Getting players at this stage

[zillmere]

Can someone please explain to me the ways a club can get a player at this stage?

Say for example Bradshaw or David Wojcinski are not happy with the deals on offer & want to leave the lions or cats. Can they nominate a club (blues) & negotiate a contract or do they have to take their chances in one of the drafts with no say what club they go to?

Thanks.

 

[Sezzac1]

The just takes their chances in the ND or PSD.

 

[BluesMan]

THey can nomiate for the draft, most likley PSD, and it depends if a deal is ready for them to join another club.

eg. If the blues have talked to bradshaw and he nomiates for the PSD and says he only wants to go to the blues, he wont play for another club.

That is my understanding, if he doesnt get the club he wants, he wont play.

 

[zillmere]

Thanks guys. I thought so but I wasn't sure.

 

[40yearBLUE]

THey can nomiate for the draft, most likley PSD, and it depends if a deal is ready for them to join another club.

eg. If the blues have talked to bradshaw and he nomiates for the PSD and says he only wants to go to the blues, he wont play for another club.

That is my understanding, if he doesnt get the club he wants, he wont play.

Not quite right. A player cannot "nominate" a club in the ND or PSD. (The only time a player can nominate a club is he can ask his current club to organize a trade, all other utterances of preference are illegal). If he nominates for either PSD or ND he can set a price on himself but if a club that is not his preference (unknown to us because it is not public) picks him he must play for them. The nomination in itself is a contractual obligation. A player and or club cannot participate in any circumvention of the draft process or fines and or suspensions apply. Diesel was found guilty of this because of a letter he wrote to club informing them he did not wish to play for them, prior to joining Carlton in 92 and was "de-registered" for the first 6 rounds of 92.

The player cannot simply decide I did not get to my club of choice therefore I will not play. Otherwise clubs would find they have wasted their pick, for example Melbourne have first pick and say Ball and another surprise gun (say Cam Ling just for example) nominate for the PSD. Demons take Ball, next club takes Ling and then Ball who really wanted to go to Collingwood says oh well I will just retire. Melbourne are left with nothing missing on Ling who they otherwise would have taken.

All of the above is of course theoretical because no-one has ever challenged the legality of the draft. I am not sure what the AFL and or club involved that misses on a player that decides he just wont play for the club that chooses him, would do as it has never been tested but I suggest that the AFL, wishing to protect the integrity of the system would throw the legal book at them and sue for breach of contract.

 

[Azzurri Blues]

Not quite right. A player cannot "nominate" a club in the ND or PSD. (The only time a player can nominate a club is he can ask his current club to organize a trade, all other utterances of preference are illegal). If he nominates for either PSD or ND he can set a price on himself but if a club that is not his preference (unknown to us because it is not public) picks him he must play for them. The nomination in itself is a contractual obligation. A player and or club cannot participate in any circumvention of the draft process or fines and or suspensions apply. Diesel was found guilty of this because of a letter he wrote to club informing them he did not wish to play for them, prior to joining Carlton in 92 and was "de-registered" for the first 6 rounds of 92.

The player cannot simply decide I did not get to my club of choice therefore I will not play. Otherwise clubs would find they have wasted their pick, for example Melbourne have first pick and say Ball and another surprise gun (say Cam Ling just for example) nominate for the PSD. Demons take Ball, next club takes Ling and then Ball who really wanted to go to Collingwood says oh well I will just retire. Melbourne are left with nothing missing on Ling who they otherwise would have taken.

All of the above is of course theoretical because no-one has ever challenged the legality of the draft. I am not sure what the AFL and or club involved that misses on a player that decides he just wont play for the club that chooses him, would do as it has never been tested but I suggest that the AFL, wishing to protect the integrity of the system would throw the legal book at them and sue for breach of contract.

There are plenty of ways around it....

 

[zillmere]

If he nominates for either PSD or ND he can set a price on himself but if a club that is not his preference (unknown to us because it is not public) picks him he must play for them.

So could he put a really high price on himself then drop the price when it is the turn of his prefered club to make a selection?

I assume the price is set & can't be changed?

 

[40yearBLUE]

There are plenty of ways around it....

