nominating a club has to go

[reincarnated]

1. Scrap the PSD.
2. Players can only nominate a state they want to play in which gives an opportunity for the affected club to get the best deal.
3. If a suitable trade can't still be agreed then the player goes into the National draft where any club can select this player.
4. That pick is then given to that affected club as the very next selection.

 

[fool]

1. Scrap the PSD.
2. Players can only nominate a state they want to play in which gives an opportunity for the affected club to get the best deal.
3. If a suitable trade can't still be agreed then the player goes into the National draft where any club can select this player.
4. That pick is then given to that affected club as the very next selection.

Without having thought too much about it, i quite like this... although I feel it may have several unseen problems/loopholes. Kinda like every change i suppose.

 

[Gysberts2Bate]

Fun fact: West Coast has extremely rarely been subjected to interstate players wanting to be traded "home". Yet many other clubs bleed players.

Perhaps, just perhaps, it's a reflection of the culture of the club. Inb4 drugs.

wb drugs tho?

 

[Vindicater]

Not a chance.

But are you upset that they have to move at times to places they don't want to?

 

[Furn2]

the players will never go for it.

And really The fact that you can trade a player that you have no contract with is enough for clubs losing a player.

It sux when you get unders but it works the other way when you get a player in.

 

[chazwazza]

1. If a player wants out during a contract then fine, but the club can send them to the best bidder regardless of where they want to go to.
2. If a player is in their final year of a contract prior to RFA or FA, the club can trade them to whatever team they wish.
At the moment the players are playing "money ball" the clubs have no power. Demitriou missed Hua chance to leverage power in the last TV deal. Stupid c***

 

[Taylor]

The players don't make enough money to be moving their entire families in a month to potentially a new state on the whim of a list manager.

 

[chazwazza]

Oh FFS. Give me $250k over two years and I'll go to f***ing Macquarie Island

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

But are you upset that they have to move at times to places they don't want to?

No. Because anyone who wants to join up to the armed forces knows they are headed wherever their is conflict, or wherever they are told, and all with the knowledge that they are as good as fodder when the war machine kicks into gear.

It's not a comparable to the majority of employment situations, nor is comparable to football players who are well within their rights to pick and chose where they want to live and play once their initial draft contract runs its course.

 

[crippton09]

When you start out you should be happy to be picked up. But once that first contracts up you should be able to move around if thats what you want. I dont like the idea of naming a team, Choosing a state to live in is fine but i think naming the team shouldnt happen. Obviously if you prefer say collingwood, youd get your manager to try n hook it up but to come out and publicly state it is just bad if (even though it usually does) doesnt happen.
I know we are moving away from it these days but much respect to the one club players. Sticking with the team that first gave you your shot as an afl player.

 

[Bard]

When you start out you should be happy to be picked up. But once that first contracts up you should be able to move around if thats what you want. I dont like the idea of naming a team, Choosing a state to live in is fine but i think naming the team shouldnt happen. Obviously if you prefer say collingwood, youd get your manager to try n hook it up but to come out and publicly state it is just bad if (even though it usually does) doesnt happen.
I know we are moving away from it these days but much respect to the one club players. Sticking with the team that first gave you your shot as an afl player.

I tend to agree but not all players are given a fair deal or opportunity by the club in regards to a contract so you can't really blame them. Generally we as supporters don't know who these players are (and Treloar/Beams/Griffen/Boyd certainly don't fall into this mould) but it needs to be acknowledged that clubs are far more cut throat in terms of list management that individual players.

As for the OP it's not something that's particularly logical having a player come out and state 'I'm going X, now make it happen boys', but at the end of the day it's not a horrible solution either. What goes around, comes around, and as a supporter who has recently tasted both sides (assuming Treloar comes to us of course, there's still plenty of time) I can safely say the system works and it doesn't need tampering with. Even last year I was mightily annoyed at Dayne Beams and whilst I believe players definitely have too much power, I couldn't think of any means to properly even out the playing field, and still can't.

