Get rid of the preseason draft!

[Cerpin Taxt]

This would mean clubs would have to negotiate on a reasonable level to acquire certain players, and would also mean they'd have to acquire reasonable picks if they wanted to draft an uncontracted player in the National draft. What does everybody think? There are a few issues that would need working on, but this current situation is ridiculous.

 

[McPhee33]

Unfortunately clubs are more demanding these days and its becoming tougher and tougher to make deals. The PSD is a perfect way for a player who wants out to find a new home without being tortured. I see what you are saying but there's a players personal welfare to think of too.

 

[sinepari]

Absolutely. Any 'left-over' players should then be entered in the National Draft. It would then be up to each club whether or not they select a kid of a player like Gardiner. This prevents the PSD from being used as a weopon.

 

[Florimo]

Yeah I am not a fan of the PSD (and not because of Thornton etc).

We are following the NFL alot with out drafting way off thinking, and definitely need to tweak ours more.

 

[LarryLong]

Absolutely. Any 'left-over' players should then be entered in the National Draft. It would then be up to each club whether or not they select a kid of a player like Gardiner. This prevents the PSD from being used as a weopon.

I don't know about that. You wouldn't be able to stop well-credentialled players from nominating a minumum salary for their services (I'm sure the union would step in if you tried that), so you would just end up with the same situation, but one less draft.

 

[Dundalis]

Restraint of trade is already likely to become an issue within coming years. Getting rid of the pre-season draft will accelerate this issue. The only reason it hasn't come up already like it has in all others sports in the US and soccer in Europe is because the AFL players association isn't as strong as players associations in those sports. But that will grow as the money players are helping the AFL make increases. The fact that it has happened in US sports means it is only a matter of time before it happens in AFL. Just like the draft before we had that and other professional issues that we have since implemented that were already common place in those international sports. Once player salaries get into the millions I think we will see shifts with the AFL being structured more like soccer or the NFL. The AFLPA will demand it and they will have the power to do so.

We will see free agents, because in the end the players ultimately hold all the power. At the moment their salaries aren't quite at that level where they would be likely to use it for financial security reasons.

 

[sinepari]

I don't know about that. You wouldn't be able to stop well-credentialled players from nominating a minumum salary for their services (I'm sure the union would step in if you tried that), so you would just end up with the same situation, but one less draft.

Yes they could still name their price, however a club would have to strongly consider that in the event that they had a high pick (Youth V Proven player)

 

[Adrenaline]

I don't normally get too involved with posting replies.

Getting rid of the PSD is something I have been saying for some time now.

I believe it should work like this.

Remove PSD.

First 2 days of trade week should be for all uncontracted players. Once deadline has been reached these players either re-sign with their original club or go into the National Draft.

If and possibly when they are picked up by a club, that pick then goes to the club that player was at.

This would eliminate all underhanded deals, would result in everyone being satisfied with the possible outcome, due to the market determining a player's worth in any given year.

 

[MarkT]

The PSD is needed for 2 reasons. It is part of the AFL’s levelling mechanism and restraint of trade cases would be more likely to arise and more likely to be successful without it.

 

[doofdoof]

Free agency would solve a lot of problems.

 

[pharro]

It is faintly ridiculous holding it just a couple of weeks after the ND. I'd prefer to have a mid season draft so clubs hit with massive injuries in key positions have a chance to ressurect their season.

 

[Mr Q]

Tweaking hey? Like this:

http://www.eaglesflyinghigh.com/viewtopic.php?t=6587

And Mark, I don't think getting rid of it would qualify as restraint of trade any more than actually having a draft system in the first place.

 

[grayham]

Tweaking hey? Like this:

http://www.eaglesflyinghigh.com/viewtopic.php?t=6587

And Mark, I don't think getting rid of it would qualify as restraint of trade any more than actually having a draft system in the first place.

The PSD is quite different from the National draft. The National draft is where players sign up to a standard contract...usually first time AFL players.

In the PSD, the players entering nominate extactly what sort of contract they want. Money and length, and whatever else.

Thats what makes the PSD an escape valve for any restraint of trade issue. In most cases the player tailors the contract to match the club he wants to go to, and even if he doesnt go to his club of choice, he still doesnt have much to complain about as he's specified what conditions/pay he wanted anyway.

 

[MarkT]

And Mark, I don't think getting rid of it would qualify as restraint of trade any more than actually having a draft system in the first place.

It’s about incremental steps around the restraint laws. Nick Stevens for instance could have stood his ground to go to Collingwood and Collingwood could have stood their ground on the offer. Without a PSD Nick and Collingwood go to court and the judge says this out of contract player had no way to join any employer in the AFL let alone the employer of his choice. Is that an unreasonable restraint? Potentially it is unreasonable even with the PSD option to be employed by an AFL club but without it it’s probably either goodbuy equalisation or free to club of choice if no deal is done which makes deals unworkable. The standard player contract goes beyond the ND. That can be changed but that also lessens the bargaining position of clubs. I doubt changing the date to pre draft helps a lot of itself anyway. Basically a draft and trade rules are designed to restrain trade.

