News Mid-season Trade/Draft period on the cards EPL style

[bigdog43]

Loan idea is terrible. Trade idea is good. Say for instance after 10 rounds Sydney were clearly an enormous chance for the flag but the lack of any dominant ruckman was hurting them/ Sinclair goes down injured. They'd be more likely to offload a first round pick for someone like Goldstein than what they may be at the end of the season. Obviously this might be a bit of a reach but flag opportunities don't come around too often and bottom clubs may be able to benefit by gaining higher draft picks mid season than they would post season.

 

[CJMB]

I don't always get this expansion stuff.

1) The game 'was' probably one of the best sports in the past. It isn't now. It is just a 'good' spectacle. I'll still admit that I'm still wedded to it and watch multiple games in a weekend. But I got to be honest, living in London and showing other people, you can see their viewpoint sometimes that it looks rule heavy, and confusing. In the past, people watched with interest in my house 1999/2000. Recently, they get disinterested very quickly and walk away.

2) Do we really want to expand it and ultimately end up a second fiddle country for our own sport because we introduced to countries that can pull talent from 300 million+ (USA). AFL has gone down the route of bigger player is better player if you look at weight and height averages over the last 20 years (Cripps bigger than past ruckman). We wont win that battle long term versus large population countries.

3) England premier league footy is dominated by internationals. Look at West Ham right now. The international players on their huge salaries don't care if they win or lose. West Ham play a blinder followed by a shocker. Half of English players don't get opportunity here to even play in the premier league. That could be the future if global expansion takes off.

AFL appears rule heavy compared to soccer, just like pretty much every other football code.

I'd wage that the international not something you'll have to worry about in your lifetime, probably not your kids either.

USA joined World Rugby in 1987. They've currently got the 2nd highest number of players/participants in the world behind England (they have 71% of ENG's numbers). They've also just recently managed to crawl into the top 20, are currently 15th, but are realistically a long, long, long way off the top nations. Total playing numbers are good, but they don't really relate to top level quality... Georgia joined about 5 years after the US has some 12k players (0.6% of ENG) and are ranked 12th, 3 spots ahead of the US, and are a much better team. They probably should be competing in the 6 Nations comp with England, Ireland, Scotland, Wales and France instead of Italy.

Thinking back to the US, when you also consider that they already got appropriate pitches to use all over the country for rugby (unlike AFL) and that their national football code originated from rugby so they already have a much better understanding of the game compared to AFL, I just can't see them or any other nation managing to become an AFL powerhouse and overtake us any time soon... or ever if I'm being honest. Ireland have their amateur Gaelic comps but AFL is never going to take over that and then somehow get ahead of soccer, rugby and hurling.

I think the AFL is pretty safe from all that 'globalisation' stuff you might be worried about.

 

[CJMB]

What are some possible trade scenarios should a mid-season draft be introduced in 2018?

Sydney is short of rucks with Naismith down. Perhaps Phillips to Sydney as a backup? What does Carlton get? Upgrade our 4th round pick to Sydney’s third round pick at the end-of-season draft?

Collingwood needs a tall forward. We loan Casboult for the balance of 2018? We get Aish for the balance of 2018?

Do we take the injured GWS player mid-season? Say Setterfield. We give up a second-round Pick at the end-of-season draft (instead of a first) and get a fourth round Pick back. We loan Polson for the balance of 2018.

I see it as something to keep strong clubs in contention and weaker clubs bargaining for either better draft picks or a player who is not best-22 at his original club.

That's kind of the way I see it, although I think trades and not loans are the way to go. Sydney are pretty desperate for ruckmen right now. We're obviously not interested in trading Kreuz or TDK (who's not ready anyway) but might entertain the idea of Lobbe or Phillips, depending on the price. We'd get significant overs for either player, much more than in the normal season, and Sydney would get a guy who can fill a gap and play a role.

If it's a trade then it's permanent so you're not going to have clubs get rid of any of their top line players because they're required for the current and future seasons. Also, if there's a cap on the number of pre/mid season trades then clubs will also be reluctant to just get rid of a player because they also find themselves needing to trade someone in later in the season. Say two trades per season... you'd be reluctant to make both in case you get caught yourself.

Perhaps it doesn't need to be a designated trade period so to speak but can go all year. Sydney lost two of their three ruckmen in a fairly small timeframe, leaving them with a kid yet to debut. No list management can cover that, short of stacking your list with ruckmen. Considering AP is injured, if we lost Mk and ML now we'd be in a similar boat, either having to throw TDK to the wolves or go with Levi. I'm not worried about not having 3 weeks for trades to be negotiated... SOS only needs 5 minutes so surely the other managers could manage to make a deal over the course of a weekend.

