

Geelong are entitled to pay a low enough price that Dogs might be willing to accept, in order to avoid the risk that Smith effectively delists himself and goes through the draft, without getting an additionally better draft hand.

A trade is in theory an equilibrium point between the two, in a game theory cooperative game sense (both clubs would benefit to the detriment of 16 others). I understand that that point might be lower than compensation as a free agent whatever. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperative_game_theory)

The idea though is that, if there genuinely were a greater chance of Geelong having a risk of not drafting him in the national draft, that equilibrium point would result in a lot higher draft pick than what's currently being offered.

Clearly though, such a risk on both sides already clearly exists.

Geelong as it stands would pull the trigger with pick 17 as a live pick to draft Smith (and are willing to trade that pick to the Dogs). They are not currently offering less than that, even though the Dogs would benefit from a 2nd round pick, more than losing him for nothing.

Therefore, we can accept that Geelong are accepting that there's a risk that Smith would be drafted by another team after pick 17, otherwise, why not offer a later pick to the Dogs, and then draft him in the national draft with a later pick.

I can argue, that logic should extend to before pick 17, and the reason it isn't, is simply draft tampering, because every club would be happy to have the certainty of Bailey Smith, who has already proven to be an AFL player, than the chance that any of the top 16 draft picks in history that have proven never to offer any meaningful value at AFL level (such as Geelong themselves drafting Cooper Stephens with a pick 16 in the draft).

The fact that we can all agree that Smith would last until pick 17 in the actual draft is nothing else but draft tampering - because if Smith was equally as motivated to play for all clubs, (which in theory is what the act of being entered in the draft is what you're required to do), he would plain and simply be drafted earlier than pick 17. He may not be a top 10 pick, but the expected future footballing output of Smith is far higher than the expected future output of pick 16 or 14 or 12 or whatever. We can know this by looking at past output of draft picks, and every club conducts a level of analysis regarding this: https://www.draftguru.com.au/picks

 

[Superstar swan]

It’s not going to the drafts. If there is a minute to go in the period , power will just take 17. Why would he let him go for free

 

[Footy Smarts]

The whole point of this discussion though is Smith already is a gun youngster.

You can't just say "give up the chance of getting a gun youngster", because, by definition, if they were to draft Smith, it isn't a chance any more - they will have a gun youngster, Smith. They are giving up the chance to draft a gun youngster in order to actually recruit a gun youngster.

Putting aside the "big contract" - because lets assume if they do successfully draft a gun 18 year old they will have to pay them a big contract anyway, and "doesn't want to be there", at least for the purposes of nominating for the draft where you sign legal documentation that you're willing to play for any team, is draft tampering.

God you're going down the draft tampering route now are you?

Why has the AFL ignored the hundreds of examples of players expressing a preference not to go to other clubs? Cause enforcing the draft conditions to the letter is clearly illegal in Australian workplace laws.

The AFL didn't blow up their system to stop Wingard refusing to go to GWS or Ball saying he'd only go to Collingwood or Smith originally saying he wouldn't go interstate or a hundred other situations. They're not going to do so now just cause the dogs are refusing a perfectly reasonable trade.

 

[Footy Smarts]

It’s not going to the drafts. If there is a minute to go in the period , power will just take 17. Why would he let him go for free

Let them have their fun and stamp their feet. If we don't let this site have the delusional "walk him to the draft" types this board will cease to exist.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Why has the AFL ignored the hundreds of examples of players expressing a preference not to go to other clubs?

I'm of the view they shouldn't.

Maybe in a piecemeal setting they're willing to overlook small cases in order not to have to pay the players too much money. If they were giving up more than 25% of the AFL's money (say 30% or 35% or whatever) my guess is they would hammer down the players harder, because they're richer for it.

Cause enforcing the draft conditions to the letter is clearly illegal in Australian workplace laws.

It isn't though.

The AFL's interest in competitive balance is unique and reasonable and allows them to enforce rules that would, in other workplaces, a restraint of trade, and despite the legal status of different clubs as different employers:

AFL statement: Competitive Balance Policy

League details its Competitive Balance Policy to the 18 clubs

www.afl.com.au

The AFL and Restraint of Trade - Sports Industry AU

Every so often the question of the ability of the AFL to withstand restraint of trade cases in court pops up for discussion, most recently with regards to the possible – if unlikely – deregistration of Kurt Tippett at Adelaide. To date, the most commonly cited example of restraint of trade...

www.footyindustry.com

The players are willing to accept this, in part because they don't really have a legal argument against the unique nature of the AFL being a unique industry with unique interests in competitive balance, and also, they accept this in part because they trade off it for other benefits, such as greater pay and benefits, as part of their collective bargaining as a union.

Bailey Smith is fully entitled to leave the AFLPA and claim restraint of trade if he has lawyers that doesn't believe in the compelling interest of equalisation or that he disagrees with the AFLPA accepting the rules representing him as a union member.

The AFL didn't blow up their system to stop Wingard refusing to go to GWS or Ball saying he'd only go to Collingwood or Smith

I'm of the view that they should have, so at least I'm consistent.

