Player Watch #11 Tom Papley

[Kennedy Parker]

Tom Papley

Player Profile
Tom Papley

11

Tom Papley

Age

29

Ht

177cm

Wt

77kg

Pos.

Fwd

Career

Season

Last 5

D

14.1

4star

K

9.1

4star

HB

5.0

4star

M

3.7

4star

T

3.2

5star

G

1.5

5star

D

12.3

3star

K

8.9

4star

HB

3.4

2star

M

4.5

4star

T

1.5

2star

G

2.4

5star

D

13.4

4star

K

8.0

3star

HB

5.4

4star

M

3.4

4star

T

3.4

5star

G

1.6

5star

swapped his plumbing tools for a Sherrin when the Sydney Swans sprung a draft surprise in 2015 – and the pocket-rocket forward has since become a crucial member of coach John Longmire’s side. Papley has played 20 or more senior games in every one of his four full seasons in the AFL and was at his best in 2019, topping Sydney’s goal-kicking leaderboard and finishing fourth in the Bob Skilton Medal voting. The Gippsland Power product took on more time in the midfield in 2019 and is likely to again split his time between the forward line and centre bounce this year. Papley was selected in the AFL Players’ Association’s 22Under22 team in 2017. Draft history: 2016 Rookie Draft selection (Sydney) No. 12; 2016 AFL Draft rookie elevation (Sydney).

Tom Papley

11

Tom Papley

Age

29

Ht

177cm

Wt

77kg

Pos.

Fwd

Career

Season

Last 5

D

14.1

4star

K

9.1

4star

HB

5.0

4star

M

3.7

4star

T

3.2

5star

G

1.5

5star

D

12.3

3star

K

8.9

4star

HB

3.4

2star

M

4.5

4star

T

1.5

2star

G

2.4

5star

D

13.4

4star

K

8.0

3star

HB

5.4

4star

M

3.4

4star

T

3.4

5star

G

1.6

5star

DOB: 13 July 1996
DEBUT:2016
DRAFT: 2016
RECRUITED FROM: Bunyip (Vic)/Gippsland U18

Tom Papley | AFL

Follow Tom Papley's progress through AFL

www.sydneyswans.com.au

 

[TheMase]

I tried to look but the poor grammar made my eyes hurt. Hopefully once the kids are back at school the forum will be more readable.

I would not bet on it. It is unlikely to happen.






*need to see the trade board for context

 

[Burgers45]

If you guys want Daniher, you would need our Pick 9 to give to Essendon. Dodoro is a hard man to deal with. I think this trade, Paps to us will eventuate because of this issue.

 

[bedford]

If you guys want Daniher, you would need our Pick 9 to give to Essendon. Dodoro is a hard man to deal with. I think this trade, Paps to us will eventuate because of this issue.

Another 1 ffs I hate that pack of draft cheats.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

If you guys want Daniher, you would need our Pick 9 to give to Essendon. Dodoro is a hard man to deal with. I think this trade, Paps to us will eventuate because of this issue.

Weitering to Essendon.

Daniher and 9 to Sydney.

Papley to Carlton.

 

[bedford]

Weitering to Essendon.

Daniher and 9 to Sydney.

Papley to Carlton.

Papley not going at this stage

 

[Tedeski]

Weitering to Essendon.

Daniher and 9 to Sydney.

Papley to Carlton.

Win/win/win.

 

[The King!]

papley to carlton for 9 and say 4 extra home games a year

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

Papley not going at this stage

I wouldn’t know whether he is or isn’t. But every time some unduly arrogant Carlton flog finds himself lost in here I’ll be proposing my idea of a fair trade. Using the Bryce Gibbs relative valuation.

 

[FreeAgent1]

I will love us to get a player in return that helps us structurally instead of 9. It also means that dodo can STFU about 2xtop 10 picks

 

[WillowSF]

A player who grew up wanting to play for the Swans, Swans DNA in his blood, started as a small forward then spent time in the midfield before requesting a trade to a Melbourne based club at the end of his fourth senior year...now who does that remind me of ?

