Football Related Random Thread - PART 2

[morsie]

To each and every one of you out there who have posted such lovely thoughts and those that "liked" my post...a big thank you from the bottom of my heart. It means a lot..

I was just thinking how great a "family" we Lions are when someone needs a lift in spirits. We may argue and disagree at times, but we always come to the party when we need to....as you people have for me today.

Mr MM was a wonderful and good man, very quick witted, loved a joke but could be contankerous at times and I'd tell him he was being a pain in the a.r.s.e, as quick as lightning he'd say "yes, but I'm your pain the a.r.s.e" with a big grin.

He loved music, he'd play poker on the computer and play music all day most days before he got sick..and of course, his Saints and horse racing.

Footy season and Spring Carnival wont be the same, it will be lonely without him beside me......but others have been through this and had to cope, so will I eventually.

Much love to you all

Having had a cancer incident just before Christnas and a wife on indefinite chemoyou have my sympathies

 

[Gadzorks]

Having had a cancer incident just before Christnas and a wife on indefinite chemoyou have my sympathies

F*** cancer

 

[Saucery]

If it calls itself Tasmania, and splits its games fairly between south and north, that won't be an issue within a generation, surely. The vast majority of the kids growing up will follow the local team.

Yes this is the Fed's view of how it should play out:

"Albanese revealed he expects home games to be played in both the north and south of Tasmania."

Aussie PM reveals big issue with $750m Tasmania stadium proposal amid AFL push

Aussie PM reveals big issue with $750m Tassie stadium proposal amid AFL push

www.foxsports.com.au

 

[Saucery]

While I am not against this idea and it would certainly drive more clicks, it feels like this would just strengthen the hand of the so called destination clubs.

And an under pressure coach could push his club to trade in a player for what might be high draft picks to improve his chance to keep his job.

Either way it's another cut to the idea of club loyalty.

Why Damo wants mid-season trading ASAP - AFL Daily

Damian Barrett and Michael Whiting discuss the possibility of a trade period in the middle of the season and how it could add to the game. Subscribe to AFL Daily and never miss an episode. Rate and review wherever you listen to podcasts.

omny.fm

 

[briztoon]

While I am not against this idea and it would certainly drive more clicks, it feels like this would just strengthen the hand of the so called destination clubs.

And an under pressure coach could push his club to trade in a player for what might be high draft picks to improve his chance to keep his job.

Either way it's another cut to the idea of club loyalty.

Why Damo wants mid-season trading ASAP - AFL Daily

Damian Barrett and Michael Whiting discuss the possibility of a trade period in the middle of the season and how it could add to the game. Subscribe to AFL Daily and never miss an episode. Rate and review wherever you listen to podcasts.

omny.fm

As someone who grew up following the NBA and the EPL, I’m dead against a mid season trade period for AFL.

I’m all for the mid season draft though.

 

[Dalions]

As someone who grew up following the NBA and the EPL, I’m dead against a mid season trade period for AFL.

I agree it is just another way for stronger clubs to get stronger.

Buuuttt……………how good would it have been to have got Dunkley over the line before the finals last year knowing that he was coming at the end of the year anyway?

The extra big bodied, 2way running mid would have come in handy against Geelong.

Doggies never would have let him go though.

 

[Saucery]

I agree it is just another way for stronger clubs to get stronger.

Buuuttt……………how good would it have been to have got Dunkley over the line before the finals last year knowing that he was coming at the end of the year anyway?

The extra big bodied, 2way running mid would have come in handy against Geelong.

Doggies never would have let him go though.

Yes in that specific situation no but what if you were a first 22 player in a bottom 4 team who gets approached by a top 4 team who have an injury and it gives you a walk up start to a finals series?

All I can see happening is it would cause a lot of angst between player and current team if they don't let him go (presuming they want to), probably a break down in the relationship.

And if they do get to where they want to go? Well the rich get richer, you get the picture.