I'm against the loans, but the trades could possibly work if managed correctly.

 

[The Smoking Gun]

Just one little problem, at no stage have i advocated or even mentioned "loan", like you and many others here, i believe the concept is flawed

You may not, but the AFL is.....and my understanding is that if one comes in then so will the other.

I am advocating the mid season trade.

You still haven't put up one valid reason, that would negatively impact the concept of a mid season trade

If trades were limited to 1 or 2 players only, it wouldn't be a free for all.

Remember, it wouldn't be mandatory for any club to trade, like the current trade period

I put it to you that you have no idea what you're really advocating. A half-arsed trade period....really??? If those like me who don't want to have to endure it, then please don't insult our intelligence. Do it bloody properly, or not at all. FFS.

I get the feeling, that many, if not all, on this board, fear change.

Damn straight I do. For poorly coached, list managed and administered clubs like we were under Kernahan, Malthouse, Ratten, Hughes & Rogers, then giving them the opportunity to * up the club twice in a 12 month period instead of once, would literally send the club not only to the wall, but beyond the point of salvation/resurrection.

 

[Jabba73]

For poorly coached, list managed and administered clubs like we were under Kernahan, Malthouse, Ratten, Hughes & Rogers, then giving them the opportunity to **** up the club twice in a 12 month period instead of once, would literally send the club not only to the wall, but beyond the point of salvation/resurrection.

So much this.

How big would the temptation be for someone like Buckley, under pressure to salvage something from this season, to sell the future of the Pies to save his own job?

If they are sitting 3-7 at the halfway mark, any trade made, for short term relief from pressure the board will be putting on him, could cost the club 2+ more years in the inevitable rebuild to follow.




On second thoughts, sign me up ...

 

[Arr0w]

In theory - A constant fundraiser chocolate box in the office is just an option, I don't have to buy a Freddo frog every time I make a cup of tea, but it's nice to have incase.

In reality - I will have diabetes soon

Seems like you are agreeing with my points in a roundabout way, you don't have to partake

We already have a 3 week Trade Week when recruiters have had all season to formulate a strategy.

Do we just put the Comp on hold while they twiddle their thumbs mid year as well?

All sides have a mid season break over 3 weeks, which drives me mad, 1 week for all sides to have a break and a trade period fills the void

Yep, not in dispute.

Talking about the club that has a signed contract with said player for their services for the season. They can be removed mid season which a club might cover if it is only one player. What if it is the best 2-3 players from the club?

Do you honestly believe there is a club in the next level down competition that will be happy to go from premiership favourite to uncompetitive, just so a couple of their best players can break their contract for a temporary spot on an AFL list?

I doubt they would allow multiple players being removed from the one club.

You may not, but the AFL is.....and my understanding is that if one comes in then so will the other.

Nowhere has it been stated, that one concept will be introduced with another

I put it to you that you have no idea what you're really advocating. A half-arsed trade period....really??? If those like me who don't want to have to endure it, then please don't insult our intelligence. Do it bloody properly, or not at all. FFS

I think you, of all people should know me better than that. I know exactly what I am advocating in an unemotional way. Where have I mentioned "half arsed"? How and where, am i insulting someone's intelligence, by debating an opinion? If you are after some point scoring with the masses, go right ahead, will not change my mind on this topic

Damn straight I do. For poorly coached, list managed and administered clubs like we were under Kernahan, Malthouse, Ratten, Hughes & Rogers, then giving them the opportunity to **** up the club twice in a 12 month period instead of once, would literally send the club not only to the wall, but beyond the point of salvation/resurrection.

Stop living in the past, we have a new recruiting and list management leader, or are you "insulting SOS's intelligence"?

By the way Smokie, lost your number, give me a call

I understand that all of you and most on this board have concerns, but like it or not it will come to fruition, don't shoot the messenger.

So perhaps, start coming up with ways, this could benefit us, as I am sure SOS has already started doing

 

[Arr0w]

Wish I could do the whole multi quote better

 

[Blue Pulse]

Injuries are a source of inequality in the game, for sure. If Carlton had a key player go down mid year, and we were chasing a flag, I'd love the opportunity to go and replace that player and continue our tilt. If anything, it will even up the comp further, which is a good thing.