We will continue to be disadvantaged by the simple fact that we're not a Melbourne based club. At least WA or SA clubs have a rich footy heritage to draw upon. Without the Swans academy we'd be completely stuffed. Sydney, GWS, GC and Brisbane have a genuine case for some form of retention payments, cost of living payments or other compensation. Remember COLA ?

Setting aside the specifics of Papley, (you can insert XYZ player), I don’t understand how the industry allow players to get away with the ‘homesick’ card when they are contracted by a club. AFL footballers are professional athletes who are compensated handsomely to play footy for 22 weeks a year. I’m all for player welfare but they need to collectively perform the job (they were hired) and agreed to do. (Most AFL careers are probably on average around 7-8 years which is not a lifetime.)

Not to sound too harsh, and each player case is unique, but the clubs need to stop babying these guys and tell them to put on their big boy pants and suck it up. They can move to Melbourne, Adelaide etc. when their contract is up.

 

[RobbieK]

Setting aside the specifics of Papley, (you can insert XYZ player), I don’t understand how the industry allow players to get away with the ‘homesick’ card when they are contracted by a club. AFL footballers are professional athletes who are compensated handsomely to play footy for 22 weeks a year. I’m all for player welfare but they need to collectively perform the job (they were hired) and agreed to do. (Most AFL careers are probably on average around 7-8 years which is not a lifetime.)

Not to sound too harsh, and each player case is unique, but the clubs need to stop babying these guys and tell them to put on their big boy pants and suck it up. They can move to Melbourne, Adelaide etc. when their contract is up.

The players aren't paid to play football 22 weeks of the year. They are paid to spend the vast majority of the year (around 44 weeks off the top of my head, with around 6 weeks off after the season and a 2 week break around Christmas/New Year) in pretty much direct and constant contact with the club in preparation and training. It is a job that places a lot of expectations and limitations on them in terms of physical activity, diet, media commitments, drug testing, etc. that fall outside of "business hours" and is pretty much an all-encompassing way of living.

The players are also not slaves. They are professionals working in a career which, as you point out, has a limited time frame. There aren't many jobs in the world that have such restrictions on who a person is allowed to work for. There aren't many jobs where there is a mechanism in place where an employer can chose to hire you and require you to uproot your life and go to the other side of the country.

Certainly they are well compensated, but if you are going to be fair in this discussion you need to be a bit more even handed in your characterisation of the job.

All that being said, it seems pretty clear that these days contracts are largely for the benefit of players only and offer little security to clubs, which is not really how things were intended to be. Contracted players are requesting trades all over the place and it seems like there is little that clubs can do in these situations other than facilitate the moves. The AFLPA has been flexing its muscles over the last few years and are constantly improving the strength of the players' position. That is their job, so fair enough, but it has definitely changed the dynamic around player movement and placed control firmly in the hands of the players over the clubs.

Why has this been allowed to happen? Well, I think it is because ultimately the issue of the legality of the "restraint of trade" when it comes to player contracts is kind of dubious. The AFLPA basically has a nuclear option in its back pocket, taking the AFL to court to challenge the validity of things like the draft and the salary cap. It isn't totally clear what the result of such a case would be, there are limited precedents (the NRL draft no longer exists as a result of a succesful challenge to it on the grounds of unreasonable restraint of trade) and views are split about how much certain concessions by the AFL over the years have made such restraints that do exist "reasonable".

That it has never come to this is because of these concessions that the AFL has constantly made in the players favour.

I don't know how realistic it is to expect clubs just to stand firm and force players to see out their contracts. In doing that the club's suffer on a number of fronts:

1. They end up having to carry a player on the list that doesn't want to be there and so may well not perform at the level required or expected of them.
2. They lose what little leverage they have when it comes to obtaining a decent return on a trade.
3. They get a reputation for inflexibility that is going to put off other players from signing with them.

The clubs are just in a shitty position and it really isn't clear what can be done to change it.

 

[bungee]

The players aren't paid to play football 22 weeks of the year. They are paid to spend the vast majority of the year (around 44 weeks off the top of my head, with around 6 weeks off after the season and a 2 week break around Christmas/New Year) in pretty much direct and constant contact with the club in preparation and training. It is a job that places a lot of expectations and limitations on them in terms of physical activity, diet, media commitments, drug testing, etc. that fall outside of "business hours" and is pretty much an all-encompassing way of living.

