Opinion Should Clubs Be Able To Trade Contracted Players If They Wish To & The Player Has No Say In It

[nick1408]

$1 million a year is not nearly enough to move interstate ??

For a start, you would get the 15% kicker added on to that giving you an extra $150K per annum to play with which would easily cover your property rent (why would you buy straigtht away ??) plus cost of living and I dare say you'd have a fair bit left over too.

I'm no tax expert but I reckon a good tax agent may be able to get you some benefits on the property rental every year too.

$1 million a year may be enough for you or me to move, it clearly isn't for Smithdogmaddog and it won't be for everyone. Upping someone's wage from $100,000 to $1,000,000 would probably entice most but upping it from $1,000,000 to $1,150,000 would entice a lot less I reckon.

Teachers get moved around all the time !!

I had a quick look at the teachers EBA - https://www.education.vic.gov.au/hrweb/Documents/VGSA-2017.pdf - I couldn't see any clauses that allowed for transfer without agreement. I could be wrong as it was only a cursory check with CTRL-F

 

[Roylion]

Teachers get moved around all the time !!

In Victoria? Rubbish. Not without their consent.

They have a union but still get transferred, if they don't like it, they can quit.

Absolute rubbish. Teachers are either ongoing at a particular school or they are on contract. They CANNOT be transferred anywhere against their will either as ongoing or during a contract.

If they do quit, there is no secondary level for them to work at, they have to go to a different industry altogether.

You don't know what you are talking about.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

As said in an earlier post, KPI should be written in to the contract. Half the AFL players are taking the piss with the performances they provide in relation to what they are paid. I cannot believe performance KPI are not part of an AFL player contract.

 

[Ricketz]

Well, it probably comes down to who their employer is.

If it is the AFL, then yes. Employers have a right to shuffle their workforce internally.

If it is the club, then no. You can't shuffle unwanted employees off to other companies.

 

[Philth]

Well, it probably comes down to who their employer is.

If it is the AFL, then yes. Employers have a right to shuffle their workforce internally.

If it is the club, then no. You can't shuffle unwanted employees off to other companies.

Do they? You sure about that?

Some of the attitudes to employee/player rights are staggering. Straight out of the 1950s.

 

[LordLucifer]

When teachers are considered "in excess", they get moved to another school.

 

[FRUMPY]

It should have always been part of the free agency model when they bought it in.

No way players will sign up for it now.

Clubs can trade a player up to 6 years service or something like that would be fair.

Sent from my CPH2005 using Tapatalk

 

[FRUMPY]

Aaah, the old 'go home card', that old chestnut.

Biggest furphy in the caper.

Exactly. Amazing no-one wants to go home when they don't have a big fat juicy contract extension ready to sign....

Sent from my CPH2005 using Tapatalk

 

[Philth]

When teachers are considered "in excess", they get moved to another school.

Are you sure about this?

 

[Ricketz]

Do they? You sure about that?

Some of the attitudes to employee/player rights are staggering. Straight out of the 1950s.

They sure do, where do you think they don't? If I restructure and Gladys at reception is needed in accounts at the office across the city, do you think I have to keep her in that role because I hired her there?

Might be time for you to check your employment laws.

 

[Pessimistic]

Being discussed on SEN

I don't get the angst. the slow trade period was more due to covid related salary cap issue mostly, and to a lesser extent the type players seen to be tradeable not being in short supply elsewhere

 

[Pessimistic]

Do they? You sure about that?

Some of the attitudes to employee/player rights are staggering. Straight out of the 1950s.

In europe right now the workers are in short supply so the whip is in the other hand. Its a big problem according to employers and governments apparently

My heart bleeds......

 

[Ricketz]

In europe right now the workers are in short supply so the whip is in the other hand. Its a big problem according to employers and governments apparently

My heart bleeds......

Im not commenting on what should be, Im commenting on what actually does occur. I am actually bang up for workers rights - but I find it difficult to sumpathise with someone whose starting salary is in the mid 80k region complaining about the "go home" factor, or being forced to work in Sydney. Ohnoes!

 

[Philth]

They sure do, where do you think they don't? If I restructure and Gladys at reception is needed in accounts at the office across the city, do you think I have to keep her in that role because I hired her there?

Might be time for you to check your employment laws.

We are not talking moving across the city.
We are talking packing up and moving states, being forced to.
Thank god for unions.

 

[Roylion]

When teachers are considered "in excess", they get moved to another school.

No they don't.

They have to apply for vacancies at other schools. Of their choice.

An excess employee who is an applicant for an advertised vacancy at or below their classification and salary range must be interviewed and will be considered on merit against other applicants in accordance with the selection procedures set out in the Recruitment in Schools Guide.

There is a long and involved process if a teacher is declared "in excess". The general expectation is that if a teacher cannot be redeployed through the voluntarily application process to another school, retrenchment will not be considered unless redeployment and retraining opportunities have been explored for a period of longer than twelve months.

Teachers considered in excess at one school are not moved to a particular school without their consent

 

[LordLucifer]

Are you sure about this?

Rang a friend of mine who is a secondary teacher who explained that subject to student numbers and the subjects needing to be taught from year to year, some teachers are classed as "in excess" of the needs (normally at the end of the school year). They get offered an alternative school to go to work at who has the needs for that specific subject(s) that the teacher in excess offers.

There is obviously the opportunity to apply for other roles at other schools (vice-principal, co-ordinator etc) as part of the normal progression up the ranks.

