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

[LordLucifer]

So basically the power was with the club. It just wasn't your club.

I have no issues with what the Swans did, they were upfront about it and put a deal in place between three clubs, problem was, one of them tried to be a bit too clever and it all fell over.

The next year Daniher left for nothing.

 

[LordLucifer]

A player isn't committed to a club (nor is a club committed to a player) when Free Agency happens, as they've reached the end of their contract. FA compensation is just there so a club has something to pick up the pieces if they weren't good enough, or if it wasn't in their interests to retain a player.

It's called 'Free Agency' so it should be 'free' to participate.

As for the compo, how is it a fair system when a couple of clubs get given a pick each for losing a player (who wanted to go) yet the other clubs coming behind them get bumped further back in the draft pecking order ?? They have done nothing wrong but they get penalised anyway.

 

[LordLucifer]

They would have been working for another company. Companies cannot just transfer workers to another company against their will, just because new management deems them surplus now. Even if they are in the same line of work.

I don't know what industry you work in but from my experience, transferring workers between offices/branches happens way more regularly than you think.

 

[SnusCG]

So they could move to the club of their choice, after the expiry of their existing contract with their current club.

Unrestricted free agency, yes, the point is to give the player full control over their playing future after their contract expires.

The point of restricted free agency was built entirely around giving players more control over their earning potential and to provide clubs opportunity to keep players if they were willing to pay.

The idea behind restricted free agency as a concept is that players can do their due diligence in looking for a team who is willing to pay more for them, and to then give their existing club the opportunity to match that contract and retain the player. That's the only reason 'matching' a bid is even a part of free agency at all.

This doesn't happen though because the players have way too much control within the system and can just refuse to sign on with their original team, meaning that the point of matching a bid becomes completely irrelevant for a team.

 

[Foxx]

No.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

People are forgetting a couple of key points:

Firstly, the "US Model" sees the US player unions fighting against billionaire bosses who openly consider them an entertainment product, and the counterbalance is that the US sports pay out roughly 50% of their revenues to the players as per their collective bargaining agreements. AFL players accept less than 30% of the AFL's revenues. I'm sure that US athletes aren't significantly happy to be traded on a whim more than AFL players are, but accept that's part of the negotiations of getting more money out of the billionaires.

Secondly, AFL players don't hold "all the power" compared to the US sports, so far as by definition in US sports being out of contract makes you a free agent (except for MLB with their arbitration rule but moving on for a second). It's very easy to look at out-of-contract AFL players not being free agents - they're not going through the U/18 draft, they're not contracted to any team - not being able to freely choose their team - as entirely absurd. I would argue that there's very limited scope for some out-of-contract players given the absurdity of not simply moving to any club you want when you're out of contract.

 

[Roylion]

I don't know what industry you work in but from my experience, transferring workers between offices/branches happens way more regularly than you think.

I've addressed this.

They're not branches of the same company. Players are not employed by the AFL. They are employed by their club (the company).

 

[LordLucifer]

I've addressed this.

They're not branches of the same company. Players are not employed by the AFL. They are employed by their club (the company).

You may have addressed it but I don't agree with you.

 

[Roylion]

You may have addressed it but I don't agree with you.

Dont agree with what? Players are employed by their club and not the AFL?

 

[Roylion]

Unrestricted free agency, yes, the point is to give the player full control over their playing future after their contract expires.

Errr...yes. And?

The idea behind restricted free agency as a concept is that players can do their due diligence in looking for a team who is willing to pay more for them, and to then give their existing club the opportunity to match that contract and retain the player. That's the only reason 'matching' a bid is even a part of free agency at all.

An offer to a Restricted Free Agent may be matched by their Club. Should their original Club match the offer, and the Restricted Free Agent Player does not wish to remain with their original Club, they must enter the National Draft, where they could go anywhere or seek a trade to the club of their choice

This doesn't happen though because the players have way too much control within the system and can just refuse to sign on with their original team, meaning that the point of matching a bid becomes completely irrelevant for a team.

