Traded Patrick Dangerfield [traded w/ pick 50 to Geelong for 9, 28 and Gore]

[Mr Magic]

Now Geelong have nothing to trade do you think the Blues would give up hendo for a first rounder to the crows?

What is to stop Henderson staying at the blues in the 2's?

He is under contract and CFC can get compo for Henderson later. CFC said they are in rebuild. No need to push Henderson out just now if better compo later.

Actually noticed Henderson is now out of contract. He might have to accept a trade to another club or CFC picks him up again in PSD

 

[Jhye Clark 13]

What is to stop Henderson staying at the blues in the 2's?

He is under contract and CFC can get compo for Henderson later. CFC said they are in rebuild. No need to push Henderson out just now if better compo later.

Actually noticed Henderson is now out of contract. He might have to accept a trade to another club or CFC picks him up again in PSD

Despite being in an entirely irrelevant thread, it's probably the worst post I've read in a while on this site.

 

[GTOA]

Hawthorns success is about timing and the inclusion of GCS and GWS.

FA and drafts with trading have nothing to do with it.

BTW a court of law may find Geelong does not actually employ Danger.

Effectively the league employs Danger in the same way as their is no such thing as electricity as a service as opposed to the supply of electricity.

Who knows these days with market manipulators and the banksters, even Sepp Blatter appears to be facing possible newly formed charges.

The first problem you have is is Geelong Footy club a separate legal entity or a revenue construct within a league? For example without the AFL is the Geelong footy club in substance the same if it played for another league? Is the Geelong Footy Club actually an independent body or in substance a segment or subsidary of a larger body?Eg. It loses the foxtel/free to air revenue stream which seems the primary business model of all clubs these days.

The Geelong Football Club actually existed BEFORE the VFL/AFL did. The VFL that formed in 1897 was formed by eight clubs who already existed- Carlton, Collingwood, Essendon, Geelong, Fitzroy, Melbourne, South Melbourne and St. Kilda. Richmond and a club called University (now defunct) joined in 1910, and Hawthorn, North Melbourne and Footscray, all VFA clubs, were added in 1925.

They were all from the VFA, and Geelong had a lot of success in it, so yes, they existed and thrived without the VFL, winning 8 flags there.

The clubs in the 80's decided to appoint a commission to oversee the game, since some clubs were facing bankruptcy from overspending on players, and the commission were to be independent, and take over running the game.

However, clubs still remain somewhat autonomous. The AFL can't tell clubs which players to recruit, as it is not part of their mandate. Clubs run themselves, unless the AFL have to step in for some reason.

The players work for the clubs. It is the club that pays them their salary, as decided in a contract. When the contract is over, the player and club can decide whether to re-sign, or one party opt out.

Danger has decided to opt out. His choice, and he can do this because he is out of contract. The club could have had the choice to delist him at some stage if they so decided, and could because he is out of contract. They can choose to trade the player to his preferred club instead to get some benefit from losing that player, rather than get nothing sending him into the draft.

So, get this clear. PLAYERS are hired by AFL CLUBS, not the AFL competition. The club hires and fires, or the player fires the club. Your insistence that the players work for the league is ludicrous.

But this is what happens when your knowledge of the AFL doesn't extend past 15 years. Read up on the history of the VFL/AFL, and then read up on law books and what it says about restricting someone's right to work where they want.

 

[GTOA]

I would think Danger is better than Treloar. So are you saying the best the Pies should offer is a 2nd round pick in 2015 and 2016? Or simply 1st round (pick 7?).

What do the cats feel Danger is actually worth on the market assuming there was no free agency?

Given they are a team in decline, you would think they would be offering far more than his worth given their lack of overall young talent coming through.

But we don't have higher than Pick 9, so using Collingwood using pick 7 for Trealor makes no difference.

 

[GTOA]

I'll reiterate, Danger had no interest in playing for Melbourne. That deal was never going to come to fruition.

Besides, I read last night that the Dees are offering Jake Melksham of Essendon $1.6 mill over four years.

Gee, if they think a spud like Melksham is worth 1.6, then they have to pay a hell of a lot more than the $10 mill they were offering Paddy.

 

[Sydswans0512]

Besides, I read last night that the Dees are offering Jake Melksham of Essendon $1.6 mill over four years.

Gee, if they think a spud like Melksham is worth 1.6, then they have to pay a hell of a lot more than the $10 mill they were offering Paddy.

Melksham is terrible

 

[GTOA]

If Ken Woods wants us to give something of value to consider a side deal, how about this?

Steve Johnson.

