List Mgmt. The unchecked power of player managers

[Bunk Moreland]

Saw this one raised multiple times yesterday, the strong inference being that player management groups are driving trade and list management outcomes under the thinly-veiled threat of future trouble if the club doesn't comply.

Ie - "Do this trade and get our player where he wants to go, or you won't be getting our players in future - we'll push them elsewhere."

It's yet another factor clubs are having to take into account when list building - I can't delist or trade that player, or refuse to do this trade, because it'll piss his management off and impact us in future.

Some of these groups like TLA and Connors Sports have become huge and represent a large percentage of the player pool. They're now using that power in much the way a union does, to put pressure on.

But the AFL players already have a union...?

It sounds like they're ripe for being pruned with a cap on how many players you can represent. That'll never happen because they're part of the inner circle of the AFL, but surely this is a big problem for clubs who can't even make their own independent list decisions.

 

[Chief]

Do you think it affected any trades this year?

 

[Art Vandelay_]

Storm in a teacup imo.

Players that needed to move ended up moving. Players that wanted to move only did so if the deal suited both transacting clubs.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

Do you think it affected any trades this year?

Don’t know, but it was spoken about regarding the Houston and Caleb Daniel trades.

 

[ash_1050]

Player managers campaign on behalf of their clients.

Where's the controversy?

 

[Bunk Moreland]

Player managers campaign on behalf of their clients.

Where's the controversy?

Theoretical example -

One of your players wants to leave and the trade being offered is gross unders.

His player manager calls and says “do the trade, I also manage Harley Reid, he’s coming to Melbourne next year and I will ensure he doesn’t consider you guys unless you do this deal”

That’s what’s basically being alleged. You really think that’s ok?

 

[Dogflogger]

Theoretical example -

One of your players wants to leave and the trade being offered is gross unders.

His player manager calls and says “do the trade, I also manage Harley Reid, he’s coming to Melbourne next year and I will ensure he doesn’t consider you guys unless you do this deal”

That’s what’s basically being alleged. You really think that’s ok?

His job is to get the best results for his clients.
He would be too professional to have any bias for certain teams so it all evens out in the long run.
Am I doing it right?

 

[Chief]

His player manager calls and says “do the trade, I also manage Harley Reid, he’s coming to Melbourne next year and I will ensure he doesn’t consider you guys unless you do this deal”

That’s what’s basically being alleged. You really think that’s ok?

Did the club call [player] and let them know that their manager is limiting their future options for the manager's own benefit?

 

[Jane Doe]

Don’t know, but it was spoken about regarding the Houston and Caleb Daniel trades.

It definitely had an effect on the Stringer trade. GWS walked away from it till Conners got involved.

 

[Art Vandelay_]

Theoretical example -

One of your players wants to leave and the trade being offered is gross unders.

His player manager calls and says “do the trade, I also manage Harley Reid, he’s coming to Melbourne next year and I will ensure he doesn’t consider you guys unless you do this deal”

That’s what’s basically being alleged. You really think that’s ok?

Do any of these allegations have any basis or simply more pathetic rumour mongering that originates from this site?

 

[Vindicater]

It definitely had an effect on the Stringer trade. GWS walked away from it till Conners got involved.

I reckon that was a play by GWS to ensure it only paid the 53.

 

[ash_1050]

Theoretical example -

One of your players wants to leave and the trade being offered is gross unders.

His player manager calls and says “do the trade, I also manage Harley Reid, he’s coming to Melbourne next year and I will ensure he doesn’t consider you guys unless you do this deal”

That’s what’s basically being alleged. You really think that’s ok?

That's how the world works, it's politicking.

It's what goes on every day in Parliament (e.g. crossbencher support), it's what happens in business (e.g. supermarkets with suppliers), and sport is no exemption.

For example Essendon accepted the Stringer deal because they didn't want to offer him two years, he's made some questionable choices in terms of acquaintances, and they don't want to be seen as a club who refused to let someone lock in two years elsewhere and instead held him hostage for one. It works best for everyone if Essendon lose slightly there but keep their reputation than to play hardball and lock him in for slightly more draft equity.

 

[Rob]

That's how the world works, it's politicking.

It's what goes on every day in Parliament (e.g. crossbencher support), it's what happens in business (e.g. supermarkets with suppliers), and sport is no exemption.

For example Essendon accepted the Stringer deal because they didn't want to offer him two years, he's made some questionable choices in terms of acquaintances, and they don't want to be seen as a club who refused to let someone lock in two years elsewhere and instead held him hostage for one. It works best for everyone if Essendon lose slightly there but keep their reputation than to play hardball and lock him in for slightly more draft equity.

That's not the same. The allegation is that certain player managers threaten to mismanage other players as leverage.

In the example before, surely if Reid's manager refuses to negotiate with a particular club due to not getting his own way in relation to another player, then that's not acting in Reid's best interests? In which case, how is the AFLPA fine with that?

 

[Jimmy the Ghost]

I saw this today or yesterday but cant find the original link on Twitter

 

[Bunk Moreland]

That's how the world works, it's politicking.

It's what goes on every day in Parliament (e.g. crossbencher support), it's what happens in business (e.g. supermarkets with suppliers), and sport is no exemption.

For example Essendon accepted the Stringer deal because they didn't want to offer him two years, he's made some questionable choices in terms of acquaintances, and they don't want to be seen as a club who refused to let someone lock in two years elsewhere and instead held him hostage for one. It works best for everyone if Essendon lose slightly there but keep their reputation than to play hardball and lock him in for slightly more draft equity.

That’s not what I’m talking about - players and clubs can do what they like for whatever reason within the rules - it’s their transaction.

Player agents are a third party, the accusation here is they’re exerting influence and making threats to push outcomes that favour them ahead of the clubs’ own interests - it’s not reasonable to be involving yourself in a club’s internal decisions like that.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

Managers are necessarily of course but there’s a pretty decent argument imo that the big agencies have got too big and thus have too much power - they perhaps need to be capped at a certain number of listed players.