Future 2nd for a future 3rd merry-go-round

[Pleasedontfail11]

I’m not buying it. That would constitute restraint of trade and I’m certain the AFL wouldn’t be able to have that upheld in court.

I'm looking for more info but this was the best I could find for now.

• Sydney confirmed Collingwood's interest in young defender Sam Murray on Tuesday, with the two clubs in discussions over a trade. Murray is a category B rookie, but the Swans said they will be willing to offer him a senior list contract. "That being the case he can't just walk out to a club of his choice, he's not a free agent in that sense," football manager Tom Harley told SEN. "We're in discussions but a deal hasn't been done at this stage."

http://www.nmfc.com.au/news/2017-10-17/trade-wrap-october-17-nmfc

I'm sure I saw a quote from someone who said that if Sydney didn't want to trade Murray and he didn't want to play for Sydney his only choice was to sit out 2018. As a cat b rookie that was offered a contract the draft wasn't an option for him.

Edit this is a better quote.


Speaking on SEN on Tuesday, Sydney footy manager Tom Harley confirmed the Magpies were looking at acquiring Murray.

"We're in discussions with Collingwood but it's a bit of an interesting one," Harley said.

"Sam is a category B rookie but if we were to offer him a contract, which we're prepared to do to go onto the senior list, and a deal is to be done, it would have to be a trade, so that’s a win for us.

"So that being the case he can't just walk out to a club of his choice, he's not a free agent in that sense.

"We're in discussions but a deal hasn't been done at this stage."

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2017-10-17/rookie-defender-could-become-a-pie-say-swans

 

[Apex36]

I'm looking for more info but this was the best I could find for now.

• Sydney confirmed Collingwood's interest in young defender Sam Murray on Tuesday, with the two clubs in discussions over a trade. Murray is a category B rookie, but the Swans said they will be willing to offer him a senior list contract. "That being the case he can't just walk out to a club of his choice, he's not a free agent in that sense," football manager Tom Harley told SEN. "We're in discussions but a deal hasn't been done at this stage."

http://www.nmfc.com.au/news/2017-10-17/trade-wrap-october-17-nmfc

I'm sure I saw a quote from someone who said that if Sydney didn't want to trade Murray and he didn't want to play for Sydney his only choice was to sit out 2018. As a cat b rookie that was offered a contract the draft wasn't an option for him.

I’d heard that too, but I don’t see how they could possibly do that in a legal sense, hence why I’m not really buying it. Saying ‘no you can’t work in this industry unless you work for us, despite you being uncontracted’ is a pretty clear restraint of trade, regardless of whether it’s a footy player or an insurance broker. Yes, there are clauses in contracts that do just that, but if they were challenged in court I can guarantee you they wouldn’t hold up.

 

[Apex36]

Yes but some believe the points method of approximating value is witchcraft.

Not witchcraft, just stupid.

 

[Pleasedontfail11]

I’d heard that too, but I don’t see how they could possibly do that in a legal sense, hence why I’m not really buying it. Saying ‘no you can’t work in this industry unless you work for us, despite you being uncontracted’ is a pretty clear restraint of trade, regardless of whether it’s a footy player or an insurance broker. Yes, there are clauses in contracts that do just that, but if they were challenged in court I can guarantee you they wouldn’t hold up.

No doubt if they were challenged in court there would be issues. Restraint of trade would be an issue for the entire draft system. I can understand the thinking behind cat b rookies not being able to walk into the national draft or ps draft after being offered a contract because they would get to their club of choice every time and any development the initial club put in would be worth nothing. No offence but you not buying it doesn't mean much. Either cat b rookies can or can't nominate for the draft after being offered a contract. I would suggest it's probably a fact that they can't under afl rules. (Even though it's probably wouldn't hold up legally)

 

[doppleganger]

Yes but some believe the points method of approximating value is witchcraft.

More to the point, some potentially think they have a better distribution that better reflects the value of a draft pick.

Just imagine the outcry on here if we did what Carlton did and traded out our first round pick for a bundle of later picks.

People would lose their sh1t if this thread is anything to go by as the only thing that matters is letting go that big ticket item.

