Opinion Player trades / 'go home' factor - when does a player have a right to nominate a club or not?

[WestCoast05]

Whatley, Riewoldt and Murphy think an out of contract Tim Kelly should be forced to go to Freo if it gets Geelong higher picks - with Nick Riewoldt being the stronger advocate of it out of the 3.

Do you think Nick Riewoldt would think the same would apply with St Kilda's approach to Brad Hill (or any other Victorian 'go home' scenario)?
Surely according to this logic Freo should be free to shop a contracted Brad around to the highest bidder in Victoria (I don't agree)?

I'm interested to hear Where and When do you think players should be able to nominate a club or not?

Tim Kelly is the only player I think I have heard the national media make these sort of suggestions on to this extent where the player shouldn't be able to nominate.
I am guessing this is because some feel the burden of proof is stronger on him to prove the genuineness of his need (special needs children) - although actual genuine need being the reason a player can't nominate as opposed to non-need giving a player greater rights is a pretty shaky proposition...

What scenarios have merit and which don't - topic doesn't necessarily have to be about Tim Kelly, can apply to Shiel, Hill or whatever scenario.

 

[Colonial]

Whatley, Riewoldt and Murphy think an out of contract Tim Kelly should be forced to go to Freo if it gets Geelong higher picks - with Nick Riewoldt being the stronger advocate of it out of the 3.

Do you think Nick Riewoldt would think the same would apply with St Kilda's approach to Brad Hill (or any other Victorian 'go home' scenario)?
Surely according to this logic Freo should be free to shop a contracted Brad around to the highest bidder in Victoria (I don't agree)?

I'm interested to hear Where and When do you think players should be able to nominate a club or not?

Tim Kelly is the only player I think I have heard the national media make these sort of suggestions on to this extent where the player shouldn't be able to nominate.
I am guessing this is because some feel the burden of proof is stronger on him to prove the genuineness of his need (special needs children) - although actual genuine need being the reason a player can't nominate as opposed to non-need giving a player greater rights is a pretty shaky proposition...

What scenarios have merit and which don't - topic doesn't necessarily have to be about Tim Kelly, can apply to Shiel, Hill or whatever scenario.

Interesting.

Why wasnt this brought up with Lynch or Shiel or dozen other players thay have left non victorian clubs to go to Victoria?


It seems only to come up in the media when a star has go home factor to 1 of the non victorian sides.

 

[werdna78]

If a player wants out, you have to move them on. You wouldn't want anyone at your club, that doesn't want to be there.

Try and make the best deal you can. If he doesn't want to go to Freo, then WC will have to pay a premium.

 

[Suma Magic]

When you mix ignorance with hypocracy you get this (Riewoldt’s) view.

No way in the world he would argue that players returning to vic should be able to be forced to go to the club they have the least desire to join.

 

[Gysberts2Bate]

What if one of the WA clubs is willing to offer Kelly more allowance in terms of time to spend with his kids, etc? Is that a justifiable reason to nominate them if that's the reason he wants to go back home?

 

[Milanista28]

Interesting.

Why wasnt this brought up with Lynch or Shiel or dozen other players thay have left non victorian clubs to go to Victoria?


It seems only to come up in the media when a star has go home factor to 1 of the non victorian sides.

It does all the time, People have been making the "Pick a state" or "Pick a few clubs" calls every year for a while.

 

[Colonial]

It does all the time, People have been making the "Pick a state" or "Pick a few clubs" calls every year for a while.

Only when leaving Victoria.

Never when going there.

In the media anyway.

 

[Milanista28]

Only when leaving Victoria.

Never when going there.

 

[Colonial]

I know right. But then you look deeper at who the media are promoting and it all.makes sense..

Besides. Have any articles that say otherwise?

 

[Milanista28]

I know right. But then you look deeper at who the media are promoting and it all.makes sense..

Besides. Have any articles that say otherwise?

Nope, but it will come up during trade week. I think it goes both ways. Doesn't matter anyway, Players have every right to pick 1 club and then get to that club through trade.

 

[Colonial]

Nope, but it will come up during trade week. I think it goes both ways. Doesn't matter anyway, Players have every right to pick 1 club and then get to that club through trade.

Oh I agree clubs have no right to force that on them.

But have never seen an article or radio segment say that players going to Victoria should be forced. Only brought up the other way.

 

[Milanista28]

Oh I agree clubs have no right to force that on them.

But have never seen an article or radio segment say that players going to Victoria should be forced. Only brought up the other way.

I reckon it happened with Danger, When the crows were forced to take unders.

 

[HTPunter]

It's quite simple.

If a player is contracted, a club has to weigh up a trade offer against pros of keeping the player (salary, flag window, disruption). If a club can be satisfied in those areas they will comply with the players wishes. But O'Keefe, Gibbs, Kelly, McCarthy are all ones where they didn't, with varying success. Weller is a great example of a club having a contracted player request a trade and have the ability to extract a great trade offer that beats out the other considerations, otherwise they'd have kept him.
If St Kilda come to Freo with pick 30, then there's no way they'd trade Hill.
So it's ok for a contracted player to nominate, but the original club holds all the aces.

And an uncontracted player has every right to nominate a club. Geelong would rather picks 18 and 24 than nothing just out of spite. If Kelly demands West Coast then they've got nothing but PSD bluster. Spite isn't a thing in footy clubs anymore. Decisions aren't made on some hyperaggressive alpha males emotional whim. If he chooses to leave, Kelly will nominate 1 club and Geelong will push the limits with their chest out bluffing and ultimately get unders for his worth, or Kelly will be hopefully the first of many to say I just need to get home and Geelong will get their due at the trade table.
Unders for his worth will still be a couple of decent picks and 700-800k salary a year to be filled in in the next year!

