Quivorir
"Unhinged"
- Mar 29, 2010
- 58,677
- 77,459
- AFL Club
- North Melbourne
- Other Teams
- LAL-MMA-Victory-CFC-Seahawks
Lol at the fact you compare it to slavery.You will be waiting a very long time.
Slavery was abolished a long time ago.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
LIVE: Richmond v Melbourne - 7:25PM Wed
Squiggle tips Demons at 77% chance -- What's your tip? -- Team line-ups »
Lol at the fact you compare it to slavery.You will be waiting a very long time.
Slavery was abolished a long time ago.
The draft is almost useless as an equalisation tool. GWS a great example. Plenty of high picks, pretty well used and pretty well developed, a best 22 of all players GWS have drafted would be unbeatable - but the salary cap stops them from keeping all players and as such they are a good team, a shot at the flag at the start of each year, but far from unbeatable.
Whatley, Riewoldt and Murphy think an out of contract Tim Kelly should be forced to go to Freo if it gets Geelong higher picks - with Nick Riewoldt being the stronger advocate of it out of the 3.
Do you think Nick Riewoldt would think the same would apply with St Kilda's approach to Brad Hill (or any other Victorian 'go home' scenario)?
Surely according to this logic Freo should be free to shop a contracted Brad around to the highest bidder in Victoria (I don't agree)?
I'm interested to hear Where and When do you think players should be able to nominate a club or not?
Tim Kelly is the only player I think I have heard the national media make these sort of suggestions on to this extent where the player shouldn't be able to nominate.
I am guessing this is because some feel the burden of proof is stronger on him to prove the genuineness of his need (special needs children) - although actual genuine need being the reason a player can't nominate as opposed to non-need giving a player greater rights is a pretty shaky proposition...
What scenarios have merit and which don't - topic doesn't necessarily have to be about Tim Kelly, can apply to Shiel, Hill or whatever scenario.
Tim Kelly .... players are rarely drafted at 23 and those that are rarely just turn into very good players overnight
Any and every player has the right to nominate who their preferred club to be traded to is. Getting the deal done is another matter entirely.
With Kelly for example - Would you as a club go hard after a guy that has nominated your cross town rival as his preference?
Depends what is said behind closed doors. Elliot Yeo was a Fremantle fan as a kid, so was fat McGovern as his dad played there. Means nothing now. Graham Cornes loathes Port Adelaide and both his sons are club legends there.
The rumours about Kelly and Freo have been about possible friction with the coach (gone) and Hill brothers (one wants out). Not going to give those air time but it is possible that the reason(s) for not wanting to join Freo last year may not be there this year.
Kelly is a professional. He is living in a city he doesn't want to live in on the opposite side of the country to his family and just made the AA side. Even if there was a McLeod/Edwards type relationship with a teammate I'm sure he could play good footy at Freo.
If I was Freo I probably wouldn't go all in, but mostly in. Wouldn't be burning pick 6 but pending other moves would be happy to use a pick 10-15+ should I have it. If he was in the PSD then no brainer take him.
So what should the mechanism be in the case of the Kelly situation or equivalent?
- player out of contract, requests trade
- player agrees to terms with new club
- original club and new club can't come to agreement WRT trade
- third club enters the equation, satisfies original club but not player
- impasse ensues
Let's say WC offer Kelly $600k a year for 5 years and Geelong pick 14. Freo come along and match the contract terms and offer Geelong pick 6. Right now the only way Kelly is traded to Freo is if both he and Geelong sign off on it. Should Geelong be in a position to deal with Freo for their benefit assuming the contract particulars are matched? That's effectively the choice of destination club being up to the original club, not the player. I cannot see the AFLPA agreeing to that.
The alternative is as it is now. Freo offer a better deal, WC go away and think about coming up with something better themselves, Kelly weighs up his options, Geelong weigh up whether to accept a lesser trade or release him for nothing and it all goes around in circles until some final outcome is reached.
Working this forward the next homesick Victorian player gives the SA/WA/Qld/NSW clubs extra leverage than the reverse. Ed Langdon has been rumoured to want out of Freo, he's 23 and has been one of their better players this year. If he wants to go to Collingwood or Richmond should Freo be able to deal with St Kilda and Melbourne instead?