 

[Obese Arachnid]

I really wish someone could confirm this Cat B can't nominate for the draft one way or the other if offered a contract.

While every player may have case in restraint of trade, they still have options. Worst case scenario after the nominated two years is the PSD.

In this case it seems like a Cat B is treated like an indentured servant.

It seems very wrong to me.

 

[Good Degoe]

Not witchcraft, just stupid.

It's Wiccan... and the hidden masters have been informed of your ignorance, expect a scolding

 

[doppleganger]

I really wish someone could confirm this Cat B can't nominate for the draft one way or the other if offered a contract.

While every player may have case in restraint of trade, they still have options. Worst case scenario after the nominated two years is the PSD.

In this case it seems like a Cat B is treated like an indentured servant.

It seems very wrong to me.

I think people are getting the 'bound' to a club and a 23 month period out of the game clause mixed up.

The problem as I see it is the actual timing of the different list lodgements.

Trade period ends prior to clubs making a call on existing rookie class.

As a 2nd year rookie, If Sydney were only going to offer Murray another rookie contract he could refute that and effectively become a free agent and go to any club of his choosing...but problem being FA period had already finished by that stage.

If Sydney were thinking about elevating him to the senior list, they also didn't have to make the call until after the trade period had closed. If Sydney did offer Murray a senior list position he isn't obligated to take it, but doesn't get the standing of a FA. The draft or trade only options available to him. And again due to timing issues, trade period is over so effectively it is the draft.

So Sydney held the cards, they had all the leverage. If we identified Murray as a player we wanted, then we had to cough up. Or hope that Murray would turn his back on Sydney to instead nominate for the draft and hope we did actually pick him up.

 

[Gone Critical]

I really wish someone could confirm this Cat B can't nominate for the draft one way or the other if offered a contract.

While every player may have case in restraint of trade, they still have options. Worst case scenario after the nominated two years is the PSD.

In this case it seems like a Cat B is treated like an indentured servant.

It seems very wrong to me.

Looking at what Harley said back in Oct it would seem correct

Yes it would likely be seen as restraint of trade if challenged but so has much of the AFL trading rules been over the journey. I think there has always been a tacit agreement between the AFL and the players group to cede some of the rights the players might have in the interests of preserving the history and feel of the game.

Cat B rule would be another example.

 

[Vicky Park]

Mods, can I be banned from this thread please?

Why would you want that AD? I still have no idea what we really traded for Murray, what we lost and gained, and the future implications, but I think a flow chart might help.

 

[Scodog10]

I'm looking for more info but this was the best I could find for now.

• Sydney confirmed Collingwood's interest in young defender Sam Murray on Tuesday, with the two clubs in discussions over a trade. Murray is a category B rookie, but the Swans said they will be willing to offer him a senior list contract. "That being the case he can't just walk out to a club of his choice, he's not a free agent in that sense," football manager Tom Harley told SEN. "We're in discussions but a deal hasn't been done at this stage."

http://www.nmfc.com.au/news/2017-10-17/trade-wrap-october-17-nmfc

I'm sure I saw a quote from someone who said that if Sydney didn't want to trade Murray and he didn't want to play for Sydney his only choice was to sit out 2018. As a cat b rookie that was offered a contract the draft wasn't an option for him.

Edit this is a better quote.


Speaking on SEN on Tuesday, Sydney footy manager Tom Harley confirmed the Magpies were looking at acquiring Murray.

"We're in discussions with Collingwood but it's a bit of an interesting one," Harley said.

"Sam is a category B rookie but if we were to offer him a contract, which we're prepared to do to go onto the senior list, and a deal is to be done, it would have to be a trade, so that’s a win for us.

"So that being the case he can't just walk out to a club of his choice, he's not a free agent in that sense.

"We're in discussions but a deal hasn't been done at this stage."

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2017-10-17/rookie-defender-could-become-a-pie-say-swans

Nah that’s referring to him needing to go into either the national or rookie drafts. There is no rule tying an uncontracted player to a club. Let’s use a practical example.

Cox was also an uncontracted Cat B rookie heading into the off-season. If we offered him a contract and he declined he was not tied to us if a trade could not be agreed upon. He would have then needed to nominate for the draft

Harley’s words only tell half the story!

