Rules The AFL needs to bring in an anti-tampering rule

Remove this Banner Ad

Elmer_Judd

#InBielsaWeTrust #MOT
Jul 25, 2019
23,041
38,653
AFL Club
Carlton
Other Teams
Leeds United
Been thinking about this for a while actually (and this doesn't really rate to the Hugh Greenwood saga at all, which was a fair enough transaction by North Melbourne) but in lieu with speculation of The Gold Coast Suns and several star young players coming out of contract next year, most specifically Ben King, Izak Rankine and Jack Lukosius) the league must step up and ban any club or player manager discussing players with at least one more season left on their contract to entertain talks with other clubs until the end of the season and contract expires (this applies to all clubs and players btw, not just Gold Coast)

It probably not stop The Suns (or any other) club from losing players , but at least will hopefully stop any negative or destabilizing rumours and or innuendo about clubs and or players during the season. The NBA and NFL have rules like this, and I would like to see it implemented here, any club proven to have engaged n discussions with players still in contract (even for just a few months left in the season) should be stripped of draft picks and fined heavily.

Extend the free agency/trade by a month or so to make up for so called negotiation time post the Grand Final, but I think it's time The AFL took some serious action about something that many clubs (especially mind) have indulged in for years, and I don't think it's healthy for the game, especially for expansion /northern based clubs.
 

RUNVS

Hall of Famer
Feb 28, 2007
44,063
52,170
Sydney
AFL Club
Sydney
Completely agree. It is beyond crazy that St Kilda for instance could get in Ben King's ear, telling him he can come back home in a few years, offering him things before on the same night he gets drafted to Gold Coast.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

BF Tiger

Norm Smith Medallist
Jun 5, 2007
8,390
19,528
9th
AFL Club
Richmond
In some ways I think players should be allowed to sign with another club while still contracted.

Example: St Kilda want to sign Ben King and Ben King wants to sign with St Kilda. They’ve basically agreed to terms, let’s say five years at $800,000. But current rules means that it is not possible. In round 23 Ben suffers a Nathan Brown type injury… suddenly St Kilda don’t want him at $800,000 for five years, and neither do the Suns.

Change the scenario from Ben King wanting to move to the Saints to Max Kong wanting to extend at the Saints. Max signs his $4,000,000 extension and three rounds later suffers the same type of injury. He’s still getting his $4,000,000.
 

jwikked

Norm Smith Medallist
Sep 20, 2009
6,296
18,058
NSW
AFL Club
St Kilda
Completely agree. It is beyond crazy that St Kilda for instance could get in Ben King's ear, telling him he can come back home in a few years, offering him things before on the same night he gets drafted to Gold Coast.
For all anyone knows, it’s Ben doing the talking. This goes both ways, not just in that instance but in most trades. Doesn’t it make sense to give players a sense of security by having things in motion before an allotted trading period?
 

jwikked

Norm Smith Medallist
Sep 20, 2009
6,296
18,058
NSW
AFL Club
St Kilda
That is a very naive claim.
Not at all, they’re clearly in shambles. If they can’t keep players it has nothing to do with the player managers doing deals mid year. At the end of the day, if the player doesn’t seek a trade they likely won’t be traded.
 

ant22

Premiership Player
Oct 14, 2005
3,569
2,664
gisborne
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
pies
I personally think it’s the clubs responsibility to create a culture that makes players want to stay. If Brisbane can do it why can’t the suns?

look what north created in the 90s , saints from 2005 to 2010, gws have managed to regularly play finals. With good management, leadership and a strong culture every club has the opportunity to be successful. If not then they probably shouldn’t be in the comp.

We are a very immature Comp when it comes to our attitude towards player movement.
 

B4Bear

Norm Smith Medallist
Jul 6, 2011
7,884
15,939
Melbourne
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Totally disagree here.

I already feel really uncomfortable with how the de-listing process works.

A player can be delisted after the trade period has occurred, this dramatically lessens their chances of being picked up by another club, as their lists are mostly complete by this stage, and that player may not have been on their radar.

It makes it difficult for the player to plan their future, be that on a list or post-AFL if they are delisted so late in the piece.

I would rather see it where it is easier for clubs and managers to talk instead of hinder it.

Yes, Marley Williams was not much chop, but he deserved better than he got from North.
 

Kwality

Hall of Famer
Aug 14, 2011
36,728
13,768
Trafalgar
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Mclaren Mercedes F1
Not at all, they’re clearly in shambles. If they can’t keep players it has nothing to do with the player managers doing deals mid year. At the end of the day, if the player doesn’t seek a trade they likely won’t be traded.

