Players not eligible for RFA, shouldn't be able to nominate a preferred club

[kreglze]

But is there 5 times more players returning to Victoria?

Victoria Incoming:
Devon Smith
Adam Saad
Gary Ablett
Jake Lever
Harley Balic

Victoria Outgoing:
Aaron Francis

That is just off the top of my head, and I am more than happy to be corrected. I just put down the ones that have almost defiantly nominated that they want out.

But if there are any more feel free to let me know, I find the statistics behind it all fascinating.

 

[SterlingArcher]

i am always of the opinion that players owe clubs nothing. If a player stops performing they are cut that quickly. It is up to the club to convince players to stay, whether it's money or attitude or something else.

You can stick around at your club forever, be faithful, accept deals for unders - and then be delisted before you want to retire...

 

[SterlingArcher]

Victoria Incoming:
Devon Smith
Adam Saad
Gary Ablett
Jake Lever
Harley Balic
Jackson Trengrove
Jarman Impey
Matthew Kennedy
Hayden Crozier
Aaron Hall?

Victoria Outgoing:
Aaron Francis
Jack Watts
Paul Puopolo?
Steve Motlop
Dan Menzel

Non-Victoria-Non-Victoria move:
Tom Rockliff
Charlie Cameron
Brandon Matera
Nathan Wilson

Victoria-Victoria move:
Jack Watts
Jake Stringer

That is just off the top of my head, and I am more than happy to be corrected. I just put down the ones that have almost defiantly nominated that they want out.

But if there are any more feel free to let me know, I find the statistics behind it all fascinating.

Added a few. Some only maybes but I reckon likely. Watts unsure.

 

[BK Eaglesfan]

At the end of 2009 season 25 year old former St Kilda captain Luke Ball who had played 142 games requested to be traded to Collingwood. A deal between the two clubs, however, was not settled before the trade week deadline despite mediation from the AFL. On 10 November 2009 Ball officially left St Kilda and nominated for the national draft. On 26 November 2009 he was drafted to Collingwood with their first pick (number 30 overall).

Those who nominate for the pre-season draft may set the terms for their contracts. Lever could do this and most likely end up at Melbourne, if they kept a list spot free for him.

St Kilda received nothing for Ball. In the washup they would have been better to trade for him, as Ball got where he wanted to go.

Clubs for the most part have been wary of letting uncontracted and contracted players go for nothing. Most clubs will trade contrated players on the basis that they can get more for them while contracted than if they are uncontracted. The closer players get to the end of the contract, generally the easier it is to persuade their club to let them go.

Lever will almost certainly be traded so that Adelaide can get at least something for him. It'll most likely be to Melbourne too.

I’m with you on the Ball example. My question was the opposite. Struggling to recall a time where a player has been pushed to the PSD and they’ve ended up at a club they DIDN’T want to go to. The Ball example is a classic case of the point I was making. Pushing a player to the PSD draft was an empty threat as it only resulted in the player going where he wanted to and St Kilda getting nothing.

 

[Thetrader15]

I’m with you on the Ball example. My question was the opposite. Struggling to recall a time where a player has been pushed to the PSD and they’ve ended up at a club they DIDN’T want to go to. The Ball example is a classic case of the point I was making. Pushing a player to the PSD draft was an empty threat as it only resulted in the player going where he wanted to and St Kilda getting nothing.

Nick Stevens

 

[sjohns12]

Like most of what you said, but would insist that draftees that become free agents after 4 years are restricted free agents.

Think 6 years is too long for rookie listed player, would perfer to scrap the rookie list all together and extend the primary list to 48 and have an additional 2 spots available for category b type rookies, so 50 in total.

Also like the idea of non trade clauses for frontended contracts to protect clubs from Ablett type situations.

I disagree, the rookie list is a great way for perhaps less physically gifted players or late bloomers to find their way onto a list. Cox, Milne, Kirk, Boyd, Jack, Sewell, Sandilands, Gibson, Morris and Priddis all probably wouldn’t have made it without it.

I still think that the four+two model would be better. This way clubs get at least two to three years of high level play before they are free to go where they please. Entering restricted free agency after four years still leaves the possibility of a club drafting a player, then losing them for next to nothing before they’ve actually peaked.

Do you mean a no trade clause for clubs or players? because Gold Coast do more or less have a no trade clause with Gary, they just run the risk of him saying, no I just won’t play anywhere.

 

[Perthmadcatter]

Too easy to manipulate, just because a player nominates a "state" instead of a "club" means nothing. His management will still only talk to the highest bidders.