 

[Scodog10]

I really wish someone could confirm this Cat B can't nominate for the draft one way or the other if offered a contract.

While every player may have case in restraint of trade, they still have options. Worst case scenario after the nominated two years is the PSD.

In this case it seems like a Cat B is treated like an indentured servant.

It seems very wrong to me.

Because it is based on a misinterpretation of Harley’s words by some and suits an agenda for others!

There is no rule restricting an uncontracted Cat B player entering the draft hence why Harley said “he’s not a FA in that sense” rather than “he’s not a FA in that sense and also cannot enter the draft”...

 

[doppleganger]

Because it is based on a misinterpretation of Harley’s words by some and suits an agenda for others!

There is no rule restricting an uncontracted Cat B player entering the draft hence why Harley said “he’s not a FA in that sense” rather than “he’s not a FA in that sense and also cannot enter the draft”...

Yep.

The bound to a club for 23 months applies to players taken via the draft who then sign a contract of service.

If a Cat B rookie who has already served two years, is offered another rookie contract they can decline it and become a free agent.

If a Cat B rookie who has already served two years, is offered an elevation to the primary list, they can decline it and head to the draft.

These decisions are made after trade period, so for Collingwood to get Murray we had to trade for him as he was still a Sydney player.

Or tell Murray that yes we really value you, but don't value you enough to trade for you...so turn your back on Sydney and we will pick you up in the draft.

 

[Apex36]

No doubt if they were challenged in court there would be issues. Restraint of trade would be an issue for the entire draft system. I can understand the thinking behind cat b rookies not being able to walk into the national draft or ps draft after being offered a contract because they would get to their club of choice every time and any development the initial club put in would be worth nothing. No offence but you not buying it doesn't mean much. Either cat b rookies can or can't nominate for the draft after being offered a contract. I would suggest it's probably a fact that they can't under afl rules. (Even though it's probably wouldn't hold up legally)

If you can find this rule for me then I’ll concede, but as you’ve put up no evidence of it being so other than hearsay, I’ll continue to not buy it.

 

[jackcass]

This bit is wrong I believe. If Sydney refused to trade him, Murray had two choices accept the contract they offered or not play in 2018.

As I understand it, Murray was within his rights to reject a rookie contract on offer and become a delisted free agent. Sydney indicated they'd improve the offer to a senior list spot which completely changed the dynamic.

 

[jackcass]

I'm looking for more info but this was the best I could find for now.

• Sydney confirmed Collingwood's interest in young defender Sam Murray on Tuesday, with the two clubs in discussions over a trade. Murray is a category B rookie, but the Swans said they will be willing to offer him a senior list contract. "That being the case he can't just walk out to a club of his choice, he's not a free agent in that sense," football manager Tom Harley told SEN. "We're in discussions but a deal hasn't been done at this stage."

http://www.nmfc.com.au/news/2017-10-17/trade-wrap-october-17-nmfc

I'm sure I saw a quote from someone who said that if Sydney didn't want to trade Murray and he didn't want to play for Sydney his only choice was to sit out 2018. As a cat b rookie that was offered a contract the draft wasn't an option for him.

Edit this is a better quote.


Speaking on SEN on Tuesday, Sydney footy manager Tom Harley confirmed the Magpies were looking at acquiring Murray.

"We're in discussions with Collingwood but it's a bit of an interesting one," Harley said.

"Sam is a category B rookie but if we were to offer him a contract, which we're prepared to do to go onto the senior list, and a deal is to be done, it would have to be a trade, so that’s a win for us.

"So that being the case he can't just walk out to a club of his choice, he's not a free agent in that sense.

"We're in discussions but a deal hasn't been done at this stage."

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2017-10-17/rookie-defender-could-become-a-pie-say-swans

Could still walk to the draft. Just can't nominate his club of choice then though.

 

[Boris the Contradiction]

I’d heard that too, but I don’t see how they could possibly do that in a legal sense, hence why I’m not really buying it. Saying ‘no you can’t work in this industry unless you work for us, despite you being uncontracted’ is a pretty clear restraint of trade, regardless of whether it’s a footy player or an insurance broker. Yes, there are clauses in contracts that do just that, but if they were challenged in court I can guarantee you they wouldn’t hold up.