 

[Dalions]

Yes in that specific situation no but what if you were a first 22 player in a bottom 4 team who gets approached by a top 4 team who have an injury and it gives you a walk up start to a finals series?

All I can see happening is it would cause a lot of angst between player and current team if they don't let him go (presuming they want to), probably a break down in the relationship.

And if they do get to where they want to go? Well the rich get richer, you get the picture.

Yep, don’t like it at all.

 

[lionraven]

I think a unique attribute of the AFL is its historic natute, with team histories stretching so far back; including romantic ideas of one club players and father son picks. It gives a club meaning, character and a narrative that transcends generations. Although I love the NFL, the hypercapitalist nature of their 'franchises' feels so tacky compared to the AFL. Players are constantly coming and going from lists, going to the highest bidder. Teams ruthlessly managing player contracts and cutting players. Franchises threatening to leave cities unless the local government pays a ransom in the form of a new stadium every 30 odd years. Its just all so tacky. The AFL risks losing some of its charm and character by trying to go for all these cheap clicks and media attention. Whats the point of enabling mid season trades apart from empowering player agents to pull more bullshit throughout the year? We already saturate the media anyway throughout the season anyway.

I do think the idea of having a midseason draft where every team is given at least 1 list spot to rookie draft a player from the vfl, wafl or sanfl for a 6 to 18 month contract would be great. It would give a degree of clout and inspire higher competition in the lower leagues and give opportunities for older players to get drafted ans experience afl lists. It would also enable teams to experiment more and pick up non traditional players to see if we can unearth new talent and would also provide that sugar hit in the media the AFL craves.

 

[CarterS]

Bring back Bernie Gabba Vegas

 

[nup]

what a bandwagoner

 

[morsie]

I had a chat once with a certain AFL identity who admitted that all their draft rules and trading rules would not survive a restraint of trade case.
Their strategy was simply to outlast the opponents.If the rules were overturned they would bring in similar but different rules.
If they were overturned , new rules and so on and so on.
For those with long memories this was around the time of the Brett Cook saga .
The strategy may have changed but it was an interesting insight into the long game they were playing at the time.
The chap I was talking to certainly was informed and knew exactly what he was talking about but I prefer not to name him.

 

[Mighty Lions]

I agree it is just another way for stronger clubs to get stronger.

Buuuttt……………how good would it have been to have got Dunkley over the line before the finals last year knowing that he was coming at the end of the year anyway?

The extra big bodied, 2way running mid would have come in handy against Geelong.

Doggies never would have let him go though.

I hate the idea....so wrong on so many levels. When I talk about trading/draft in the AFL to my friends over in USA, they all say mid season trading is degrading from a club supporter point of view and detracts from the game if a loved & valued player is in negotiation to move from one club to another mid-season.

 

[Mighty Lions]

I had a chat once with a certain AFL identity who admitted that all their draft rules and trading rules would not survive a restraint of trade case.
Their strategy was simply to outlast the opponents.If the rules were overturned they would bring in similar but different rules.
If they were overturned , new rules and so on and so on.
For those with long memories this was around the time of the Brett Cook saga .
The strategy may have changed but it was an interesting insight into the long game they were playing at the time.
The chap I was talking to certainly was informed and knew exactly what he was talking about but I prefer not to name him.

I don't agree with your AFL identity. A contract is legal and all contracts are based on a season by season agreement. How can you argue differently when any given player has his signature on the bottom of a contract saying he agrees to play season to season, unless its a mutual decision by club & player.

 

[dlanod]

I don't agree with your AFL identity. A contract is legal and all contracts are based on a season by season agreement. How can you argue differently when any given player has his signature on the bottom of a contract saying he agrees to play season to season, unless its a mutual decision by club & player.

The problem is why can't an uncontracted person sign with whatever club they choose, whether that's as a kid or once their contract has ceased with their current club.

When a contract is in place, it's a different story.

 

[Mighty Lions]

The problem is why can't an uncontracted person sign with whatever club they choose, whether that's as a kid or once their contract has ceased with their current club.