What we really need to do is have it like the EPL, keep the wage cap though.
Clubs can pay transfer fees to the players club that way the club is on the frontline whether to accept or not.
Trading is so archaic and convoluted. If you're concerned about big clubs eating the smaller clubs have a total transfer fee cap at $5mil per club per transfer window.

Keep the draft and only players who have been in the system for a minimum of 2 years can be transferred. Simple and easy. You can use draft picks as sweeteners in transfers if you wish.

Example:
Melbourne and lets say Collingwood want Jake Lever.
Melbourne offer Lever a 800k per year contract.
Collingwood offer Lever a 650k per year contract.
Melbourne offer Adelaide a $1.5mil transfer fee.
Collingwood offer Adelaide a $2mil transfer.

Adelaide have the right to choose which offer they accept if the player is contracted, if a player wants to walk out on a club, you know what? back into the draft.

This is pretty much what we have now, Lever wants Melbourne, Melbourne offer better contract to him than Pies, but Pies willing to trade 2 1st round picks to Melbournes 1st and second. Adelaide tells Lever that we will trade you to pies only, Lever has to decide if he will accept pies offer or go to the PSD. Only thing that stops this from happening is clubs not wanting to lose players for nothing.

 

[Superstar swan]

Player wants to leave whilst contracted/uncontracted but not eligible for free agency...fine..but said player must enter draft and is not allowed to nominate a club..

What the f@#$ is the point of free agency if every player regardless of years played is able to choose clubs

 

[Fitzroy bears]

I disagree, the rookie list is a great way for perhaps less physically gifted players or late bloomers to find their way onto a list. Cox, Milne, Kirk, Boyd, Jack, Sewell, Sandilands, Gibson, Morris and Priddis all probably wouldn’t have made it without it.

I still think that the four+two model would be better. This way clubs get at least two to three years of high level play before they are free to go where they please. Entering restricted free agency after four years still leaves the possibility of a club drafting a player, then losing them for next to nothing before they’ve actually peaked.

Do you mean a no trade clause for clubs or players? because Gold Coast do more or less have a no trade clause with Gary, they just run the risk of him saying, no I just won’t play anywhere.

I still believe those types of players would find their way on to a list, if they were to expand the list size, the talent pool of draftees wouldn't expand with it so those players would still find a home and there would be 2 additional spots cat. B rookies also. It is changing the structure of the list and enables those players more opportunities at AFL level cause there is no limitation in the promotion of rookies and allows clubs who are at the bottom of the ladder to test all players on their list.

Yeah I see your point and the 4+2 might work for our current system, however it doesn't give much flexibility to the clubs who know a player won't make it after 1,2 or 3 years, in essence they would be paying out a rookie contract to delist them. I am assuming you meant rookies on 4+2? If you meant primary list draftees it would still have it's problems for those players who don't make it. Maybe 3+2 or 3+1 would give flexibility to clubs, security to players and assurance to fans that a young gun won't walk to another club.

And yes I did mean a club no-trade clause. This would negate the club from having to refuse a trade request as the player has already agreed to no trades, a penalty such as the difference between the contracted players average income over the life of the existing contract minus the remaining income to be paid over the remaining years would be paid by player or club who wants to trade for that player in addition to the trade value worked out before the contract is terminated, (I know its complex but it puts the onus back on the contracted player or chasing club). I believe you would see a decline in clubs chasing contracted players as all money changing hands before trade would have to be included in their cap. It's just something I think would have great benefit to clubs and players, however as I said before I liked a majority of what you put down in your first post and it would be a step in the right direction

 

[sjohns12]

I still believe those types of players would find their way on to a list, if they were to expand the list size, the talent pool of draftees wouldn't expand with it so those players would still find a home and there would be 2 additional spots cat. B rookies also. It is changing the structure of the list and enables those players more opportunities at AFL level cause there is no limitation in the promotion of rookies and allows clubs who are at the bottom of the ladder to test all players on their list.

Yeah I see your point and the 4+2 might work for our current system, however it doesn't give much flexibility to the clubs who know a player won't make it after 1,2 or 3 years, in essence they would be paying out a rookie contract to delist them. I am assuming you meant rookies on 4+2? If you meant primary list draftees it would still have it's problems for those players who don't make it. Maybe 3+2 or 3+1 would give flexibility to clubs, security to players and assurance to fans that a young gun won't walk to another club.

