Can a player refuse to go to a club after being drafted by them?

[2-23]

forgive me if this is a stupid question, but why can't West Coast and Adelaide rookie list the kids or is there a set of rules that would exclude them from that?

 

[coasting]

forgive me if this is a stupid question, but why can't West Coast and Adelaide rookie list the kids or is there a set of rules that would exclude them from that?

Sorry mate it is a stupid question The rookie draft comes after the main draft and the PSD. Players taken in the rookie draft are the ones who missed out in the other two.

 

[DST]

But there is no sureity for young guys moving interstate as we saw last year with the Dockers axeing Toby Stribling after one year.

Without knowing the details, was Toby Stribling listed from the rookie list? If that was the case then you don't have the 2 year minimum contract as you are seen to be on a list already albeit the rookie list.

DST

 

[Unwritten_Law]

I think this recent judgement by the AFL (which will stop Gibbs and brothers Morton go to their desired clubs) is pretty ordinary. Father/Son rule is one of the few things that give the competition some tradition and prestige.

For example.... If I was a top-notch accounting graduate, I could choose from any firm across the land, for a whole array of different salaries. I could pick and choose where to live and what offer / role to take. That would be the reward for being the best accountant in the land.

Now take the best young footballer in the country (eg: Gibbs). He also is the best in his chosen profession, but his only reward for this is being sent to a club of which he has no choice, for which he must accept a standard contract.

I think the AFL by having recently limited the father/son scope are really dehumanising the game. Perhaps as Pavlich said a few years back, turning kids into "football mercenaries."

You talk as if Gibbs' old man played for the Crows and Morton's old man played for the Eagles

 

[DST]

You are tied to the club that drafts you for two years. Gibbs or the Mortons can decide to play SANFL or WAFL for two years.

The only way the players could play in any compertition (ie WAFL, SANFL or some country league) is if the club that held the contract allowed them to.

And this is not going to happen in a million years, so yes they would need to step out of football at all levels for two years.

DST

 

[Dixie Flatline]

i think that's something that could be contested in a court of law. It is of no effect to the AFL who a club has training with them and that is stopping someone from working with an organisation.....

If a club wanted to have me or your or anyone come train with them i'd be very interested to see how the AFL would actually stop them from doing that....

Any club that would take on a bloke for training without being on the official playing list or otherwise had permission from the AFL to train would be risking an awful lot. If the bloke does his knee and is out of footy for 12 months, suddenly he's considered not top shelf any more, and his ability to be drafted would be severely reduced. So he goes after the club for compensation and the club is left high and dry because the insurance policy the club has taken out probably specifies that the player needs to be on the list or otherwise has been allowed by the AFL to train with the club.

 

[Dixie Flatline]

I think this recent judgement by the AFL (which will stop Gibbs and brothers Morton go to their desired clubs) is pretty ordinary. Father/Son rule is one of the few things that give the competition some tradition and prestige.

For example.... If I was a top-notch accounting graduate, I could choose from any firm across the land, for a whole array of different salaries. I could pick and choose where to live and what offer / role to take. That would be the reward for being the best accountant in the land.

Now take the best young footballer in the country (eg: Gibbs). He also is the best in his chosen profession, but his only reward for this is being sent to a club of which he has no choice, for which he must accept a standard contract.

I think the AFL by having recently limited the father/son scope are really dehumanising the game. Perhaps as Pavlich said a few years back, turning kids into "football mercenaries."

There's a bloke by the name of Jean-Marc Bosman who challenged the right of a soccer club to keep a player when the player came out of contract. The court upheld his challenge and now we have the Bosman free transfer. It's given the player a lot of bargaining power, because the player can threaten to walk at the end of his contract to any club without his current club getting a cent in return, so the club is more likely to hurry up and agree to the player's demands.

Thank god we don't have that in AFL. By comparison to soccer players, AFL footballers are extremely loyal to their clubs - hence, the big hoo-haa about Brown leaving the Dogs.

