Mitch McGovern 2: As The Worm Turns (read the OP)

Remove this Banner Ad

GreyCrow said:
Thats 1

Your last line is the heart of the matter. 2 things need to happen.
The AFLPA need to back off and the AFL need to penalise clubs that induce players to break a contract.
Managers should also be open and transparent
Click to expand...

the AFL body needs to flex it's muscle and force the ALFPA to back off
 

Log in to remove this ad.

ad victoriam said:
Missed a few names on the combined list.
Collingwood - Thomas, Shaw, Wellingham, Dawes, Lumumba, Cloke, Brown
Sydney - Munford, White, Malceski, Membrey, Nankeris,
Hawthorn - Ellis, Suckling, Anderson, Lewis,
West Coast -Lynch, Stevens, Rosa, EDIT + Judd

All teams are losing players but it really easy to remember the Crows players as they are burnt into our memories.
Click to expand...
Should probably add Seedsman to the Collingwood list
 
Sorry to weigh in on this thread now (I promise I have read almost 15% of the posts here)....but this is a pet subject of mine and reinforces the amateur way the AFL has implemented free agency.

Firstly let me say I am a huge advocate of FA, draft and salary cap but not the mutant systems we have to deal with. So what is wrong with this system? Well for starters....

1. Tampering. Under no circumstance should a rival club be allowed to approach a contracted player, directly or indirectly. This should result in heavy sanctioning against the tampering club. It is subjective, but I have no doubt contract conversations (it is the player's livelihood after all) can adversely effect a players performance. Whilst we are at it, the AFL should remind the media that tampering extends to them and a player's contractual status should not become the main talking point during the coverage of a game (that's looking at you Brian Taylor).
2. If players want to to be able to break contracts then so should clubs. See how the list cloggers go then if a club has the ability to cut their under performing arses anytime.
3. Why should a club get trade value for an unrestricted free agent who leaves? The club retains no rights over the player as he is un-contracted? This is contract law 101.
4. Restricted free agency is a good thing. Allows the club who drafted the player to gain maximum return on the player within a reasonable time frame.
5. Further on tampering....If players want to test free agency and see what they are worth then take the risk and actually get to free agency, the only leverage a player's current club has in retaining is they should be the only club allowed to negotiate a new contract whilst the player is on their list. Then it is a case of the bird in the hand versus the unknown of a true free market. But since every manager already has a rival club offer in his pocket that risk no longer applies.
6. Clubs should be able to trade contracted players anywhere they want without the permission of the player. We happily send teenagers anywhere in the country through the national draft without their permission but are not prepared to do the same for senior players?

Anyway, just my 2 cents worth.

End rant.
 
Brasher said:
Sorry to weigh in on this thread now (I promise I have read almost 15% of the posts here)....but this is a pet subject of mine and reinforces the amateur way the AFL has implemented free agency.

Firstly let me say I am a huge advocate of FA, draft and salary cap but not the mutant systems we have to deal with. So what is wrong with this system? Well for starters....

1. Tampering. Under no circumstance should a rival club be allowed to approach a contracted player, directly or indirectly. This should result in heavy sanctioning against the tampering club. It is subjective, but I have no doubt contract conversations (it is the player's livelihood after all) can adversely effect a players performance. Whilst we are at it, the AFL should remind the media that tampering extends to them and a player's contractual status should not become the main talking point during the coverage of a game (that's looking at you Brian Taylor).
2. If players want to to be able to break contracts then so should clubs. See how the list cloggers go then if a club has the ability to cut their under performing arses anytime.
3. Why should a club get trade value for an unrestricted free agent who leaves? The club retains no rights over the player as he is un-contracted? This is contract law 101.
4. Restricted free agency is a good thing. Allows the club who drafted the player to gain maximum return on the player within a reasonable time frame.
5. Further on tampering....If players want to test free agency and see what they are worth then take the risk and actually get to free agency, the only leverage a player's current club has in retaining is they should be the only club allowed to negotiate a new contract whilst the player is on their list. Then it is a case of the bird in the hand versus the unknown of a true free market. But since every manager already has a rival club offer in his pocket that risk no longer applies.
6. Clubs should be able to trade contracted players anywhere they want without the permission of the player. We happily send teenagers anywhere in the country through the national draft without their permission but are not prepared to do the same for senior players?