None of which are legal and are in fact cheating. We as a club used to condone such activity. I know we dont publicly any more and I doubt we do privately. Cheats can always find ways to bend or even break rules. Sooner or later though it comes unstuck.

I am not saying I agree with all the rules but I do think we are obligated to follow them.

 

[Bluebear]

That is my understanding, if he doesnt get the club he wants, he wont play.

Hmmm.....interesting one.

I suspect the AFL would consider this sort of comment "draft tampering" and would advise Bradshaw that if he were to enter a draft he must be happy to go to whatever club takes him.

Otherwise the whole integrity of the draft system is shot.

For example if Daniel Rich stated last year that he only wanted to play for WCE and if anyone else took him he'd quit then there would be sanctions from the AFL. Can't see why it should be different fro Bradshaw.

This opens the whole "free agency" debate.

But basically, they must enter either the ND or PSD or both and go where they get recruited.

 

[40yearBLUE]

So could he put a really high price on himself then drop the price when it is the turn of his prefered club to make a selection?

I assume the price is set & can't be changed?

No the price he sets is public so that all clubs have the chance to pick him if they can fit him in their cap and are inclined to value him at that, but the club that chooses him are stuck with that. The contract can be back ended, forward loaded, whatever but it must be adhered to.

Players often price themselves really high for a one year deal then re-sign subsequent deals at a more agreeable price and this is a form of collusion and one of the "ways around it" that Azzuri speaks of, but there is nothing to say that another club wont decide they will pick you regardless of the price.

 

[Bluebear]

So could he put a really high price on himself then drop the price when it is the turn of his prefered club to make a selection?

I assume the price is set & can't be changed?

If he nominates a really high contract for the PSD then we must honour it. We can't do the dodgy once he arrives.......having said that if Fev and Stevo go we probably have at least $500k spare in the TPP next year anyway (Fev 550, Stevo 500, - Henderson 200, McLean 350) plus I think we were below the max.......so we could throw maybe 600 for the first year and 200 at the second. Most clubs would find that hard to match.......especially the Hawks with Burgoyne stretching their cap, and they would be our main rivals for Bradshaw IMO.

 

[40yearBLUE]

This is a very interesting debate. The whole notion of retraint of trade. For example, lets look at a hypothetical of Yarran. He may well be so homesick that he simply cannot play, cannot concentrate, cannot function. He is delisted and another club wont recruit him thinking he is not up to it, and they to a degree have a point. He could argue that if he had of been recruited by WC he would not have been debilitated by homesickness, played to his potential and not had his future livelihood ruined. Imagine when you left school you were told you could only get a job in New Zealand or worse Zimbabwe, otherwise you could not work. That is analagous to being drafted by an interstate club.

At the other end of the scale, I also believe that after 7 years (so 25) while you still have a reasonable amount of playing time left (so at about the half way mark of a career) I believe free agency ought to be allowed. I think there ought to be compenstation paid from recieving club to original club, like a transfer fee, but I beleive that players ought to be able to nominate their club of choice and negotiate for themselves a deal that gets them there and if their club refuses to deal then they get a minimum set compensation.

Interesting topic.

 

[Bluebear]

At the other end of the scale, I also believe that after 7 years (so 25) while you still have a reasonable amount of playing time left (so at about the half way mark of a career) I believe free agency ought to be allowed. I think there ought to be compenstation paid from recieving club to original club, like a transfer fee, but I beleive that players ought to be able to nominate their club of choice and negotiate for themselves a deal that gets them there and if their club refuses to deal then they get a minimum set compensation.

Interesting topic.

It certainly is.

So lets take an example.

Luke Ball.

He nominates the Pies and can't get there via trade.

What form would compensation take? Draft pick? Who would decide his value?

If the Saints had already said no to pick 25 could they then be compelled to accept pick 30 should a third party deem that to be fair value?

Interesting. It would transform trade week. Not sure if for the better or worse.

 

[zillmere]

So for players like Ball, who has a prefered club, & who tried to get traded to that club during trade week, free agency is the only way for him to be sure to get the outcome he wants?