When a contract is in place, it's a different story.

I dont understand what you are saying.

If a player (uncontracted) wants to play with a nominated club, providing that club wants him at their club, I dont understand what is stopping them from forming an agreement.

I'm not understanding what you are saying.

 

[dlanod]

I dont understand what you are saying.

If a player (uncontracted) wants to play with a nominated club, providing that club wants him at their club, I dont understand what is stopping them from forming an agreement.

I'm not understanding what you are saying.

Keidean Coleman is out of contract at the end of the year.

Once that contract ceases he decides he wants to join Fremantle and Fremantle want to sign him.

Under the current AFL rules he is not able to do that until/unless a trade is performed, regardless of his contract status.

Zane Duursma (a potential draftee this year) has no contract with any AFL club in place.

He decides he wants to join Port Adelaide and Port Adelaide want to sign him.

Under the current AFL rules he is not able to do that until/unless he's selected in the draft by them, regardless of his contract status.

 

[briztoon]

I hate the idea....so wrong on so many levels. When I talk about trading/draft in the AFL to my friends over in USA, they all say mid season trading is degrading from a club supporter point of view and detracts from the game if a loved & valued player is in negotiation to move from one club to another mid-season.

I’ve followed the NBA and EPL for well over 30 years now, have been on forums for 30 odd years.

I’ve been a member of the same NUFC forum for 28 years now, and I’m still one of the youngest members on the forum.

In both sports, mid season trading is just part of the game.

I don’t believe many fans of either sport believe it is degrading from a supporter or fan perspective.

Of course any team’s fan base is going to be upset at losing a fan favourite player. That goes for any sport, at any time of the list management cycle.

But if you’re a team losing such a player, generally your team has much bigger problems than losing such a player.

Do your friends talk about the other side of the coin, when it’s your club the player is coming to?

That energises and excites supporters, especially when it puts your team right in the championship hunt.


As I mentioned previously, I’m against the idea in the AFL. But to make out it’s any different for fans than the off season trade period is somewhat immature.

I believe most sports need to find a balance between team power versus player power, and in the AFL that’s not even close to biggest issue the league has.

I’d love for you to explain to your friends that 55% of AFL teams reside in one city, and that the competition as a National identity exists purely to support the continued existence of those 9 teams.

Then try and justify the “go home” factor to your USA mates.

 

[briztoon]

I dont understand what you are saying.

If a player (uncontracted) wants to play with a nominated club, providing that club wants him at their club, I dont understand what is stopping them from forming an agreement.

I'm not understanding what you are saying.

Current AFL restricted free agency rules.

 

[The Flying Belgian]

Bring back Bernie Gabba Vegas

Bring back Oba!!!

Photog credit to Mr Ripper

 

[Mr Ripper]

Bring back Oba!!!

Photog credit to Mr Ripper

Never found out who owns that arm.

 

[Section 5]

I had a chat once with a certain AFL identity who admitted that all their draft rules and trading rules would not survive a restraint of trade case.
Their strategy was simply to outlast the opponents.If the rules were overturned they would bring in similar but different rules.
If they were overturned , new rules and so on and so on.
For those with long memories this was around the time of the Brett Cook saga .
The strategy may have changed but it was an interesting insight into the long game they were playing at the time.
The chap I was talking to certainly was informed and knew exactly what he was talking about but I prefer not to name him.

A quick google search came up with this below

In November 1986, Buckenara decided to move back to Perth with his family.[5] The previous year, his mother Dawn had become paralyzed following a serious car accident, and with the West Coast Eagles having been granted admission into the VFL for the next season, Buckenara had been offered the vice-captaincy.[3] As Buckenara sought a release from his contract, Hawthorn's chief executive John Lauritz went to the Victorian Supreme Court and argued that Buckenara needed to honour his contract as a legally binding document, lest it cause another chaotic legal precedent similar to that of Silvio Foschini back in 1983.