Anyway, just my 2 cents worth.

End rant.
Click to expand...

1 All clubs approach the players for interviews. This is needed as part of the recruitment process.
2 Agreed. You should be able to nominate to be traded, but they can then trade you where they want.
3. Clubs can match, therefore re-signing the player to a contract and then trade them. Once the club matches, they are still a player of that club.
4. RFA is a waste of time. People are just going a year earlier.
5. Never going to happen. Very unfair on players.
6. Tough one. I kinda agree, but you cant just send players wherever you want. Has to be a happy medium.
 
DangerSloane said:
1 All clubs approach the players for interviews. This is needed as part of the recruitment process.
2 Agreed. You should be able to nominate to be traded, but they can then trade you where they want.
3. Clubs can match, therefore re-signing the player to a contract and then trade them. Once the club matches, they are still a player of that club.
4. RFA is a waste of time. People are just going a year earlier.
5. Never going to happen. Very unfair on players.
6. Tough one. I kinda agree, but you cant just send players wherever you want. Has to be a happy medium.
Click to expand...

Agree with your views....but 5 happens in every other professional sport with FA.
 
NikkiNoo said:
In countries where they don't have the same industrial relations laws as we do.
Click to expand...

If Australian IR laws was really a determining factor in FA how do we explain the draft? Something the players successfully had abolished in the NRL under the same IR principles?
 
Do people know how close carlton were to getting Shiel and how that could of effected the McGovern trade?
Sorry i had this wrong but I was told carlton would offer up to 250k more than any other club for Shiel & this would force a difficult trade with McGov due to carlton wanting to keep pick1
(Shoot me)

Anyhow, trade period is not over and we have alot to still do IMO

Beam's was a surprise so dont hold out on hoping we will trade in or trade up.

More on McGovern, stated it was a breakdown weeks ago (before jarman chimed in) between Pyke and McGovern. From what i heard Pyke stated in a 1 & 1 meeting that he needs to work a whole lot harder and cut the excuses to get his body right or find a new home.

Pyke doesn't hold back & this is a case of a player not hacking it

On [device_name] using BigFooty.com mobile app
 
Brasher said:
If Australian IR laws was really a determining factor in FA how do we explain the draft? Something the players successfully had abolished in the NRL under the same IR principles?
Click to expand...

Because the AFL runs the AFLPA (they set it up). At the moment the AFLPA has all the power and it's a very strong indication that they already have done the ground work (AFLPA) on overturning the draft and use it to get the AFL to tick off on the FA rules etc that are detrimental to the clubs in spite of the clubs wanting the rules to be tweaked.
 
Horseflee said:
Do people know how close carlton were to getting Shiel and how that could of effected the McGovern trade?
Sorry i had this wrong but I was told carlton would offer up to 250k more than any other club for Shiel & this would force a difficult trade with McGov due to carlton wanting to keep pick1
(Shoot me)

Anyhow, trade period is not over and we have alot to still do IMO

Beam's was a surprise so dont hold out on hoping we will trade in or trade up.

More on McGovern, stated it was a breakdown weeks ago (before jarman chimed in) between Pyke and McGovern. From what i heard Pyke stated in a 1 & 1 meeting that he needs to work a whole lot harder and cut the excuses to get his body right or find a new home.

Pyke doesn't hold back & this is a case of a player not hacking it

On [device_name] using BigFooty.com mobile app
Click to expand...
You're a Port troll and this is getting old.
 
NikkiNoo said:
Because the AFL runs the AFLPA (they set it up). At the moment the AFLPA has all the power and it's a very strong indication that they already have done the ground work (AFLPA) on overturning the draft and use it to get the AFL to tick off on the FA rules etc that are detrimental to the clubs in spite of the clubs wanting the rules to be tweaked.
Click to expand...