They're not going to do so now just cause the dogs are refusing a perfectly reasonable trade.

Reason is in the eye of the beholder, but the Dogs only got 6 years service of a career that is expected to last ~16 years, are willing to pay Smith as much money as Geelong are, and are expected to take back pick 20 for initially accurately investing pick 7 in the first place and Smith's career output basically tracking exactly that an average pick 7 should be expected to perform over their career.

One can argue that reason for compensation would be that very pick 7 returned back to them (given they drafted a player equally as good as the value of a pick 7), minus the ~25-30% of value of the fact that he's six years into his 16 years of a career (with the expectation that the next 10 years on average per year will be better than the first 6 years). That pushes the pick 7 down to about pick 11, which is what the Dogs are asking for.

 

[BigFrizz36]

Yeah it's much much easier to get through to pick 17 in the national draft cause those picks actually have value.

Carlton aren't going to give up the chance of getting a gun youngster just so they can sign a guy who doesn't want to be there on a big contract. It would be completely nuts.

How so. He would compliment our midfield beautifully with outside run. We could meet his demands and he'd feel at home after a couple of weeks. It would be interesting to see if Cotton On would still be prepared to sponsor him if he ended up at another club.

He'd be worth more to us than an untried kid at 14 (which will end up at 17 with Ashcroft, Kako and Lombard).

It seems that Andrew Mackie went into the library to get a copy of "how to be a list manager". Sadly he got the copy authored by Adrian Dodoro and not the good Steven Wells one.

 

[Wojcinski]

How so. He would compliment our midfield beautifully with outside run. We could meet his demands and he'd feel at home after a couple of weeks. It would be interesting to see if Cotton On would still be prepared to sponsor him if he ended up at another club.

He'd be worth more to us than an untried kid at 14 (which will end up at 17 with Ashcroft, Kako and Lombard).

It seems that Andrew Mackie went into the library to get a copy of "how to be a list manager". Sadly he got the copy authored by Adrian Dodoro and not the good Steven Wells one.

Cotton On is already sponsoring him lol

 

[BigFrizz36]

Cotton On is already sponsoring him lol

That's the running joke. Cotton on have been sponsoring him above and beyond his contract as part of the process to get him to bail on his current club and join the Cats.

Surely you've heard those whispers?

 

[Wojcinski]

That's the running joke. Cotton on have been sponsoring him above and beyond his contract as part of the process to get him to bail on his current club and join the Cats.

Surely you've heard those whispers?

yeah of course Cotton On is paying him to leave the Dogs, that's definitely what is happening

 

[Footy Smarts]

It isn't though.

The AFL's interest in competitive balance is unique and allows them to enforce rules that would, in other workplaces, a restraint of trade, and despite the legal status of different clubs as different employers:

AFL statement: Competitive Balance Policy

League details its Competitive Balance Policy to the 18 clubs

www.afl.com.au

The AFL and Restraint of Trade - Sports Industry AU

Every so often the question of the ability of the AFL to withstand restraint of trade cases in court pops up for discussion, most recently with regards to the possible – if unlikely – deregistration of Kurt Tippett at Adelaide. To date, the most commonly cited example of restraint of trade...

www.footyindustry.com

The players are willing to accept this, in part because they don't really have a legal argument against the unique nature of the AFL being a unique industry with unique interests in competitive balance, and also, they accept this in part because they trade off it for other benefits, such as greater pay and benefits, as part of their collective bargaining as a union.

Bailey Smith is fully entitled to leave the AFLPA and claim restraint of trade if he has lawyers that doesn't believe in the compelling interest of equalisation or that he disagrees with the AFLPA accepting the rules representing him as a union member.



I'm of the view that they should have, so at least I'm consistent.

Dude come on. Smith is out of contract. He has his current employer offering him 2 years and a prospective employer offering him 5 years.

If the AFL deny him the ability to take up that contract the court would rule for Smith in a millisecond.

It won't get to that. He'll be traded. On the 0.01% chance he's not traded the AFL will look the other way while he says he only wants to get to Geelong and he'll get there on the draft. Again they're not going to blow up the system just cause the dogs rejected a reasonable offer.

 

[giantsully]

But the "invariably" does a lot of heavy lifting here.

People are allowed to point out the fact that the rules are either flawed in the sense of a consistent set of overall list management rules (the draft, the salary cap, free agency compensation) and understand the Smith trade and the rules that allow it in that context. For instance, it is absurd that the Dogs might "invariably" accept a trade (pick 17) that is less than the pick 14 they would receive if he were a free agent, despite the fact that Smith is two years younger and only giving six years service, vs 8.

If the rules are not flawed and that he should in theory be available to all teams in the draft, then the fact on pure footballing talent teams will overlook him with a given pick in the teams is effectively draft tampering - you're using the word "invariably" to gloss that over.