I wouldn't mind a cap on the amount of $ a player can earn as an average over the years of their contract, as well as a cap on the maximum length of a contract. That would help a lot of the stupid offers floating around to lure out these players atm which does a lot more to force a clubs hand in terms of what they can accept than a player stating where they want to go.

 

[tige19]

The league is so compromised it's not funny, players have little to no input about who employs them from the first day they're drafted right up until they have served 8 years. What a load of crap! Fancy you going into employment after 4 years of university and being told you have to stick with this employer for 8 years before having a choice.

AFL footballers should be treated just like anyother employee, just like the yanks do their business with player contracts and trading. You sign a standard rookie contract and at the end of those 2 years you either sign back on or exercise your right to sign/request a trade to the club of your choice.

 

[Vindicater]

No. Because anyone who wants to join up to the armed forces knows they are headed wherever their is conflict, or wherever they are told, and all with the knowledge that they are as good as fodder when the war machine kicks into gear.

It's not a comparable to the majority of employment situations, nor is comparable to football players who are well within their rights to pick and chose where they want to live and play once their initial draft contract runs its course.

It is comparable when you are discussing their rights as workers.

I am not talking about when they are called to active service. I am talking about when they are told to pack their bags and move to another city to work at another army base.

Again, this gets to the core of the problem. People are forced to work where they don't want to all the time. Servicemen is just one example. Why are we so precious about AFL players about it?

They are playing a sport that they love and being paid very handsomely to do it. They have until the age of about 35 doing this and can then settle down to raise a family wherever the hell they want after that.

The "should be able to play for whoever they want" excuse is hypocritical.

 

[The GOAT]

The league is so compromised it's not funny, players have little to no input about who employs them from the first day they're drafted right up until they have served 8 years. What a load of crap! Fancy you going into employment after 4 years of university and being told you have to stick with this employer for 8 years before having a choice.

This is not true. Players can pretty much walk to wherever they want. Even when they are under contract. Look at Tom Boyd... he had a lot less than 8 years service

 

[Ricmel]

I think it is a really hard call, on the one hand players should have a say in who they work for, like all employees yet on the other is the interests of having strong competition from 1st to 18th.

I am old enough to remember the 70s and 80s when clubs simply bought their way to premierships by throwing money at the best from SA and WA. Wouldn't want to go back to those days but the general trend of FA as it is currently structured is that players are wanting to go to "big" clubs.

In the USA they have a form of FA but it is not open slather, players can only go to clubs based on where they stand in the competition, that is they cannot nominate the top 4 or 5 teams.

 

[crippton09]

The league is so compromised it's not funny, players have little to no input about who employs them from the first day they're drafted right up until they have served 8 years. What a load of crap! Fancy you going into employment after 4 years of university and being told you have to stick with this employer for 8 years before having a choice.

AFL footballers should be treated just like anyother employee, just like the yanks do their business with player contracts and trading. You sign a standard rookie contract and at the end of those 2 years you either sign back on or exercise your right to sign/request a trade to the club of your choice.

This is a bit of an exotic job though. You sign a contract and get paid handsomly. If youre not keen you can always choose a different job. Wages in footy are huge even a first year player earns quite a lot of money for someone so young. In some ways you have to look at it as do i live here for this many years for this kind of wage? Youre still fairly young when you retire, you can always head back home then.

 

[Underdog]

People are overestimating the median wage and career span of AFL footballers.

 

[crippton09]

Oh FFS. Give me $250k over two years and I'll go to f***ing Macquarie Island

Haha. Good point.

 

[inbetween]

I think it is a really hard call, on the one hand players should have a say in who they work for, like all employees yet on the other is the interests of having strong competition from 1st to 18th.

I am old enough to remember the 70s and 80s when clubs simply bought their way to premierships by throwing money at the best from SA and WA. Wouldn't want to go back to those days but the general trend of FA as it is currently structured is that players are wanting to go to "big" clubs.