That is, for clubs that know how to list manage (ie. not St Kilda or more specifically, Norf)

Fair call, what about the other way round?
I just have no faith in the AFL to get this right at the moment. It has taken them about 5 years to release a formula for FA compensation.

 

[Jabba73]

I doubt they would allow multiple players being removed from the one club

Would be hard for the AFL to tell the Crows they can’t have the ruckman they need from Glenelg because the Power have requested the Glenelg CHF and they need him more.

 

[Arr0w]

Fair call, what about the other way round?
I just have no faith in the AFL to get this right at the moment. It has taken them about 5 years to release a formula for FA compensation.

That is the issue I have with FA compensation

I would be livid if we had lost a buddy type for a late first rounder and to make things worst, Swan lose nothing to obtain the player.

FA was introduced to reward players that had served a reasonable stint at a club, but due to the poor structure, the club that obtains the player for nothing, while penalising the club that losses the player

A subtle change, if a player, (using buddy again), wants to move from Hawthorn to Sydney, all clubs should be invited to bid, what picks they would give up to acquire him. Let him still head to Sydney, but they need to cough up what the highest bid was. Would compensate the club losing the player with market value compensation and remove the inequity of a poorly structured compensation system

 

[Arr0w]

Would be hard for the AFL to tell the Crows they can’t have the ruckman they need from Glenelg because the Power have requested the Glenelg CHF and they need him more.

I agree, but make the rules clear and then there is no frustration with interpretation, as there is with on field legislation

I wonder how may people, thought trading future picks was a stupid idea, seems to be working well to me

 

[GPW1]

If a player retires for whatever reason after the final list lodgement a club should be able to recruit a new player at any time up until round 10 (for example) if:
- that player nominated for the previous national/rookie draft and was undrafted
- the club has enough salary cap space to sign that player to whatever the agreed up on amount is
- the retired players salary is still counted under the cap for the term of the original contract
- compensation of $xxx paid to the new players vfl/wafl/whatever club, also counted under the cap

In Sydneys case, Tippets salary still counts against the cap. If they have enough left over to cover a new player + compensation then go for it. If not, well too bad.

 

[Monkey King]

So we're in the bottom 4 with nothing to play for. So we decide to play it smart. We trade for 6 months Cripps to Richmond for their first rounder, Marc to Adelaide for a second, and Liam Jones to GWS for their first. Then we finish botttom and go into the draft with a super strong hand, and all our players back ready for next year.

Great for us. But how is that good for the comp? Its a terrible idea

Yup. Hate the idea. Don’t mind mid-season draft, but trades & loans ... just doesn’t seem an Aussie rules thing.

 

[Sector 7G]

That is the issue I have with FA compensation

I would be livid if we had lost a buddy type for a late first rounder and to make things worst, Swan lose nothing to obtain the player.

FA was introduced to reward players that had served a reasonable stint at a club, but due to the poor structure, the club that obtains the player for nothing, while penalising the club that losses the player

A subtle change, if a player, (using buddy again), wants to move from Hawthorn to Sydney, all clubs should be invited to bid, what picks they would give up to acquire him. Let him still head to Sydney, but they need to cough up what the highest bid was. Would compensate the club losing the player with market value compensation and remove the inequity of a poorly structured compensation system

You would always end up paying whatever Norths first round pick is

 

[Arr0w]

You would always end up paying whatever Norths first round pick is

At least they would keep clubs honest, while they miss out on elite talent

 

[Sector 7G]

At least they would keep clubs honest, while they miss out on elite talent

Losing Buddy didn’t hurt Hawks. Were able to keep the list together without losing anyone else and then picked up Frawley

Keep Buddy and they may have had to shed a couple of mid tier players and may not have had the dynasty

 

[Arr0w]

Losing Buddy didn’t hurt Hawks. Were able to keep the list together without losing anyone else and then picked up Frawley

Keep Buddy and they may have had to shed a couple of mid tier players and may not have had the dynasty

No doubt, but everyone knows the compensation they received was underwhelming

 

[BLUEALLTHRU]

What do you tell your young bloke who's got No9 on his back and loves him, that he's gonna be back next year. He just plays on loan for the Tigers.

BULLSHIT

 

[DangerousD]

Great for us. But how is that good for the comp? Its a terrible idea

If we pulled that scenario, other clubs would be doing similar things which would also benefit them. The teams playing finals would be of higher quality and teams like us would get extra picks to rebuild quicker than we can currently.

Teams who went all out for a flag with deals you mentioned would also fall away quickly if the deals didn't work as they have traded away their future picks ensuring the merry go round moves faster.