List Mgmt. Contracts, trades, draft - 2022 superstar edition

[Keys]

Link to contract status of all players -

The Contracts Thread

2024 List Changes : Out: Retired- Gaff Delisted - Jones, Trew(R), Baker(R), Witherden, Burgiel, Culley(R), Rotham, L Edwards Traded - Darling (NM) Barrass (Hawthorn) In: Trade/FA acquisitions - Graham (Richmond) Baker (Richmond) Owies (Carlton) Draft - Allan (Pick 16) Shanahan (Pick 30) Gross...

www.bigfooty.com

 

[Chump Change]

Not AFL standard?

Brownlow medal
2 x Ross Glendinning medals
All Australian
Fairest and Best winner
240 games

OK

Let's not go down the 15k post thread route. I shouldn't have even brought his name up. But he is the poster boy for players who get a ton of footy but don't have good decision making, disposal skills, or hurt factor.

 

[Tugga27]

Let's not go down the 15k post thread route. I shouldn't have even brought his name up. But he is the poster boy for players who get a ton of footy but don't have good decision making, disposal skills, or hurt factor.

Do I put him in the Cousins, Kerr and Judd bracket?
Of course not.

But it's a bit silly to say someone with that playing record isn't up to AFL standard.

 

[shooshka]

Let's not go down the 15k post thread route. I shouldn't have even brought his name up. But he is the poster boy for players who get a ton of footy but don't have good decision making, disposal skills, or hurt factor.

Basically you shouldn't have brought his name up because what you said was wrong.

He wasn't fast, or an elite kick - and maybe his hurt factor was around average - but his decision making was pretty good and he improved us as a squad because he was great at contested ball and defending in the midfield.

We would actually love him to be playing right now if he was able to bring that to the table (even with his deficiencies as a player).


Him winning the Brownlow wasn't a huge surprise (he had a great year), him missing the AA team was a disgrace. 627 possessions, 54 clangers (20 free's against which are part of that clanger count), I think his terrible disposal is/was over-hyped (not saying he was an elite disposer of the ball, but he wasn't clanger central like some of our current players!).

 

[Ambrose Burnside]

And he was even better imo the year after the Brownlow. Came second in the count.

 

[Chump Change]

Basically you shouldn't have brought his name up because what you said was wrong.

He wasn't fast, or an elite kick - and maybe his hurt factor was around average - but his decision making was pretty good and he improved us as a squad because he was great at contested ball and defending in the midfield.

We would actually love him to be playing right now if he was able to bring that to the table (even with his deficiencies as a player).


Him winning the Brownlow wasn't a huge surprise (he had a great year), him missing the AA team was a disgrace. 627 possessions, 54 clangers (20 free's against which are part of that clanger count), I think his terrible disposal is/was over-hyped (not saying he was an elite disposer of the ball, but he wasn't clanger central like some of our current players!).

We'll agree to disagree, but he's a poster boy regardless. On the 2014 Shit player of the year calendar, he's on every month.

 

[Chump Change]

And he was even better imo the year after the Brownlow. Came second in the count.

The only year I thought he was a good footy player was 2015. From memory won the brownlow the year before and i though he was absolute garbage.

 

[Miguel Sanchez]

“How much longer can Priddis be debated?”

Coming up to five years since he retired and we still don’t have an answer.

 

[Obeanie1]

Because they have a cap.

But no draft.

So total freedom of player movement in the NRL hasn't resulted in what you were suggesting would happen in the AFL.

The draft is more a marketing media event for the AFL.

If the AFL had an open player market and no draft and therefore no trades half the media people would be unemployed.

Not to mention 20 people at AFL House. People maintaining the system to keep their fat cat jobs.

 

[Ambrose Burnside]

I like the draft and reckon it needs to stay.

 

[Keys]

Let's not go down the 15k post thread route.

This

Priddis hasn’t been on our list since 2017 so is completely irrelevant to current contracts, trades or future trades

 

[Chump Change]

But no draft.

So total freedom of player movement in the NRL hasn't resulted in what you were suggesting would happen in the AFL.

The draft is more a marketing media event for the AFL.

If the AFL had an open player market and no draft and therefore no trades half the media people would be unemployed.