And yes I did mean a club no-trade clause. This would negate the club from having to refuse a trade request as the player has already agreed to no trades, a penalty such as the difference between the contracted players average income over the life of the existing contract minus the remaining income to be paid over the remaining years would be paid by player or club who wants to trade for that player in addition to the trade value worked out before the contract is terminated, (I know its complex but it puts the onus back on the contracted player or chasing club). I believe you would see a decline in clubs chasing contracted players as all money changing hands before trade would have to be included in their cap. It's just something I think would have great benefit to clubs and players, however as I said before I liked a majority of what you put down in your first post and it would be a step in the right direction

Ah I see what you mean. My idea was the club can choose to give a one, two, three or four year contract with the two year team option. So I think what you would see is the early draftees with obvious upside will be signed to four year deals, lower ones that are less certain could get a one or two year deal. There is also the option to trade a player on a rookie contract, we see in the NBA a lot of clever trades to free up cap space, so I imagine the AFL would follow suit. I think this way the AFLPA would probably be more likely to agree, as I think well see mostly three to four year deals providing extra job security for draftees, and more time to prove themselves.

 

[Vindicater]

Easy solution.

Any player can ask for a trade.
If they ask they must be traded.
They can be traded to whoever.

Create some real bidding wars.

 

[Furn2]

If a player picks a state, what happens if the team with the best offer trade wise has no room on the cap and can only offer minimum wage ?

 

[Russian Demon]

Players should have an initial 3 year contract and 5 years total for free agency. No compo.

At end of the first 3 years, must make at least average AFL wage.

Players can be traded anywhere against their will in those first 5 years.

Players can opt for a no trade clause or "only to state x" clause to ensure control but at the cost of salary. Allowing trades gives them more money.

On SM-G930F using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Furn2]

Players should have an initial 3 year contract and 5 years total for free agency. No compo.

At end of the first 3 years, must make at least average AFL wage.

Players can be traded anywhere against their will in those first 5 years.

Players can opt for a no trade clause or "only to state x" clause to ensure control but at the cost of salary. Allowing trades gives them more money.

On SM-G930F using BigFooty.com mobile app

lol about 80% of players would have to be dumped after 3 years.

 

[fleabitten]

By virtue of the fact there are more players drafted out of Victoria than anywhere else, there likely to be more players heading home to Victoria and the current system gives advantage to the teams recieving players, not the other way around.

You can always make the argument that interstate teams should draft more local talent but what happens if the talent simply isn't there. Just look how many AFL players SA is producing at the moment. If the Crows wanted to go SA only, we'd slide straight down to the bottom of the ladder.

So it's not the system you have a problem with, it's the quality of SA football.

 

[Gysberts2Bate]

Adelaide have a right to be angry regarding Lever, however their frustration should be at the AFL rather them Melbourne.

Jake Lever has essentially garnered the same rights as a Restricted Free Agent as he has: Nominated a preferred club, Negoitated a salary and contract and is now requesting a trade.

Amazingly Adelaide is actually in a worse position now than when Dangerfield nominated Geelong, as they don't have a right to match the contract and force him to stay.

Initial Draft contracts should allow the Club to retain the rights to a player until eligibility for Free Agency (period should probably be reduced) unless all parties agree to a trade. This could be done by implementing 3 year contracts + a 2 year team option (Similar to the NBA)

I'm actually interested in people's Thoughts here, do you think the current system is flawed?

I think you've misunderstood the entire thing. 'Nominating clubs' is an abstract concept. Lever can't force Adelaide to trade him to Melbourne, and it's not comparable to RFA at all given we can't acquire Lever without dealing at the trade table by paying him more than Adelaide is willing to. An RFA has free passage to his nominated club if their host club doesn't match the rival offer.

Adelaide haven't matched our offer and even if he was an RFA like Dangerfield and they had matched it that's not forcing Lever/Dangerfield to stay. If Adelaide had matched the Geelong offer Dangerfield could have walked to the draft, he didn't have to stay at Adelaide and sign another contract. This whole 'nominating clubs' thing is meaningless - the player themself is using their refusal to go to any other club to put themself in a stronger personal position and undermining their original club, but there's no way to 'not allow' something that's ultimately just an abstraction without giving the club greater trading rights like in American sports and that's never going to happen.

 

[LeverPuller]

Lever aside, I have felt there has been a problem around initial draftee contracts ever since the Scully days. First rounders should be a minimum 4-year deal, secomd round a min 3 year abd third and higher a minimum 2 year. You'll still have guys requesting trades but the clubs can rightfully stand tough.

As for the rest eg players traded without permission, the problem is that the salary cap and the whole AFL system is almost certainly illegal, there is just a gentleman's agreement for the players to not challenge the system in court. All it takes is one seriously pissed off player and the whole thing can fall over.

 

[Russian Demon]

lol about 80% of players would have to be dumped after 3 years.

Or can be delisted of course.

Its basically to ensure that players don't end up a star at 21, but forced onto the lowest wage possible until they are free agents.