 

[Joffaboy]

You are tied to the club that drafts you for two years. Gibbs or the Mortons can decide to play SANFL or WAFL for two years and then nominate for the draft again but if the Crows or Eagles aren't on the bottom, then they could get picked up by another club and have to start it all again. Though no other club would touch you after you sat out your first two years. If you announced that you were sitting out because of your club preference, this would amount to draft tampering and there would be further penalties.

As others say, may as well take the dough and the learning experience at another club and then asked to be traded.

ODN is correct, only way it can be done, unless of course the WCE trade for dps, and if the Mortons are potential top ten picks are WCE willing to give up quality established players for youngsters with "potential".

Talk of sitting out years, court challenges etc are just so much rubbish. Like the incredibly funny breakaway comp, it will never happen.

 

[Tas]

I think this recent judgement by the AFL (which will stop Gibbs and brothers Morton go to their desired clubs) is pretty ordinary. Father/Son rule is one of the few things that give the competition some tradition and prestige.

For example.... If I was a top-notch accounting graduate, I could choose from any firm across the land, for a whole array of different salaries. I could pick and choose where to live and what offer / role to take. That would be the reward for being the best accountant in the land.

Now take the best young footballer in the country (eg: Gibbs). He also is the best in his chosen profession, but his only reward for this is being sent to a club of which he has no choice, for which he must accept a standard contract.

I think the AFL by having recently limited the father/son scope are really dehumanising the game. Perhaps as Pavlich said a few years back, turning kids into "football mercenaries."

I think the transitional rules were handled poorly.

If each old club has on average 20 players eligible for father son then what they should have done is asked the SANFL and WAFL players that have played over 100 games which clubs they would want their offspring to play for and then give the list to each club and tell them to pick out their quota of 20 names from that list that would give them the same number of players on average as older clubs.

Father/Son is not about freebies or exploiting the draft to get good players, it is about having the names that are an important part of the club remain with the club given tradition and heritage is important in football.

If that was done at inception then you probably find Adelaide may not have even picked Gibbs from that list. I think effectively having half a state to pick from is too large a pool which is why they raised the game numbers up, I think a better way would have been to allow the clubs and players to select where their allegiences lay and where they wanted their bloodline to have an opportunity to continue.

Unfortunately it is too late now because the clubs just did not propose anything different in terms of transitional rules when they were introduced.

 

[mcgarnacle]

A) Does the agreement say that you will sit out of football altogether?
B) If it does, does the AFL have the right to stop a player playing in a competition it has no control over?

Case in point, an NRL player (can't remember his name) received a very lengthy suspension. He went over to play in the English Super League as penalties from the NRL do not carry over, only penalties from International body sanctioned events carry over.

The player you're thinking of is Jamie Lyon. This had nothing to do with the draft. He had already played several seasons with the Parramatta club, but wanted a release from his contract. When rumours surfaced that he was in negotiations with the club's arch-enemy Manly, Parramatta refused to release him and he spent a year on the sidelines back home at Wee Waa doing sweet FA. However, he did end up heading over to St Helens in the ESL.

The NRL doesn't have a player draft anymore as it was challenged back in 1991 over the Terry Hill saga (when the competition was the ARL). The draft had only been in operation in the game for short time at that stage. Terry Hill was the best young prospect on the planet and he was adamant that he did not want to go to the Eastern Suburbs club (Sydney Roosters) who were in line to pick him up and did indeed do so. Instead, he declared his preference to go to Western Suburbs (Magpies - now Wests Tigers) and play under premiership coach Warren Ryan.

The Supreme Court of NSW found that the Player Draft in rugby league was a restraint of trade. The draft in rugby league was abolished. Terry Hill got his wish and spent the next few seasons at the Magpies before moving to Manly as an uncontracted player in 1994.

The rugby league development system is based around district junior leagues which historically provided players to the club's top grades. Thus, the player draft in rugby league was extremely unpopular amongst the clubs and top young players alike.

There was a case in the NFL - the home of the player draft - a few years ago regarding QB Eli Manning (brother or Peyton from the Colts) and the San Diego Chargers. As the No.1 prospect in that draft year, he declared that he did not want to be picked up by the Chargers, but was anyway. He was eventually traded to the New York Giants for Phil Rivers but was widely criticised (along with his famous father Archie) for manipulating the draft process. If such a situation occured in the AFL, there would not be this avenue for negotiation as the trade window only lasts for 1-2 weeks of the year prior to the national draft. Furthermore, NFL teams need to come to contract terms with each individual they draft. I'm not sure but I think there is a standard contract for all players draft to an AFL club, whether they are taken at 1 or 70.

