- Aug 16, 2015
- 12,329
- 21,343
- AFL Club
- Carlton
- Other Teams
- Arsenal
The early days of any given set of communication or trade relationship leave themselves open to exploitation. The Danger 'trade' was 5 years ago now, and this kind of thing is done differently.
While clubs cannot hope to get overs in the way that used to encourage players to stay put, as the trade itself caused the club inquiring to bleed to obtain their man (the way things were done pre FA) players do not usually want their main club to be ruined by their leaving. If Cripps chooses to leave, I cannot see him seeking the trade to be for outrageous unders, and the compo formula is already under question; we would need to get something we are willing to take for him, or we match whatever bid is made (provided our list management is smart, and has maneuvered us on a position to do so).
Basically, if the position from the club is that pick x is not enough (band 1 compo after our first round pick; if we're bottom six when he decides to leave, picks 1-6) then we inform the opposition club that we are willing to match unless they provide another option; a lopsided trade in our favour, to go with the compensation, for example. The AFL have a tendency to avoid rocking the boat, there's every chance that they would allow something like that through.
This is reliant on the AFL to encourage shenanigans (or, if not encourage, condone it) and Cripps being willing to play along so long as he gets to where he wants to go.
On a somewhat seperate note but related, will we get to a time in AFL, where the p,Ayer leaving, wants his new club to give up as little as possible to further enhance his new clubs chances of success?
I think there’s going to be changes to the FA system, the matching bid idea won’t last, just my opinion. It wouldn’t surprise me if it’s this year when Essendon demand massive overs for Danniher, who will claim Essendon are blocking his movement, causing a change.