That's right. We thought of retiring Stevie J. He has talked about playing on.

We could off

So - you're imagining legal action and a player shutout, similar to the NBA?

In that case, there's about $180m of player salaries that won't get paid, plus other voided contracts. I'm unsure whether other players would support Danger if his or anyone's actions meant they had to be unpaid for a year or more, especially if they returned to a league which had financial hardships based on voiding TV contracts.

Restraint of trade is not a simple home run. There is some debate around players signing standard league contracts and the club's potentially being branches of one business, not a collection of 18 competing businesses. Which it can be argued they ARE, too.

But it would involve slow legal action and a lot of self destruction if it happened.

Why would restraint of trade lead to strikes and shutting down the league?

All it would do is mean that there is no more trade period, and open slather on free agency. No more trade deals, players can leave whenever their contract is up.

In fact, the AFLPA wants this. They are chomping at the bit for an excuse to sue for "restraint of trade".

Why do you think free agency came in in the first place? Because the players and the AFLPA pushed for it. The AFL don't want it, it runs counter to evening up the competition (as we have already seen) but the AFL had to bend over for the AFLPA. Otherwise, the AFL would never have brought in free agency.

I can't believe how ill-informed you are, and wonder if you read actual history or law books to back this up, or just go by what some other misinformed dolt says. Wake up!

 

[GTOA]

Melksham is terrible

So, he would fit right in at Melbourne, then.

 

[GTOA]

Lol GTOA has gone very quiet since you brought this up. Her whole argument just fell into a heap.

Two first rounders cheers.

Because :-

1) Danger would be an unrestricted free agent, meaning that he can leave for nothing.

2) The general consensus is that compo picks will be gone soon (by next year, thanks to Adelaide wanting to match) and in two year's time, there will be no compensation picks.

So, you can take the compo pick now, or he play two more years for you, and walk out for nothing. Your choice! Cheers, smartarse.

 

[Mr Magic]

If Ken Wooplay ants us to give something of value to consider a side deal, how about this?

Steve Johnson.

That's right. We thought of retiring Stevie J. He has talked about playing on.

We could off



Why would restraint of trade lead to strikes and shutting down the league?

All it would do is mean that there is no more trade period, and open slather on free agency. No more trade deals, players can leave whenever their contract is up.

In fact, the AFLPA wants this. They are chomping at the bit for an excuse to sue for "restraint of trade".

Why do you think free agency came in in the first place? Because the players and the AFLPA pushed for it. The AFL don't want it, it runs counter to evening up the competition (as we have already seen) but the AFL had to bend over for the AFLPA. Otherwise, the AFL would never have brought in free agency.

I can't believe how ill-informed you are, and wonder if you read actual history or law books to back this up, or just go by what some other misinformed dolt says. Wake up!

Players can't sue for restraint of trade.

Players can play for other leagues. Their is no restraint. A legal case based on a employee wanting to sit next to a specific window has no precedence for restraint of trade.

The players trade is to compete as a competitor for footy in the league regardless of club. There is no restraint

 

[Sydswans0512]

So, he would fit right in at Melbourne, then.

Melbourne seems to be heading forward very slowly
Signing Melksham is a step backwards

 

[Sydswans0512]

Geelong will have to come up with something good for Danger

 

[Mr Magic]

Because :-

1) Danger would be an unrestricted free agent, meaning that he can leave for nothing.

2) The general consensus is that compo picks will be gone soon (by next year, thanks to Adelaide wanting to match) and in two year's time, there will be no compensation picks.

So, you can take the compo pick now, or he play two more years for you, and walk out for nothing. Your choice! Cheers, smartarse.

The general consensus baloney will cause a legal case. If compo is removed previous compos will need to be reversed retrospectively and premierships voided etc.. Based on fairness.

In 2 years Danger can't walk out for nothing Adelaide get compo unless the bottom club pick him up in the PSD for nothing

 

[GTOA]

Why would you suggest that Crows want to make you bleed? Where has anyone from the Crows suggested they want anything other than reasonable compensation.

I think reasonable compensation for Danger is pretty clear. It is two first round picks, with perhaps some steak knives. That's obvious and pretty widely agreed.

Have you read Adelaide's big footy message boards?

People want Paddy made an example made out of. They want Adelaide to get the world from Geelong, or send him to the draft, to show that they won't tolerate any more players leaving them, like Gunston, Tippett, Davis and others did.

 

[GTOA]

Melbourne seems to be heading forward very slowly
Signing Melksham is a step backwards

One step forward...200 steps back.

 

[Sydswans0512]

Have you read Adelaide's big footy message boards?

People want Paddy made an example made out of. They want Adelaide to get the world from Geelong, or send him to the draft, to show that they won't tolerate any more players leaving them, like Gunston, Tippett, Davis and others did.

They should be used to it lol

 

[GTOA]

The general consensus baloney will cause a legal case. If compo is removed previous compos will need to be reversed retrospectively and premierships voided etc.. Based on fairness.

In 2 years Danger can't walk out for nothing Adelaide get compo unless the bottom club pick him up in the PSD for nothing

No. The clubs want compo gone, because they don't see it as fair, and while Melbourne get Pick 2 for Frawley, Adelaide get Pick 14 for Danger and Hawthorn get pick 18 for Buddy.

So, there is a push to scrap compo going forward. It is being pushed by the AFLPA, meaning that the players endorse scrapping it.

They won't scrap retrospective compo, you fool.Just compo going forward.

 

[Mr Magic]

If Ken Woods wants us to give something of value to consider a side deal, how about this?

Steve Johnson.

That's right. We thought of retiring Stevie J. He has talked about playing on.

We could off



Why would restraint of trade lead to strikes and shutting down the league?

All it would do is mean that there is no more trade period, and open slather on free agency. No more trade deals, players can leave whenever their contract is up.

In fact, the AFLPA wants this. They are chomping at the bit for an excuse to sue for "restraint of trade".

Why do you think free agency came in in the first place? Because the players and the AFLPA pushed for it. The AFL don't want it, it runs counter to evening up the competition (as we have already seen) but the AFL had to bend over for the AFLPA. Otherwise, the AFL would never have brought in free agency.

I can't believe how ill-informed you are, and wonder if you read actual history or law books to back this up, or just go by what some other misinformed dolt says. Wake up!

The AFL is dictated by the viewing public wanting a fair competition. If the AFLPA do not want a fair comp the public can dictate through no foxtel subscriptions the players get normal jobs 9 to 5

 

[GTOA]

Geelong will have to come up with something good for Danger

Yeah. We'll give them flipping the bird and kissing my arse.

 

[Mr Magic]

No. The clubs want compo gone, because they don't see it as fair, and while Melbourne get Pick 2 for Frawley, Adelaide get Pick 14 for Danger and Hawthorn get pick 18 for Buddy.

So, there is a push to scrap compo going forward. It is being pushed by the AFLPA, meaning that the players endorse scrapping it.

They won't scrap retrospective compo, you fool.Just compo going forward.

No what the clubs want is irrelevant. The clubs are not independent bodies. We are talking about a market demand from fans for competitive football leagues.

The clubs can scream bloody murder but the fans dictate whether club officials and players need to get 9 to 5 jobs or not!

I am not interested in your elitism! Franklin was a breach of the RFA status from market manipulation from a long contract into FA status and Danger can go to Geelong via a trade matched from Adelaide which is totally fair.

If Geelong railroads the integrity of the fairness of the competition fans withdraw their foxtel subscriptions and the players and club officials get 9to 5 jobs because why would fans want to watch the on-field effect of power plays by political puppet masters when they can see that as employees in everyday life?

 

[Sydswans0512]

Yeah. We'll give them flipping the bird and kissing my arse.

I don't think so

 

[GTOA]

The AFL is dictated by the viewing public wanting a fair competition. If the AFLPA do not want a fair comp the public can dictate through no foxtel subscriptions the players get normal jobs 9 to 5

Good luck living in your fantasy world.

Life doesn't work like that. People will still get Foxtel (because there is plenty of other things to watch besides footy), and they will still buy memberships and go to games.

I'm still waiting for this apocalypse where the AFL will go broke and fall over, and stadiums will be empty, bar some tumbleweed. The soccer apologists have said the same thing about AFL falling over. Hasn't happened yet.

Now, go and say hi to the fairies at the bottom of your garden.

 

[GTOA]

Especially because we never f***ing offered it.

We had 2 and 12 lined up but the Trengove trade fell through.

Besides, Melbourne want to use their Dangerfield money to spend on their new savior, Jake Melksham! LOL.

 

[Dez!]

Besides, Melbourne want to use their Dangerfield money to spend on their new savior, Jake Melksham! LOL.

But according to you I'm an Adelaide supporter so why talk about Melbourne to me?

 

[GTOA]

But according to you I'm an Adelaide supporter so why talk about Melbourne to me?

Why are you defending Adelaide then, and making us the enemy, if it doesn't even concern you?

Just stick to arguing with your mates whether Melksham or Jack Watts is the bigger star.