I get that horse trading above but nothing there refers to Australian IR laws as a consideration.

Edit...basically it is whatever the AFL and PA decide...which was the point of my original post.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Brasher said:
Agree with your views....but 5 happens in every other professional sport with FA.
Click to expand...

If you have a contract the player or the club should be able to make the other party see it out.
If you ask for a trade then the team should be able to send you wherever they want.
Thats the medium.
 
simmo97 said:
RULE CHANGES FOR 2019
  • Clubs must have six players inside both 50m arcs, with one player inside the goalsquare.
  • Four midfield players must start inside the centre square with the two wingmen stationed along the wing.
  • At kick-ins, a player will no longer need to kick to himself to play on from the goalsquare.
  • Following a behind, the man on the mark will be brought out to 10m from the top of the goalsquare, rather than the existing five metres.
  • Place his hands on the back of his opponent to protect his position in a marking contest
  • PROVIDED he does not push his opponent in the back.
  • A ruckman who takes direct possession of the ball from a bounce, throw-up or boundary throw-in will no longer be regarded as having had prior opportunity.
  • Where there is uncertainty over who is the designated ruckman, the ruckman for each team will still be required to nominate to the field umpire.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2018-10-11/rules
Click to expand...

Bold 1: This will help us bigtime.

Bold 2: Can you still do that play on before the signal? Can you be getting the ball out of the bag while the ball is in the air going thru for a point and as soon as it crosses the line do the bolt?

Bold 3: Why do I get the feeling this is going to cause problems. Why change it? Unless it was club driven. Dont remember anyone complaining about this. Especially for Crows that will have a special extra strict no hands rule brought back in again - I enjoyed it when that went.

Bold 4. Why do I get the feeling that this will cause problems also. See above.
 
simmo97 said:
RULE CHANGES FOR 2019
Traditional playing positions at centre bounces

  • Clubs must have six players inside both 50m arcs, with one player inside the goalsquare.
  • Four midfield players must start inside the centre square with the two wingmen stationed along the wing.
Kick-ins

  • At kick-ins, a player will no longer need to kick to himself to play on from the goalsquare.
  • Following a behind, the man on the mark will be brought out to 10m from the top of the goalsquare, rather than the existing five metres.
Marks and free kicks in defence

  • When defenders mark or receive a free kick within nine metres of their own goal, the man on the mark will be brought in line with the top of the goalsquare.
Runners and water carriers

  • Team runners may only enter the playing surface after a goal has been kicked and must exit before play restarts.
  • Water carriers are not permitted to enter the playing surface during live play.
Umpire contact

  • Players will be prohibited from setting up behind the umpire at centre bounces.
50m penalties

  • The player with the ball:
  • Must be allowed to advance the mark by 50m without the infringing player delaying the game.
  • Will be able to play on while the 50m penalty is being measured out.
Kicking for goal after the siren

  • A player who has been awarded a mark or free kick once play has ended:
  • Will now be able to kick across their body using a snap or check-side kick
  • BUT must kick the ball directly in line with the man on the mark and the goal.
Marking contests

  • The 'hands in the back’ rule interpretation has been repealed so a player can now:
  • Place his hands on the back of his opponent to protect his position in a marking contest
  • PROVIDED he does not push his opponent in the back.
Ruck contests: prior opportunity

  • A ruckman who takes direct possession of the ball from a bounce, throw-up or boundary throw-in will no longer be regarded as having had prior opportunity.
  • Where there is uncertainty over who is the designated ruckman, the ruckman for each team will still be required to nominate to the field umpire.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2018-10-11/rules
Click to expand...
Thanks! Deserves its own thread.
 
simmo97 said:
RULE CHANGES FOR 2019
Traditional playing positions at centre bounces

  • Clubs must have six players inside both 50m arcs, with one player inside the goalsquare.
  • Four midfield players must start inside the centre square with the two wingmen stationed along the wing.
Kick-ins