If a player is out of contract, his old club has nothing to do with him signing for another team. They got no compensation or anything like that.
This is the problem it's not the older players that should be getting choice of where they playIf I could change the rules I would bring draftees in with a 2+2 rule through the draft. With 2 years guaranteed then the club can extend 2 years at their discretion. However, once you are OOC you are a free agent. You would also need to drop the salary floor down considerably and I would get rid of the FA compensation as well. As well as any player coming into the AFL has to go to through the draft for that reason.
Whatley, Riewoldt and Murphy think an out of contract Tim Kelly should be forced to go to Freo if it gets Geelong higher picks - with Nick Riewoldt being the stronger advocate of it out of the 3.
Do you think Nick Riewoldt would think the same would apply with St Kilda's approach to Brad Hill (or any other Victorian 'go home' scenario)?
Surely according to this logic Freo should be free to shop a contracted Brad around to the highest bidder in Victoria (I don't agree)?
I'm interested to hear Where and When do you think players should be able to nominate a club or not?
Tim Kelly is the only player I think I have heard the national media make these sort of suggestions on to this extent where the player shouldn't be able to nominate.
I am guessing this is because some feel the burden of proof is stronger on him to prove the genuineness of his need (special needs children) - although actual genuine need being the reason a player can't nominate as opposed to non-need giving a player greater rights is a pretty shaky proposition...
What scenarios have merit and which don't - topic doesn't necessarily have to be about Tim Kelly, can apply to Shiel, Hill or whatever scenario.[/
Imagine the uproar in Victoria if Adelaide had made Dangerfield go to the highest bidder in Victoria rather than allowing the trade to Geelong so he could go home and live next door to his parents.
So what rules are you changing?
This is the problem it's not the older players that should be getting choice of where they play
Its the younger players who are in more need of their family and friends at 18 years of age just coming out of high school
The issue is it will disadvantage NSW and QLD doing that
On SM-G965F using BigFooty.com mobile app
It should apply to the whole of Australia unfortunately most of the youth comes out of Victoria so the Melbourne clubs will be fineIts why the old academy rules for NSW & Q should still stand - weak AFL bowing to the stronger louder Melbourne clubs bleating.
Is that what WCE has offered? I doubt it. The problem with Tim Kelly is that his manager first declared Tim had to get back to W.A. to be close to the family. Then he announced, “Oh yeah, and Tim will only go to WCE”.What if one of the WA clubs is willing to offer Kelly more allowance in terms of time to spend with his kids, etc? Is that a justifiable reason to nominate them if that's the reason he wants to go back home?
Why not? The Victorian clubs do it all the time to the northern clubs. The "I'm homesick but will only play for the Pies, or Geelong, or Richmond" etc etc.Is that what WCE has offered? I doubt it. The problem with Tim Kelly is that his manager first declared Tim had to get back to W.A. to be close to the family. Then he announced, “Oh yeah, and Tim will only go to WCE”.
It is very naive and arrogant of WCE supporters - some at least - to believe Geelong should cave in and allow Tim to go to WCE even if the WCE offer is sub par
Geelong don’t really count as an evil Victorian club. If someone wants to go live in Geelong and pump money into that economy we should all applaud them IMOWhy not? The Victorian clubs do it all the time to the northern clubs. The "I'm homesick but will only play for the Pies, or Geelong, or Richmond" etc etc.
In enjoyong it happening in reverse to be honest.
Increase initial contract length. The team that picks you up in the draft has you for 5 years. This means most players are eligible to move onto other clubs at 22-24.
Club compensation is removed, if a player becomes a free agent, they can go where they want and their club has no say in the matter.
Players under contract can be traded as the club requires etc, but as soon as they're out of contract their old club has in input as to where they go, nor do they get anything from it.
Essentially the NBA model with a longer rookie contract.
No club is evil in my mind, dogs are scum but they aren't evil really.Geelong don’t really count as an evil Victorian club. If someone wants to go live in Geelong and pump money into that economy we should all applaud them IMO