-
AFLW 2024 - Round 8 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Players not eligible for RFA, shouldn't be able to nominate a preferred club
- Thread starter Skav
- Start date
- Tagged users None
This completely undermines the whole idea of Free Agency. If any player coming out of contract has the same rights as a FA, what's the point of even having that system?
How do you know what is less demanding?
I know a cleaner who works nearly 80hrs pw (13 nights a fortnight) a week at hours which have a detrimental affect on his health.
- Mar 25, 2010
- 2,558
- 2,455
- AFL Club
- Geelong
Make rookies sign a 7 year contract with 3 years guaranteed and the other remaining 4 years the club has the option of either delisting a player not up to professional football or improving the contract offer from Year 4 to 7 according to how good they are.
telsor
Hall of Famer
You do realise that the 'go home' factor should favor WA & SA clubs as (relative to the number of clubs) they produce more players than Vic....
But no, it's only a bad thing when they go to Vic, isn't it.
- Oct 8, 2004
- 18,451
- 25,275
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Liverpool
These days the same as every one else - but they were worse.
- Mar 25, 2010
- 2,558
- 2,455
- AFL Club
- Geelong
Are you kidding? I rather get paid for kicking footy than an actual proper job any day of the week.
- Oct 3, 2012
- 12,935
- 25,036
- AFL Club
- Richmond
Oh classic vicbias eh. You guys have problems. Not everything is Victorias fault.
In the scenario you propose where players can't nominate, then they would be able to be traded to any of the other 17 teams. It would effect everyone equally.
You do realise that the 'go home' factor should favor WA & SA clubs as (relative to the number of clubs) they produce more players than Vic....
But no, it's only a bad thing when they go to Vic, isn't it.
Not sure about WA but on what planet does SA product more AFL players than Victoria? We're producing **** all talent atm becuase the SANFL is not at all concerned about grass roots footy. They only care about being the "second best league" in the land and there is nothing at all Port or the Crows can do about it. Now if we had an academy system like Sydney, it might not be such an issue.
I just said players should be able to nominate a state. I don't want a system where a homesick Victorian gets sent to QLD or WA anymore than you do.
- Dec 11, 2010
- 10,584
- 12,219
- AFL Club
- Brisbane Lions
No one is holding anyone against their wishes - that's a strawman argument. The player just has to nominate a state and not a club. So they will get to go home and the original club gets a fair deal. And if the preferred clubs wants them they offer a fair deal and everyone's happy.
This would apply to the Cameron situation. We would potentially have to outbid the Suns and give the Crows 12 instead of 19.
WA, SA, etc, players know that they will probably have to move state in order to fulfill their dream of playing AFL, while Victorian players usually sook it up and head home because they feel they're entitled to play at home in MelbourneYou do realise that the 'go home' factor should favor WA & SA clubs as (relative to the number of clubs) they produce more players than Vic....
But no, it's only a bad thing when they go to Vic, isn't it.
Taylor
Community Leader
- Moderator
- #37
Perhaps I have a more involved perspective of what it takes to play AFL football than you do.
If AFL was just about kicking a football around then all those beer guts in the ammo leagues who claim to have better skills than AFL players would be a gold mine of draft options.
I agree with the OP in principle.
I'm all for free agency and for players who have been in the system for 6-8 years to have the right to go to their choice of club, they have earned that right.
IMO that right should not be given to player who has been at a club for 2-3 years.
I believe that once a player enters the draft, that the clubs should have full rights to that player for 4 years, after that the club should have the option of a 5th year (I believe the NFL works like this but am happy to be corrected). Within that time, the clubs should have full rights to trade that player to any club they wish, with or without the players consent, or cut that player within that 5 year period.
IMO the players have too much power. If these mummy’s boys don't like moving interstate and getting paid upwards of 200k a year as a 21 year old, then by all means quit the AFL and see if you can move back home and get a job that pays that kind of money with no trade or degree behind you.
I'm all for free agency and for players who have been in the system for 6-8 years to have the right to go to their choice of club, they have earned that right.
IMO that right should not be given to player who has been at a club for 2-3 years.
I believe that once a player enters the draft, that the clubs should have full rights to that player for 4 years, after that the club should have the option of a 5th year (I believe the NFL works like this but am happy to be corrected). Within that time, the clubs should have full rights to trade that player to any club they wish, with or without the players consent, or cut that player within that 5 year period.
IMO the players have too much power. If these mummy’s boys don't like moving interstate and getting paid upwards of 200k a year as a 21 year old, then by all means quit the AFL and see if you can move back home and get a job that pays that kind of money with no trade or degree behind you.
- Dec 11, 2010
- 10,584
- 12,219
- AFL Club
- Brisbane Lions
No they can nominate a state. At most 10 Vic teams and realistically only a few may be interested for various reasons
- Oct 3, 2012
- 12,935
- 25,036
- AFL Club
- Richmond
So basically more teams mean more teams to bid, which means higher price. Seems to benefit non Vic clubs highly.
Magma
TheBrownDog
if you choose to use go home as your excuse you should have to face ending up at any of the clubs where home is. picking and choosing based on lists is bullshit.
Was it stacked last year when Gibbs pulled the go home card? He likely ends up at Adelaide this summer.
JigsawPuzzle
Rookie
I have no issue with players leaving clubs for more opportunities or more money.
But if you come out and state you want to move back to Victoria for 'family reasons' - then you're open to getting traded to any club where that family is based.
If Lever just came out and said Melbourne offered him the most money and that's why he would prefer to be traded there, I wouldn't have a problem.
But if you come out and state you want to move back to Victoria for 'family reasons' - then you're open to getting traded to any club where that family is based.
If Lever just came out and said Melbourne offered him the most money and that's why he would prefer to be traded there, I wouldn't have a problem.
Technically he does not have the right to choose, he goes in the draft and the club receives nothing. IF they want to receive something they can trade him if he agrees. It's quite simple.
It's a privilege to play in the AFL not a right.
I think it's a simple fix as well, change the rules to the American system where at the end of a players contract a team has clause to extend the length by two years or more. The other thing I like is how teams trade contracts, so if player A) is on 800k the other team would have to trade back 800k of value in return. But how I would change the system currently is that if a player gets drafted in the first round, players have to sign a minimum four year contract.
If a player gets drafted in the second or the third round, players sign a minimum three year contract.
If a player is drafted in fourth or fifth round, The player signs a minimum of two years and sixth round or lower the player signs for a minimum of 1 year.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I think it's a simple fix as well, change the rules to the American system where at the end of a players contract a team has clause to extend the length by two years or more. The other thing I like is how teams trade contracts, so if player A) is on 800k the other team would have to trade back 800k of value in return. But how I would change the system currently is that if a player gets drafted in the first round, players have to sign a minimum four year contract.
If a player gets drafted in the second or the third round, players sign a minimum three year contract.
If a player is drafted in fourth or fifth round, The player signs a minimum of two years and sixth round or lower the player signs for a minimum of 1 year.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It's still a better system than what we currently have. If a Vic club loses an interstate player back to say WA, SA or QLD, they are forced to deal with whatever club the player nominates. How is that better for Vic teams than letting the two sides go into a bidding war for the player?
