Mitch Brown (WCE) asks for trade to St Kilda

[Richter]

The point that staggers me is that if a deal is not reached for Brown to move, he is doubly shafted - not playing at AFL level, and not earning what he could elsewhere. After having already given 6 years of service to his employer, which is on the other side of the country to where his family live.

This saga has all the making of helping the AFLPA push free agency even further, perhaps to 6 and then 4 years service. In the mean time Mitch Brown potentially misses out on a footy career...

 

[Jezzza]

Pickering on SEN basically said whilst Brown would like to be traded it was not the end of the world if a deal could not be done.

 

[Suma Magic]

Brown will cost St Kilda more than he is worth to them. Every post is saying this in a different way.

Did Pickering say much more on Brown?

 

[God Save Max King]

And what, there's now only one side in Victoria for Brown?

he wants opportunity. Saints will provide him 22 games bar injury, most teams won't do that.

 

[Masto]

I think I have posted 2-3 times in this thread? Mitch brown could not play at all next year? Lol give me a break..

You've posted the same thing in many other threads.

 

[dan0z]

I think your mixing me with someone else, anyhow is cripps and pick 24 unreasonable? That's assuming west coast decide to trade him.

 

[HFF]

because he is important to the team, as a backup and also as the next player in line to step into the best 22 when glass retires. hes a decent AFL quality KPD.


why should the eagles give that up a for a second rounder? how does it help us to swap a guy who is capable of playing on good AFL forwards for a raw kid from the second round?

as i say, this trade makes no sense for the eagles to even contemplate, which is why they arent, and im guessing that will continue till after the trade period is over.

You said it yourself- he is "backup".

The kid obviously doesn't want to be a back up. You can't guarantee him games so he wants to go somewhere where he can just play. It's not about money, just game time.

You are cruelling his development as a footballer IMO, especially if he is 4th in line as he has been told .

12 months is a long time in footy and if he spends another season in the WAFL, at the end of next season he may not even be in the AFL system beyond that.

 

[pantskyle]

Cripps for Brown and a downgrade of a second rounder. Take it our leave it WCE, Cripps is a very talented player. Despite the fact that Brown is in contract, he has clearly stated that he does not want to play at WCE next year. Cripps being home-sick is not as big a deal, as there is another WA side in the AFL. Honestly, Cripps is a much better player than Brown IMO, but due to the fact that Brown is contracted, WCE will ask for a higher price. I honestly think West Coats will buckle towards the end of trade week and just take Cripps. Playing hardball does not always work, especially when the player involved is searching for something you cannot or, in this case, will not provide.

Take it or leave it? We'll leave it I reckon.

Bit odd for the Saints list manager to be posting on BF.

 

[tesseract]

The point that staggers me is that if a deal is not reached for Brown to move, he is doubly shafted - not playing at AFL level, and not earning what he could elsewhere. After having already given 6 years of service to his employer, which is on the other side of the country to where his family live.

This saga has all the making of helping the AFLPA push free agency even further, perhaps to 6 and then 4 years service. In the mean time Mitch Brown potentially misses out on a footy career...

Brown isn't shafted in any way, let alone doubly, for he signed his current contract of his own volition. He signed it knowing full well that he's behind Glass and Mackenzie. He isn't shafted as to the amount he earns either, for he found it acceptable when he signed the contract. Brown living away from family is irrelevant. He understood that upon entering the draft that he may be required to ply his trade interstate and away from family. His subsequent re-signing of contracts since then shows being away from his family isn't an issue.

 

[ziad]

Really? Most people in most jobs can give a notice period in their job and then move elsewhere. Not in the AFL. I'm not an expert in contract law but I'd be pretty doubtful that the way the AFL clubs employ their players would stand up to any court challenge. Bottom line is that it was this threat that led to the AFL bringing in free agency in the first place.

some people have contract with 2 or 4 weeks notice period from both parties. There are also have protection with conditions for redundancy etc.
Mitch has a contract specifically to the end of season 2013. Generous of the eagles to give him that certainty of employment and payment. Also good of him to commit for that period. He aint Christopher Skase of some melbourne underbelly figure. WC is very honourable as Mitch is. When Mitch was unfortunately injured early this year they didn't demand a re write of his contract because he could not play. There was mutual respect and commitment.

stop parking outside our house demanding we sell at your price. We like what we have and are not in the market to sell.

so stop cracking the sads. we are not selling. you may in theory tempt us with a can not refuse offer, but that is completely hypothetical as you are not offering and we are not asking.

 

[aussierulesrules]

Why does he (Cripps) want to go home?

It's not for me to say on a public board like this, as it's none of my business and none of anyone's business on here either, but I'll just say that it is about as good a reason as anyone would give for wanting to be home, close to their family.