It seems a bit of a shitty situation for the Dees & Ball. They are trying to talk him into playing for them & he is screwed because the Saints withdrew their offer & he won't last in the draft until it is Collingwoods pick.

 

[40yearBLUE]

It certainly is.

So lets take an example.

Luke Ball.

He nominates the Pies and can't get there via trade.

What form would compensation take? Draft pick? Who would decide his value?

If the Saints had already said no to pick 25 could they then be compelled to accept pick 30 should a third party deem that to be fair value?

Interesting. It would transform trade week. Not sure if for the better or worse.

The entire concept of equalization is an interesting idea. I am a socialist at heart, although I believe in the individual being able to aspire to be whatever they want, an apparent contradiction. And when socialism was applied to football, our club suffered more than most. And what of socializing football. I understand the rationale, in order to maintain "healthy" competition instead of 4 clubs monopolizing the premierships this system has thrown up every side to have a crack.

But what of the kid that grows up following a club, dreams of one day playing for them and cannot because he cant get traded to them?

And finally here is another of my left field opinions on football. Many here would now be aware that I dont like that sportsmen earn more than most. It says a lot about the value system we have as a society. Worse still I vehemently don't believe in some players earning more than others in a team sport. I understand that some players are more valuable to the team than others but in a team sport all ought to be equally valued. The idea that 3 players could command 50% of the TPP is absurd to me. Imagine those 3 players going out onto the field on their own against a team of 18 all paid equally or 9 even that when their combined salaries added up to the 3 guns, who do you think would win that game? A gun is nothing without team mates.

I believe there ought be only 3 rates of pay, rookie for any player in his first 4 seasons, regular for season 5 through 8 and vet for anyone over 9 seasons, or something along those lines. Then if a player truly is a superstar, I believe they ought to have unrestricted ability to earn outside of football. So the Judds of this world make their real money on endorsements based on the fact they are the gun player but from a club perspective they all earn the same.

Its just my take on things, I know it is out there and have no doubt it will never ever be adopted.

 

[The Exorcist]

The day trade week is tested in Court, the day it is over

Stopping players moving who are out of contract is basically Restraint of Trade, and the Courts don't like that at all

At the moment no one has challenged it because they're probably scared of the backlash, breaking this Code thing which everyone has about trade week.

However, it only takes one individual to destroy the whole system

There'd have to be a lot of pressure on the AFL to loosen the strings on trade week to allow more free agency.

The way the whole Luke Ball ended up was stuffed - what was really ****ed was that the Saints changed their contract offer to Ball's disadvantage after the Saints refused to accept Collingwood's offer. Pretty rough in my book.

How pissed off would Ball be?

 

[Monkey King]

This is a very interesting debate. The whole notion of retraint of trade.

Imagine when you left school you were told you could only get a job in New Zealand or worse Zimbabwe, otherwise you could not work.

This is not quite right though. Players can play wherever they want, simply go and join the WAFL or SANFL. However if wanting to play in the AFL, you must take a placement according to the rules of the organisation.

A better analogy would be when applying for job with a national company and being told your placement will be interstate. Imagine demanding you would only work in your home state... they'd tell you to get stuffed and give the job to a more willing employee. You would however, be quite within your rights to refuse the offer and go for a job with a state based company that guarantees placement within your state.

This is where restraint of trade could and should be legally argued by the AFL. It is their 'company' as they hold the licence of all clubs and they have the right to place you within their organisation wherever they see fit. Should you refuse, no one is stopping you playing for footy for another entity; hence restraint of trade is not an issue.

 

[40yearBLUE]

This is not quite right though. Players can play wherever they want, simply go and join the WAFL or SANFL. However if wanting to play in the AFL, you must take a placement according to the rules of the organisation.

A better analogy would be when applying for job with a national company and being told your placement will be interstate. Imagine demanding you would only work in your home state... they'd tell you to get stuffed and give the job to a more willing employee. You would however, be quite within your rights to refuse the offer and go for a job with a state based company that guarantees placement within your state.