  • At kick-ins, a player will no longer need to kick to himself to play on from the goalsquare.
  • Following a behind, the man on the mark will be brought out to 10m from the top of the goalsquare, rather than the existing five metres.
Marks and free kicks in defence

  • When defenders mark or receive a free kick within nine metres of their own goal, the man on the mark will be brought in line with the top of the goalsquare.
Runners and water carriers

  • Team runners may only enter the playing surface after a goal has been kicked and must exit before play restarts.
  • Water carriers are not permitted to enter the playing surface during live play.
Umpire contact

  • Players will be prohibited from setting up behind the umpire at centre bounces.
50m penalties

  • The player with the ball:
  • Must be allowed to advance the mark by 50m without the infringing player delaying the game.
  • Will be able to play on while the 50m penalty is being measured out.
Kicking for goal after the siren

  • A player who has been awarded a mark or free kick once play has ended:
  • Will now be able to kick across their body using a snap or check-side kick
  • BUT must kick the ball directly in line with the man on the mark and the goal.
Marking contests

  • The 'hands in the back’ rule interpretation has been repealed so a player can now:
  • Place his hands on the back of his opponent to protect his position in a marking contest
  • PROVIDED he does not push his opponent in the back.
Ruck contests: prior opportunity

  • A ruckman who takes direct possession of the ball from a bounce, throw-up or boundary throw-in will no longer be regarded as having had prior opportunity.
  • Where there is uncertainty over who is the designated ruckman, the ruckman for each team will still be required to nominate to the field umpire.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2018-10-11/rules
Click to expand...


PS link is broken: Here's a new one:

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2018-10-11/new-rules-revealed-nine-changes-for-2019
 
If anyone thinks Danger didn't leave for money, they're kidding themselves. He will earn "multiples more" in his life as an ex-Geelong player than as an ex-Adelaide player. Literally every player who has left in the past few years has left for money or opportunity.

Also I'm reminded of one of my favourite sayings ... "everything is toxic, it just depends on the dose." A tiny amount of arsenic will be not harm you. Drinking a huge amount of water will kill you. Maybe our club culture just wasn't right for these people? but it seems to be alright for a vast majority of players who come here.

Lastly, we're looking at this as losing 8 players in 8 years, compared to other clubs losing half as many. Flipping it around, of the roughly 85-90 players who've been in the club over that period, we've happily retained 90% while other clubs have retained 95%. Very small difference.
 
Golumless said:
And their opinion means what exactly? Being right/wrong isn't a democracy.
Click to expand...
So Rucci is now spinning and saying the Gibbs trade was "pretty much for two first-round draft picks" when he said it was definitely 2 1st rounder previously. But no it wasn't Rucci, if you look at the trade more closely it wasn't and I stand by my analysis of that trade.

BTW, my post got deleted on the Carlton forum, the last replay was that Carlton would have won it depending on the O'Brien selection at pick 16 last year, my argument back was then this also will depend on the Crows selection or what they get for pick 21 this year and clearly on just picks, you would prefer to have this year pick 21 compared to last year pick 16. But we did benefit from so little end of 1st rounder compensation for FA players this year, only Lycett got one and the remaining FA players that haven't been traded aren't worth end of 1st rounder so it's safe to say we will have pick 21 end of tomorrow.

"First, Silvagni would not let contracted midfielder Bryce Gibbs go in 2016; then he released him last year, pretty much for two first-round draft picks and some loose change"

https://www.adelaidenow.com.au/spor...n/news-story/286d79f15eb761fcf5932b3a7a230a4f
 
MattyB_76 said:
If anyone thinks Danger didn't leave for money, they're kidding themselves. He will earn "multiples more" in his life as an ex-Geelong player than as an ex-Adelaide player. Literally every player who has left in the past few years has left for money or opportunity.

Also I'm reminded of one of my favourite sayings ... "everything is toxic, it just depends on the dose." A tiny amount of arsenic will be not harm you. Drinking a huge amount of water will kill you. Maybe our club culture just wasn't right for these people? but it seems to be alright for a vast majority of players who come here.

