txbyhull
Younger than MySpace
In the wake of Harry Edwards’ second concussion in as many games this season, and not withstanding a medical miracle, he can likely expect to be sent to Melbourne to front an independent concussion panel to determine the future of his playing career.
If, heaven forbid, it is the case that he is forced into medical retirement it would amount to now 4 best 23 Eagles (Venables, Shep, McGovern, Edwards, not included but also retired being Luke Edwards) being retired due to circumstances beyond their or the club’s control. And of course other famous cases are to be made for clubs like Melbourne, Dogs, Pies, etc. for players retired due to concussion.
List management perspective of WCE specifically aside, as I could go on for days about the impacts of losing those 4 on the current side, what is the AFL to do about these cases in the modern era where a player’s future is (rightly) taken out of the hands of the clubs?
To that I pose:
1. Should the AFL provide D&T concessions for clubs who have a player medically retired moving forward?
2. Should the AFL retroactively provide D&T concessions for clubs who have had a player medically retired recently?
3. What should the D&T concessions be if so? And how should they be determined?
For the sake of exercise I suggest we use these 3 players as examples:
1. Jeremy McGovern, 33
19 games in 2024, 6 games before forced retirement in 2025. 2024 AA + B&F and one of the clubs top earners.
2. Aiden O’Driscoll, 18
Drafted with pick 55 in the 2023 draft and forced to retire after this first AFL practice match.
3. Nathan Murphy, 24
24 games in Collingwood’s Premiership season, and an important part of that defence.
All 3 were at different stages of their career, and perception of them as players completely different.
Would love to hear people’s thoughts.
Of course I believe, as a West Coast fan, that we should receive compensation from the AFL given we have had more than any other club while being in the midst of a rebuild. But I am more focused on the general idea(s)
If, heaven forbid, it is the case that he is forced into medical retirement it would amount to now 4 best 23 Eagles (Venables, Shep, McGovern, Edwards, not included but also retired being Luke Edwards) being retired due to circumstances beyond their or the club’s control. And of course other famous cases are to be made for clubs like Melbourne, Dogs, Pies, etc. for players retired due to concussion.
List management perspective of WCE specifically aside, as I could go on for days about the impacts of losing those 4 on the current side, what is the AFL to do about these cases in the modern era where a player’s future is (rightly) taken out of the hands of the clubs?
To that I pose:
1. Should the AFL provide D&T concessions for clubs who have a player medically retired moving forward?
2. Should the AFL retroactively provide D&T concessions for clubs who have had a player medically retired recently?
3. What should the D&T concessions be if so? And how should they be determined?
For the sake of exercise I suggest we use these 3 players as examples:
1. Jeremy McGovern, 33
19 games in 2024, 6 games before forced retirement in 2025. 2024 AA + B&F and one of the clubs top earners.
2. Aiden O’Driscoll, 18
Drafted with pick 55 in the 2023 draft and forced to retire after this first AFL practice match.
3. Nathan Murphy, 24
24 games in Collingwood’s Premiership season, and an important part of that defence.
All 3 were at different stages of their career, and perception of them as players completely different.
Would love to hear people’s thoughts.
Of course I believe, as a West Coast fan, that we should receive compensation from the AFL given we have had more than any other club while being in the midst of a rebuild. But I am more focused on the general idea(s)