This is where restraint of trade could and should be legally argued by the AFL. It is their 'company' as they hold the licence of all clubs and they have the right to place you within their organisation wherever they see fit. Should you refuse, no one is stopping you playing for footy for another entity; hence restraint of trade is not an issue.

Good point. I dont really have an argument for it. Check mate.

 

[Monkey King]

Good point. I dont really have an argument for it. Check mate.

I'd only hope the courts would see it that way too

This hold up pretty well when looking at first time draftees, as they are essentially entry level employees. Some holes start to appear though if in failing to get a suitable trade you are forced to leave your club (quit your job) to enter the draft (apply for an unknown placement). Not too many companies force their employees into that situation.

But again, if you work for Goldman Sachs and they don't have positions in the city you want, then quit and get a job with KPMG. The big difference here is pay scales when comparing AFL to SANFL/WAFL; but should the AFL be penalised for being a successful organisation that can offer superior renumeration?

Any industrial relations lawyers around the traps?

 

[40yearBLUE]

I'd only hope the courts would see it that way too

This hold up pretty well when looking at first time draftees, as they are essentially entry level employees. Some holes start to appear though if in failing to get a suitable trade you are forced to leave your club (quit your job) to enter the draft (apply for an unknown placement). Not too many companies force their employees into that situation.

But again, if you work for Goldman Sachs and they don't have positions in the city you want, then quit and get a job with KPMG. The big difference here is pay scales when comparing AFL to SANFL/WAFL; but should the AFL be penalised for being a successful organisation that can offer superior renumeration?

Any industrial relations lawyers around the traps?

More excellent points, do you have to rub my face in it I bow to your superior take on this subject.

 

[OldBlueFan]

Hey 30YearBlue, don't give up so easily. Monkey does make valid points, but his points would be strengthened by your earlier one about pay scales. Monkey's points rely on the AFL being seen as the employer, but in reality the clubs determine pay scales and are really seen as the player's employer.

For the AFL to argue Monkey's point effectively, they should become the player's employer and determine their value to the organisation and then place them in the "department" that they see fit.

But then, I suppose all of this falls down if you consider that the clubs operate on a budget that is largely determined by the AFL's rationalisation fund (is that what it's called?) and so clubs merely become a department with a budget to distribute among their staff members.

But all this tells us is that restraint of trade is not the way to argue for free agency. It doesn't mean that there aren't other very valid reasons why free agency should be adopted. The fact that the Luke Ball situation was allowed to take place, and is so self-evidently wrong, proves that the current system is flawed.

 

[Monkey King]

More excellent points, do you have to rub my face in it

Haha... sorry mate. Not trying to do that; just wanting to stimulate discussion.

 

[Monkey King]

For the AFL to argue Monkey's point effectively, they should become the player's employer and determine their value to the organisation and then place them in the "department" that they see fit.

Different ways to look at this.

I believe that the contract is set at an AFL standard, as negotiated with with the AFLPA (player union) and that clubs can not transcend this. I don't know enough about the contracts in question or the legalities involved to know whether or not this could constitute the AFL being deemed the employer; but it could be arguable that they already are.

This is complicated further by clubs being incorporated entities operating under AFL licence, which you would think indicates that players are contracted to the clubs, but it's equally as plausible that they're simply contracted to the AFL through their licencees.

The Fitzroy Lions are an intersting case study. When the licence was revoked and repackaged as Brisbane, players were shipped around according to AFL regulations, despite the Fitzroy entity itself continuing to exist in a non-AFL format. This begs the obvious question; who were the players contracted to... Fitzroy or the AFL?

But then, I suppose all of this falls down if you consider that the clubs operate on a budget that is largely determined by the AFL's rationalisation fund (is that what it's called?) and so clubs merely become a department with a budget to distribute among their staff members.

This is exactly what I was thinking at first, but it gets clouded again by the clubs being incorporated entities, generating their own revenues and then paying player salaries with that revenue; none of which filters back through, or is controlled by, the AFL. However, as that revenue is generated through the benefits of being licence holders - such as match day receipts from grounds paid for under agreement by the AFL - clubs could simply be viewed as operators of an AFL branch under licence.

I'm sure the AFL have it clarified somewhere, but it would be interesting to know what's what.