Not to mention 20 people at AFL House. People maintaining the system to keep their fat cat jobs.

Nope.

Both the draft and cap are a restraint of trade but they underpin how the AFL works. If you bust one down on the reasoning of "restraint of trade" then the other one is sure to follow because it has to legal standing. it will only be a matter of time before a player says "in an open market I could earn 1.5x as much but because I have to fit into a cap, i don't realise my full market value".

Restraint of trade is a slippery slope. It underpins both the draft and cap. Remove both and the AFL will end up like the EPL.

 

[CoastersFlag No.5]

Nope.

Both the draft and cap are a restraint of trade but they underpin how the AFL works. If you bust one down on the reasoning of "restraint of trade" then the other one is sure to follow because it has to legal standing. it will only be a matter of time before a player says "in an open market I could earn 1.5x as much but because I have to fit into a cap, i don't realise my full market value".

Restraint of trade is a slippery slope. It underpins both the draft and cap. Remove both and the AFL will end up like the EPL.

In that case we would be dominating little brother down the road forever which would be a silver lining. Also at the moment we would be losing money hand over fist. EPL is boring if your not at risk of getting relegated or part of the Big 2 at the moment. Even relegation is getting predictable a lot of teams yo-yoing between Championship and Premier League like Fulham and Norwich.

 

[Obeanie1]

Nope.

Both the draft and cap are a restraint of trade but they underpin how the AFL works. If you bust one down on the reasoning of "restraint of trade" then the other one is sure to follow because it has to legal standing. it will only be a matter of time before a player says "in an open market I could earn 1.5x as much but because I have to fit into a cap, i don't realise my full market value".

Restraint of trade is a slippery slope. It underpins both the draft and cap. Remove both and the AFL will end up like the EPL.

You may be right but that wasnt the question.

The NRL has a reasonably even comp with different premiers most years. With no draft. No trading. But a salary cap.

Why wouldn't that work for the AFL?

 

[Miguel Sanchez]

In that case we would be dominating little brother down the road forever which would be a silver lining.

The idea is to avoid situations like this. The product that the league and its participants put out is more compelling, and therefore more profitable, if everyone is relatively even.

So the league implements restraints like drafts and salary caps and now soft caps to ensure that everyone has a decent chance of being successful.

 

[kane249]

You may be right but that wasnt the question.

The NRL has a reasonably even comp with different premiers most years. With no draft. No trading. But a salary cap.

Why wouldn't that work for the AFL?

NRL isn't really a national comp though, it's essentially a 2 state league with an additional team in Melbourne and New Zealand

Test for them will be if they can get Perth and Adelaide teams back into the mix and get them competitive.

 

[CoastersFlag No.5]

The idea is to avoid situations like this. The product that the league and its participants put out is more compelling, and therefore more profitable, if everyone is relatively even.

So the league implements restraints like drafts and salary caps and now soft caps to ensure that everyone has a decent chance of being successful.

Yep because we would be ****ed under a profit based system too at the moment. Instead we will get to rebuild the squad via the draft. I prefer the current system way more of a fair go. Mid season trades will devastate bottom clubs with teams near their peak picking up the best players in the bottom 4 with the promise of a premiership.

 

[ziad]

In that case we would be dominating little brother down the road forever which would be a silver lining. Also at the moment we would be losing money hand over fist. EPL is boring if your not at risk of getting relegated or part of the Big 2 at the moment. Even relegation is getting predictable a lot of teams yo-yoing between Championship and Premier League like Fulham and Norwich.

And this is not a good thing?
But i agree the AFL will never remove the draft or it will be a 12 team comp.

 

[CoastersFlag No.5]

And this is not a good thing?
But i agree the AFL will never remove the draft or it will be a 12 team comp.

Well the EPL structure means the top teams can dominate for decades and some seriously dodgy regimes think Saudi Arabia, UAE and Russian oligarchs like Abrahamovic can sportswash themselves.

 

[Chump Change]

You may be right but that wasnt the question.

The NRL has a reasonably even comp with different premiers most years. With no draft. No trading. But a salary cap.

Why wouldn't that work for the AFL?

I never said it wouldn't.........

But it's a slippery slope. If you can tear down the draft on the grounds of "restraint of trade" then you can tear down the cap.