I think it was Liam Pickering on SEN a couple of weeks ago that said the rules hold uop by agreement and goodwill of the players and the AFL want more trades because they fear action. Of course that was only an opinion of a player manager so take it as that. (I may have the source wrong).

 

[Mr Q]

The PSD is quite different from the National draft. The National draft is where players sign up to a standard contract...usually first time AFL players.

In the PSD, the players entering nominate extactly what sort of contract they want. Money and length, and whatever else.

Thats what makes the PSD an escape valve for any restraint of trade issue. In most cases the player tailors the contract to match the club he wants to go to, and even if he doesnt go to his club of choice, he still doesnt have much to complain about as he's specified what conditions/pay he wanted anyway.

Simple - allow players to nominate a price on their heads in the National Draft. In fact, I'm fairly sure they already can (or certainly used to be able to). You don't need a PSD for that. There's absolutely nothing that requires the PSD to occur that can't be done in the National Draft.

 

[MarkT]

Contracts span past the ND. Players are often delisted after the ND. Change a few rules and you may be right but the PSD offers another avenue and it is all about offering avenues around something essentially designed to restrain trade (players plying theirs freely).

In a restraint of trade case the court would likely look at the combined impact of the AFL rules and that also encompasses salary cap restrictions and the like. The AFL are dreading a case. If trades can’t get over the line this week expect changes to make them more likely. Maybe allowing future picks to be trade. Something to make more trades to club of choice happen.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Simple - allow players to nominate a price on their heads in the National Draft. In fact, I'm fairly sure they already can (or certainly used to be able to). You don't need a PSD for that. There's absolutely nothing that requires the PSD to occur that can't be done in the National Draft.

That's right Q. The difference is that the prospective employer (club) would be more interested in trading, otherwise they would have to use a draft pick and take the gamble. If trade week and the draft were each pushed forward two weeks, it would allow contract negotiations and behind-the-scenes work to continue a bit longer. As it stands there's very little time to negotiate in the off-season before big moves have to be made.

 

[grayham]

In a restraint of trade case the court would likely look at the combined impact of the AFL rules and that also encompasses salary cap restrictions and the like. The AFL are dreading a case..

I see no evidence of the AFL dreading a restraint of trade case against them.

Only seems to be scare mongering by a few individuals not quite up with employment laws, pushing an agenda.

My understanding is that the PSD takes away any case of restraint of trade brought about by the national draft and trade-week.

 

[grayham]

Simple - allow players to nominate a price on their heads in the National Draft. In fact, I'm fairly sure they already can (or certainly used to be able to). You don't need a PSD for that. There's absolutely nothing that requires the PSD to occur that can't be done in the National Draft.

I cant see a benefit of merging the two together.

ND for new players.
PSD for delisted/disgrunted players wanting to continue their career away from current club.

A nice deliniation.

I'm not sure players in the ND can stipulate contract rates. If they did, wouldnt it make it a can of worms juggling salary caps when it came to your pick. I was under the impression, all ND-ies got a fixed 2 year contract. Of course the club can upgrade that contract after the first year to whatever they want, but the first year salary cap implications were standard across the board.

 

[Mr Q]

I cant see a benefit of merging the two together.

ND for new players.
PSD for delisted/disgrunted players wanting to continue their career away from current club.

It removes the fact that clubs can use early PSD picks to corrupt the trade process. Melbourne did it to get Jeff White out of Fremantle, and ironically Freo turned around and did it back to Melbourne over Jeff Farmer - then did it to the Hawks over McPharlin once they'd battened down Melbourne.

Removing the ability to trade on your position in the PSD to minimise the payment you have to pay in a trade deal means a better chance of a fair deal for both clubs. If you want player X, then you'd have to trade for them fairly. And I reckon that's a good thing.

A nice deliniation.

I'm not sure players in the ND can stipulate contract rates. If they did, wouldnt it make it a can of worms juggling salary caps when it came to your pick. I was under the impression, all ND-ies got a fixed 2 year contract. Of course the club can upgrade that contract after the first year to whatever they want, but the first year salary cap implications were standard across the board.

If it were a nice delineation, we wouldn't be trading current players for draft picks in the National Draft.

There's simple ways and means of combining both drafts together. Players who have been drafted before can nominate a price. Players who haven't can't. If you want to draft player X, and they've nominated they want a 3 year deal at 800K a year, then you can budget for it before the draft - in fact, you'd have to budget for it before trade week in the current scenario.

The most important thing is to eliminate the bollocks that is the PSD interfering with the trade period.

 

[grayham]

The most important thing is to eliminate the bollocks that is the PSD interfering with the trade period.

But the purpose of the PSD is it gives the PLAYER some power in negotiations, rather than having the clubs treat trading like a meat market.

Take Everitt. He doesnt want to play at Hawthorn, but if he wants to play somewhere else, he has to ask Hawthorn to help him out. Hawthorn (if they were a contender) wouldnt be trading him to St Kilda or Sydney as they are also contenders, so Hawthorn could easily refuse, or knock up some vengful trade to Port (or similar wasteground). Everitt then has little choice.