I'm sure the player draft and salary cap in the AFL could both be challenged in court as a restraint of trade. The salary cap most certainly by the wealthier clubs in the comp. I know that the salary cap in the English Super League is determined in part as a percentage of each club's annual income. This allows club's to only spend as much as their finances allow.

 

[OB1]

Perhaps someone with a bit more knowledge can confirm details but I would imagine that whenever a kid nominates for the draft he would have to sign some type of agreement stating that he will abide by the conditions of the draft, eg agreeing to go to the club that choses him. This whole talk about players only wanting to go to 1 club is pathetic & in essence is totally against the whole purpose of having a draft process.
IF these guys were eligible to go under the father/son rule then WC & Adelaide would have to give up the appropriate picks but they aint. Simply having them come out & say to every other club "don't pick me" would allow the clubs to use for instance 4th or 5th round picks on potential 1st round players. It has nothing to do with who you WANT to play for, that doesn't come into it. Does anyone think Judd for instance given the choice at 18 would have left his home state. Why don't we just ask every kid who they barracked for & then allow them to go there. The big clubs would love that but I doubt North or the Dogs could field a side (no offence simply using maths logic).
I don't blame WC & Adelaide for trying to circumvent the draft process but this is an area that has the serious potential to make even more of a mockery of competition. If these kids don't want to play by the same rules as others then a mimimum of 2 years ban should apply.

 

[The Griffenator]

Anyone remember Fabian Francis?

I realise he wasnt young, but walked from Port, wanting to "return home" Dockers were going to take him, but didnt have salary cap room, instead of going elsewhere in the PSD he decided to sit out one year then join the dockers...... smart move, did his knee in the WAFL and never played for an AFL side again!

If Gibbs is the best available i would want the Dog's to take him, if he doesnt want to come, im with Longy413... let him sit there doing nothing.
I would be happy for the club to agree to trade him home after 2 years if a suitable trade can be arranger provided for 2 years he did EVERYTHING asked of him - if not NO TRADE - then redraft the prick and start again.
AFL should make it simple - enter the draft (your choice on what year you do it!) get picked, you MUST go there for 2 years or NEVER PLAY AGAIN! stuff this 2 year crap. If a kid is too much of a cry baby to spend 2 years away from mummy and daddy they are not man enough to play the game anyway, simple
Draft tamper NEVER PLAY AGAIN.

 

[mcgarnacle]

There's a bloke by the name of Jean-Marc Bosman who challenged the right of a soccer club to keep a player when the player came out of contract. The court upheld his challenge and now we have the Bosman free transfer. It's given the player a lot of bargaining power, because the player can threaten to walk at the end of his contract to any club without his current club getting a cent in return, so the club is more likely to hurry up and agree to the player's demands.

Thank god we don't have that in AFL. By comparison to soccer players, AFL footballers are extremely loyal to their clubs - hence, the big hoo-haa about Brown leaving the Dogs.

Its less about loyalty and more about a the limited number of options available to players in the AFL. There's no free agency in the AFL. A player still has to nominate for the draft to switch clubs (such as Nick Stevens to Carlton, Camporeale to Essendon) if a trade cannot be arranged. Power is in the hands of the clubs in 95% of cases.

The system in the AFL can be challenged.

 

[The Passenger]

the salary cap could definately be challenged in court, and i guess the draft could be too, but i have a feeling that if it was defended properly the draft stay.

As i said before the AFL is not actually stopping someone from being employed by a club. Although not being able to play is the only reason they'd be employed by that club, and as such they'd never get employed by that club if they couldn't play. But there is nothing the AFL can do stop someone from being employed by the club - there was a few instances of why clubs wouldn't letting guys train with them if they couldn't play, but there's nothing the AFL can do to stop them employing the guy to be the IT director, or an assistant coach, or a physio etc,. Hence, I believe you cuold argue (although you'd need someone with a better sense of the law than me) that they are not stopping you from being employed by someone.

