Autopsy At what point should a club be sanctioned for targetting a contracted player

[Groater]

Can you provide a credible reference he's ever shown any interest in leaving, or that the club has had any intent other than keeping him? I've followed his career with some interest and never saw either.

You know nothing John Snow

 

[Sentinel]

Never change Bonkynon.

 

[Bokonon_]

You know nothing John Snow

Thank you for your contribution. What's a thread without a bit of personal abuse.

 

[The_Steadier]

With the goings regarding St Kilda targeting Adam Tomlinson It occurs to me there is a point at which a club should be sanctioned for targetting a contracted player. I beleive this is at the point where the club cannot reasonably show it is acting in good faith.

I'll begin by saying I dont see anything wrong with showing interest in any player, contracted or not. Although it's a grey area a club having discussions with a player manager is fine and I'm sure it happens all the time. Sometimes it progresses and sometimes not.

There are some disturbing elements to this one though and I think the AFL should be asking questions of the Saints.

Essentially what's happened in summary:-

1. Tomlinson signed an extension of his contract in February 2017 for two years.

2.St Kilda reportedly made Tomlinson an offer and announced they were seeking a trade because they believed Tomlinson wanted to rerurn to Victoria. There was a vague reference to player discipline matters that led to him seeking to leave. That may or may not be true and in any case are confidential between the club and it's players.

It could be true as Leon has been saying publicly some players basically need to perform or be replaced for some time. Another club making insinuations without even reference to fact is innappropiate and unhelpful in any case.

3. Giants announced Tomlinson had been approached and after discussions would not be traded in any circumstances. Neither Tommo or his manager have given any indication he is seeking a trade.

4. Saints announce nothing will happen unless our position changes. You'd think this would be the end of the matter.

5. Saints make "formal offer" to Tomlinson and insist they "believe" with no reference to Tommo or his manager that he wants to return to Victoria. Next day they again announce it wont happen.
Giant's reiterate Tommo will not be traded although it should not have been necessary

I think it's approriate to raise an eyebrow and ask whether they were in fact attempting to trade in good faith, or whether they were just throwing scuttlebut to denigrate a competitor.

I'd suggest the AFL investigate whether there was any substance to the claims of interest shown by Tommo. If not then sanctions for bringing the game into disrepute would seem appropriate to me.

It may be an investigation would reveal things embarassing to the Giants or Tommo but the other scenario is surely unnaceptable, and I think it needs to be known.

I agree op.
To answer your question:

The exact point at which clubs should have been santioned for targetting contracted players is 12 September 2011.

 

[Snailspace13]

Saints are chasing Nick Haynes.

 

[Sainter93]

Can you provide a credible reference he's ever shown any interest in leaving, or that the club has had any intent other than keeping him? I've followed his career with some interest and never saw either.

Ameet Bains said this earlier today.

 

[Groater]

Saints are chasing Nick Haynes.

I heard it's a big coin offer, but we're only offering GWS our preseason pick in a trade.

 

[Jaffa Fan]

Saints are chasing Nick Haynes.

Who is also contracted and not going anywhere.

 

[Sentinel]

Ameet Bains said this earlier today.

View attachment 429260

Did you just deliver a dose of reality to BigFooty's very own self-anointed 'deliverer of reality'?

 

[Wright 1]

FMD now I have heard it all. Welcome to the real world of the AFL player trading system. Its been happening for decades

 

[Bokonon_]

Ameet Bains said this earlier today.

View attachment 429260

Still no reference to Tommo or his manager though. How often would you say it was a club persisted with targeting a contracted player, recently contracted at that, into the second week of trade week. With no statement of intent from the player, his manager pr his current club. The Giants announced Wilson's intent on his behalf but he clearly wants to go and has a good reason.

 

[STK2020]

Maybe while someone is investigating s**t , they can start at the top and ask why the AFL were trying to manipulate the Franklin to GWS deal .

 

[Sab22]

Why just St Kilda? Why not GC or Geelong? Ain't Weller and Abblet contracted? You don't know if Tomlinson requested a trade or not or even if he wanted to join. Not everything gets leaked to media

 

[gringo2011]

I think they have though. Cameron was testy the first time in responding. The second time I only saw text.

Leon was probably testy because he'd been partying with Lambert and Whitters and was still munted.

 

[BilboJackins]

With the goings regarding St Kilda targeting Adam Tomlinson It occurs to me there is a point at which a club should be sanctioned for targetting a contracted player. I beleive this is at the point where the club cannot reasonably show it is acting in good faith.

