Rumour GFC 2022 Player Trading, Drafting FA, Rumours and Wish lists PT2

[catempire]

You reckon that is legally sustainable?

I’m not aware of many precedents in Australia of court action against sporting league rules. Would a restriction on trading be that different to current rules that promote equalisation like the draft? Not sure.

In the US there are some exemptions for sporting competitions from antitrust and labour laws that are now being challenged. It could happen here but the money on the line isn’t as big so the cost of litigating it might not be worth it.

 

[FredLeDeux]

Three years is better. Four is too long.

Three years is too long.
If a club can't persuade its involuntary conscripts to stay within the free hit 2 years, they should be allowed to go.

 

[year of the cat]

I have seen the argument made in the last few days that we should just do away with the draft and keep the salary cap as the main equalisation measure, ala the NRL.

I’m not sure that’s any better a solution for the likes of North and the Gold Coast. They will potentially be even more exposed to overpaying for talent.

I think if Geelong pulls this off there will be change in some direction, not sure how. Perhaps limiting trading/FAs for successful clubs.

It seems that some clubs are very slow to catch on to cap management. We are still seeing the likes of Carl and Melb signing players to long term, lucrative deals even after the train wreck of Collingwood’s cap issues with Treloar and now Grundy.

The cries of frustration from opposition supporters decrying that Geelong must be rorting the cap are bizarre. That we aren’t paying our players “true value”. Perhaps there just needs to be a broader adjustment in expectation on players wages. That to be a successful club, you can’t be paying some north of $900,000 pa. That if you want to be a successful club and still have the ability to attract players that $500K pa contracts is a more realistic and sustainable practice.

 

[thejester]

I’m not aware of many precedents in Australia of court action against sporting league rules. Would a restriction on trading be that different to current rules that promote equalisation like the draft? Not sure.

In the US there are some exemptions for sporting competitions from antitrust and labour laws that are now being challenged. It could happen here but the money on the line isn’t as big so the cost of litigating it might not be worth it.

My understanding (obviously not being a lawyer) was that stuff like the draft probably is on shaky legal ground, it is just no one has had the incentive to seriously test it. I do wonder if restricting what clubs can do - which seems to me to move from trying to ensure a level playing field to actively punishing success - would provide that incentive.

 

[cat_shack]

Three years is too long.
If a club can't persuade its involuntary conscripts to stay within the free hit 2 years, they should be allowed to go.

How is it too long? Clubs invest so much time and resources into draftees. Personally I think 3 years, plus a team option for a 4th is about right. Even after a 4th year, players are only 22-23.

 

[#6 Thorp #7 Selwood LOL]

I will say, if we get something of use for Sav (ie. FR2), it'll be a masterclass in boosting a guys trade value from CS and co.

Sav was an afterthought this year, though a good run with injuries certainly helped that.

But towards the end of the year we started pumping up his tyres as a defender, CS would always mention him in pressers, then we bring him in against a putrid Eagles team to frank his form as a defender.

At the time it reeked of trying to pump up his value in order to offload him, and the talk from Mackie so far hasn't changed my view on that.

 

[FredLeDeux]

How is it too long? Clubs invest so much time and resources into draftees. Personally I think 3 years, plus a team option for a 4th is about right. Even after a 4th year, players are only 22-23.

2 years is plenty of time to persuade the conscripts to stay.
If you can't do it in that time, you've stuffed up.

 

[Zuta]

There is alot of talk about the need to keep atleast a future second round pick to comply with the rules. Can anyone help explain it simply? Do we specifically have to keep our second round pick or are we able to trade ours out and as long as we get any clubs future second back we are good to go?

 

[Turbocat]

I think the draft itself needs to stay, but you're right about talent not being evenly distributed. FA hasn't helped, it's clearly benefitted the strong clubs. gun players in their prime can now walk to the top clubs, and often for a bit less than they would receive elsewhere. Whereas clubs like GC, North etc. only attract honest journeymen that are trying to ensure some extra longevity in the game. It also means that the poor clubs have to pay more to retain their players to stop them being poached as free agents. This is why GC are in cap trouble and giving away pick 7 for nothing, even though they're not successful. The same with GWS after paying overs for Kelly, Whitfield, Coniglio etc.

