FourthTimeAround
Cancelled
- Jun 6, 2022
- 2,173
- 2,640
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
Analysis The go home factor, equalisation, draftees requesting trades
- Thread starter Superstar swan
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Pretty simple:
Raise the draft age to 20 or 21 - the draft pool becomes larger as state leagues become more relevant, the player is a lot more (you hope) mature.
Give draftee's a minimum 3 year contract with a 4th year player option.
All contracts are published.
Allow clubs to trade contracted players including on draft night on a restricted basis.
Have contracts with the option of a no trade clause.
Contracts to have player or team option.
Allow teams to draft away 4 years of futures but not in consecutive years.
Get rid of free agency compensation.
Bring in anti tampering rules.
Of course that won't happen because too many supporters don't have the stomuch when clubs are allowed trading players in contract neither would the ALFPA and AFL have invested heap in the NAB league setup for U18's since it took away clubs U19's, to raise the draft age.
As for restraint of trade, that's what free agency was implemented to head off any legal challenge that the AFL is engaging in restrictive employment practices which, by the way, all players and PA have signed on to in their players contracts and AFL Code of Conduct. So, if they sign to these conditions then there is no restraint of trade and the AFL could argue and probably win on the grounds that it's purpose is to create an even and competitive competition - the only curly one is if they ever allow clubs to trade contracted players - it can't be against their will as it would subjected to the Bosman ruling but having a no trade clause on contracts bypasses this (onus back on the player/manager).
Or would you rather go back to the old brown paper bags of trading?
Raise the draft age to 20 or 21 - the draft pool becomes larger as state leagues become more relevant, the player is a lot more (you hope) mature.
Give draftee's a minimum 3 year contract with a 4th year player option.
All contracts are published.
Allow clubs to trade contracted players including on draft night on a restricted basis.
Have contracts with the option of a no trade clause.
Contracts to have player or team option.
Allow teams to draft away 4 years of futures but not in consecutive years.
Get rid of free agency compensation.
Bring in anti tampering rules.
Of course that won't happen because too many supporters don't have the stomuch when clubs are allowed trading players in contract neither would the ALFPA and AFL have invested heap in the NAB league setup for U18's since it took away clubs U19's, to raise the draft age.
As for restraint of trade, that's what free agency was implemented to head off any legal challenge that the AFL is engaging in restrictive employment practices which, by the way, all players and PA have signed on to in their players contracts and AFL Code of Conduct. So, if they sign to these conditions then there is no restraint of trade and the AFL could argue and probably win on the grounds that it's purpose is to create an even and competitive competition - the only curly one is if they ever allow clubs to trade contracted players - it can't be against their will as it would subjected to the Bosman ruling but having a no trade clause on contracts bypasses this (onus back on the player/manager).
Or would you rather go back to the old brown paper bags of trading?
Sorry Lana - won't work because Carlton and Geelong will play who's got the bigger paper bag
This is actually pretty impressive - I like it
Carlton must not getting much bang for their buck then
- Sep 29, 2016
- 10,177
- 17,194
- AFL Club
- Essendon
- Other Teams
- Bayern Munich
I tend to agree that there is an issue but I am not sure it can be put down to young men just going home all the time.
Like, Sydney and Brisbane don't seem to have much problem with keeping the majority of their VIC kids, West Coast (Judd aside) and Port Adelaide the same.
In reality the issue, for me, is the stronger clubs are taking advantage of struggling clubs or the clubs with poor leadership.
I mean, who is the last player to request a trade 'home' to a VIC club that was absolutely in the dumps? We had more cap space than anyone and who could we attract with 'go home factor?' None because we have been a shit show for the last 8 weeks+. Norf similar.
Henry requested a trade 'Home' to a club less than a 90km drive away - oh and just happened to be the reigning premier.
JHF and Luke Jackson requests trade 'home' - but not the two clubs that just finished bottom 5 in their home state.
And to be clear I don't blame the players. If a club that appears to have their ***t together, is having on field success, happens to be closer to family and offers you a deal that is better than your current club or at least you can make the money difference up in the long term - why wouldn't you jump on it? Their careers are relatively short.
The mechanism needs to address the issue of players using the 'home' excuse to get themselves to a club they want.
I would do it like they do it in the NBA.
Essentially I would go:
Incentivises extending early and sticking with the club that drafts you to at least 4 years, that way you can just sign as an RFA. If you stay for 8 years, you get to UFA quicker than the current model.
Also gives clubs more time to convince them to stay.
Like, Sydney and Brisbane don't seem to have much problem with keeping the majority of their VIC kids, West Coast (Judd aside) and Port Adelaide the same.
In reality the issue, for me, is the stronger clubs are taking advantage of struggling clubs or the clubs with poor leadership.