If the bid is matched the Restricted Free Agent Player does not wish to remain with their original Club, they can

a. enter the National Draft as an uncontracted player, where they could go anywhere (and hence may decide to stay) or
b. seek a trade to the club of their choice in which their original club will be compensated.

 

[LordLucifer]

I would argue that there's very limited scope for some out-of-contract players given the absurdity of not simply moving to any club you want when you're out of contract.

I have no issues with this, once a player is out of contract there should be some scoope to move clubs without too much hassle.

I think others may have suggested this earlier in the thread but the more I think about it, maybe players should qualify for Free Agency as soon as they are out of contract regardless of how long they have been in the system.

If my proposal of allowing clubs to trade players whilst in contract was implemented, to balance that situation, this alteration to the Free Agency system should also be implemented.

 

[LordLucifer]

Dont agree with what? Players are employed by their club and not the AFL?

I don't agree with very much of what you have said in this thread.

 

[Roylion]

I don't agree with very much of what you have said in this thread.

Yes I've worked that out. You've been very unconvincing in changing my mind. Yet to read a good argument from you in support of what you think should happen instead of what we already have.

 

[blitzer]

I have no issues with what the Swans did, they were upfront about it and put a deal in place between three clubs, problem was, one of them tried to be a bit too clever and it all fell over.

The next year Daniher left for nothing.

For nothing eh? Don't let the facts get in the way of your fiction.

 

[Roylion]

For nothing eh? Don't let the facts get in the way of your fiction.

Essendon received Pick 7. (which became Pick 9). Archie Perkins was the selection. He played 14 games in 2021.

Daniher demonstrated that when a player is in contract, the club has the upper hand if and when the player goes. When Daniher fell out of contract, he took his services elsewhere - the same as any employee that is out of contract, is entitled to do.

 

[LordLucifer]

Essendon received Pick 7. (which became Pick 9). Archie Perkins was the selection. He played 14 games in 2021.

Daniher demonstrated that when a player is in contract, the club has the upper hand if and when the player goes. When Daniher fell out of contract, he took his services elsewhere - the same as any employee that is out of contract, is entitled to do.

You are right, the secret herbs & spices vagaries of the FA compo system ended up giving them #7 in return.

However, Essendon were offered two first round picks by the Swans but dithered about it and time ran out,

Dems the breaks, thats the system in place and I have no issue with them doing so as he was their player under contract.

But knocking back two firsts for a player who played played feck all matches in 2020 seems like poor management to me.

 

[LordLucifer]

Yes I've worked that out. You've been very unconvincing in changing my mind. Yet to read a good argument from you in support of what you think should happen instead of what we already have.

I am only "unconvincing" because you, like many others here in this thread, are completely closed minded to the idea.

This is not an uncommon occurence on BF, people absolutely shitcan some of the ideas that posters throw up because they are not the 'norm' and they don't (or more than likely can't) think outside the square nor want to see change.

I'd really like to see the AFL implement this concept (coupled with a revamp of FA, player trades & the drafting process overall as they are all a little out of whack IMO) just to see the reaction on here from the great unwashed.

 

[Roylion]

I am only "unconvincing" because you, like many others here in this thread, are completely closed minded to the idea.

I haven't read a good argument for it yet. When you present one, perhaps I'll re-consider.

This is not an uncommon occurence on BF, people absolutely shitcan some of the ideas that posters throw up because they are not the 'norm' and they don't (or more than likely can't) think outside the square nor want to see change.

You don't make change for change's sake.

 

[Roylion]

Dems the breaks, thats the system in place and I have no issue with them doing so as he was their player under contract.

So the club had control in keeping the player - who wanted to leave - to their contract.

 

[LordLucifer]

So the club had control in keeping the player - who wanted to leave - to their contract.

Why do you insist on saying that over and over when I have also stated that I don't have an issue whatsoever with that aspect of the player contracts ??

 

[LordLucifer]

I haven't read a good argument for it yet. When you present one, perhaps I'll re-consider.

You don't make change for change's sake.

