Trading Rules - Compassionate Grounds

[PieNSauce]

I have said something to this effect elsewhere but think it's worth its own thread. Given that the waters seem to have been muddied around the motivation in the Beams saga, I have to wonder if it wouldn't be wise for the AFL to bring in new trading conditions specifically to handle contracted players requesting trades on compassionate grounds. It surely becomes logical to assume that if compassionate grounds are being quoted that no club should be in a position to offer money over and above that of the player's current contract. To me the Beams situation looks very much like an attempt to pervert the system by introducing something which might well be little more than a red herring. Such a condition would support the league's stated policy that players should not be approached whilst under contract without the consent of their club and ensure that public opinion is not manipulated unfairly.

 

[partypie]

It would be impossible to do this - it would require the AFL to probe into a players personal and family life and relationships in a rather invasive manner and last time I checked no (private sector) employer has the right or authority to do so. There are also potentially mental health issues at play here which is another logistical (and legal) minefield.

It's a no from me.

 

[PieNSauce]

It would be impossible to do this - it would require the AFL to probe into a players personal and family life and relationships in a rather invasive manner and last time I checked no (private sector) employer has the right or authority to do so. There are also potentially mental health issues at play here which is another logistical (and legal) minefield.

It's a no from me.

I think you misunderstand. It would simply be a matter of putting the rule in place such that if the player states that his reason for wanting a trade is on compassionate grounds then there cannot be offers above his current contract. No investigation required.

 

[golazo]

Absolutely not.. for a multitude of reasons. I could fill a novel with reasons why this shouldn't happen

 

[PieNSauce]

Absolutely not.. for a multitude of reasons. I could fill a novel with reasons why this shouldn't happen

One would suffice!

 

[PieNSauce]

Absolutely not.. for a multitude of reasons. I could fill a novel with reasons why this shouldn't happen

Seriously! I'm no expert in this area but I can't see a problem with it if all it serves to do is to prevent player managers from manipulating public opinion unfairly to gain huge dollars for themselves and their client. I'm more than happy for the idea to be shot down but at least make an attempt to give me something!

 

[dirts]

Absolutely not.. for a multitude of reasons. I could fill a novel with reasons why this shouldn't happen

Love the avatar

 

[PieNSauce]

Love the avatar

Agreed! So apt!

 

[partypie]

I think you misunderstand. It would simply be a matter of putting the rule in place such that if the player states that his reason for wanting a trade is on compassionate grounds then there cannot be offers above his current contract. No investigation required.

Wouldn't really work - they'd only have to meet the terms of his current contract for as little as one year if they're trying to leave a year or two out and thus could back-end a fatter deal quite easily.

If you are thinking that the AFL would restrict the back-ending of deals to stop that from happening then I'm pretty sure that they would not even consider trying to force a player to only sign for the value of their current contract with the club they wish to move to, nor would they look to restrict players to signing a short term deal (as short as 1 year) with that new club so as to match the length of the contract they wish to get out of (AFLPA would be all over that like flies on a cowpat on restraint of trade grounds).

I can see where you're coming from, but something like this would never even be considered by the AFL.

 

[PieNSauce]

Wouldn't really work - they'd only have to meet the terms of his current contract for as little as one year if they're trying to leave a year or two out and thus could back-end a fatter deal quite easily.

If you are thinking that the AFL would restrict the back-ending of deals to stop that from happening then I'm pretty sure that they would not even consider trying to force a player to only sign for the value of their current contract with the club they wish to move to, nor would they look to restrict players to signing a short term deal (as short as 1 year) with that new club so as to match the length of the contract they wish to get out of (AFLPA would be all over that like flies on a cowpat on restraint of trade grounds).

I can see where you're coming from, but something like this would never even be considered by the AFL.

You're probably right. I guess it's naive to think there are no ways around it without other provisions which would be difficult if not impossible to implement. Just the same, it irritates me that there is the possibility for players and player managers, aided by intended target clubs to so blatantly and unfairly manipulate public opinion. In the case of Beams it looks to have backfired big time anyway but it's still annoying.

 

[jathanas]

I believe this could not be feasibly managed through a set of rules. Infinite shades of grey when trying to encapsulate exceptional circumstances.

