News Jackson Hately requests trade to Adelaide

[Vader]

Curious about the second sentence. What has been removed?

For a long time, the date for players delisting themselves was after the closing date for ND nomination forms. Their only option was the PSD. The AFL eventually changed the list lodgement dates, and players who are forced to wait until LL2 to delist themselves were/are now able to nominate for the ND and the PSD.

The whole reason for the PSD was to act as a circuit breaker, allowing players to find new homes while still specifying contractual terms, if their clubs refused to release them or failed to trade them as requested. The ND now offers this same ability to the players - so the only reason for the PSD's existence has effectively been removed.

 

[SaltPeter]

For a long time, the date for players delisting themselves was after the closing date for ND nomination forms. Their only option was the PSD. The AFL eventually changed the list lodgement dates, and players who are forced to wait until LL2 to delist themselves were/are now able to nominate for the ND and the PSD.

The whole reason for the PSD was to act as a circuit breaker, allowing players to find new homes while still specifying contractual terms, if their clubs refused to release them or failed to trade them as requested. The ND now offers this same ability to the players - so the only reason for the PSD's existence has effectively been removed.

Doesn't the PSD still act as some form of circuit breaker though for delisted players, who clubs are prepared to pick up, however don't want to spend draft picks on?

Although I guess being drafted at pick 101 in the ND is to some degree is the literally the same for some delisted players?

Perhaps like Martin last year, and Hately this year it still provides lower ranked clubs to benefit, which would to some degree fit the AFL equalisation plan?

 

[arrowman]

The fact is 95% salary cap is <$750K different to 100% cap.

Yes, this. Plus, if you're a club talking about cap issues you don't necessarily mean you're maxed this year or even next (on current contracts). It means you're looking ahead to what $ needs you might / expect to have in the next 2-3 years.

 

[ContrarianCrow]

Except McCartney was 100% right. Most clubs hate dealing with Essendon because of how unreasonable they are.

I don’t see why we should concern ourselves with whether other clubs get their noses out of joint. Most clubs would love dealing with us as we’ve traditionally caved. Playing hardball with Hately is a step in the right direction.

 

[Vader]

Doesn't the PSD still act as some form of circuit breaker though for delisted players, who clubs are prepared to pick up, however don't want to spend draft picks on?

Although I guess being drafted at pick 101 in the ND is to some degree is the literally the same for some delisted players?

Perhaps like Martin last year, and Hately this year it still provides lower ranked clubs to benefit, which would to some degree fit the AFL equalisation plan?

Now it's just a tool which is open to abuse. The players have no more rights when using the PSD than they do the ND. I'm sure the clubs would be more than happy to do away with the PSD completely, now that it is obsolete.

 

[SaltPeter]

Now it's just a tool which is open to abuse. The players have no more rights when using the PSD than they do the ND. I'm sure the clubs would be more than happy to do away with the PSD completely, now that it is obsolete.

I think this is where you and I differ. I don't think it's obsolete.

GWS has the option to take the trade offered, however consciously chose not to engage. I'm sure if Adelaide finished in the top 8 this year, GWS would've been open to negotiation. It seems to me they wrote Hately off and spent all their time focussed on Cameron and Caldwell.

Martin seems to be a bit of an anomaly though considering GC were 18th only few places above them. However, again with the plethora of riches the AFL granted them they didn't seem to gaf.

 

[Vhaluus]

It SHOULD be both their last years but who knows.

This year should have been both their last year.

 

[FR0GGY]

Probably want to go back to sydney now

 

[boffo]

Now it's just a tool which is open to abuse. The players have no more rights when using the PSD than they do the ND. I'm sure the clubs would be more than happy to do away with the PSD completely, now that it is obsolete.

One key difference, players in the PSD nominate their contract demands. Not so in the ND.

 

[SaltPeter]

One key difference, players in the PSD nominate their contract demands. Not so in the ND.

Actually, players who've previously been on an AFL list can and do nominate their contract terms in either draft

 

[Vader]

I think this is where you and I differ. I don't think it's obsolete.

GWS has the option to take the trade offered, however consciously chose not to engage. I'm sure if Adelaide finished in the top 8 this year, GWS would've been open to negotiation. It seems to me they wrote Hately off and spent all their time focussed on Cameron and Caldwell.