The morons in the media can have whatever opinion they want, at the end of the day they are just having an emotional whinge. They simply can't trade Kelly to somewhere he doesn't want to go, and they never will be able too. It's pointless arguing otherwise. Riewoldt is just choosing to be controversial or he is an instutituon-bound moron. It is the least likely thing the players union will ever give up in terms of players rights. I'd guess they'd give up annual salaries being private before they gave up freedom to trade to the highest trade bidder! We may as well talk about what the club on the moon can offer to get Kelly because it's about as likely to happen as the AFL changing the rules on this matter.

And it's the risk Geelong chose to take - they kept a contracted good player, saying they'd need a super deal, and now he's uncontracted and they don't hold the aces.
The reward of keeping him was they had an extra year to convince him to sign up long term and it is giving them a hell of a shot at a flag.

 

[Quivorir]

Players have too much power. The "I want to go to my home state but only to one specific team" is a load of s**t. Can't wait for the day clubs can trade players wherever they want.

 

[WestCoast05]

It does all the time, People have been making the "Pick a state" or "Pick a few clubs" calls every year for a while.

Interesting. Do you have any examples?

I certainly haven't noticed it before - if anything I have seen the opposite with the national media excitedly speculating on the individual club that a player will nominate (with AFL website of course running articles showing the player in a photshopped Hawthorn, Richmond or Calrton etc guernsey).

 

[kidkenobi]

I think part of the reason is because there's 9 clubs in Melbourne vs 2 in Perth. Not saying it's right, but there's a much larger choice when moving back to Melbourne for players to choose from and it would seem more haphazard for the player to simply say 'I wanna go back to Melbourne' where he could end up anywhere compared to ending up at one of 2 clubs in WA.

I don't think it's a VIC/interstate thing, it just seems that with fewer options, the outcome of the decision appears less vital.

Also with TK, the sentiment from them wanting to move back to WA was always 100% for family reasons. Of course he can still have a preference of which club he'd prefer to end up at, but going by the Kelly's narrative, the specific choice of club would be secondary to simply getting back to Perth at all.

 

[Colonial]

I reckon it happened with Danger, When the crows were forced to take unders.

I read and or heard no articles saying that.

 

[Milanista28]

I read and or heard no articles saying that.

Was spoken about, People were putting up the Dees as a destination as they had better picks from memory.

Does it even matter though? Are interstate clubs that sensitive?

 

[im_a_lazy_sod]

You can play the "pick a club" card just as easily as you can play the "going back to home state" card, but I don't think you can play them both

I read the rules on the back of the pack. You can't unless you have the "at least one year contract left" card AND your opponent DOESN'T have the "we can keep you for another year" OR the "you are a fringe player" card

I'm not as well-versed as I used to be, but I can try dust off my packet and check all the rules

 

[Colonial]

Was spoken about, People were putting up the Dees as a destination as they had better picks from memory.

Does it even matter though? Are interstate clubs that sensitive?

I'm sure it was spoken about on social media.

It definitely wasn't in the professional media.

Not at all just amusing the outrage Kelly wanting home is causing.

Especially after last year and this year's moves and re-signings from certain clubs.

 

[Lex22]

It seems that when Free Agency came in that it also made it easier for contracted players to choose another specific club and end up there if they wanted to so bad. Like it was a culture shift across the board to make player movement easy regardless of the situation.

The AFL simply just need to bring a pick a state and not a club rule. Seems the easiest way and Free Agency is the reward later on for easier movement. Perhaps inadvertently it’ll force players to stick to contracts more as there won’t be that easy of an out available.

As for Kelly (and any player wanting to go home and doesn’t qualify for FA) it should be to the highest bidder that Geelong sees fit.

 

[calyam]

In order for a trade to go through a player must accept the trade. So by definition a player has the right to nominate a club whenever they seek or are involved in a trade.

You'd have to fundamentally change the bargaining agreement to stop players from nominating their own team. And to get them to agree to that change, the players would need to be fairly compensated through much higher salaries.

 

[Blackas87]

I agree. Kelly out of contract should nominate which state he wants to play in, length of contract and how much money, the clubs that agree to his terms can offer Geelong the best deal, and Geelong can choose which offer they think fits best for them. Kelly is not a Free Agent.

Brad Hill is under contract. He should not be able to nominate a club offering more money. If he wants to return to Melbourne he should remain on the same conditions as his current contract, and Fremantle should get the best deal for them.

 

[Farang83150]

I really wish whatley or the slob had put the question to reiwoldt or murphy, I guess the fact that both these so called journos would gladly bend over for them then posing such an out there and controversial question like "why doesn't it seem to ever be commented on in a negative light when it's the other way around?" is just to much to expect!

 

[blitzer]

Players should always have the right to nominate a club and clubs should always have the right to refuse them at their own risk. If players are under contract then clubs should be able to hold them to that contract unless they are willing to walk away from the game entirely for that duration.

That said in 95% of cases club and player should be able to amicably work out a reasonable solution. Doesn't mean both parties will come out feeling they came out great but something you can live with and move on.

On the whole pick a home state thing, not really a fan of it but its obvious that if implemented it would have to be home state or 2 teams if Vic.