Oh, no!!! an "investigation"!

[Grendel]

By the same token how is it not draft tampering by a player that states I will only go to club X and refuse to go anywhere else?

All parties (player, clubs, managers) need to look hard at themselves because none of them can take the high moral ground here.

 

[olster]

So what you are effectively saying is that a player has no rights what so ever? They have no choice when they are initially drafted, and if they choose to not continue with that club they again have no choice bar what their club says. That is why players cannot be traded against their wishes. This was one of the reason why trade week was set up so players could find a new club of their choice and to not forever be told where they have to play. I can't ever recall a player not being traded to the club of their choice and i believe it shouldn't happen again. It's not like hawthorn were going to be left with nothing.

 

[feher]

Originally posted by olster
So what you are effectively saying is that a player has no rights what so ever? They have no choice when they are initially drafted, and if they choose to not continue with that club they again have no choice bar what their club says. That is why players cannot be traded against their wishes. This was one of the reason why trade week was set up so players could find a new club of their choice and to not forever be told where they have to play. I can't ever recall a player not being traded to the club of their choice and i believe it shouldn't happen again. It's not like hawthorn were going to be left with nothing.

a player can be drafted and say i ain't playing for you, but be prepared for a fine and probably a hefty ban from the afl. you can't do anything once your in the draft. the only thing that will help determine were you may (not) end up is what you want in terms of money and contract length thats it.

why does any team have to trade a player to there preferred club under any circumstance? please tell me

 

[Grendel]

Olster, I am saying that the current employer has zero obligation to any employee to go to another alternative employer.

None.

By the same token that player has no obligation to continue employment with the current employer either. However the way that the AFL has set itself up (with the player associations backing as well) is that a player cannot go a an employer of their choice either unless the previous employer can gain compensation. If that cannot be brought about then the player can leave and nominate for the pre-season.

That has been done.

Not Hawthorns or Footscrays fault for exploiting any loop hole that may exsist. There was an option open to make the pre-season draft a lottery of the bottom three clubs for the selections. The players association we're part of the veto on that so.. they knew the rules and have signed off on them.

Would it stand up in a court over restraint of trade laws? Probably not. If the rule went, would a few clubs and MANY players suddenly be out of the game? Probably so.

Two blokes have been burnt here (Stevens and Rawlings) through really no fault other than their own desire to leave and state that they wanted to go to a club of their choice.

The clubs are and always will be bigger than any individual player.

So yea, a player has rights alright. Let them take it to court IF they choose to do so. No club has any obligation to cater to their desires. Especially when they are leaving that club.

 

[feher]

Grendel, you summed it up beautifully.