I mean, who is the last player to request a trade 'home' to a VIC club that was absolutely in the dumps? We had more cap space than anyone and who could we attract with 'go home factor?' None because we have been a shit show for the last 8 weeks+. Norf similar.
Henry requested a trade 'Home' to a club less than a 90km drive away - oh and just happened to be the reigning premier.
JHF and Luke Jackson requests trade 'home' - but not the two clubs that just finished bottom 5 in their home state.
And to be clear I don't blame the players. If a club that appears to have their ***t together, is having on field success, happens to be closer to family and offers you a deal that is better than your current club or at least you can make the money difference up in the long term - why wouldn't you jump on it? Their careers are relatively short.
The mechanism needs to address the issue of players using the 'home' excuse to get themselves to a club they want.
I would do it like they do it in the NBA.
Essentially I would go:
- 4 year deal where it is 2 guaranteed years, with team options for the third the third fourth year.
- After their fourth year they are an RFA, but if they extend to 8 years before they end their 4th year they are an automatic UFA at the end of the 8.
- If they are traded at any point before their 5th season begins, their UFA clock is 6 years from the time they are traded, or 8 years since being drafted. Whichever is greater.
- Otherwise they are an RFA when out of contract before then.
Incentivises extending early and sticking with the club that drafts you to at least 4 years, that way you can just sign as an RFA. If you stay for 8 years, you get to UFA quicker than the current model.
Also gives clubs more time to convince them to stay.
I would argue as well that theres no issues with equalisation, the issue is with how well clubs are run which just makes them unattractive to players. Theres no coincidence that the clubs that struggle to get players in or retain players are those who are struggling, on field and in some cases off. Geelong didn't used to be able to recruit anyone; Ottens was a huge huge get at the time. Even a club like Port who didn't make finals are generally quite well run and stable.
FourthTimeAround
Cancelled
- Jun 6, 2022
- 2,173
- 2,640
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
Not the worst idea out there.
I wonder how many problems you make tying cap space to ladder position though?
Off the top of my head
T Lynch
Prestia
J Cameron
Hopper
Taranto
Shiel
P Wright
A Saad
S May
T Bruhn
Scrimshaw
Hoskin Elliott
T Adams
M Kennedy
Z Williams
W Settterfield
T Lynch
Prestia
J Cameron
Hopper
Taranto
Shiel
P Wright
A Saad
S May
T Bruhn
Scrimshaw
Hoskin Elliott
T Adams
M Kennedy
Z Williams
W Settterfield
Spoken like a fan of a club not struggling to retain talent due to structural inequalities…it’s particularly awesome that you took the time to come here and tell all the fans of clubs that are struggling that not only is it all a figment of their imagination but also that, if anything, it’s their fault
Great contribution to the topic…well done sir, bravo
Lore
Moderator ❀
Essendon Player Sponsor 2022 - Anthony McDonald-Tipungwuti and Archie Perkins
Essendon Upset Victory Tipping
LL
Essendon Player Sponsor 2021 - Anthony McDonald-Tipungwuti and Archie Perkins
Essendon Player Sponsor 2020 - Orazio Fantasia, Anthony McDonald Tipungwuti, Shaun McKernan
Essendon Player Sponsor 2019 - Orazio Fantasia, Anthony McDonald Tipungwuti, Shaun McKernan
Essendon Board Goal Kicking Comp
Essendon Player Sponsor 2018 - Colyer, Fantasia, McDonald-Tipungwuti and McKernan
- Dec 14, 2015
- 45,594
- 67,793
- AFL Club
- Essendon
- Moderator
- #238
That stat is wrong.
As of 2019, 55% of clubs and 53% of players are Victorian.
14.7% of players are from WA
13.5% from SA
5.1% from NSW
4.5% from Queensland
11% of clubs from WA, SA, Qld and NSW respectively.
The remainder of players are cross code, Irish, Tasmanian, NT, American or whatever.
BTW i actually like your idea because it works somewhat similar to players in the first 4 years aren't a part of the salary cap. With both ideas the clubs would misuse the rule and bend it.
One of the things I really hate is that clubs are rewarded for poaching young players because if they change clubs they become free agents later than a player who has shown loyalty and stayed with their original clubs.
80% of top 20 from vic
AFL Victoria - Play AFL
Should we try and get that to 50%??
Any ideas how we might do that?
Oh guess what?
The afl has already thought about this 10 years ago before random internet guy
And their solution is....
Have a guess?