I believe he was initially homesick (I imagine it wouldn't have been easy to deal with the sudden onset of diabetes, at 18 and a long way from your family and friends), but that that had passed and he had settled in well and was happy to stay (and still might, if we don't get a decent offer for him and can convince him to stay) but that he was talked into going home for reasons that I expect most would understand if they were aware of them. I'll leave it at that.

 

[Coledinho]

Its been a long time since a team has shown this much desperation in signing a player from another club. (probably since Judd). Hilarious that in the end the desperation is for Mitch Brown

St Kilda dont have a plan B or C atm. All the eggs are in one basket. If they dont want to be bent over in a trade maybe they should be smarter about it?

Pick 13 + Cripps at a minimum. They are so ****ing desperate for him they would probably give it to us

 

[tesseract]

Lol this thread is laughable. Mitch brown has said he doesn't want to be at west coast next year, which means he is gone. Doesn't matter if he is contracted for the next 5 years, west coast won't want a player on their list that doesn't want to be there. Why on earth would you still want him? This goes for any player in the league. If rhys Stanley or jack Steven said the same thing I would want them traded immediately. Although something tells me that the 90% of west coast supporters that want him traded are already over it so wouldn't bother posting here?

What Mitch Brown, or any other player in the league, wants, while contracted, is irrelevant. Clubs aren't forced to react to the whim of their players, for contracts hinder such.

You're speaking inaccurately for WC by saying that "West Coast won't want a player on their list that doesn't want to be there." Given what WC have said up till this point about Brown being a required player, as well as saying they don't want to trade him, shows that WC do want him. Given that Brown is contracted, it's now up to St Kilda to offer WC a deal that changes their mind.

 

[The Finger]

Its been a long time since a team has shown this much desperation in signing a player from another club. (probably since Judd). Hilarious that in the end the desperation is for Mitch Brown

St Kilda dont have a plan B or C atm. All the eggs are in one basket. If they dont want to be bent over in a trade maybe they should be smarter about it?

Pick 13 + Cripps at a minimum. They are so ******* desperate for him they would probably give it to us

In what way are StKilda showing desperation very odd statement.

 

[Royals]

Mitch Brown has been groomed to take over from Glass, just because it hasn't happened quick enough for Mitch doesn't mean Eagles don't think he is surplus to requirements. This happens in all footy clubs, there are "understudy's" on all the lists.

 

[Coledinho]

In what way are StKilda showing desperation very odd statement.

Scott Watters has done 3 interviews trying to convince Eagles to come to the trade table. Liam Pickering has done atleast 50. You offered 1 mil+ over 3 years to him too and are demanding we do a deal now before he comes back from his holiday

If St Kildas desperation was bottled in Lynx they would have spared a whole pallet of the stuff on them by now

 

[tesseract]

I think your mixing me with someone else, anyhow is cripps and pick 24 unreasonable? That's assuming west coast decide to trade him.

I'm speaking in general and not about you or this posts so much, but 'reasonable' and 'fair value' when it comes to trades is the mantra of the naive. Trading isn't just about putting players side by side and evaluating their worth as players, but also about the circumstances under which the trade is being done. So, in a situation where there's no factoring in of other circumstances, Cripps and #24 could be considered reasonable. But, given that there are other circumstances such as contracts and a player's indication involved in this instance, such a trade should be viewed as unreasonable from WC's standpoint, for WC aren't in the business of doing favours for the Saints by including Cripps in a trade for Brown where such benefits St Kilda at WC's expense, by lessening the compensation that could otherwise be had for Brown, if he were to be traded, as well as increasing what WC could possibly pay for Cripps.

 

[The Finger]

Scott Watters has done 3 interviews trying to convince Eagles to come to the trade table. Liam Pickering has done atleast 50. You offered 1 mil+ over 3 years to him too and are demanding we do a deal now before he comes back from his holiday

If St Kildas desperation was bottled in Lynx they would have spared a whole pallet of the stuff on them by now

I would of though if they where desperate theyed offer 13 and Cripps. Seems to me its pretty mutual.

 

[Keys]

The point that staggers me is that if a deal is not reached for Brown to move, he is doubly shafted - not playing at AFL level, and not earning what he could elsewhere. After having already given 6 years of service to his employer, which is on the other side of the country to where his family live.

This saga has all the making of helping the AFLPA push free agency even further, perhaps to 6 and then 4 years service. In the mean time Mitch Brown potentially misses out on a footy career...

You would have a point if Brown didn't have a contract to play for West Coast in 2013.

Unfortunately for Mitch and St Kilda he has a contact to play at West Coast next year and as such they are under no obligation to trade him. I'm guessing the Eagles want to sit down with him in person and go through the issues since before he left overseas he was apparently quite willing to remain at the club for at least next year

Maybe West Coast will decide there is no point keeping a player on their list who has made up his mind he doesnt want to be there and will make the best of a bad situation by agreeing to a suitable trade whatever that might be.

Ultimately though it is up to St Kilda and Brown to convince West Coast of the merits of a trade since they are under no obligation whatsoever to trade Brown

 

[Obeanie1]

You would have a point if Brown didn't have a contract to play for West Coast in 2013.