Lastly, we're looking at this as losing 8 players in 8 years, compared to other clubs losing half as many. Flipping it around, of the roughly 85-90 players who've been in the club over that period, we've happily retained 90% while other clubs have retained 95%. Very small difference.
Click to expand...
True....plus all the media gigs he get being closer to Victoria will set him up for life and his wife supposedly got a very good job from their president as well.
 
ad victoriam said:
Missed a few names on the combined list.
Collingwood - Thomas, Shaw, Wellingham, Dawes, Lumumba, Cloke, Brown, Seedsman
Sydney - Munford, White, Malceski, Membrey, Nankeris,
Hawthorn - Ellis, Suckling, Anderson, Lewis,
West Coast -Lynch, Stevens, Rosa, Judd

All teams are losing players but it really easy to remember the Crows players as they are burnt into our memories.

All Bold names are added after initial post.
Click to expand...

You listed 21 additional players.

Maybe, just maybe you could revise your list to exclude dinosaurs who were done at their clubs and the clubs wanted to get rid of:

Cloke - 30 years old and Collingwood got pick 76 for him. *
Brown - They received no compo. Thats how valuable he was. *
Seedsman - Pick 32
Ellis.- Played 16 games over 3 seasons before being traded because he couldn't get a game. *
Suckling - Pick 39 as compo.
Lewis - Blockbuster trade. 30 year old lewis and picks 57 and 68 for picks 48 and 66. *
Mummy - Pick 35. *
Jessie F*Ckn White - Pick 44.
Malceski - They received a late 2nd round pick for the 30 year old. *
Membrey - Please tell me you didn't include him. The Tim Membrey that played one game and then was delisted and picked up by the Saints? FFS.
Nankervis - traded for a 3rd rounder.
Lynch - Eagles got pick 62 for the departing 30 year old.*
Stevens - 3rd round pick
Rosa - Pick 31.

14 of your 21 list means F all. They are all afterthoughts. The 14 players above would not be worth Dangerfield alone when they were traded.

Shit - if I wanted to compare crappy players clubs have lost to trades - I would have included Kerridge, Lyons, Wright, Mattner, Hendo, et al.

FYI - * represents old players who won a flag at their club they were leaving when they were so so so so old.

Lets be honest its a terrible list.

I will say though - you raise a point with Collingwood. They lost a hell of a lot of talent when Bucks took over. At least that was a cull/change of culture. He was wrong to disassemble the 2nd youngest premiership of all time, but his methods seem okay considering he should have won in 2018. 2019 will be a real confirmation whether he did the right thing.

The other club that we should be compared to is Brisbane. Lost Billy Longer, Patrick Karnezis, Elliot Yeo, Sam Docherty, Jared Polec, James Aish, Jack Redden, Joel Patful in a 3 year period. At least they acknowledged it.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Mitch McGovern 2: As The Worm Turns (read the OP)

Similar threads

Kane McGoodwin
Opinion Best Team by the Numbers
Replies
7
Views
473
glengowan
G
Cleric
List Mgmt. Operation - Get Dyson Sharp 2025.
3 4 5 6 7
Replies
157
Views
9K
Crow till I die
Crow till I die
119others
  • Poll
Opinion Matthew Nicks: Adelaide's Coach (Part 3) - The Biggest Loser
123 124 125 126 127
Replies
3K
Views
88K
Drugs Are Bad Mackay?
Drugs Are Bad Mackay?
M
Opinion New AFC HQ (Part 2): Family picnics on hiatus
19 20 21 22 23
Replies
553
Views
23K
Cromulant
C
N
Opinion Positive aspects of the Adelaide Football Club.
6 7 8 9 10
Replies
225
Views
8K
Bovo
Bovo
119others
  • Poll
Predict the Crows first draft pick 2024
4 5 6 7 8
Replies
176
Views
6K
Cromulant
C
GROTTO
  • Poll
Prediction How many games will the AFC win in 2025?
2 3
Replies
70
Views
2K
cleanhands
C

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top