The players are also not slaves. They are professionals working in a career which, as you point out, has a limited time frame. There aren't many jobs in the world that have such restrictions on who a person is allowed to work for. There aren't many jobs where there is a mechanism in place where an employer can chose to hire you and require you to uproot your life and go to the other side of the country.

Certainly they are well compensated, but if you are going to be fair in this discussion you need to be a bit more even handed in your characterisation of the job.

All that being said, it seems pretty clear that these days contracts are largely for the benefit of players only and offer little security to clubs, which is not really how things were intended to be. Contracted players are requesting trades all over the place and it seems like there is little that clubs can do in these situations other than facilitate the moves. The AFLPA has been flexing its muscles over the last few years and are constantly improving the strength of the players' position. That is their job, so fair enough, but it has definitely changed the dynamic around player movement and placed control firmly in the hands of the players over the clubs.

Why has this been allowed to happen? Well, I think it is because ultimately the issue of the legality of the "restraint of trade" when it comes to player contracts is kind of dubious. The AFLPA basically has a nuclear option in its back pocket, taking the AFL to court to challenge the validity of things like the draft and the salary cap. It isn't totally clear what the result of such a case would be, there are limited precedents (the NRL draft no longer exists as a result of a succesful challenge to it on the grounds of unreasonable restraint of trade) and views are split about how much certain concessions by the AFL over the years have made such restraints that do exist "reasonable".

That it has never come to this is because of these concessions that the AFL has constantly made in the players favour.

I don't know how realistic it is to expect clubs just to stand firm and force players to see out their contracts. In doing that the club's suffer on a number of fronts:

1. They end up having to carry a player on the list that doesn't want to be there and so may well not perform at the level required or expected of them.
2. They lose what little leverage they have when it comes to obtaining a decent return on a trade.
3. They get a reputation for inflexibility that is going to put off other players from signing with them.

The clubs are just in a s**tty position and it really isn't clear what can be done to change it.

Your points are well made, though I imagine there are not many jobs where an employee decides they want to work for a competitor and expect their current employer to play nice.

Perhaps the solution for the AFL and clubs is for all players to be employed directly by the AFL and merely "allocated" to various clubs. Payments for all the players allocated to a particular club would be totalled to determine TPP associated with that club. It would operate in a very similar fashion to what we currently have but in putting all employment contracts centrally with the AFL it would limit the role of the AFLPA to that of a Union for players. Players would of course be allowed to resign from the AFL and move to another employer.

 

[RobbieK]

Your points are well made, though I imagine there are not many jobs where an employee decides they want to work for a competitor and expect their current employer to play nice.

Perhaps the solution for the AFL and clubs is for all players to be employed directly by the AFL and merely "allocated" to various clubs. Payments for all the players allocated to a particular club would be totalled to determine TPP associated with that club. It would operate in a very similar fashion to what we currently have but in putting all employment contracts centrally with the AFL it would limit the role of the AFLPA to that of a Union for players. Players would of course be allowed to resign from the AFL and move to another employer.

The AFLPA would naturally fight that tooth and nail.

I don't know how comfortable I would be about AFL centralisation of contracts. What power would that give to the lessor in determining where players end up? If this was how things were do you think we would have got Franklin out would they have found a way to get him to GWS like they wanted?

 

[bedford]

This is about Papley.

 

[dunno4]

Papley not going at this stage

Well I can tell you I spoke directly to Horse at the Swans Academy games in Albury this week (his son was playing) he said Papley is going nowhere. That’s his view anyway.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[The King!]

would have to be a massive family issue or well being issue imo otherwise come back in a few years tom

if its for his family or mental health etc and a major issue then i would try to accomodate it

 

[Mick Oxlong]

Yeah it’s amazing how this family/personal issue was resolved temporarily so that he could holiday overseas. See ya Tom!