I think 3 year contracts for first round draftees will and should happen soon. A loyalty bonus isn't the worst idea, but would have to be paid by the AFL outside the cap, otherwise the bottom clubs would have to manage this in their current cap which is already bulging from paying more to retain talent.

Something probably needs to happen to make things more equitable and stop having perennial feeder clubs at the bottom. But like you said, glad it's not my job. And in the meantime I'm going to enjoy Geelong staying at the top for as long as possible.

Yep . If I am Geelong .. things can only get worse for us changing the system. So no change but im sure others will want change. It usually happens when we have a win. Just like with FatherSon changed after Hawkins.

On contract length .. Why should r1 picks be different. Thats more inequity . So one year P20 must stay for 3 years ..and another year only 2 years? Personally I did not like what we did to the MSD kid Williams. If you move someone from another state... you should be willing to give them 2 years. Clubs like longer contracts...when it suits them because it gives them trade hand.

I think the point on contract length avoids the core issue. The concept of the draft denies that players have their own desires and tastes and wants. JHF is contracted.. just as Kelly was and they want out. If we compel players to stay where tehy are not happy for longer... how long before mental health is brought up?

If every R1 pick could have chosen where they started their career... how many pick the club they land at. (apart from the likes of Ashcroft and Dacois). The draft build in this underlying sandbag approach. Most of the time..a player will land at a club and settle... but sometimes, especially players who are highly talented and have choices.. they do not settle and will act of their preference. ... In all the beating about Geelong .... how many bring up us losing Clark to Freo ? It happens to all clubs.

 

[PeasFC]

Wild take. They’ve played in about 100 games together for about 70 wins!

Both had absolute disaster preseasons this year too.
Duncan did incredibly well to play as many games as he did after recurrent calf issues throughout the summer.
Looked to have lost a yard this year but was incredibly versatile and consistent.

If they both have good preseasons, can absolutely be in the same side thanks to their ability to play in a couple of positions.

 

[Isaac Norm Smith]

I’d assume we will prioritize the Bowes trade then look to trade back into next years R2 in order to facilitate the Bruhn trade. Hoping that Bowes drops today.

Yeah that makes sense. Might mean the Bruhn trade drops next week as we will have to find another FR2 to allow us to use that FR1 as part of the Bruhn trade.

If we can get Bowes done today, I don't see a reason why we won't get Henry done with P18. Although it seems we are holding out hope we don't have to trade P18 for him, or we get a decent pick back with Henry. I can't see the Pies backing down and IMO P18 is pretty fair.

 

[FredLeDeux]

Yeah that makes sense. Might mean the Bruhn trade drops next week as we will have to find another FR2 to allow us to use that FR1 as part of the Bruhn trade.

If we can get Bowes done today, I don't see a reason why we won't get Henry done with P18. Although it seems we are holding out hope we don't have to trade P18 for him.or we get a decent pick back. Can't see Pies backing down and IMO P18 is pretty fair.

We will have to prioritise all 3 trades simultaneously sub rosa, to make sure we don't get held over the barrel by the club/s we want to give us the extra FR2.

 

[catempire]

My understanding (obviously not being a lawyer) was that stuff like the draft probably is on shaky legal ground, it is just no one has had the incentive to seriously test it. I do wonder if restricting what clubs can do - which seems to me to move from trying to ensure a level playing field to actively punishing success - would provide that incentive.

I’ve seen arguments both ways re the draft. There’s a good article here on it:

The AFL and restraint of trade

Every so often the question of the ability of the AFL to withstand restraint of trade cases in court pops up for discussion, most…

www.theroar.com.au

I still think the question is whether anyone would have the incentive to do it. Would there be enough benefit in it for a club or clubs (or players) to spend tens of millions trying to do it? I’m doubtful. In the US there are hundreds of millions up for grabs which is why we see a little bit of litigation there. The calculus here seems to be different.

 

[bulletproof]

I think we should have done the Henry and Bruhn deals before this Bowes news broke. Even if we paid a little more. It will have hardened the view on dealing with Geelong I think.

 

[Isaac Norm Smith]

We will have to prioritise all 3 trades simultaneously sub rosa, to make sure we don't get held over the barrel by the club/s we want to give us the extra FR2.

