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

[Elmer_Judd]

AFL fans have this bizarre ownership mentality when it comes to players.

We have this stupid system where a player can complete their contract but still be completely hamstrung when it comes to career choices; Either their club is willing to trade them or there's the lottery of going back in to the draft where they can end up anywhere.

Any player that's finished their contract should be a "free agent" and be allowed to move to any club they want. Can't wait for the day it happens.

Spot On.

We forget cases like Mitch McGovern, who was born in WA but chose to join a vic club (Carlton)

And yes money was a big factor, but it was also clear he wanted out of The Crows and that environment for a while.

There are plenty of variable, aside from go home factor, Will Setterfield nominated Carlton cause we just hired the best Doctor/Physio in the business in Andrew Russell, who could help him with his litany of chronic injury problems (and the Proof is in the pudding, with Setters having a superb second hald of the season with The Blues)

 

[bmaurizio]

AFL fans have this bizarre ownership mentality when it comes to players.

We have this stupid system where a player can complete their contract but still be completely hamstrung when it comes to career choices; Either their club is willing to trade them or there's the lottery of going back in to the draft where they can end up anywhere.

Any player that's finished their contract should be a "free agent" and be allowed to move to any club they want. Can't wait for the day it happens.

Agree wholeheartedly once a player’s is OOC he should be allowed the option to move to his preferred destination.
The over regulation in the AFL is bleak, unfortunately it’s accepted by AFPA and supporters alike. We need a push for change.
The parochial over governance of the AFL is stifling progress.

 

[GUMBLETRON]

Will Setterfield nominated Carlton cause we just hired the best Doctor/Physio in the business in Andrew Russell, who could help him with his litany of chronic injury problems

And a fat contract.

 

[Obeanie1]

Well in Kelly’s case it is probably true - weren’t many other clubs lining up to get him on board.

In his case he should be trying to repay that by getting them the best deal possible.

Something that Juddy tried to do when he left West Coast from memory.

Eagles were about to draft him two picks later, they had been in contact with him predraft.

So Kelly doesnt owe a massive amount of gratitude to being drafted interstate.

As for repaying Geelong he cost them zero time or money to develop him. Kelly did that in WA in the WAFL and worked his butt off.

Kelly has played two seasons of exceptional football and been paid $400k per year less than his actual output is worth.

He didnt sulk when a deal last season was stopped at the 11th hour by Geelong. He came back and has been an ultimate professional.

Kelly cost the Cats pick 23. Geelong will at a min get that back plus another 1st rounder.

Now you mentioned Judd. Cost the Eagles pick 3, spent what 8 years at the Eagles who paid him top dollar, won a Brownlow and was the current club captain. He was the undesputed best player in the comp. The Eagles got pick 3 back plus JK and a pick swap of 2nds.

So netting off the pick used to land them versus picks recieved the Eagles netted pick 4 and a upgrade.

If Kelly gets traded for 18 plus 22 the Cats net gain is pick 18 versus pick 4 in Judds case.

Is Kelly as good as Judd? No.

 

[Elmer_Judd]

And a fat contract.

Given the amount of injuries Essendon copped this year, he made the righr call choosing us over you..

It's not always about money, ya galoot.

Why do so many good players stay at champion teams like Hawthorn and Geelong and now Richmond for unders when they could earn a lot more elsewhere?

 

[Damon_3388]

Players always have the right to request whatever they want.

Clubs always have the right to refuse, too.

It's only the unspoken, unwritten "good bloke rule" that stops both sides from being so publicly blatant and ruthless about it.

Whether it's smart for either party to take that particular approach is up to them, and a case-by-case thing.

 

[Obeanie1]

Players always have the right to request whatever they want.

Clubs always have the right to refuse, too.

It's only the unspoken, unwritten "good bloke rule" that stops both sides from being so publicly blatant and ruthless about it.

Whether it's smart for either party to take that particular approach is up to them, and a case-by-case thing.

Do you think Kelly has repaid Geelong with the quality of his output and professionalism?

Especially on rookie wages.

 

[Damon_3388]

Do you think Kelly has repaid Geelong with the quality of his output and professionalism?

Especially on rookie wages.

Well, I think of it completely differently. Neither side "owes" the other, or needs to be "repaid" IMO. I grew up with a big focus and interest on American sports, where moving teams isn't the sin it's seen to be here, and things are looked at a lot more business-like and dispassionately, mainly because of private ownership and the focus/comfort at every level with moving away from home, etc.