And at the end of the day, if someone tried to challenge the draft, the AFL could easily (i'd think easily anyway) charge them with "bring the game into disrepute" and have the tribunal suspend them for 2 years.

It's really no different to them suspending a player for tripping or striking an opponent.

 

[andypie]

i might be wrong but i think by entering the draft you are entering into an agreement to play for the club that picks you up. for some reason a 3 year disqualification from re entering the draft is in the back of my mind.
not real sure on this though.
gee their is alot of pressure on the gibbs boy now though.

 

[andypie]

Perhaps someone with a bit more knowledge can confirm details but I would imagine that whenever a kid nominates for the draft he would have to sign some type of agreement stating that he will abide by the conditions of the draft, eg agreeing to go to the club that choses him. This whole talk about players only wanting to go to 1 club is pathetic & in essence is totally against the whole purpose of having a draft process.
IF these guys were eligible to go under the father/son rule then WC & Adelaide would have to give up the appropriate picks but they aint. Simply having them come out & say to every other club "don't pick me" would allow the clubs to use for instance 4th or 5th round picks on potential 1st round players. It has nothing to do with who you WANT to play for, that doesn't come into it. Does anyone think Judd for instance given the choice at 18 would have left his home state. Why don't we just ask every kid who they barracked for & then allow them to go there. The big clubs would love that but I doubt North or the Dogs could field a side (no offence simply using maths logic).
I don't blame WC & Adelaide for trying to circumvent the draft process but this is an area that has the serious potential to make even more of a mockery of competition. If these kids don't want to play by the same rules as others then a mimimum of 2 years ban should apply.

i remember chalmers did that to get to collingwood and got suspended for 3 years i think. robert pyman (kangaroos)and another bloke who ended up at carlton but his name escapes me did similar but not as blatant in the
same year and i think from memory got fines.

 

[Borscht Mat]

all this talk about "let him sit there doing nothing" is bollocks. He can keep playing for Glenelg. If he was contracted to another (AFL) club then that club woukld need to agree, but the whole idea is that he does not sign the contract, is therefore not a contracted AFL player, and therefore not bound by the rules of the AFL. He can play whereever he likes, do whatever he likes except play for an AFL club.



With Gibbs with might not be a sensible course....but imagine he was a ruckman with no real prospects of playing AFL in the first year. Why not stay at your original club. Why is playing for Williamstown as a Collingwood listed player any better than playing for Central Districts ??? Also this talk about "what if he does his knee ?" is also bollocks. What if he does his knee whilst on Collingwood's list ? Are Collingwood going to be more loyal to him simply because he is on their list than if he were not. Now that would be a first.

 

[Longy413]

With Gibbs with might not be a sensible course....but imagine he was a ruckman with no real prospects of playing AFL in the first year. Why not stay at your original club. .

But what would that achieve?
Is he going to sit in the SANFL until Adelaide finish last?

 

[Borscht Mat]

But what would that achieve?
Is he going to sit in the SANFL until Adelaide finish last?

what does he have to lose ? He just renominates for the draft. What it would do is put pressure on clubs:

a. not to draft him in the first place
b. to trade him to a club in his home state.

One thing I do not understand is this:

the standard contract is 2 years and players on an AFL list but out of contract can enter the PSD without going through the National Draft. So, is a player who is drafted but refuses to sign a contract effectively an uncontracted player at the end of the first season and therefore eligible to enter to PSD ? I would think so.

In the PSD you can put a price on your head. So....Gibbs nominates for the 2006 draft, get's picked up by Carlton. Refuses to sign a contract with Carlton and keeps playing for Glenelg for a year. At the end of 2007 Carlton can trade him to Port or lose him in the PSD for nought. In 2007 Gibbs never says that he will only play for Port, but does put a price on his head of $700,000 p.a. Port then draft him in the PSD and have a front loaded contract. So the boy is playing the full year at Glenelg instead of part of the year at Glenelg if Port could draft him originally....but a small price to pay I would have thought.

 

[Longy413]

what does he have to lose ? He just renominates for the draft. What it would do is put pressure on clubs:

a. not to draft him in the first place
b. to trade him to a club in his home state.