In the USA they have a form of FA but it is not open slather, players can only go to clubs based on where they stand in the competition, that is they cannot nominate the top 4 or 5 teams.

Which leagues do this?

In regards to the 'nomination' debate, is it an official procedure in the AFL?
As in, do players submit official paperwork and documentation when they name a preferred destination or is it simply a case of clubs simply honouring a unofficial request by a player?

In either scenario, clubs have no obligation to satisfy the players requests, and nominating a club is really no different to player just publicly and unofficially declaring an interest in another team.
Who's to stop a player from taking to social media and writing "I wanna play for so-and-so"?

 

[crippton09]

People are overestimating the median wage and career span of AFL footballers.

Not really. I knew a guy who signed for freo quite a few years back. Got 75 grand for his first two years. His career unfortunately for him didnt go further than the first contract but at that time (10 years ago) 75 k was a great wage for a 18 year old. Even if his career in footy continued he would have been offered a little more a year till he was say thirty. Thats enough time to set yourself up and/or young enough to persue another career.

 

[Ellie Aquitaine]

The clubs do not employ the players, the afl does

No, I think the Club employs the players. Otherwise the Essendon saga would have the AFL Commission in the spotlight re duty of care, not Essendon FC.

I'm more familiar with the ins and outs of another COde but I would assume that there are AFL rules re contracting that must be followed by all Clubs if they want the player to be able to play in the competition (ie salary cap, voluntary restraint of trade until free agency...)

While I like the idea from the OP, the benefits are really only if the player wants to be traded to Victoria because you have up to 10 clubs bidding for them.

 

[DemonTim]

It is comparable when you are discussing their rights as workers.

I am not talking about when they are called to active service. I am talking about when they are told to pack their bags and move to another city to work at another army base.

Again, this gets to the core of the problem. People are forced to work where they don't want to all the time. Servicemen is just one example. Why are we so precious about AFL players about it?

They are playing a sport that they love and being paid very handsomely to do it. They have until the age of about 35 doing this and can then settle down to raise a family wherever the hell they want after that.

The "should be able to play for whoever they want" excuse is hypocritical.

Not really comparable at all. If you nominate a club in the AFL, you are also most likely nominating a contract price and length. Or on the flipside if you are being forced to go to a certain club, you are being forced into a certain contract price and length

It would be the equivalent of having a role in the armed services, being offered a role in a different sector for say $100,000 that was a 4 year contract, wanting to take it up, but being told by your boss "Nah sorry mate, we are sending you to this base instead, you'll be on $75,000 for the next 2 years"

The situations aren't even slightly comparable. People are basically saying players should not have the right to earn as much as possible/get the longest term possible.

 

[chiwigi]

Player power has grown to such a level that it is unfair on clubs who have drafted a player.
I dislike when a player nominates a club & prefer that they just ask to be traded.
Perhaps a bit of a trade off (pardon the pun) would be that players could ask to be traded to a particular state?
Ideas?

Yes I agree, why should those putting their bodies on the line for our entertainment have a strong say in where they play or what they do!

Caesar must stop this impudence immediately!

 

[banjomal]

The post from the OP sounds like the sort of thing Robbo would say. Restraint of trade, let them play where they want to and nominate as many or as few clubs as they like, even none

 

[SizeMatters]

The league is so compromised it's not funny, players have little to no input about who employs them from the first day they're drafted right up until they have served 8 years. What a load of crap! Fancy you going into employment after 4 years of university and being told you have to stick with this employer for 8 years before having a choice.

AFL footballers should be treated just like anyother employee, just like the yanks do their business with player contracts and trading. You sign a standard rookie contract and at the end of those 2 years you either sign back on or exercise your right to sign/request a trade to the club of your choice.

What a load of shit. They know what they are getting into when they sign their first contract and if they don't like it then maybe they can choose another career that appeals to them.