I'll begin by saying I dont see anything wrong with showing interest in any player, contracted or not. Although it's a grey area a club having discussions with a player manager is fine and I'm sure it happens all the time. Sometimes it progresses and sometimes not.

There are some disturbing elements to this one though and I think the AFL should be asking questions of the Saints.

Essentially what's happened in summary:-

1. Tomlinson signed an extension of his contract in February 2017 for two years.

2.St Kilda reportedly made Tomlinson an offer and announced they were seeking a trade because they believed Tomlinson wanted to rerurn to Victoria. There was a vague reference to player discipline matters that led to him seeking to leave. That may or may not be true and in any case are confidential between the club and it's players.

It could be true as Leon has been saying publicly some players basically need to perform or be replaced for some time. Another club making insinuations without even reference to fact is innappropiate and unhelpful in any case.

3. Giants announced Tomlinson had been approached and after discussions would not be traded in any circumstances. Neither Tommo or his manager have given any indication he is seeking a trade.

4. Saints announce nothing will happen unless our position changes. You'd think this would be the end of the matter.

5. Saints make "formal offer" to Tomlinson and insist they "believe" with no reference to Tommo or his manager that he wants to return to Victoria. Next day they again announce it wont happen.
Giant's reiterate Tommo will not be traded although it should not have been necessary

I think it's approriate to raise an eyebrow and ask whether they were in fact attempting to trade in good faith, or whether they were just throwing scuttlebut to denigrate a competitor.

I'd suggest the AFL investigate whether there was any substance to the claims of interest shown by Tommo. If not then sanctions for bringing the game into disrepute would seem appropriate to me.

It may be an investigation would reveal things embarassing to the Giants or Tommo but the other scenario is surely unnaceptable, and I think it needs to be known.

I assume you're taking the piss! If not:

On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[JEDi 44]

Who The Hell Is Tommo and Why Do We Care??

 

[gringo2011]

Still no reference to Tommo or his manager though. How often would you say it was a club persisted with targeting a contracted player, recently contracted at that, into the second week of trade week. With no statement of intent from the player, his manager pr his current club. The Giants announced Wilson's intent on his behalf but he clearly wants to go and has a good reason.

The only reason we looked at Tomlinson was because GWS came to us with a list of guys they'd swap for pick 7 and 8. We had something they wanted after they were largely let off for flouting drug laws, but didn't have a first round pick. I believe they offered up Tomlinson and we didn't want to give that up. We offered a future second though and now your crying like we targeted him. Hardly Machiavellian s**t.

 

[kernelT]

Who are GWS?

 

[Racing line]

Never. It would be too hard to police. The whole process would turn into a farce and a "he said she said" and before you know it youd have teams dropping each other in it out of spite.

 

[BilboJackins]

Or perhaps there's a view in Victoria that we dont need to be treated with respect as the new kids on the block.

It's all just a big conspiracy to show that Victoria is the master state in Australia and there were multiple shooters on the grassy knoll!

ILLUMINATI CONFIRMED!


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[gringo2011]

Who The Hell Is Tommo and Why Do We Care??

He's like this tall guy who can't kick and isn't quite a key position player. They paid too much at the draft and now think he's better than he is. If Jack Watts was a pick in the thirties we over offered.

 

[Bokonon_]

He's like this tall guy who can't kick and isn't quite a key position player. They paid too much at the draft and now think he's better than he is. If Jack Watts was a pick in the thirties we over offered.

Why did you offer when we'd said we weren't interested, and agin Tommo never said he was.

 

[JEDi 44]

He's like this tall guy who can't kick and isn't quite a key position player. They paid too much at the draft and now think he's better than he is. If Jack Watts was a pick in the thirties we over offered.

Oh..we have one of them too. Our one is a Jakey

 

[VDS66]

Why did you offer when we'd said we weren't interested, and agin Tommo never said he was.

Why don't you go ask your club?

 

[Bokonon_]

The only reason we looked at Tomlinson was because GWS came to us with a list of guys they'd swap for pick 7 and 8. We had something they wanted after they were largely let off for flouting drug laws, but didn't have a first round pick. I believe they offered up Tomlinson and we didn't want to give that up. We offered a future second though and now your crying like we targeted him. Hardly Machiavellian s**t.

Any reference, cause it reads like nonsense