One thing I do not understand is this:

the standard contract is 2 years and players on an AFL list but out of contract can enter the PSD without going through the National Draft. So, is a player who is drafted but refuses to sign a contract effectively an uncontracted player at the end of the first season and therefore eligible to enter to PSD ? I would think so.

In the PSD you can put a price on your head. So....Gibbs nominates for the 2006 draft, get's picked up by Carlton. Refuses to sign a contract with Carlton and keeps playing for Glenelg for a year. At the end of 2007 Carlton can trade him to Port or lose him in the PSD for nought. In 2007 Gibbs never says that he will only play for Port, but does put a price on his head of $700,000 p.a. Port then draft him in the PSD and have a front loaded contract. So the boy is playing the full year at Glenelg instead of part of the year at Glenelg if Port could draft him originally....but a small price to pay I would have thought.

Except Team A who finishes last in 2007 has the first pick in the PSD and a spare $700,000 to spend. Drafts Gibbs, he sits out again and the club doesn't have to pay him.

He spends another two years out of the system and has to till he's 22 to get a crack. And stays in a vicious circle.

He's got one option if he wants to play AFL and that's to nominate for the next draft, have a crack and wait out his two years and see what happens.

 

[Borscht Mat]

Except Team A who finishes last in 2007 has the first pick in the PSD and a spare $700,000 to spend. Drafts Gibbs, he sits out again and the club doesn't have to pay him.

He spends another two years out of the system and has to till he's 22 to get a crack. And stays in a vicious circle.

He's got one option if he wants to play AFL and that's to nominate for the next draft, have a crack and wait out his two years and see what happens.

assuming he doesn't care if he plays for Carlton or Melbourne why would he then care if Melbourne pick him up in the PSD ??....he can just play for them instead of Carlton. If short he can choose to sign the contract with a Melbourne club whenever he wants to.....but why rush ? More significant is why wouldn't Carlton trade him to an Adelaide side. He has never signed a contract, is going to walk anyway.....so Carlton just give up on their 2006 first pick and let him walk away 1 year later ? Of course not....they will trade him.

 

[Longy413]

If short he can choose to sign the contract with a Melbourne club whenever he wants to.....but why rush ?

No he can't. List lodgement dates see to that.
He nominates, he gets drafted, he signs or he goes home and waits two years to have another crack. He can't go home to the SANFL and change his mind half way through the season.

Clubs aren't going to let him through to Adelaide because they fear getting nothing in return. Someone will draft him and have a crack at making him settle in and keeping him. Gibbs will be seen as no different to any other youngster that prefers to stay in his home state. In reality the only difference with Gibbs is that he has a profile because of the father/son situation.

And clubs have already proven they won't get pushed around at trade week. They'd rather let a bloke go for nothing and not have any choice over where he goes, rather than be bent over in trying to get him to his club of choice.

 

[James23]

I think there's a fair measure of irony in the fact that someone like Voss, who bled loyalty from day one, has three medals, whilst Buckley, who moved for flags, will most likely retire with none.

 

[dmc333]

brett chalmers was first drafted to richmond in 1989

 

[Borscht Mat]

No he can't. List lodgement dates see to that.
He nominates, he gets drafted, he signs or he goes home and waits two years to have another crack. He can't go home to the SANFL and change his mind half way through the season.

Clubs aren't going to let him through to Adelaide because they fear getting nothing in return. Someone will draft him and have a crack at making him settle in and keeping him. Gibbs will be seen as no different to any other youngster that prefers to stay in his home state. In reality the only difference with Gibbs is that he has a profile because of the father/son situation.

And clubs have already proven they won't get pushed around at trade week. They'd rather let a bloke go for nothing and not have any choice over where he goes, rather than be bent over in trying to get him to his club of choice.

I think the only club who has seriously done that is Port with Nick Stevens. And I was not referring to a player changing his mind half way through a season....but he can nominate for the PSD....get picked up by another Melbourne based club and what has he lost exactly ? Particularly because Glenelg would probably be in a position to pay him about the same as a 1st year AFL salary anyway. What does he have to lose ?