With the PSD up his sleve, Everitt has the power to influence where he goes, and so no to Port, I want sydney or saints, and I'll try my luck to get there via PSD for nothing if you dont strike a deal. Everitt is no certainty to go to either in the PSD, so I think it provides a nice balance of power in the negotiations.

At the end of the day, the teams with lots of cap room get the most out of the PSD, so its a nice leveller to the comp as well.

 

[Monocle]

But the purpose of the PSD is it gives the PLAYER some power in negotiations, rather than having the clubs treat trading like a meat market.

Take Everitt. He doesnt want to play at Hawthorn, but if he wants to play somewhere else, he has to ask Hawthorn to help him out. Hawthorn (if they were a contender) wouldnt be trading him to St Kilda or Sydney as they are also contenders, so Hawthorn could easily refuse, or knock up some vengful trade to Port (or similar wasteground). Everitt then has little choice.

With the PSD up his sleve, Everitt has the power to influence where he goes, and so no to Port, I want sydney or saints, and I'll try my luck to get there via PSD for nothing if you dont strike a deal. Everitt is no certainty to go to either in the PSD, so I think it provides a nice balance of power in the negotiations.

At the end of the day, the teams with lots of cap room get the most out of the PSD, so its a nice leveller to the comp as well.

And if you have a bigger cap to start with than others in the game, this argument would sit well with you. Bottom line PSD is used as a tool of blackmail. I have no lean toward Carlton but the threat that Hawthorn are able to place on Carlton is not IMO in the spirit of the game.

 

[Mr Q]

But the purpose of the PSD is it gives the PLAYER some power in negotiations, rather than having the clubs treat trading like a meat market.

They have no more power with or without a PSD. The only power a player has is walk or not walk from their club. They can do that regardless of whether there's a PSD or not.

All it means is that all players out of contract have to have the opportunity to walk before the national draft.

Take Everitt. He doesnt want to play at Hawthorn, but if he wants to play somewhere else, he has to ask Hawthorn to help him out. Hawthorn (if they were a contender) wouldnt be trading him to St Kilda or Sydney as they are also contenders, so Hawthorn could easily refuse, or knock up some vengful trade to Port (or similar wasteground). Everitt then has little choice.

How does the PSD in any way help this? If Hawthorn don't want to trade him to Sydney, no power on earth can make them under the current system nor if there's only one draft. Everitt's only power is that he can leave the club and throw himself into the draft. The number of drafts there is makes absolutely no difference to this.

With the PSD up his sleve, Everitt has the power to influence where he goes, and so no to Port, I want sydney or saints, and I'll try my luck to get there via PSD for nothing if you dont strike a deal. Everitt is no certainty to go to either in the PSD, so I think it provides a nice balance of power in the negotiations.

How. He has absolutely no power beyond asking for a trade. One draft or two, he still asks the same question, and if the club won't trade him where he wants, the PSD in no way makes it any more certain that he'll get where he wants to go than a single draft.

In fact, if the club where he's intending to go wants him that badly a single draft would make that easier, as they'll have less contenders for the pick, as other clubs will be concerning themselves with getting new players, thus making it easier for a player to get where they want. Particularly if they still have the power to nominate their price. Unless of course, that team finished last.

At the end of the day, the teams with lots of cap room get the most out of the PSD, so its a nice leveller to the comp as well.

That's only because players nominate their price. If they can do that in the National Draft anyway, that particular item becomes null and void.

There's absolutely nothing that the PSD provides except power to corrupt the trading process for the team that comes last. It's more reward for mediocrity - and all teams are entitled to a fair deal in the trade process.

All that the PSD gives is two bites at the cherry for the team that gets the number one pick and the ability to hold other clubs to ransom.

You're a Sydney supporter. Say Adam Goodes walked from your club, demanding to return to Victoria. Under the current system, he could make an agreement with Carlton by which you get SFA for him as he goes in the PSD. Carlton though offer you pick 19 (way less than he's worth), so you take it because it's better than nothing. They get Goodes cheap, and then get the best player in the PSD as well. With the single system, they'd have to choose whether Goodes and the contract that comes with him is worth more to them than Gibbs or Leuenberger or whoever. Or just trade fairly in the first place, like every club has to.

Getting rid of the PSD doesn't disenfranchise the player, just means that no club can rort the entire system by a mediocre finish.

 

[DDTiger]

OK, whatever. I just hope my club always value the new kid over the recycled player.

 

[Weaver]

I think it was Liam Pickering on SEN a couple of weeks ago that said the rules hold uop by agreement and goodwill of the players and the AFL want more trades because they fear action. Of course that was only an opinion of a player manager so take it as that. (I may have the source wrong).

The AFL and Players Association have a good relationship that works for both.

The AFL doesn't want free agency - the players don't want options clauses. The AFL wants a salary cap - the players want 92.5% of the cap spent on players at each club.

If the Players try to remove the draft and cap - the AFL will stop guarenteeing deals (guys can get sacked on 4 weeks notice like the rest of us), there will be options clauses, clubs will be free to pay 50% of the cap if they choose, there will be no minimum wage (so contract offers of $15k and match payments for the keenest kids) etc.