Every Dogs fan (including myself) understand that he's likely to get to Geelong. The fact that we're pointing out the inconsistent rules that serve to benefit bigger (e.g. Geelong) over smaller (e.g. Bulldogs), more successful (Geelong finished higher than Dogs in the preceeding year) clubs or draft tampering doesn't mean we're not realistically looking at the fact he's going to get to Geelong, just that it will be a product of either bad rules, tampering, or both.

A pretty reasonable (and well articulated) post.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Dude come on. Smith is out of contract. He has his current employer offering him 2 years and a prospective employer offering him 5 years.

Smith asked for two years from the Dogs. Because he would be a free agent. Which makes his life easier.

Smith would be asking for 5 or 6 years at the Dogs, if he didn't have free agency rights after two at the Dogs.

It is actually the Dogs' preference to give him 5 or 6 years, assuming that we'd paying him the same money otherwise. Because at least we could keep him after two, rather than fight for him out of contract, like he is now.

If he sees out his 5 or 6 year contract at Geelong, he won't have free agency rights at that point in time.

This is not that hard to understand and Geelong fans keep insisting on it like it matters.

If the AFL deny him the ability to take up that contract the court would rule for Smith in a millisecond.

No, it wouldn't.

The AFL is well prepared in court to defend its position of competitive balance being a special interest. It's done it before. See the links I provded.

It can restrain trade as long as those restraints are reasonable and not excessive given that it already achieves competitive balance. Allowing for free agency after eight years, and not earlier, is material to this - the AFL is not restraining trade to the extent that it is allowing freedom for players provided they serve eight years (with some additional restraints to serve competitive balance such as restricted free agent rights).

Dogs fans are more than happy to accept that freedom element, all it is asking for in the context of competitive balance, that given they successfully used a high draft pick and identified and developed a talent, that they have certain ability to get more on-field wins for the first eight years of that player's career.

On the 0.01% chance he's not traded the AFL will look the other way while he says he only wants to get to Geelong and he'll get there on the draft. Again they're not going to blow up the system just cause the dogs rejected a reasonable offer.

I accept that this may be the case, but then Dogs fans are allowed to complain and point out that it is unfair. You yourself are saying "look the other way", sure, but in the act of doing so, it harms the Dogs' competitive balance and of course we're allowed to complain.

 

[Warhorse]

But the "invariably" does a lot of heavy lifting here.

People are allowed to point out the fact that the rules are either flawed in the sense of a consistent set of overall list management rules (the draft, the salary cap, free agency compensation) and understand the Smith trade and the rules that allow it in that context. For instance, it is absurd that the Dogs might "invariably" accept a trade (pick 17) that is less than the pick 14 they would receive if he were a free agent, despite the fact that Smith is two years younger and only giving six years service, vs 8.

If the rules are not flawed and that he should in theory be available to all teams in the draft, then the fact on pure footballing talent teams will overlook him with a given pick in the teams is effectively draft tampering - you're using the word "invariably" to gloss that over.

Every Dogs fan (including myself) understand that he's likely to get to Geelong. The fact that we're pointing out the inconsistent rules that serve to benefit bigger (e.g. Geelong) over smaller (e.g. Bulldogs), more successful (Geelong finished higher than Dogs in the preceeding year) clubs or draft tampering doesn't mean we're not realistically looking at the fact he's going to get to Geelong, just that it will be a product of either bad rules, tampering, or both.

Sooky salty tears. Love it

 

[Footy Smarts]

I accept that this may be the case, but then Dogs fans are allowed to complain and point out that it is unfair. You yourself are saying "look the other way", sure, but in the act of doing so, it harms the Dogs' competitive balance and of course we're allowed to complain.

Pretty funny seeing the salty tears. "It is unfair"!!!

No complaints about the system when you got JUH and Darcy each for a packet of chips recently? No I didn't think so.

It's swings and roundabouts. And the dogs have had way way way more benefit recently from the current system than most.

 

[BigFrizz36]

yeah of course Cotton On is paying him to leave the Dogs, that's definitely what is happening

Did you miss the bit where I said "running joke"?

 

[MacStradbroke]

If this is Geelongs trade mentality with other clubs, I’d have grave fears..

I think it’ll get done, but this mentality ain’t the route to go down.

Massive, massive chance it is already sorted and the wait is to see what Cats have left in terms of picks towards the end of the trade period. Reckon there is a fair bit of angst between both supporter groups (and a few others ) for nothing.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Sooky salty tears. Love it

You may be laughing at me but at least this is more honest than other Geelong fans trying to rationalise something that can't be rationalised away.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

No complaints about the system when you got JUH and Darcy each for a packet of chips recently? No I didn't think so.

News - AFL to overhaul the draft, discuss changes to Academy and FS bid matching

www.bigfooty.com

I literally complain about it there

It's swings and roundabouts. And the dogs have had way way way more benefit recently from the current system than most.

As a smaller club, we would not be expected to benefit of the league in its entirety over several decades over bigger clubs, even if that's offset with Jamarra and Darcy, especially as that it's no different than the likes of Collingwood having all of its advantages plus getting an identical advantage with Daicos, etc. etc.