Buckenara put the disappointment of the legal case behind him, and increased the 2-year option to three years, and proceeded to enjoy another stellar season with Hawthorn.
.....................................................
I don't think AFL players will be successful in a "restraint of trade " court case while the AFL have the below policies in place
Maybe a case could be made if something in the below policies, agreements, rules, codes etc was actually illegal
There are 49 in total, but these 9 are the main ones

A player and their legal representation would have to fine a loophole somewhere in the policies that applies to them
Even then it does not mean it would survive a court challenge

The AFLPA and players agree to play under these policies. Contracts are included in these policies
However, i doubt many players actually read these policies

AFL Policies​

AFL Laws of the Game
AFL Rules
AFL Regulations
Collective Bargaining Agreement
AFLW Collective Bargaining Agreement
Match Review Officer/Tribunal Guidelines
Non-Broadcast Rights Holder Camera Access Policy
Privacy Policy
Respect & Responsibility Policy
Whistleblower Policy
Whistleblower Reporting Procedure
Make a Whistleblower Report

 

[POBT]

The current player movement rules would potentially be an unlawful restraint of trade. That's no certainty, because there's no precedent in Australia which is on point, but theres enough to make the AFL nervous.

The fact that the AFLPA signs off on a term doesn't necessarily make it lawful. In the States, it is one factor that the courts have determined is relevant to consideration of whether anti-trust law has been breached. But Australian courts haven't even considered that issue.

The current arrangements rely on everyone being happy enough with that arrangement to ensure no-one will challenge it. Players want unrestricted movement but know that's unrealistic and problematic for a national competition. The AFL would love more power in clubs' hands to trade players against their will but know the AFLPA could crash the whole draft/trade system if the AFL pushes too hard. So there's a middle ground found that both parties can live with.

An individual wishing to challenge the system would likely do so without AFLPA support, meaning they would need to find it themselves. A trip down to the Federal Court would be an extensive and time consuming exercise, even if you have a reasonable chance of winning (which you likely don't).

All of that adds up to the current arrangements, which have been in place for 30+ years in their basic form, and have kept out of the courts.

 

[dlanod]

The current player movement rules would potentially be an unlawful restraint of trade. That's no certainty, because there's no precedent in Australia which is on point, but theres enough to make the AFL nervous.

The fact that the AFLPA signs off on a term doesn't necessarily make it lawful. In the States, it is one factor that the courts have determined is relevant to consideration of whether anti-trust law has been breached. But Australian courts haven't even considered that issue.

The current arrangements rely on everyone being happy enough with that arrangement to ensure no-one will challenge it. Players want unrestricted movement but know that's unrealistic and problematic for a national competition. The AFL would love more power in clubs' hands to trade players against their will but know the AFLPA could crash the whole draft/trade system if the AFL pushes too hard. So there's a middle ground found that both parties can live with.

An individual wishing to challenge the system would likely do so without AFLPA support, meaning they would need to find it themselves. A trip down to the Federal Court would be an extensive and time consuming exercise, even if you have a reasonable chance of winning (which you likely don't).

All of that adds up to the current arrangements, which have been in place for 30+ years in their basic form, and have kept out of the courts.

The NRL (or NSWRL at the time) already had their draft struck down as a restraint of trade back in the '90s, so that part at least hasn't gone a leg to stand on beyond mutual agreement not to rock the boat. The rest is relatively untested - but I agree, ultimately the main thing keeping it all in place is both sides being ok with the situation. It's also why the AFL is begrudgingly willing to increase player movement every time the AFLPA requests it, whether it's free agency, or then lifetime free agency, etc. We'll probably continue along the step by step process to more player movement for that same reason.

 

[lionraven]

If the AFL was challenged surely they would move to a licensing system where only licensed players are eligible to play in the competition. Then the AFL can impose whatever restrictions necessary to get and maintain a playet licence (ie drafting, trading etc). Players wouldn't be restricted in signing whatever contracts they want with whomever stakeholders but the contract would be meaningless to the team if the player isnt eligible for a playing license. They would just be paying someone for no reason