News Pre-season supplemental selection period between December 1 and March 15

[Suma Magic]

A club could offer a 1 year rookie deal and an immediate 2nd year upgrade to the main list with more cash.

So any time there is a gun who has nominated previously, they will be better off financially to get on a list through this system.

 

[Peel67skin]

I have no idea whether you’re agreeing with me or not, but thinking that the AFL cant change its mind again on a whim would be a mistake

TBF , AFL did not write it black and white that is the rule . Until there is a rule book , journalist can change their tune . ( Briggs , Foley ) .

 

[Miguel Sanchez]

TBF , AFL did not write it black and white that is the rule . Until there is a rule book , journalist can change their tune . ( Briggs , Foley ) .

It'll be written down somewhere, probably in a memo to clubs. It'd be nice if they shared it publicly but I'm not holding my breath.

 

[Peel67skin]

It'll be written down somewhere, probably in a memo to clubs. It'd be nice if they shared it publicly but I'm not holding my breath.

You would think the way AFL said Foley, Brigg not eligible to state league priority access after a few day would be the same as this . AFL can put a small font on these condition .

 

[Shaz2012]

The AFL has just ruled that Clarke and Mumford can sign: http://www.afl.com.au/news/2018-11-15/new-rookie-rules-clarke-mumford-free-to-join-club-of-choice

Teams can have 43 on their main and cat A list, leaving them with the opportunity of signing a rookie from Dec 1 onwards.

So clubs can basically come to a deal with any player ahead of this year's draft that has previously nominated for the draft or been on a list in previous years.

For example, West Coast could agree with Marlion Pickett or Mitch Grigg that they will join us as a rookie if they don't get picked up in the ND. Or players could agree to forego the ND and just agree to join a club this way right now, as Clarke and Mumford are doing.

It looks like it's basically a way of jumping the rookie list queue where you can convince a player to agree to the proposal and thus not nominate for the rookie draft.

I don't really like it, but clubs will now just look to make the most of the opportunity.

Who would you like your club to target with this option?

I like it. A guy like Clarke is on his last chance. To give himself a chance at resurrecting an AFL career, I like that he can choose where to go as a rookie. Not all clubs will be able to provide him equal opportunity. It screws him if say the Crows take him and say, we just need a player on our list in case things go sideways (again). Otherwise, he just plays SANFL and gets delisted in 12 months. If there is a club that he feels will actually give him a fair shot at his one last chance, I have no issues with it.

As long as its the rookie list too mind you and on a rookie level pay scale. A player shouldn't really have incentive to go down this path and get a big contract at a club of his choice. It should be a last lifeline type of thing that favours the player and gives him every chance.

 

[Isaac Cumming No 1]

I like it. A guy like Clarke is on his last chance. To give himself a chance at resurrecting an AFL career, I like that he can choose where to go as a rookie. Not all clubs will be able to provide him equal opportunity. It screws him if say the Crows take him and say, we just need a player on our list in case things go sideways (again). Otherwise, he just plays SANFL and gets delisted in 12 months. If there is a club that he feels will actually give him a fair shot at his one last chance, I have no issues with it.

As long as its the rookie list too mind you and on a rookie level pay scale. A player shouldn't really have incentive to go down this path and get a big contract at a club of his choice. It should be a last lifeline type of thing that favours the player and gives him every chance.

I think the contract for Clarke and Mumford is whatever they agree to with the club?

 

[Suma Magic]

I like it. A guy like Clarke is on his last chance. To give himself a chance at resurrecting an AFL career, I like that he can choose where to go as a rookie. Not all clubs will be able to provide him equal opportunity. It screws him if say the Crows take him and say, we just need a player on our list in case things go sideways (again). Otherwise, he just plays SANFL and gets delisted in 12 months. If there is a club that he feels will actually give him a fair shot at his one last chance, I have no issues with it.

As long as its the rookie list too mind you and on a rookie level pay scale. A player shouldn't really have incentive to go down this path and get a big contract at a club of his choice. It should be a last lifeline type of thing that favours the player and gives him every chance.

Last year the eagles could have got Kelly prior to the ND on a 1 year rookie contract, with an agreement to then immediately give him a big 1 year extension and upgrade.

It’s a poorly thought out policy.

 

[Suma Magic]

I think the contract for Clarke and Mumford is whatever they agree to with the club?

They are cat A rookies so I think they are limited by those contract terms.

 

[Shaz2012]

Last year the eagles could have got Kelly prior to the ND on a 1 year rookie contract, with an agreement to then immediately give him a big 1 year extension and upgrade.

It’s a poorly thought out policy.

Yeah, that shouldn't be allowed. Remove the part where previously nominated for the draft I reckon. I dont mind it for a player that was delisted and perhaps put an age restriction as well. It certainly shouldn't allow a guy like Kelly. But a player that is late 20s or more I think shouldn't have to go to a club that only wants them as a break glass in case of emergency type player if there is another club that will play them.

 

[Isaac Cumming No 1]

They are cat A rookies so I think they are limited by those contract terms.

I'll peruse the CBA and respond when I get bored.

I dont know Mummy's financial position but I think it's unlikely he'll want to work for mininum wage. He has a wife and two kids now. Last year part time ckaches would probably have worked with a payout if his contract. He would have been on good money.

 

[master bate]

This makes sense for any delisted player. Delisted free agency should be for life. Grigg should be able to pick his home.

This doesn't make sense for a 19/20/21 year old late developer who should go through the draft process and be available to all sides.

I'd set the bar at 22 years old and/or 3 nominated drafts.

A 19 year old who doesn't get drafted at 18 has more agency and rights than the number 1 pick from the year before. That's not right.

 

[Peel67skin]

I don't mind the rule , as long they close the obvious loophole.

 

[Shaz2012]

This makes sense for any delisted player. Delisted free agency should be for life. Grigg should be able to pick his home.

This doesn't make sense for a 19/20/21 year old late developer who should go through the draft process and be available to all sides.

I'd set the bar at 22 years old and/or 3 nominated drafts.

A 19 year old who doesn't get drafted at 18 has more agency and rights than the number 1 pick from the year before. That's not right.

Id set it higher than 22. You wouldnt be taking a 22 year old as depth player that you have no intention of playing unless you get injuries. You would still be developing him and if it didnt work out he would be out of your system by 25. I think that is around the age where you should look to give players a last chance. Until then its still important to let all clubs have equal access to all the talent available. But at some point the clubs have had their chance and then you want to give each and every player the best possible chance of having a meaningful career.

 

[Miguel Sanchez]

A 19 year old who doesn't get drafted at 18 has more agency and rights than the number 1 pick from the year before. That's not right.

It makes a bit of sense when you consider that the draft is there primarily* to try to make the weaker teams stronger.

The best 18 year old kid in the land is (hopefully) going to be a boost to the wooden spooner, but put him in an open market and he's probably unlikely to join them of his own free will. Particularly if he's Victorian and the wooden spooner is Gold Coast.

But a kid that wasn't good enough to get drafted first time round and has put in a decent year in a state league? He might end up a serviceable player but he's unlikely to change a team's fortunes on his own. Why should we overly care who he plays for?


*at least that's what it's supposed to be there for, it's become more of an entertainment product.

 

[master bate]

Id set it higher than 22. You wouldnt be taking a 22 year old as depth player that you have no intention of playing unless you get injuries. You would still be developing him and if it didnt work out he would be out of your system by 25. I think that is around the age where you should look to give players a last chance. Until then its still important to let all clubs have equal access to all the talent available. But at some point the clubs have had their chance and then you want to give each and every player the best possible chance of having a meaningful career.

How many players over 22 are drafted within the first 3 rounds and make a huge impact? It's Tim Kelly, maybe Tom Stewart and that's about it right? I'm all for it being pretty lenient because in time free agency will increase, probably getting down to 4 years for restricted free agency.

Plus the rookie list should eventually be scrapped as well. Or changed to a supplemental list that is only altered after the drafts.

It's not that these guys should be some special form of rookie, they should be free agents signed up to main lists in October.

The salary cap should do it's job to keep clubs equal and bottom clubs should get a chance to pay big money for guys who are state league stars if they want them. Combined with the offer of game time they should go to lower clubs as much as top clubs.

 

[Shaz2012]

How many players over 22 are drafted within the first 3 rounds and make a huge impact? It's Tim Kelly, maybe Tom Stewart and that's about it right? I'm all for it being pretty lenient because in time free agency will increase, probably getting down to 4 years for restricted free agency.

Plus the rookie list should eventually be scrapped as well. Or changed to a supplemental list that is only altered after the drafts.

It's not that these guys should be some special form of rookie, they should be free agents signed up to main lists in October.

The salary cap should do it's job to keep clubs equal and bottom clubs should get a chance to pay big money for guys who are state league stars if they want them. Combined with the offer of game time they should go to lower clubs as much as top clubs.

Well we saw Carlton use McAdam as currency for McGovern. We obviously rated him as having some value. These players that are going to a club of their choice shouldn't have any currency. This shouldn't be a way for clubs to flout equalization by benefiting from a rule. It should be about giving a player that is falling out of the AFL system a lifeline imo.

It should be basically a situation where there are 2 or 3 clubs willing to give a guy one last shot, but not willing to pay anything for that. Then let the guy go to the club where he has the most chance of making a career for himself. The players have a lot of power now. But that is pretty much only the good ones. The ones that get pushed out of the system have put blood, sweat and tears into making it. I like the idea that some might save themselves.

Kelly, McGovern and Stewart are players that clubs would have been willing to pay currency for. So no club should get them for free. I dont think anyone would pay any currency for Clarke or Mumford at his age.

 

[Isaac Cumming No 1]

They are cat A rookies so I think they are limited by those contract terms.