Still, I think a lot of people, even inside the footy industry, find it hard to escape or think outside of the old-timey "stay loyal, repay the faith" local footy club mindset. It's a different game and industry these days.

 

[Atomboy]

Players don't owe the clubs s**t.

You think Kelly wouldn't have been dropped like a hot spud after his rookie contract if he wasn't any good, like what happens to some players at the end of every season?

If a player plays out their contract they don't owe anything. Service rendered is payment.

Absolutely mind-boggling the sense of entitlement fans have.

So the players don’t owe clubs but clubs should bend over backwards to fulfill the desire of players ?.

I think Kelly actually does owe the club a bit, they took a punt on him and developed him to the level he now is.

 

[Big Papa Ted]

AFL fans have this bizarre ownership mentality when it comes to players.

We have this stupid system where a player can complete their contract but still be completely hamstrung when it comes to career choices; Either their club is willing to trade them or there's the lottery of going back in to the draft where they can end up anywhere.

Any player that's finished their contract should be a "free agent" and be allowed to move to any club they want. Can't wait for the day it happens.

Agree with this 100%. On the flipside though, if a player is under contract a club should have no requirement to move him on. If the club wishes, he can ride in the twos for the remainder of his contract and than test free waters if he wish.

I wouldn't advise a club to do that, but it'd be within their rights.

 

[Obeanie1]

So the players don’t owe clubs but clubs should bend over backwards to fulfill the desire of players ?.

I think Kelly actually does owe the club a bit, they took a punt on him and developed him to the level he now is.

Exactly how did Geelong develop him. He was drafted at 23/24 and walked straight into their best 22 and played every game.

No years in the gym needed.

No years developing an endurance base or skills.

He was a plug and play recruit.

His output was more than some getting paid $650k a year and he got paid $400k under his performance level.

And how has Geelong 'bend over backwards' for Kelly?

They refused his request for a trade. He came back and played better.

 

[GUMBLETRON]

Given the amount of injuries Essendon copped this year, he made the righr call choosing us over you..

It's not always about money, ya galoot.

Why do so many good players stay at champion teams like Hawthorn and Geelong and now Richmond for unders when they could earn a lot more elsewhere?

Setterfield is getting paid a lot for what he's produced to date. It is what it is - clubs have to pay to attract players, and Carlton offered more than the alternatives.

Galoot though, good word. Underused.

 

[MadMundy]

Players have a right to nominate a club they'd like to go to, clubs also have the right to trade them to a club that gives them the best offer. If Brad Hill nominates St Kilda, but if a club like say Melbourne were to offer a better deal, then Fremantle have every right to trade him to Melbourne, because they're still trading him back to Victoria. With Tim Kelly, he has a right to nominate West Coast, but if Geelong get a better deal from Fremantle , then they can trade him there. Players can nominate, but it's the club's decision. Why would clubs make a deal that doesn't benefit them? Especially when a player is under contract, that's just silly.

 

[Atomboy]

Exactly how did Geelong develop him. He was drafted at 23/24 and walked straight into their best 22 and played every game.

No years in the gym needed.

No years developing an endurance base or skills.

He was a plug and play recruit.

His output was more than some getting paid $650k a year and he got paid $400k under his performance level.

And how has Geelong 'bend over backwards' for Kelly?

They refused his request for a trade. He came back and played better.

I bid you good day sir

 

[Shoei]

So the players don’t owe clubs but clubs should bend over backwards to fulfill the desire of players ?.

I think Kelly actually does owe the club a bit, they took a punt on him and developed him to the level he now is.

Kelly is literally OUT.OF.CONTRACT at the end of the season. He doesn't owe the club ANYTHING.

Only in the AFL do you have this ****ed up system of someone being out of a contract being actively barred from going where they want to.

NO CLUB should have a say in what happens to players that are out of contract.

 

[Shoei]

Players have a right to nominate a club they'd like to go to, clubs also have the right to trade them to a club that gives them the best offer. If Brad Hill nominates St Kilda, but if a club like say Melbourne were to offer a better deal, then Fremantle have every right to trade him to Melbourne, because they're still trading him back to Victoria. With Tim Kelly, he has a right to nominate West Coast, but if Geelong get a better deal from Fremantle , then they can trade him there. Players can nominate, but it's the club's decision. Why would clubs make a deal that doesn't benefit them? Especially when a player is under contract, that's just silly.

So the deal has to be the best for the club?

Lets say club X offers pick 20 and the player $1,0000,0000
Lets say club Y offers pick 10 and the player $500,000

So the player gets ****ed over by the tune of $500,000 just because the deal works out better for his club and is "forced" to go to club Y.

That's just silly.

 

[Scotland]

If every player was a free agent after two years you may as well abandon the draft.

 

[Farang83150]

I bid you good day sir

Given the strength of your argument it's probably the best thing you could've done.

 

[Obeanie1]

2 club state. 20 year old emerging champion is 'homesick'.

Club A offers 4 years at $1M/year and pick 50
Club B offers 10 years at 250K/year and pick 5

Can anyone else see how there might be issues with the player's current club forcing him to take the second deal?


(yes, obviously an extreme example, and yes, it applies to Vic clubs too, but I couldn't be arsed added 8 other options when 2 demonstrates the point quite adequately)

Good post.

And yes this is an extreme example however any situation where an offer to the player is better still relevant. The entire package offered to the player would need to be identical both financially and non financiallly. If a uncontracted player chooses his preferred 'package' offered and then his current club forces them to go to a club with a lower offer with worse conditions that is restraint of trade and could be easily challenged.in the courts.

But people dont get this. They are totally focused on what is good for the club they support and simply do not think about what legal rights a player has. Hence the involvement of the AFL as a mediator when needed.

 

[Obeanie1]

I have always thought a player should not be allowed to nominate a team but instead a state.

The home sick reason is bulls**t and always has been.

If they were actually homesick they would ask for a trade to any of the 8 Melbourne teams and would not care who.

So they dont get the opportunity to negotiate the best deal or outcome for their future?

You do realise the homesick excuse is often likely a ruse to make the move easier on all parties. Instead of just saying "I actually dont rate the club Im at and want to move".

 

[Vindicater]

So they dont get the opportunity to negotiate the best deal or outcome for their future?

You do realise the homesick excuse is often likely a ruse to make the move easier on all parties. Instead of just saying "I actually dont rate the club Im at and want to move".

Sorry I should have said of they were currently contracted.

In the cases like Kelly I am happy for them to nominate because they are out of contract.

 

[HTT]

If every player was a free agent after two years you may as well abandon the draft.

The draft is almost useless as an equalisation tool. GWS a great example. Plenty of high picks, pretty well used and pretty well developed, a best 22 of all players GWS have drafted would be unbeatable - but the salary cap stops them from keeping all players and as such they are a good team, a shot at the flag at the start of each year, but far from unbeatable.

 

[Elmer_Judd]

Players have a right to nominate a club they'd like to go to, clubs also have the right to trade them to a club that gives them the best offer. If Brad Hill nominates St Kilda, but if a club like say Melbourne were to offer a better deal, then Fremantle have every right to trade him to Melbourne, because they're still trading him back to Victoria. With Tim Kelly, he has a right to nominate West Coast, but if Geelong get a better deal from Fremantle , then they can trade him there. Players can nominate, but it's the club's decision. Why would clubs make a deal that doesn't benefit them? Especially when a player is under contract, that's just silly.

1hat is a rubbish argument. Clubs do not own their players, why should Tim Kelly be punished by being forced to be traded to cruddy Freo, when he has his heart set on The Eagles (for instance) ?

This is not like the NBA where players are treated like livestock. And as I said before, the AFLPA would never allow such a thing to happen, so its not pointless to even entertain such a notion.

 

[Obeanie1]

Kelly is literally OUT.OF.CONTRACT at the end of the season. He doesn't owe the club ANYTHING.

Only in the AFL do you have this f’ed up system of someone being out of a contract being actively barred from going where they want to.

NO CLUB should have a say in what happens to players that are out of contract.

Agreed.

If a club for whatever reason can't satisfy the wishes of an out of contract player that's too bad.

If a player for example wants to win a flag why should the existing club have the right to force them to a club with a lower chance of success than a club the player wants to play for to achieve success?

All so the club who can't recontract them gets a bit of a better draft pick?

It's just plain dumb people don't get this as well as the dozen other reasons that support the right of a player to choose his next employer.

 

[marty36]

Should the draft be looked at, and those players get first choice at remaining in their home state with their family. Its probably more important for players to remain in their home state at 18 years of age, rather than in their home state at 25 years of age, it seems a bit about faced giving players more fleaxbility as they get older, when you would think it would be more important when they are younger