Its the same argument that a Tas team will not be able to keep players. Sure its harder for the development teams, but to deny the role of the player managers & the heartland clubs is staggering.
The term 'destination club' says it all, & my mob is one of those who do profit.
 

big_e

Existential crisis management consultant
Apr 28, 2008
8,439
24,670
Hermit Kingdom of Western Australia
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
Wycombe Wanderers
Been thinking about this for a while actually (and this doesn't really rate to the Hugh Greenwood saga at all, which was a fair enough transaction by North Melbourne) but in lieu with speculation of The Gold Coast Suns and several star young players coming out of contract next year, most specifically Ben King, Izak Rankine and Jack Lukosius) the league must step up and ban any club or player manager discussing players with at least one more season left on their contract to entertain talks with other clubs until the end of the season and contract expires (this applies to all clubs and players btw, not just Gold Coast)

It probably not stop The Suns (or any other) club from losing players , but at least will hopefully stop any negative or destabilizing rumours and or innuendo about clubs and or players during the season. The NBA and NFL have rules like this, and I would like to see it implemented here, any club proven to have engaged n discussions with players still in contract (even for just a few months left in the season) should be stripped of draft picks and fined heavily.

Extend the free agency/trade by a month or so to make up for so called negotiation time post the Grand Final, but I think it's time The AFL took some serious action about something that many clubs (especially mind) have indulged in for years, and I don't think it's healthy for the game, especially for expansion /northern based clubs.
Players would hate it. Imagine being offered a contract at your existing club and having no idea about what any other club might be willing to offer.

Also, these are life-changing decisions. Players are often having to move their families, which means a new job for the wife, new school/day care for the kids - to push all of that into a one month window post-season isn't fair.

Also think "tampering" is an overly emotive word.
 

Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods

Sir Cripps of Carlton House
Mar 26, 2015
8,749
16,077
Bendigo
AFL Club
Carlton
Other Teams
Melbourne Tigers Philadelphia 76ers
Players would hate it. Imagine being offered a contract at your existing club and having no idea about what any other club might be willing to offer.

Also, these are life-changing decisions. Players are often having to move their families, which means a new job for the wife, new school/day care for the kids - to push all of that into a one month window post-season isn't fair.

Also think "tampering" is an overly emotive word.
This kind of sums it up for me.
I understand the idea behind it, but feel it will just lead to players seeing out their initial contracts, then testing the market more than they would now. You currently get quite a few players happily extending their existing contracts while they still have a year to run. Presumably, that's currently while their agent has been fielding offers from other clubs and knows the amount of interest, years involved and ballpark figures.
Take that away, and you likely see less players extending while still under contract. Potentially having the opposite effect.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

WillHayward

Norm Smith Medallist
Aug 13, 2018
8,401
11,269
South Melbourne
AFL Club
Sydney
In some ways I think players should be allowed to sign with another club while still contracted.

Example: St Kilda want to sign Ben King and Ben King wants to sign with St Kilda. They’ve basically agreed to terms, let’s say five years at $800,000. But current rules means that it is not possible. In round 23 Ben suffers a Nathan Brown type injury… suddenly St Kilda don’t want him at $800,000 for five years, and neither do the Suns.

Change the scenario from Ben King wanting to move to the Saints to Max Kong wanting to extend at the Saints. Max signs his $4,000,000 extension and three rounds later suffers the same type of injury. He’s still getting his $4,000,000.
Not quite sure I agree but I like your scenario and it's definitely an interesting thing to consider.

What your scenario says to me is there already quite a bit of "loyalty" incentive built into the system naturally without a need for more regulation.

Even if a club and a player come to some informal agreement, it's still risky for a player to hold off until their contact ends because they want to shift club.

Risk averse players will always sign with their current club rather than run the risk with a new club.
 

master bate

Brownlow Medallist
Aug 13, 2006
14,252
12,936
Melbourne
AFL Club
Melbourne
Absolutely it does.

Clubs and managers will still do it, but it should at least make them pause a little bit. The Suns get absolutely smashed on all contracts for young players, that's why they're in the hole they are in.

They had to give up a pick to get rid of Will Brodie, who's never really shown much. Why was Brodie on such a big wage - because no doubt his manager came to the Suns and said I can get $x with a Victorian team, if you want to keep him then pay up. At least with a tampering rule the Suns can counter by saying - ok, show me proof of that offer and break league rules or get back in your box.

The other factor with tampering is it's good for the fans of struggling sides. It really hurts for fans to see their favourite players constantly linked elsewhere.

St Kilda's comments on Ben King have been way out of line.
 

master bate

Brownlow Medallist
Aug 13, 2006
14,252
12,936
Melbourne
AFL Club
Melbourne
In some ways I think players should be allowed to sign with another club while still contracted.

Example: St Kilda want to sign Ben King and Ben King wants to sign with St Kilda. They’ve basically agreed to terms, let’s say five years at $800,000. But current rules means that it is not possible. In round 23 Ben suffers a Nathan Brown type injury… suddenly St Kilda don’t want him at $800,000 for five years, and neither do the Suns.

Change the scenario from Ben King wanting to move to the Saints to Max Kong wanting to extend at the Saints. Max signs his $4,000,000 extension and three rounds later suffers the same type of injury. He’s still getting his $4,000,000.
It's a valid counter but career threatening injuries are so rare that I don't think it's worth tearing a bit of the fabric of the game.