I have to disagree. The CBA identifies minimum payments for cat A rookies. Nowhere can I find anything that says a player cant be paid more, excepting these payments are part of the TPP.

Unless they meet the requirements set for replacing players on the lkng term injury list.

 

[Suma Magic]

I have to disagree. The CBA identifies minimum payments for cat A rookies. Nowhere can I find anything that says a player cant be paid more, excepting these payments are part of the TPP.

Unless they meet the requirements set for replacing players on the lkng term injury list.

Thanks for the research.

 

[Quinz]

For example, West Coast could agree with Marlion Pickett or Mitch Grigg that they will join us as a rookie if they don't get picked up in the ND. Or players could agree to forego the ND and just agree to join a club this way right now, as Clarke and Mumford are doing.

I suppose the big question is- if you haven't been on an AFL list before, are you allowed to not nominate for the ND with the intention of being picked up in the SSP?

Would give clubs an added incentive to scour the state leagues for late bloomers and ask them to not nominate so they can go directly to them. If the wage rules allow them to be paid as much as a regular listed player, and the current rookie rules allow Cat A rookies to play without a long term injury, it's a guaranteed pathway to one club with no real downside for the player.

 

[Suma Magic]

I suppose the big question is- if you haven't been on an AFL list before, are you allowed to not nominate for the ND with the intention of being picked up in the SSP?

Would give clubs an added incentive to scour the state leagues for late bloomers and ask them to not nominate so they can go directly to them. If the wage rules allow them to be paid as much as a regular listed player, and the current rookie rules allow Cat A rookies to play without a long term injury, it's a guaranteed pathway to one club with no real downside for the player.

If a player has already been not drafted then it makes sense for them to now enter lists this way.

I feel bad for Geelong offering up 43 for Krueger when they didn’t have to.

 

[Isaac Cumming No 1]

I suppose the big question is- if you haven't been on an AFL list before, are you allowed to not nominate for the ND with the intention of being picked up in the SSP?

Would give clubs an added incentive to scour the state leagues for late bloomers and ask them to not nominate so they can go directly to them. If the wage rules allow them to be paid as much as a regular listed player, and the current rookie rules allow Cat A rookies to play without a long term injury, it's a guaranteed pathway to one club with no real downside for the player.

Is that such a bad thing?

18 yo draftees would generally not have dependents. A guy in his 20's from the WAFL say, may have a family and a mortgage. An initial contract could impose considerable financial hardship if forced to move to Sydney for example. $100k without match payments would actually be considerably below the average wage for a couple.

Clubs might well find the partner a job ( I know we regularly employ partners who relocate with theplayer) but still.

In those circumstances it's not unreasonable the player can go to the Eagles or Freo if they want him as I see it. You could certainly argue equalisation but a Kelly scenario would seem likely anyway.

It's the Northern clubs that would be most likely to be disadvantaged, the NEAFL is the least likely to produce AFL ready players. We have the academies.

 

[Quinz]

Is that such a bad thing?

18 yo draftees would generally not have dependents. A guy in his 20's from the WAFL say, may have a family and a mortgage. An initial contract could impose considerable financial hardship if forced to move to Sydney for example. $100k without match payments would actually be considerably below the average wage for a couple.

Clubs might well find the partner a job ( I know we regularly employ partners who relocate with theplayer) but still.

In those circumstances it's not unreasonable the player can go to the Eagles or Freo if they want him as I see it. You could certainly argue equalisation but a Kelly scenario would seem likely anyway.

It's the Northern clubs that would be most likely to be disadvantaged, the NEAFL is the least likely to produce AFL ready players. We have the academies.

It's a bad thing for equalization, I don't like how many draft distorting options there are.

From an Eagles perspective I think it's great, we could get a lot of good value from it. I just don't know if it's ideal for the purpose of the draft. And it's another barrier to northern states development as you mentioned.

 

[Isaac Cumming No 1]

It's a bad thing for equalization, I don't like how many draft distorting options there are.

From an Eagles perspective I think it's great, we could get a lot of good value from it. I just don't know if it's ideal for the purpose of the draft. And it's another barrier to northern states development as you mentioned.

I try to emparhise with the players a bit. They choose their life but it's not all beer and skittles, especially for the fringe players.

What pisses me off about whinging about the academies is they do provide a pathway in remote areas that wouldn't otherwise exist.I grew up with kids that had to leave home and move to Adelaide at 15 to get their chance. But I do get the equalisation arguments.

Likewise I get your point about this change.

 

[master bate]

I guess one of the easiest fixes is to say any player not previously drafted can only be paid the standard rookie rate for 2 years. The other thing to do is to move the start date back from Dec to February. Along with adding a minimum age of 23 you solve most of the problems.

Surely this isn't another case of clubs quickly circumventing rules from AFL house. Amazing that people on here can spot the problems faster than those in charge can.

 

[Pykie]

Considering most of the best mature age players come out of the VFL & WAFL, this is probably going to play into WA and Victorian clubs hands the most.

Will make it a lot easier to sign players from within your own VFL side.