Martin seems to be a bit of an anomaly though considering GC were 18th only few places above them. However, again with the plethora of riches the AFL granted them they didn't seem to gaf.

How does that make it any less obsolete?

If the deal falls through (as it did with Hately), then Hately has the option of nominating for the ND. He thus has his escape route, which is what the PSD was originally designed to provide.

 

[Vader]

One key difference, players in the PSD nominate their contract demands. Not so in the ND.

Garbage. Players can nominate their contract demands in the ND, just as they can in the PSD.

 

[SaltPeter]

How does that make it any less obsolete?

If the deal falls through (as it did with Hately), then Hately has the option of nominating for the ND. He thus has his escape route, which is what the PSD was originally designed to provide.

Delisted players can be picked up by clubs along the same lines as Keays and Crocker essentially as rookie picks. The PSD offers another pathway straight onto a clubs senior list.

The ND still requires a club to spend draft picks. Where do you realistically think Hately would be drafted this year, if his only option was the ND? Or would he just nominate for the rookie draft and still be picked up by Adelaide?

Hately is a prime example of equalisation

 

[Vader]

Delisted players can be picked up by clubs along the same lines as Keays and Crocker essentially as rookie picks. The PSD offers another pathway straight onto a clubs senior list.

The ND still requires a club to spend draft picks. Where do you realistically think Hately would be drafted this year, if his only option was the ND? Or would he just nominate for the rookie draft and still be picked up by Adelaide?

Hately is a prime example of equalisation

Adelaide would be forced to use one of their draft picks on Hately, probably pick #40... which is exactly the pick which GWS refused. So what of it?

Yes, I think he'd survive that long - because he's made it abundantly clear that he wants to go to Adelaide, and has done 2/3rd of 3/5ths of SFA in the 2 years since he was drafted. Luke Ball got to Collingwood with exactly the same pick that St Kilda refused, and I think the same thing would have happened with Hately & Adelaide. We'll never know though, as it's a purely hypothetical scenario.

Keays & Crocker weren't signed as DFAs, we drafted them in the RD. Signing them as DFAs would have forced us to put them on the senior list, and we only wanted them as rookies.

Players who delist themselves aren't eligible for DFA status, so their only option is to nominate for one (or both) of the drafts - to which end, there's no reason whatsoever whey the PSD couldn't be abolished and these players forced to nominate for the ND.

 

[SaltPeter]

Adelaide would be forced to use one of their draft picks on Hately, probably pick #40... which is exactly the pick which GWS refused. So what of it?

Yes, I think he'd survive that long - because he's made it abundantly clear that he wants to go to Adelaide, and has done 2/3rd of 3/5ths of SFA in the 2 years since he was drafted. Luke Ball got to Collingwood with exactly the same pick that St Kilda refused, and I think the same thing would have happened with Hately & Adelaide. We'll never know though, as it's a purely hypothetical scenario.

Keays & Crocker weren't signed as DFAs, we drafted them in the RD. Signing them as DFAs would have forced us to put them on the senior list, and we only wanted them as rookies.

Players who delist themselves aren't eligible for DFA status, so their only option is to nominate for one (or both) of the drafts - to which end, there's no reason whatsoever whey the PSD couldn't be abolished and these players forced to nominate for the ND.

I appreciate what you're saying, however I still disagree, at least as far as the PSD is obsolete.

I also understand the Ball scenario, however the AFL had close a loophole (from memory) because Ball nominated a contract no other club would've been prepared to take on only for them to renegotiate his contract after being drafted.

The scenario I am unclear of though is as along the lines as you have posted earlier. By first list lodgement if GWS didn't delist Hately, by the time fo the second list lodgement Hately would be an uncontracted player. At which point he could effectively 'delist' himself and nominate 1 or all of the drafts?

In the case of Hately, with Adelaide having pick 1 in the RD, why wouldn't he just nominate for that draft. The down side he only gets a 1 year contract, and 'cannot specify his contract value'? .. however still gets too the club of his choice

Again, I am still a fan of the PSD

 

[Eagleboy2011]

Probably want to go back to sydney now

Thanks Mr. Marshall and his lack of testing at hotel quarantine . Jackson cant go back even if he wanted to.

 

[Mutineer]

Adelaide would be forced to use one of their draft picks on Hately, probably pick #40... which is exactly the pick which GWS refused. So what of it?

Yes, I think he'd survive that long - because he's made it abundantly clear that he wants to go to Adelaide, and has done 2/3rd of 3/5ths of SFA in the 2 years since he was drafted. Luke Ball got to Collingwood with exactly the same pick that St Kilda refused, and I think the same thing would have happened with Hately & Adelaide. We'll never know though, as it's a purely hypothetical scenario.

Keays & Crocker weren't signed as DFAs, we drafted them in the RD. Signing them as DFAs would have forced us to put them on the senior list, and we only wanted them as rookies.

Players who delist themselves aren't eligible for DFA status, so their only option is to nominate for one (or both) of the drafts - to which end, there's no reason whatsoever whey the PSD couldn't be abolished and these players forced to nominate for the ND.

Hately in this particular draft lasting to pick 40? Pig's ass!!

 

[CutAboveTheRest]

Ran into Jackson today at the local Foodland.. Really deceiving just how big he is in person.

 

[SaltPeter]

Ran into Jackson today at the local Foodland.. Really deceiving just how big he is in person.

Did he have a mask on? Was he socially distancing? Did he arm fulls of toilet paper?

 

[CutAboveTheRest]

Did he a mask on?

That's a negative

 

[SaltPeter]

That's a negative

Hang on .. go back .. I had to edit my post

 

[Vader]

I appreciate what you're saying, however I still disagree, at least as far as the PSD is obsolete.

I also understand the Ball scenario, however the AFL had close a loophole (from memory) because Ball nominated a contract no other club would've been prepared to take on only for them to renegotiate his contract after being drafted.

The problem here has nothing to do with the draft - it's the ability to renegotiate the contract, a loophole which the AFL has since closed.

The scenario I am unclear of though is as along the lines as you have posted earlier. By first list lodgement if GWS didn't delist Hately, by the time fo the second list lodgement Hately would be an uncontracted player. At which point he could effectively 'delist' himself and nominate 1 or all of the drafts?

Correct. Hately can delist himself at List Lodgement 2, and then nominate for the ND. There is no need for the PSD.

In the case of Hately, with Adelaide having pick 1 in the RD, why wouldn't he just nominate for that draft. The down side he only gets a 1 year contract, and 'cannot specify his contract value'? .. however still gets too the club of his choice

Why would he only get a 1 year contract of unspecified value? He has every right, as a player who was on an AFL list in 2020, to specify both the term and $$$ components of his contract, when nominating for the draft. He can do this in either the ND or PSD, there is no difference. Any club which drafts him is contractually bound to accept the terms he specifies in his draft nomination form.

Again, I am still a fan of the PSD

Obviously... it's just that all of your reasons for supporting it are wrong.

 

[Vader]

Thanks Mr. Marshall and his lack of testing at hotel quarantine . Jackson cant go back even if he wanted to.

Thank ScoMo for the lack of testing for hotel quarantine staff. This was a Federal decision, not a State decision.

 

[SaltPeter]

The problem here has nothing to do with the draft - it's the ability to renegotiate the contract, a loophole which the AFL has since closed.

Correct. Hately can delist himself at List Lodgement 2, and then nominate for the ND. There is no need for the PSD.

Why would he only get a 1 year contract of unspecified value? He has every right, as a player who was on an AFL list in 2020, to specify both the term and $$$ components of his contract, when nominating for the draft. He can do this in either the ND or PSD, there is no difference. Any club which drafts him is contractually bound to accept the terms he specifies in his draft nomination form.

Obviously... it's just that all of your reasons for supporting it are wrong.

I wasn't aware that players could nominate their contract conditions when nominating for the RD ..?

 

[Vader]

I wasn't aware that players could nominate their contract conditions when nominating for the RD ..?

Players who were on an AFL list in the previous year (i.e. 2020) have the right to do so, and have always had the right.

Newly drafted players, who were not on an AFL list in the previous year (i.e. 18yo kids), do not have the right to nominate terms.