Yes - good point. This will be a great experience for Mackie as he transitions into the role.

 

[Jumping Jack]

I’ve seen arguments both ways re the draft. There’s a good article here on it:

The AFL and restraint of trade

Every so often the question of the ability of the AFL to withstand restraint of trade cases in court pops up for discussion, most…

www.theroar.com.au

I still think the question is whether anyone would have the incentive to do it. Would there be enough benefit in it for a club or clubs (or players) to spend tens of millions trying to do it? I’m doubtful. In the US there are hundreds of millions up for grabs which is why we see a little bit of litigation there. The calculus here seems to be different.

Bang on the money there CatEmpire. The situation the AFL finds itself in (much to the chagrin of lower performing clubs) is largely related to restraint of trade and the threat of legal challenges. As well as the AFLPA (rightfully) having pushed for players to have more freedom to move between clubs, and players in general to have more control.

The clubs have legal advice on how far they can push, and the AFL knows that there are limitations on how much they can constrain clubs and players. This is a much broader issue that what's "right" or "fair" in the eyes of supporters. It has far more to do with commercial law and the AFL's own lawyers ensuring that restrictive trade and drafting rules do not land them in court.

The average football supporting nuffie has no reason to take those points into consideration when complaining about what's "right" or "fair".

 

[PeasFC]

Yep . If I am Geelong .. things can only get worse for us changing the system. So no change but im sure others will want change. It usually happens when we have a win. Just like with FatherSon changed after Hawkins.

On contract length .. Why should r1 picks be different. Thats more inequity . So one year P20 must stay for 3 years ..and another year only 2 years? Personally I did not like what we did to the MSD kid Williams. If you move someone from another state... you should be willing to give them 2 years. Clubs like longer contracts...when it suits them because it gives them trade hand.

I think the point on contract length avoids the core issue. The concept of the draft denies that players have their own desires and tastes and wants. JHF is contracted.. just as Kelly was and they want out. If we compel players to stay where tehy are not happy for longer... how long before mental health is brought up?

If every R1 pick could have chosen where they started their career... how many pick the club they land at. (apart from the likes of Ashcroft and Dacois). The draft build in this underlying sandbag approach. Most of the time..a player will land at a club and settle... but sometimes, especially players who are highly talented and have choices.. they do not settle and will act of their preference. ... In all the beating about Geelong .... how many bring up us losing Clark to Freo ? It happens to all clubs.

Certainly agree with the majority of this post.

On Williams though - he could have stipulated that he was only willing to sign a 18 month contract. One player did exactly that to help him get to his club of choice. I think for a 20 yo to be offered the opportunity to be on an AFL list would have been an amazing opportunity and one that clearly he was willing to move interstate to achieve. By all reports he was a super popular team member and a really nice kid. Will either go back to the SANFL or look at opportunities to train with an AFL club during the pre-season and I think on the whole his experience on a list at a premiership team will be hugely valuable and certainly not something he would regret.

 

[Turbocat]

Certainly agree with the majority of this post.

On Williams though - he could have stipulated that he was only willing to sign a 18 month contract. One player did exactly that to help him get to his club of choice. I think for a 20 yo to be offered the opportunity to be on an AFL list would have been an amazing opportunity and one that clearly he was willing to move interstate to achieve. By all reports he was a super popular team member and a really nice kid. Will either go back to the SANFL or look at opportunities to train with an AFL club during the pre-season and I think on the whole his experience on a list at a premiership team will be hugely valuable and certainly not something he would regret.

All that is fair it just doesn't sit well somehow.

 

[Jumping Jack]

I think we should have done the Henry and Bruhn deals before this Bowes news broke. Even if we paid a little more. It will have hardened the view on dealing with Geelong I think.

Won't make any difference. Pick 7 is off the table for both the Henry and Bruhn deals. Geelong will (and have) been very clear with other clubs with regards to the pick not being part of any negotiations.

Henry will get done with Pick 18. Collingwood know that's a reasonable deal for a player OOC and who has publicly stated they want out. Collingwood have asked for a player but Geelong unlikely to budge. If a player is involved then pick 18 is off the table.

Bruhn will get done, and I'm told that the pick situation is ok, but the player packaged up with the pick is the sticking point at the minute. Clubs aren't too far apart though.