Equally, when you provide me with a reasoned argument against the proposal I'll reconsider my position.

Who said anything about change for change's sake ?? Maybe you should speak to Steve Hocking as that seems to be his speciality.

 

[Roylion]

Equally, when you provide me with a reasoned argument against the proposal I'll reconsider my position.

I don't really care whether you re-consider your position. The existing system is superior to the one you propose.

I have provided a reasoned argument.

There's no legitimate argument for the forcible transfer of players from one company to another. A business / company cannot and should not be able to transfer workers / employees at will - and without their consent - to another company, even if that company is in the same line of work.

If a contract is terminated by the company before the end of its term then it is paid out in some form if the reason for the termination has no just cause. A new mangement team merely deciding that their list management needs a re-set and tearing up contracts for that reason is not 'just cause'.

AFL players sign a contract with a football club (a company), not the AFL. Both the AFL (as the licencee of each of the constituent AFL clubs) and the AFLPA recognise that contracts between AFL Clubs and Players have legally binding obligations and that the parties to such contracts have legitimate expectations that the terms of such contracts will be honoured. Contracts are legally binding agreements for a player to be paid by their employer a certain amount of money for a specified time. Hence players have the right to see out their contract with an AFL club if they see fit to do so.

Under the current system both the player and club have choice. The player and the club negotiate the length and renumeration of a contract. Clubs clearly have choice already with players in contract. They can and do hold players to the terms of his contract, even if those players wish to move. Players can hold their club to the contract they negotiated and signed with their club previously.

Free Agency ONLY happens at the end of a contract between player and club.

Who said anything about change for change's sake ??

I see no good reason for making the changes you suggest.

 

[LordLucifer]

I don't really care whether you re-consider your position. The existing system is superior to the one you propose.

I have provided a reasoned argument.

There's no legitimate argument for the forcible transfer of players from one company to another. A business / company cannot and should not be able to transfer workers / employees at will - and without their consent - to another company, even if that company is in the same line of work.

If a contract is terminated by the company before the end of its term then it is paid out in some form if the reason for the termination has no just cause. A new mangement team merely deciding that their list management needs a re-set and tearing up contracts for that reason is not 'just cause'.

AFL players sign a contract with a football club (a company), not the AFL. Both the AFL (as the licencee of each of the constituent AFL clubs) and the AFLPA recognise that contracts between AFL Clubs and Players have legally binding obligations and that the parties to such contracts have legitimate expectations that the terms of such contracts will be honoured. Contracts are legally binding agreements for a player to be paid by their employer a certain amount of money for a specified time. Hence players have the right to see out their contract with an AFL club if they see fit to do so.

Under the current system both the player and club have choice. The player and the club negotiate the length and renumeration of a contract. Clubs clearly have choice already with players in contract. They can and do hold players to the terms of his contract, even if those players wish to move. Players can hold their club to the contract they negotiated and signed with their club previously.

Free Agency ONLY happens at the end of a contract between player and club.



I see no good reason for making the changes you suggest.

Your comments are not unfair but I don't agree with them, it's as simple as that.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

What needs to be changed is that they should have to perform, all good and well to have a c9ntract but performance KPI must be met, if not we can trade you and or cancel contract.
At the moment so many AFL players get paid good money but perform at 2nd tier level.

 

[LordLucifer]

What needs to be changed is that they should have to perform, all good and well to have a c9ntract but performance KPI must be met, if not we can trade you and or cancel contract.
At the moment so many AFL players get paid good money but perform at 2nd tier level.

Exactly right !!

This is one of the reasons why I believe clubs should be able to trade in-contract players.

Let's take Jake Stringer this year, he has been a spasmodic player at best for all of his career yet this season with a contract renewal on the horizon, he has played out of his skin. He's not the only one to have a breakout season in the year of his contract renewal either, it happens reasonably regularly IMO.

Some will argue that you are letting a club off the hook for their own mistakes with this option but none of the other clubs are going to take a player in trade if they are a complete dud or a waste of a list position.

Having the ability to trade an in-contract player keeps them on their toes as well.