 

[Kapers]

Well I can tell you I spoke directly to Horse at the Swans Academy games in Albury this week (his son was playing) he said Papley is going nowhere. That’s his view anyway.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

Hahahaha

I can imagine Horse saying that even if Papley already signed to Carlton.

On that note it still gives me some confidence that we going to keep him.

 

[Former Decathlete]

Screw Carlton.

Let's get pick 8 out of North.

5 and 25 for Daniher and then we can use 8 on a kid in the draft.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Screw Carlton.

Let's get pick 8 out of North.

5 and 25 for Daniher and then we can use 8 on a kid in the draft.

Or we can keep 5...use 8 or 9 and 25 for Daniher + future 3rd (helps us next year)

 

[windows1]

Question about Papley: about 3-4 weeks ago I saw him seeing a surgeon with his arm in a sling. Did he have surgery? Shoulder problems?

 

[elastic]

Question about Papley: about 3-4 weeks ago I saw him seeing a surgeon with his arm in a sling. Did he have surgery? Shoulder problems?

I believe he had his right hand surgically replaced with his left foot. He should be recovered in time to start preseason at Carlton.

 

[Tedeski]

Could we now deal with Geelong in a deal for Paps.

 

[Cadsky]

Could we now deal with Geelong in a deal for Paps.

Haha send him back to Vic as he wishes, but send him to the club furthest away from Bunyip. I love it!

 

[Vamos Juddamente]

The players aren't paid to play football 22 weeks of the year. They are paid to spend the vast majority of the year (around 44 weeks off the top of my head, with around 6 weeks off after the season and a 2 week break around Christmas/New Year) in pretty much direct and constant contact with the club in preparation and training. It is a job that places a lot of expectations and limitations on them in terms of physical activity, diet, media commitments, drug testing, etc. that fall outside of "business hours" and is pretty much an all-encompassing way of living.

The players are also not slaves. They are professionals working in a career which, as you point out, has a limited time frame. There aren't many jobs in the world that have such restrictions on who a person is allowed to work for. There aren't many jobs where there is a mechanism in place where an employer can chose to hire you and require you to uproot your life and go to the other side of the country.

Certainly they are well compensated, but if you are going to be fair in this discussion you need to be a bit more even handed in your characterisation of the job.

All that being said, it seems pretty clear that these days contracts are largely for the benefit of players only and offer little security to clubs, which is not really how things were intended to be. Contracted players are requesting trades all over the place and it seems like there is little that clubs can do in these situations other than facilitate the moves. The AFLPA has been flexing its muscles over the last few years and are constantly improving the strength of the players' position. That is their job, so fair enough, but it has definitely changed the dynamic around player movement and placed control firmly in the hands of the players over the clubs.

Why has this been allowed to happen? Well, I think it is because ultimately the issue of the legality of the "restraint of trade" when it comes to player contracts is kind of dubious. The AFLPA basically has a nuclear option in its back pocket, taking the AFL to court to challenge the validity of things like the draft and the salary cap. It isn't totally clear what the result of such a case would be, there are limited precedents (the NRL draft no longer exists as a result of a succesful challenge to it on the grounds of unreasonable restraint of trade) and views are split about how much certain concessions by the AFL over the years have made such restraints that do exist "reasonable".

That it has never come to this is because of these concessions that the AFL has constantly made in the players favour.

I don't know how realistic it is to expect clubs just to stand firm and force players to see out their contracts. In doing that the club's suffer on a number of fronts:

1. They end up having to carry a player on the list that doesn't want to be there and so may well not perform at the level required or expected of them.
2. They lose what little leverage they have when it comes to obtaining a decent return on a trade.
3. They get a reputation for inflexibility that is going to put off other players from signing with them.

The clubs are just in a shitty position and it really isn't clear what can be done to change it.

I think the players did not have enough power but now they have too much. Free agency is here to stay but before you reach free agency your club should hold your rights. That means if you want to leave your club before 7 years the club has the right to trade you anywhere.

The players will likely get where they want to go but it will force the clubs to pay full market rate. The uncertainty would make players think twice of leaving before the 7 years.

The AFLPA will try to reject it but the reality is they strike the public would turn against them.