Just what I've been told to this point, and much closer to deals dropping on Henry and Bruhn now that Bowes is effectively done.

 

[Turbocat]

Won't make any difference. Pick 7 is off the table for both the Henry and Bruhn deals. Geelong will (and have) been very clear with other clubs with regards to the pick not being part of any negotiations.

Henry will get done with Pick 18. Collingwood know that's a reasonable deal for a player OOC and who has publicly stated they want out. Collingwood have asked for a player but Geelong unlikely to budge. If a player is involved then pick 18 is off the table.

Bruhn will get done, and I'm told that the pick situation is ok, but the player packaged up with the pick is the sticking point at the minute. Clubs aren't too far apart though.

Just what I've been told to this point, and much closer to deals dropping on Henry and Bruhn now that Bowes is effectively done.

Any idea on the future pick situation. I pressume we need a Fr2 to get the Bowes deal done

 

[PeasFC]

I think we should have done the Henry and Bruhn deals before this Bowes news broke. Even if we paid a little more. It will have hardened the view on dealing with Geelong I think.

Fremantle went through this last year when negotiating with us for Jordan Clark.
They did the Brodie trade before agreeing to terms with us receiving pick 19 from GC.
I'm sure we asked for that pick, but in the end they held firm and kept 19 sending us 22 (24) for Clark.

I think the cats will be able to secure 7, without it impacting our ability to negotiate trades for Bruhn and Henry. You could actually argue that now that we know that we are getting pick 7, we will be more likely to be willing to use 18 for Henry. Additionally, we might have needed to do Bowes first to know whether we need to get back into the 2nd round next year if we intend on using F1 for Bruhn.

 

[PeasFC]

All that is fair it just doesn't sit well somehow.

Yeh I understand that, felt the bit the same when I saw he was delisted.
May be offered a VFL contract or at the very least an offer to train with us pre-season to earn a potential rookie spot if available.
I trust the club to have had some honest conversations with the kid and that he is comfortable with where things are at.

 

[PeasFC]

Won't make any difference. Pick 7 is off the table for both the Henry and Bruhn deals. Geelong will (and have) been very clear with other clubs with regards to the pick not being part of any negotiations.

Henry will get done with Pick 18. Collingwood know that's a reasonable deal for a player OOC and who has publicly stated they want out. Collingwood have asked for a player but Geelong unlikely to budge. If a player is involved then pick 18 is off the table.

Bruhn will get done, and I'm told that the pick situation is ok, but the player packaged up with the pick is the sticking point at the minute. Clubs aren't too far apart though.

Just what I've been told to this point, and much closer to deals dropping on Henry and Bruhn now that Bowes is effectively done.

Exactly how I see it.
Was important for the club to prioritise the Bowes trade to get the best view of what we have available for Bruhn and Henry.
Once that is official, I don't see any major obstacles in negotiating fair trades with GWS and Collingwood.

 

[Jumping Jack]

Any idea on the future pick situation. I pressume we need a Fr2 to get the Bowes deal done

Nothing concrete as yet. All I know is that the AFL ticked off the pick 7 exchange, so anything outside of that is between the clubs.

 

[standupand]

Im sure there is some fancy name for it... but I do not think they want to concede that it might be right.


If they want to change the rules great. Imo.... if a club adjusts a contract like GC did... they should morally have to pay out what they are owned before they are traded. but thats not the way the world works. We are agreeing to take his money off their cap. Thats what the deal is about. It gets complicated due to the fact that Gold Coast is sort of like the child of the afl.


If the afl don't like it change the system. The draft doesnt work... lets go back to zones.... so Sam Walsh etc etc. come to us and they still would not be happy.

Returning to a zone system makes a lot of sense to me.
Players naturally seek to move back home or to play with mates they grew up playing with. And it's happening more and more.
A zone system would incentive AFL clubs to invest back into the grassroots footy of their own region.
And if the AFL wanted to really support expansion sides in Qld and NSW, they would likewise do so through supporting the grassroots in those states not through making special rules and concessions.
I see one of Geelong's main advantages as it's strong connection with the Falcons and to it's local footy leagues. That and simply being a well-run and successful club that make us an attractive destination even for players not from the region.