New CBA costs kids in the draft

[GOALden Hawk]

The main reason there was so much passing and picking up the likes of Fletcher at the end was the AFLPA shooting itself in the foot. Again.

Under the new Collective Bargaining Agreement all underage draftees must be put on a 2 year contract. Under the previous agreement it was just the first 2 rounds.

Whilst this seems a great idea in theory, in practice it's probably cost 5-6 kids the chance to get picked up. Clubs such as Richmond and Carlton, who can't afford too many recruiting mistakes would much rather take a retread on a 1 year deal than take a kid on a 2 year deal. Seagull O'Sullivan said as much this morning.

I reckon they will have to look at that rule - of the 70 live picks yesterday, only 55 were used on underage players. Under the new CBA after the first 30 picks or so you are almost better off using the rookie list for kids.

[Weaver]

While I agree with you it is worth pointing out that the retreads like Fletcher and Bannister are members of the AFLPA will the young kids who were not taken are not members. The AFLPA could be said to serving its members interests by giving AFL clubs to employ them.

The increase to minimum list sizes has also increased the number of guys in the system. Last year was outrageous.

[liz]

Originally posted by GOALden Hawk
Under the new CBA after the first 30 picks or so you are almost better off using the rookie list for kids.

Although the different minimum ages for senior lists and rookie lists somewhat complicates that decision. If a club sees something they really like in a bottom aged player they have to take the risk this year, or see him rise in the draft stocks for the subsequent year if he develops as they hope. Rookie list isn't an option for these players.

[bloodsports]

The AFLPA, is getting too powerfull in my opinion. effectivley we are giving the most inexperienced members of the afl fraternity a bigger say in the future of the game than is healthy. I mean you could compare it to a preschool students union. These guys do not really know what is good for the game, and their influence should be curtailed.

[GOALden Hawk]

Originally posted by Weaver
While I agree with you it is worth pointing out that the retreads like Fletcher and Bannister are members of the AFLPA will the young kids who were not taken are not members. The AFLPA could be said to serving its members interests by giving AFL clubs to employ them.

The increase to minimum list sizes has also increased the number of guys in the system. Last year was outrageous.

The passing was outrageous last year no doubt. But in the end only 51 underage players were taken this year, pretty low figure.

But I guess you could look at it from the other point of view and say how good it was to see so many older players get picked up from the VFL, SANFL and WAFL.

[Porthos]

The main problem with the AFLPA is that they seem to be negotiating for concessions that give them no real benefit. Between the Heffernan rule and this, what are they thinking?