Unfortunately for Mitch and St Kilda he has a contact to play at West Coast next year and as such they are under no obligation to trade him. I'm guessing the Eagles want to sit down with him in person and go through the issues since before he left overseas he was apparently quite willing to remain at the club for at least next year

Maybe West Coast will decide there is no point keeping a player on their list who has made up his mind he doesnt want to be there and will make the best of a bad situation by agreeing to a suitable trade whatever that might be.

Ultimately though it is up to St Kilda and Brown to convince West Coast of the merits of a trade since they are under no obligation whatsoever to trade Brown

Exactly. And if after that talk Mitch still wants to go the club may also say that other clubs have also made enquiries and are offering more than the Saints. The club and player / manager get together and find a mutually acceptable deal. Mitch may end up at GWS or Carlton (I know his family are in Melbourne but Mitch Clarke last year showed that $$$ talks and players can change their minds).

Why would the club just give in without talking to him face to face?

 

[ROYAL EAGLE]

No one brought up that McKenzie is having surgery to repair some niggles, and will miss a lot of the preseason.

He may not be right for the first couple of rounds, meaning keeping Brown is even more important.

 

[kane249]

The point that staggers me is that if a deal is not reached for Brown to move, he is doubly shafted - not playing at AFL level, and not earning what he could elsewhere. After having already given 6 years of service to his employer, which is on the other side of the country to where his family live.

This saga has all the making of helping the AFLPA push free agency even further, perhaps to 6 and then 4 years service. In the mean time Mitch Brown potentially misses out on a footy career...

Oh no! How is poor Mitch going to survive on $200K a year as opposed to the $300K+ that the saints are offering

The fact he is going to only get paid $200K to play in the WAFL is almost a violation of his human rights as he won't be able to put any bread on the table for his starving family at a tiny $200K a year!

That's it, i'm writing a letter to Amnesty International on behalf of yourself and the St Kilda football club as we speak, we will win this fight brother!

 

[Richter]

You would have a point if Brown didn't have a contract to play for West Coast in 2013.

Unfortunately for Mitch and St Kilda he has a contact to play at West Coast next year and as such they are under no obligation to trade him. I'm guessing the Eagles want to sit down with him in person and go through the issues since before he left overseas he was apparently quite willing to remain at the club for at least next year

Maybe West Coast will decide there is no point keeping a player on their list who has made up his mind he doesnt want to be there and will make the best of a bad situation by agreeing to a suitable trade whatever that might be.

Ultimately though it is up to St Kilda and Brown to convince West Coast of the merits of a trade since they are under no obligation whatsoever to trade Brown

And under the current AFL rules everything you say is true and I agree that it is entirely reasonable that West Coast get a chance to speak to him in person in order to make their pitch to him to stay.

My point, however, is that everything about AFL contracts, trading, even drafting... would not hold up under any legal challenge. Of course I'm not suggesting that St Kilda, Mitch or his manager will take this to the courts, but what I am suggesting is that there IS an underlying obligation that the AFL clubs as a whole have to honour an individual's wish to exercise some autonomy over where they play.

Anyone else earning what Mitch does, but in another job, can be headhunted elsewhere at any time... Sure there may be a penalty... Notice period... buyout clause... under AFL rules Mitch has none of these options.

Many of the posts on here reinforce the views that many have of AFL players merely being chattels for the clubs to trade, barter as to their whim... in general we accept that as we think that it overall allows a system which creates a possibility for all clubs to have a crack at the big prize, and not just the wealthy... but there is a flip side to this, which is that an individual ought to have some say in where and by whom he is employed.

 

[keviewiggle]

I wouldn't be surprised if you convinced him to stay and he stays.

I think it's more likely he'll end up leaving. Fortunately for St Kilda, everyone in the football (and business) world knows that stating they don't want to part with something is a good way to start a bargain. Nearly every deal begins this way. Also luckily for St Kilda, they don't have to deal with the few WC supporters who severely overrate their players.

I'm 60/40 he'll leave. Not that my opinion means anything. Fortunately, any WC supporters opinions stating that their club 'absolutely' won't take deal X are equally worthless.

He definitely is a required player.
Minimum deal required to allow him to walk would be.
1. Cripps plus pick 24 for Brown.
2. Pick 13 for Brown plus pick 38.
Anything less, why would we let him go.

 

[royalsfan]

Quote: ... but what I am suggesting is that there IS an underlying obligation that the AFL clubs as a whole have to honour an individual's wish to exercise some autonomy over where they play...

A player also has an underlying obligation to honour a CONTRACT which he and the club both signed in good faith. Mitch is contracted to the WCE and if he wishes to move elsewhere, the club is not under any obligation to trade him if it is not in the best interests of the club. WCE are not a charity, they are in the business of preparing the best squad they can to reach a premiership.