It's the same with restricted free agency though, which is a farce.

 

[Apex36]

It's the same with restricted free agency though, which is a farce.

No it’s not. With restricted free agency the player can still walk to the draft if his club won’t/can’t facilitate a trade. What’s being implied is that Murray would have had to sit out of the game for 12 months if Sydney had not traded him, rather than him having the option to walk to the ND. The AFL already walks a fine line when it comes to restraint of trade, I don’t believe for a second that they would make and enforce a rule like that, which very clearly oversteps the line in regards to it.

 

[Obese Arachnid]

Because it is based on a misinterpretation of Harley’s words by some and suits an agenda for others!

There is no rule restricting an uncontracted Cat B player entering the draft hence why Harley said “he’s not a FA in that sense” rather than “he’s not a FA in that sense and also cannot enter the draft”...

I knew it had to be BS.

The players put up with restraint of trade as it stands now but there is no way they'd put up with that.

 

[Boris the Contradiction]

No it’s not. With restricted free agency the player can still walk to the draft if his club won’t/can’t facilitate a trade. What’s being implied is that Murray would have had to sit out of the game for 12 months if Sydney had not traded him, rather than him having the option to walk to the ND. The AFL already walks a fine line when it comes to restraint of trade, I don’t believe for a second that they would make and enforce a rule like that, which very clearly oversteps the line in regards to it.

They both overstep the line. Players do not choose where they go on the draft, they go wherever they are taken or they are forced to step out of the game.

 

[Good Degoe]

If Murray had the misfortune to read this thread he's probably cracked a rib laughing at it by now

 

[Apex36]

They both overstep the line. Players do not choose where they go on the draft, they go wherever they are taken or they are forced to step out of the game.

Difference being that the players sign up for the draft willingly accepting that they’ll go where they’re drafted to. It’s a vastly different scenario to the one put forward where an out of contract player supposedly can’t even sign up to the draft if they want to leave their club. One scenario is willingly signing up for a lottery, the other is not even being able to sign up for the lottery and then not being able to work for 12 months.

If you can’t see the difference between the two then I’m at a loss.

 

[Boris the Contradiction]

Difference being that the players sign up for the draft willingly accepting that they’ll go where they’re drafted to. It’s a vastly different scenario to the one put forward where an out of contract player supposedly can’t even sign up to the draft if they want to leave their club. One scenario is willingly signing up for a lottery, the other is not even being able to sign up for the lottery and then not being able to work for 12 months.

If you can’t see the difference between the two then I’m at a loss.

Obviously I can see the difference. My point is that they are both an inappropriate method of preventing players from playing where they choose.

The choice is either:

a. play for a club you don't want to be at, or sit out; or

b. play for a club you don't want to be at, sign up to a lottery which could land you at a club you don't want to be at or in a state you don't want to live in (or both), or sit out.

Both are terrible scenarios and neither is freedom of trade.

Restricted free agency is one of the worst concepts in sport and it doesn't even work in the manner it is supposed to, because clubs can match bids for players they have no intention or prospect of keeping.

 

[Apex36]

Obviously I can see the difference. My point is that they are both an inappropriate method of preventing players from playing where they choose.

The choice is either:

a. play for a club you don't want to be at, or sit out; or

b. play for a club you don't want to be at, sign up to a lottery which could land you at a club you don't want to be at or in a state you don't want to live in (or both), or sit out.

Both are terrible scenarios and neither is freedom of trade.

So you’re essentially agreeing with me, that the AFL already runs on the borderline in regards to restriction of trade (they get away with it because players sign up willingly knowing the draft could take them anywhere) and that the scenario being mooted over Murray where he supposedly couldn’t even go in to the draft would be taking that a step further, and consequently going way over the line?

Well I’m glad we got that sorted, not sure why we needed the to and fro for that.

Restricted free agency is one of the worst concepts in sport and it doesn't even work in the manner it is supposed to, because clubs can match bids for players they have no intention or prospect of keeping.

Can’t argue with you there.

 

[left at home]

Are we there yet