 

[LordLucifer]

We are not talking moving across the city.
We are talking packing up and moving states, being forced to.
Thank god for unions.

Who says a player cannot be traded without consent to another club in the same city ??

 

[LordLucifer]

Teachers considered in excess at one school are not moved to a particular school without their consent

So they just stay at the school who has no role for them ??

 

[JerryWexler]

Hill, Lobb weren't traded despite their individual requests because of contracts.

Breust, Wingard weren't traded despite their clubs request because of contracts.

How is it different? Unless contracted players can also walk out at any stage, then they shouldn't be able to have their contracts vetoed.

The clubs they were dealing with couldn't work out an agreement. It happens.

 

[master bate]

What absolute rubbish !!

Over the past 10-years, two clubs have won six of them !!!

Let's look at the last 21-years then :

2021	Melbourne	Western Bulldogs	21.14 (140) d 10.6 (66)
2020	Richmond	Geelong	12.9 (81) d 7.8 (50)
2019	Richmond	GWS Giants	17.12 (114) d 3.7 (25)
2018	West Coast Eagles	Collingwood	11.13 (79) d. 11.8 (74)
2017	Richmond	Adelaide	16.12 (108) d. 8.12 (60)
2016	Western Bulldogs	Sydney	13.11 (89) d. 10.7 (67)
2015	Hawthorn	West Coast Eagles	16.11 (107) d. 8.13 (61)
2014	Hawthorn	Sydney	21.11 (137) d. 11.8 (74)
2013	Hawthorn	Fremantle	11.11 (77) d. 8.14 (62)
2012	Sydney Swans	Hawthorn	14.7 (91) - 11.15 (81)
2011	Geelong	Collingwood	18.11 (119) - 12.9 (81)
2010	Collingwood	St Kilda	1. 9.14 (68) - 10.8 (68) 2. 16.12 (108) - 7.10 (52) - replay
2009	Geelong	St Kilda	12.8 (80) - 9.14 (68)
2008	Hawthorn	Geelong	18.7 (115) - 11.23 (89)
2007	Geelong	Port Adelaide	24.19 (163) - 6.8 (44)
2006	West Coast	Sydney	12.13 (85) - 12.12 (84)
2005	Sydney	West Coast	8.10 (58) - 7.12 (54)
2004	Port Adelaide	Brisbane	17.11 (113) - 10.13 (73)
2003	Brisbane	Collingwood	20.14 (134) - 12.12 (84)
2002	Brisbane	Collingwood	10.15 (75) - 9.12 (66)
2001	Brisbane

10 clubs have shared them all, four of those clubs have only saluted the once meaning that 17 out of the past 21 flags has been shared by six clubs only.

The very best sides have been dominant. Good for them. How many clubs have made grand finals in that time?

7 of the 8 from outside Victoria with 4 different Premiers. The only one who hasn't made a grand final are the Suns who have yet to get off the ground.

8 of the 10 from Victoria with 6 different Premiers. Geel, Haw, Coll, Rich, Dogs, Melb all winning. St Kilda getting as close as possible without winning. Essendon making the grand final in 01 and winning the year prior.

15/18 teams have made a Grand final in the 21 years since 2000, that's a fairly even comp.

And it wasn't even the period I was referring too. What I was really referring too was since the footy department cap came in and wealthy clubs got bought back to earth a bit and the bottom teams were in with a chance. Under those conditions teams that were looking close to doomed in Melbourne and Brisbane turned it around. The Dogs won a flag. Richmond emerged as a super power from a few decades of trash. GWS (with a huge helping hand no doubt) became one of the strongest teams in the comp for a few years there.

Every club can spend the same amount of cash on their footy department. Every club has at least perfectly good facilities at a minimum to bordering on luxury at the high end.

I know it's hard to be in the situation Carlton are in now. I know that as well as anyone. But I don't see how forcing players to go where they don't want to go helps

 

[master bate]

The Saints have had to pay through the nose to attract players (Hanneberry & Hill etc) and it is now killing them.

At no stage were the Saints so desperate that they had to make those deals. They chose to go out and get those players. The Swans didn't even ask for much for Hanneberry, they knew they were dumping his contract.

The same time they paid through the nose for Hill they bought in Jones, Howard, Ryder and Butler who have been great success stories. Steele, Crouch, Membrey, Higgins etc they haven't struggled to bring in decent players.

 

[Soggy2112]

As said in an earlier post, KPI should be written in to the contract. Half the AFL players are taking the piss with the performances they provide in relation to what they are paid. I cannot believe performance KPI are not part of an AFL player contract.

I feel like even if this was the case clubs would still throw lofty, non-incentive based contracts at players to lure them away from other clubs.

 

[Elmer_Judd]

The clubs they were dealing with couldn't work out an agreement. It happens.

Hawthorn and GWS actually on a trade for Breust, the player just didn't want to go.

 

[Pessimistic]

Hawthorn and GWS actually on a trade for Breust, the player just didn't want to go.

‘they’ll get Hanrahan instead. younger is better right?

 

[Roylion]

They get offered an alternative school to go to work at who has the needs for that specific subject(s) that the teacher in excess offers.

They have to apply for vacancies at other schools. Of their choice.

So they just stay at the school who has no role for them ??

The principal has an obligation to ensure that excess teachers have regular programmed duties prior to redeployment.This includes, but is not limited to, rostered teaching duties, team teaching, replacement classes, extras and supervisory duties.

They cannot be redeployed to another school without their consent.