If the AFL decides it's better without a draft, then that is fine (personally I like the draft). But if it gets successfully challenged on the grounds of restraint of trade, then that opens the cap to be dissolved as well.

No cap and no draft = recipe for disaster.

Why the NRL cap has survived after their draft was successfully challenged, I don't know. Possibly because of the working class attitudes at the time felt being told where they could play was not okay but limiting the salary was okay (it didn't have nowhere near the money or professionalism back then).

 

[Miguel Sanchez]

I never said it wouldn't.........

But it's a slippery slope. If you can tear down the draft on the grounds of "restraint of trade" then you can tear down the cap.

Not necessarily. One might be considered reasonable and the other unreasonable.

The NRL (then the ARL) draft was ruled an unlawful restraint of trade in the early 1990s but the salary cap was unchallenged and has remained to this day.

 

[Chump Change]

Not necessarily. One might be considered reasonable and the other unreasonable.

The NRL (then the ARL) draft was ruled an unlawful restraint of trade in the early 1990s but the salary cap was unchallenged and has remained to this day.

Nah.

The cap reduces lots of players' market value. Imagine if there was no cap. There would be a bidding war for the best players. Petracca, Oliver, Walsh... Clubs like us have millions at our disposal. They would go to the highest bidder and it would be way more than they are on today.

When you're saying "one is reasonable" and "the other is not" - that's not how courts work. They are both reasonable but both are a clear restraint of trade. There's no room for "this is more reasonable than the other so one is restraint of trade, but the other is not" in a court.

 

[Miguel Sanchez]

When you're saying "one is reasonable" and "the other is not" - that's not how courts work. They are both reasonable but both are a clear restraint of trade. There's no room for "this is more reasonable than the other so one is restraint of trade, but the other is not" in a court.

I’ve literally given you an example where that exact thing happened.

And pro tip: you’re trying to tell the wrong person how courts work.

Go read Adamson v NSW Rugby League Ltd [1991] FCA 425 and then a few of the academic papers examining the decision in Adamson v NSW Rugby League Ltd, then come back and tell me how you can’t rule out a draft without also ruling out a salary cap.

 

[Obeanie1]

I never said it wouldn't.........

But it's a slippery slope. If you can tear down the draft on the grounds of "restraint of trade" then you can tear down the cap.

If the AFL decides it's better without a draft, then that is fine (personally I like the draft). But if it gets successfully challenged on the grounds of restraint of trade, then that opens the cap to be dissolved as well.

No cap and no draft = recipe for disaster.

Why the NRL cap has survived after their draft was successfully challenged, I don't know. Possibly because of the working class attitudes at the time felt being told where they could play was not okay but limiting the salary was okay (it didn't have nowhere near the money or professionalism back then).

What's the difference between a salary cap and head office saying to its 18 regional offices aka Clubs 'Your salary budget for players is $14 million per year. No more. You go over people get sacked.

 

[UnidentifiedPunch]

Nope.

Both the draft and cap are a restraint of trade but they underpin how the AFL works. If you bust one down on the reasoning of "restraint of trade" then the other one is sure to follow because it has to legal standing. it will only be a matter of time before a player says "in an open market I could earn 1.5x as much but because I have to fit into a cap, i don't realise my full market value".

Restraint of trade is a slippery slope. It underpins both the draft and cap. Remove both and the AFL will end up like the EPL.

The draft may be deemed a restraint of trade in certain circumstances but the cap isn’t- just because you may want more money doesn’t restrict your ability to earn it in the first place.




On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Feeling Groovy]

Nah.

The cap reduces lots of players' market value. Imagine if there was no cap. There would be a bidding war for the best players. Petracca, Oliver, Walsh... Clubs like us have millions at our disposal. They would go to the highest bidder and it would be way more than they are on today.

When you're saying "one is reasonable" and "the other is not" - that's not how courts work. They are both reasonable but both are a clear restraint of trade. There's no room for "this is more reasonable than the other so one is restraint of trade, but the other is not" in a court.

As Miguel said, that is not correct and yes, it is my day job.

For example, a non-compete clause in a contract is a restraint of trade but it may be enforceable if it is reasonable. The reasonableness will depend on various factors.