- May 6, 2007
- 42,698
- 26,195
- AFL Club
- Essendon
- Other Teams
- Tottenham Hotspurs, Melbourne Vixen
Been a huge advocate of rejigging contract lists for draftees,
1st round draftees - minimum 4 year contract
2nd round draftees - minimum 3 year contract
3rd round draftees - minimum 2 year contracts
anyone else including 4th year draftees, rookies, Suplemental Selections, Cat B rookies all on 1 year contract.
After year 3 clubs are aware of a players talent taken in the first round, the club still has enough power to get some collateral in return should a player want to go. Meanwhile the same thought process should apply to the lower picks taken.
On contract lengths, feels like most first rounders re sign early in their journey, if not then player loses out by not re negotiating ones contract even if draft $$$ is raised.
I dunno, makes sense to me but probably has holes in the idea
1st round draftees - minimum 4 year contract
2nd round draftees - minimum 3 year contract
3rd round draftees - minimum 2 year contracts
anyone else including 4th year draftees, rookies, Suplemental Selections, Cat B rookies all on 1 year contract.
After year 3 clubs are aware of a players talent taken in the first round, the club still has enough power to get some collateral in return should a player want to go. Meanwhile the same thought process should apply to the lower picks taken.
On contract lengths, feels like most first rounders re sign early in their journey, if not then player loses out by not re negotiating ones contract even if draft $$$ is raised.
I dunno, makes sense to me but probably has holes in the idea
Does the draft still ensure everyone needs to rebuild?
The big clubs and especially The vic clubs can definitely extend there time in top 6 by chasing free agents and trading in other players.
Geelong it has been 15 years, Richmond it will be 10 plus.
With the other clubs constantly poaching GWS and GC talent, will they ever be able to get past it?
I would support more priority picks for clubs to ensure a rebuild does not take 10 plus years, but I don't know how you achieve this with out encouraging tanking.
Can you rebuild if you need to exclude 25 percent of the talent because they will leave your club in 2 years?
An extra 2nd round or 3rd round pick for the bottom 10 clubs would help. Something like bottom club gets 19, next gets 22 and continues like that.
The big clubs and especially The vic clubs can definitely extend there time in top 6 by chasing free agents and trading in other players.
Geelong it has been 15 years, Richmond it will be 10 plus.
With the other clubs constantly poaching GWS and GC talent, will they ever be able to get past it?
I would support more priority picks for clubs to ensure a rebuild does not take 10 plus years, but I don't know how you achieve this with out encouraging tanking.
Can you rebuild if you need to exclude 25 percent of the talent because they will leave your club in 2 years?
An extra 2nd round or 3rd round pick for the bottom 10 clubs would help. Something like bottom club gets 19, next gets 22 and continues like that.
I think perhaps the easiest solution is to simply ban trading future first round picks. Trading future 2nd, 3rd etc is fine however placing a ban on trading future R1 picks effectively forces clubs to trade a good player if they want to bring in young talent.
Therefor this creates greater equalisation across the competition without completely revamping the draft.
Taking this year as an example, Port would have had to trade their 2022 round 1 pick and a player (Bergman for argument sake) to get the trade done. This leaves North with a talent young player who can step straight in or the trade simply doesn’t happen.
Richmond getting Hopper would have had to trade a quality player to GWS.
This creates an environment where clubs have to give something significant to the other club which may deter clubs from constantly poaching young talent from the bottom teams, as to get a trade done they would have to give up someone of value.
Therefor this creates greater equalisation across the competition without completely revamping the draft.
Taking this year as an example, Port would have had to trade their 2022 round 1 pick and a player (Bergman for argument sake) to get the trade done. This leaves North with a talent young player who can step straight in or the trade simply doesn’t happen.
Richmond getting Hopper would have had to trade a quality player to GWS.
This creates an environment where clubs have to give something significant to the other club which may deter clubs from constantly poaching young talent from the bottom teams, as to get a trade done they would have to give up someone of value.
It’s probably been mentioned, but SOS mentioned on trade radio, it was someone he was interviewing, actually might have been Robbie Dezario, said both LDU and Cerra told interstate recruiters that they didn’t want to move interstate.
- Jan 17, 2013
- 8,159
- 9,511
- AFL Club
- GWS
Sounds like 3 year contract for draftees is coming in. Not sure if that means just first rounders or not.
Pure_Ownage
TheBrownDog
I dont think the aflpa will agree to that unless they get something they want in return ie more $ for player wages or FA coming down from 8years to 6 etc.
The issue with a lot of the ideas in this thread as they are sensible but the AFLPA wont agree to them and they have the afl by the balls as the afl doesnt want them to challenge the draft system in court. This is why there are limited options to fix this issue.
- Sep 6, 2015
- 28,197
- 23,341
- AFL Club
- West Coast
- Other Teams
- Pelicans, Perf Wildcats
Definitely need incentives to stay with the club who drafts you
Similar threads