That's unfair on the small number of players who do get poorly timed injuries and cost themselves money but overall I think it's a small minority.

I know we could deal with it like they do in rugby league but overall I much prefer the culture that players give their all for the season and then finalise moves to new teams.
 

Mat Mann

significantly pleased himself
May 14, 2009
2,791
5,629
AFL Club
St Kilda
Other Teams
Red Bull
Completely agree. It is beyond crazy that St Kilda for instance could get in Ben King's ear, telling him he can come back home in a few years, offering him things before on the same night he gets drafted to Gold Coast.
it's also crazy the AFL is stepping in to see young players at certain clubs stay by offering them "ambassadorial money".

StKilda getting potted for doing exactly what every other club is doing, simply because he is related.

Absolutely it does.

Clubs and managers will still do it, but it should at least make them pause a little bit. The Suns get absolutely smashed on all contracts for young players, that's why they're in the hole they are in.

They had to give up a pick to get rid of Will Brodie, who's never really shown much. Why was Brodie on such a big wage - because no doubt his manager came to the Suns and said I can get $x with a Victorian team, if you want to keep him then pay up. At least with a tampering rule the Suns can counter by saying - ok, show me proof of that offer and break league rules or get back in your box.

The other factor with tampering is it's good for the fans of struggling sides. It really hurts for fans to see their favourite players constantly linked elsewhere.

St Kilda's comments on Ben King have been way out of line.

please, the Suns have only themselves to blame for this, their issue isn't talent, If my side who's been tripe for nearly a decade can be more competitive than the Suns have with their vast array of picks over the same period.

STOP blaming the other clubs, the managers, or the competition, and look at the club. If North, Carlton, Freo, my club, even Essendon after their saga can keep players, maybe it's not the ladder position that's the issue.


As for the club's comments, what do you expect them to say when the media asks every week. every club is in contact with every manager on a regular basis about players, of course there is dialog. people having a hissy because it's lowly StKilda possibly getting a good player. and it's not even as if it won't cost us decent money and picks.

we had to pay Henneberry and Hill the best part of $1m each to move, on top of what we had to pay others to stay. North routinely slammed for offering huge sums to players and can't get them, never hear any arguments to help the small Melbourne clubs, why the Suns?????
 

Obzerva

Senior List
May 3, 2018
273
576
AFL Club
Adelaide
I quite like the idea of an anti tampering rule, but if it can't be properly enforced, then I'm not sure how much value it would add.

One of the things about the NRL I really don't like is the fact that a player can announce they've signed with a different club part way through a season while still representing another, I'd hate for the AFL to go down the same path.

I would think a better rule the AFL needs to look at is capping the number of free agents a club can pick up over a period of time, would put a stop to the "destination club" syndrome. A club can still get free agents, but a cap on the number might help to spread the love a bit.
Even if it was something as simple as - AFL says 3 free agent cap for each club, but if you make the finals it drops to 2 (or pick whatever numbers you like).
 

Rob

Hall of Famer
Nov 8, 2000
30,631
18,076
South of the river
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
Peel Thunder
I agree with an anti-tampering rule, but it's not really relevant to the Greenwood situation. He was delisted because of the rule that you need at least 3 picks in the draft - why does that rule even exist? Especially given you can just pick up the players you delisted. It's weird that you're forced to delist players in the first place.
 

Demonic Ascent

Brownlow Medallist
Feb 21, 2006
17,157
14,009
Muckertal
AFL Club
Melbourne
Other Teams
Turtles, NYJets, Celtics, Tottenham
Let them talk but by the same token give club's the right to trade contracted without their consent. If a player signs to a club that club owns the rights to the contract of that player and can trade the rights to that contract elsewhere.
 

Clark G

Club Legend
Oct 10, 2010
1,043
438
AFL Club
Essendon
If an anti-tampering rule comes in then it needs to be enforced, or else there is no point in bringing it in. For example, the fine for staging rule does not get enforced often enough and the rule about clubs needing to have at least one first round draft pick every few years in the draft is not well enforced either.
 

flamingEMBERS

Brownlow Medallist
Sep 8, 2011
10,223
9,340
AFL Club
West Coast
Agree with an Anti-Tampering rule of sorts.

I definitely think one should be be in place for any club official, coach, admin or player talking about another contracted player, regardless if they are coming out of contract at the end of the year.

A few examples would be

- Rance speaking about Tom Lynch coming to Richmond on "On the Couch", regardless of what he said that should be a fine. Same goes for coaches and officials answering questions about upcoming free agents or trade targets.

- Geelong sending the leadership group to chat with Boak, should be a fine

- Neil Balme meeting with Tom Lynch during the season, even after he announced his intentions.
 

Mitchell Madness

Brownlow Medallist
Apr 17, 2006
21,800
10,504
???
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Miami Dolphins(NFL)
Should be the exact opposite. Let them seek it out, but also allow trading in contract.
Just say king does want out at the end of last season the Suns could shop him around, get a 1st round pick from a side that may need him for a flag. That way we then lose the stupid compo picks
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad