Players not eligible for RFA, shouldn't be able to nominate a preferred club

[Skav]

Adelaide have a right to be angry regarding Lever, however their frustration should be at the AFL rather them Melbourne.

Jake Lever has essentially garnered the same rights as a Restricted Free Agent as he has: Nominated a preferred club, Negoitated a salary and contract and is now requesting a trade.

Amazingly Adelaide is actually in a worse position now than when Dangerfield nominated Geelong, as they don't have a right to match the contract and force him to stay.

Initial Draft contracts should allow the Club to retain the rights to a player until eligibility for Free Agency (period should probably be reduced) unless all parties agree to a trade. This could be done by implementing 3 year contracts + a 2 year team option (Similar to the NBA)

I'm actually interested in people's Thoughts here, do you think the current system is flawed?

 

[Mr_Moogle]

It's not flawed. It's been deliberately designed this way. Won't ever change either. Victorian clubs would freak out if they actually had to pay fair value for players.

 

[Jakksynn]

It’s easily solved too. Just let players nominate a state and not a club. That way the clubs losin the player has a chance of getting decent compensation. And the player gets to “go home”

 

[BTs Nana]

So long as the majority of drafted talent comes from Victoria things won't change. All things favour the Vic clubs from father son rules to player movements and everything in between.

Players have WAY too much power. Footy should be a ruthless business.

 

[Duskfire]

But if a player is out of contract, then what say does the club have at all? If my contract expires at work and they offer me another, I can knock it back and find work elsewhere and they can't do a single thing.

Players do have a lot of power but if the contract expires then aren't they entitled to that?

 

[TiggerMan22]

It's not flawed. It's been deliberately designed this way. Won't ever change either. Victorian clubs would freak out if they actually had to pay fair value for players.

wtf are you on about

 

[HairyO]

So clubs should own the players and be able to dictate how their careers progress by deciding where they can play?

I dare say the AFLPA would be okay with this, if all salaries were doubled.

 

[juss]

I agree, clubs should hold more power.
No chance in hell the players or AFLPA will ever agree though.

 

[bungalow_bill]

It’s easily solved too. Just let players nominate a state and not a club. That way the clubs losin the player has a chance of getting decent compensation. And the player gets to “go home”

Agreed they can nominate a state and best bid wins. If the preferred team wants the player they will have to offer a fair trade.

 

[DapperDon]

So long as the majority of drafted talent comes from Victoria things won't change. All things favour the Vic clubs from father son rules to player movements and everything in between.

Players have WAY too much power. Footy should be a ruthless business.

What are Adelaide's F/S rules?

 

[Duskfire]

Agreed they can nominate a state and best bid wins. If the preferred team wants the player they will have to offer a fair trade.

But they aren't in contract! Clubs have no power in that position. I don't understand what the issue is other then it annoys supporters when they lose a valuable player and don't get much in return. But it affects every club it's not like there's exceptions.

Clubs don't own players. Once the contract expires, it's the players choice.

 

[radiojake]

But if a player is out of contract, then what say does the club have at all? If my contract expires at work and they offer me another, I can knock it back and find work elsewhere and they can't do a single thing.

Players do have a lot of power but if the contract expires then aren't they entitled to that?

then do away with the draft system

 

[DapperDon]

Agreed they can nominate a state and best bid wins. If the preferred team wants the player they will have to offer a fair trade.

This would be the smartest way to do it, player gets to go to their home state and the team benefits from bidding war.

Once they have earned the right, they can then choose a club of choice.

 

[radiojake]

What are Adelaide's F/S rules?

it was more that they changed so often during the first 20 years with a pool from the SANFL that we never got one
missed out on Gibbs because goal posts were moved

 

[scarecrow2k1]

I think a good way of balancing is removing the need for players to consent to a trade if they are under contract. They gained free agency so it's a fair swap, and it means teams can trade out a player before losing them later to FA or PSD

 

[Mr_Moogle]

wtf are you on about

The current system doesn't allow clubs to trade players to a club of their choosing, hence they have to deal with whatever club the player nominates and can't create a bidding war and get fair value. This is particulalrly bad for clubs outside of Victoria. It could easily be changed to allow players to nominate a state, rather than a specific club. This way home sick players can get home, and clubs can get currency. It won't happen though because Vic clubs wouldn't like it.

Obviously none of this should apply to Free Agents.

 

[The 747]

So long as the majority of drafted talent comes from Victoria things won't change. All things favour the Vic clubs from father son rules to player movements and everything in between.

Players have WAY too much power. Footy should be a ruthless business.

Loads of players are delisted every year, it is a ruthless business. If a player is out of contract he has the right to seek work elsewhere do you agree?

 

[The 747]

The current system doesn't allow clubs to trade players to a club of their choosing, hence they have to deal with whatever club the player nominates and can't create a bidding war and get fair value. This is particulalrly bad for clubs outside of Victoria. It could easily be changed to allow players to nominate a state, rather than a specific club. This way home sick players can get home, and clubs can get currency. It won't happen though because Vic clubs wouldn't like it.

The interstate clubs would love that, they get to bid against one other club, the Victorian clubs have to bid against nine others ha.

 

[Mr_Moogle]

The interstate clubs would love that, they get to bid against one other club, the Victorian clubs have to bid against nine others ha.

Sure but in that scenario, they are the club losing the player. Why should the deck be stacked for Vic teams?

 

[Duskfire]

i am always of the opinion that players owe clubs nothing. If a player stops performing they are cut that quickly. It is up to the club to convince players to stay, whether it's money or attitude or something else.

 

[The 747]

I think some perspective is needed here.

A player is offered a contract that doesn't work for him.

So player goes in the draft.

That's the system but if the club can get him to where he wants to go without him needing to risk the draft, that club gets some compensation for doing so. Simple.

Players who are out of contract are not property that needs to be paid for - if you value them you offer a contract that makes them happy.

 

[The 747]

Sure but in that scenario, they are the club losing the player. Why should the deck be stacked for Vic teams?

How exactly is the deck stacked for Vic teams? Go on, explain it to me.

 

[TeeJay Blue]

Another situation where we want inanimate lifeless businesses to control people with hearts and minds.
Players don't get to decide where they get drafted to and which state they play in. Now suddenly we want to further quash player welfare by ignoring their desires.

The only way he walks out is if Adelaide continue to be stubborn with the trade. It is believed they were low-balling him to begin with and now are suddenly grovelling at his feet with larger offers and higher demands for rival clubs. Lever is by no means at fault for his request. The crows are only making themselves a pain to deal with.

Jakksynn probably came up with the best possible alternative one could think of. But holding someone against their wishes (depending on whether it is a big enough deal, unlike Gibbs) will only damage a club's culture and success.

As of right now, it is what it is.

 

[Mr_Moogle]

How exactly is the deck stacked for Vic teams? Go on, explain it to me.

By virtue of the fact there are more players drafted out of Victoria than anywhere else, there likely to be more players heading home to Victoria and the current system gives advantage to the teams recieving players, not the other way around.

You can always make the argument that interstate teams should draft more local talent but what happens if the talent simply isn't there. Just look how many AFL players SA is producing at the moment. If the Crows wanted to go SA only, we'd slide straight down to the bottom of the ladder.

 

[astro1212]

Loads of players are delisted every year, it is a ruthless business. If a player is out of contract he has the right to seek work elsewhere do you agree?

Sure. He can be a cleaner, accountant, salesperson... Is this what you mean?