View Full Version : Pre-Season Draft Question...
Babylove
17 Oct 2003, 16:31
If Rawlings and Stevens really wanted to go to Kangaroos and Collingwood respectively, couldn't they tell other clubs they're not interested?
I recall a couple of years ago Tony McGuiness told interested clubs he wasn't interested because he was told that Sydney wanted him in the Pre-season draft and ended up not being drafted because Sydney changed their mind (remember he wanted to take Sydney to court over it).
I was just wondering if that could end up happening.
bigbaddaz
17 Oct 2003, 16:33
If they really wanted to **** everyone off, they could not play next year and come back in 2005
or they could put a massive price on their head and then sign for a longer deal.
EG Stevens says "I want 800,000 a year." Everyone passes except Collingwood who sign him on an 800,000 dollar contract and then tack two more years on to the end of that contract and give him a pie and a six pack for the additional two years.
dover56
17 Oct 2003, 16:40
Originally posted by scroda
or they could put a massive price on their head and then sign for a longer deal.
EG Stevens says "I want 800,000 a year." Everyone passes except Collingwood who sign him on an 800,000 dollar contract and then tack two more years on to the end of that contract and give him a pie and a six pack for the additional two years.
yeah thats correct (well nearly they still have to earn the minimum as per collective bargaining agreement) but probably impossible for collingwood to fit him under the salary cap for the first year unless players took a pay cut.
north on the other hand could do it quite easily with rawlings, because they are only paying up to 92.5% of the salary cap. they could get rawling to ask for 800k per year for 3 years, then after the first season only earn 100k per year (not sure what tax implications would be but think sportsmen get taxed every two years anyway.
i think there could be some rule changes after this, but well done by footscray to attempt it, might stop players holding clubs to ransom i the future
Ausgard
17 Oct 2003, 16:50
The Players assocition will probably get all uppity about it. It certainly wasn't a very nice thing to do and is probably going closest to restraint of trade with regards to Jade rawling refusing to sign a contract with the bulldogs and then the hawks and the bulldogs manipulating the draft rules in such a way as to avoid needing Rawlings permission.
Most likely nothing will be done about it though
With regards to the tacking on additional years to the contract , the club still needs to pay the minimum wage ($55,000pa) for the next years so its not quite a pie and six pack (but close enough).
The problem will be that Carlton would probably be able to afford whatever Collingwood can so they will be able to pick him up regardless.
It will be interesting to see how Jade Rawlings reacts to all this and the negative effect it will have on him playing for the club - after all its not a very nice thing to do
GOALden Hawk
17 Oct 2003, 16:59
Originally posted by Ausgard
The Players assocition will probably get all uppity about it. It certainly wasn't a very nice thing to do and is probably going closest to restraint of trade with regards to Jade rawling refusing to sign a contract with the bulldogs and then the hawks and the bulldogs manipulating the draft rules in such a way as to avoid needing Rawlings permission.
Most likely nothing will be done about it though
With regards to the tacking on additional years to the contract , the club still needs to pay the minimum wage ($55,000pa) for the next years so its not quite a pie and six pack (but close enough).
The problem will be that Carlton would probably be able to afford whatever Collingwood can so they will be able to pick him up regardless.
It will be interesting to see how Jade Rawlings reacts to all this and the negative effect it will have on him playing for the club - after all its not a very nice thing to do
The AFLPA have only themselves to blame. Remember their little sook over the pre-season lottery? Well it's come back to bite them on the arse now.
Ironic that because of it might have cost two players their chance to get to their desired clubs.
I hope the AFLPA remember that.
Ausgard
17 Oct 2003, 17:00
Originally posted by GOALden Hawk
The AFLPA have only themselves to blame. Remember their little sook over the pre-season lottery? Well it's come back to bite them on the arse now.
A Great point - if there was a lottery theer would be no way for this sort of thing to work
D'oh !
1jasonoz
17 Oct 2003, 17:03
Originally posted by Ausgard
A Great point - if there was a lottery theer would be no way for this sort of thing to work
D'oh !
Exactly, the lottery system would have stopped this.
The problem is that Stevens says he wants to go to Collingwood and Carlton draft him he will cost himself a lot if he steps out of football for a year. Next year he could demand $500,000 but take a season off and that drops to $200,000.
If a player says he will only play for one club if he gets drafted then he will get severely punished. This happened to McKay a few years ago and he got fined most of his salary for the year.
To make the draft fairer there should be a lottery for the #1 pick, to stop draft manipulating. Perhaps the bottom three clubs are randomly assigned picks #1, #2, #3.
Otherwise a situation could arise where for example Collingwood finishes last and Nick Stevens wants to go to Collingwood. His management refuse any deal and Port get nothing and Collingwood and Stevens get there choice.
Or the Bulldogs could have refused to trade Nathan Brown and then redrafted him, knowing they had the #1 pick.
Eliminating the knowledge of who has #1 would make it fairer.
1jasonoz
17 Oct 2003, 17:13
Originally posted by atcho
If a player says he will only play for one club if he gets drafted then he will get severely punished. This happened to McKay a few years ago and he got fined most of his salary for the year.
Happened to Robert Pyman aswell. He said he only wanted to play for the Roos, got a 10 grand fine.
Ausgard
17 Oct 2003, 17:25
Originally posted by fusion
Eliminating the knowledge of who has #1 would make it fairer.
The AFLPA knocked back the rule because it also took away the ability for players to say "Hey I am quite willing to play for team # 16 so you better do what I want"
the problem this year is that Nick and Jade wanted to play for higher teams and didn't want to play for the teams that finished last.
Stevens' preferred club was Collingwood but I know that he did not mind if he went to Carlton in the pre season draft. He won't be too upset.
Source - His father
Originally posted by sross
Stevens' preferred club was Collingwood but I know that he did not mind if he went to Carlton in the pre season draft. He won't be too upset.
Source - His father
Rubbish, if Stevens wasn't too upset with playing for Carlton then he would have agreed to be traded to them when Carlton offered pick #2 for him, why would he instead tarnish his own image for the rest of his career and screw his former club in the process if he was happy to go there?
Personally I would like to see Stevens ****ed over at the PSD for being a whinging bitch.
Babylove
18 Oct 2003, 22:42
Originally posted by Zombie
Rubbish, if Stevens wasn't too upset with playing for Carlton then he would have agreed to be traded to them when Carlton offered pick #2 for him, why would he instead tarnish his own image for the rest of his career and screw his former club in the process if he was happy to go there?
According to Stevens' manager they never saw a deal from Carlton to reject. The info about Stevens rejecting a trade from Carlton did come from Port and according to Stevens' manager it could be Mark Williams' way of deflecting blame for not getting anything for Stevens.
Also Beaumont from Carlton apparently didn't want to go interstate so whether or not Stevens' manager is telling the truth or not, Beaumont would have stopped the deal going through anyway.