Really compassion, fairness, and common sense should be prerequisites in any negotiation. This need not be covered by a framework of rules; it's better taught by mum and dad to kids as they're growing up. An a***hole will always look for a way to screw the other party i.e. Brisbane in the Beams saga.

 

[tommyv49]

I like the idea, not sure if its really feasible.

 

[Baltimore Jack]

Not Beams, or his Manager or Collingwood have said anything different to what was originally said when Beams asked to be traded due to his Father's illness

The only place where a change in tone (or new and sensational previously undisclosed "facts" have surfaced) has been on Social Media

It appears to me people need some concocted "real truth" to believe in so they can begin the hating process.
Someone told me its a defence mechanism because the reality is far less palatable to absorb.

Last year it was Daisy, this year it is Beams

 

[tommyv49]

Not Beams, or his Manager or Collingwood have said anything different to what was originally said when Beams asked to be traded due to his Father's illness

The only place where a change in tone (or new and sensational previously undisclosed "facts" have surfaced) has been on Social Media

It appears to me people need some concocted "real truth" to believe in so they can begin the hating process.
Someone told me its a defence mechanism because the reality is far less palatable to absorb.

Last year it was Daisy, this year it is Beams

I think the Collingwood Football Club has more class than to come out and bury a player like that (no matter how much it is deserved), especially when there is a good chance he will be playing for us next year. I'm happy for us to let bygons be bygons on this one.

After all we aren't Brisbane. And we all know the real truth anyway.

 

[PieNSauce]

Interesting spread of opinions although a very small sample so it's hard to gauge the response. Ultimately I think the main point I was making by creating this thread was that although there is little direct evidence the Beams situation does have the distinct aroma of an attempt to manipulate a trade by unfairly and/or dishonestly placing public pressure on Collingwood. From the actions of the club I suspect that is exactly the way they saw it and on principle were not going to allow it without significant compensation. Nobody should be under any illusion that the chances of Beams playing for Collingwood next year are particularly great. If a trade can be had then it will be but I like the idea that the club has sent a very strong message about fair dealing.

 

[Magpie Girl]

Not Beams, or his Manager or Collingwood have said anything different to what was originally said when Beams asked to be traded due to his Father's illness

The only place where a change in tone (or new and sensational previously undisclosed "facts" have surfaced) has been on Social Media

It appears to me people need some concocted "real truth" to believe in so they can begin the hating process.
Someone told me its a defence mechanism because the reality is far less palatable to absorb.

Last year it was Daisy, this year it is Beams

The only problem I have with this is Beam's non appearance at the copeland.
There was just something a 'little off' about him not going
If he is truely wanting to leave on compassionate grounds there was no reason for his absence; he would have the support of everyone at the club.

But any player should be able to leave in such a situation

 

[Baltimore Jack]

The only problem I have with this is Beam's non appearance at the copeland.
There was just something a 'little off' about him not going
If he is truely wanting to leave on compassionate grounds there was no reason for his absence; he would have the support of everyone at the club.

But any player should be able to leave in such a situation

I think his no-show was completely understandable.
Why would Beams turn up to hear the crap that is being thrown his way for seeking a trade
I mean just look at the Neanderthal thinking on this board, IMV much of that type of vitriol would have been directed at him on the night

Did you notice Luke Ball wasn't there either.
Apparently there are different supporter rules for different non-attendees

 

[PieNSauce]

I think his no-show was completely understandable.
Why would Beams turn up to hear the crap that is being thrown his way for seeking a trade
I mean just look at the Neanderthal thinking on this board, IMV much of that type of vitriol would have been directed at him on the night

Initially I thought that too but the fact is that the players' opinions would not have been the same as BF posters and certainly not at that point. Players generally support each other and I would find it hard to believe that they wouldn't have been supportive if they felt Beams motives were genuine. I'm also pretty sure that the club would have been pretty quick to shut down any negativity if they too felt that the motives were genuine. It just looks a lot to me like the club smelled a rat from day one and has dealt with it accordingly.

 

[Baltimore Jack]

Initially I thought that too but the fact is that the players' opinions would not have been the same as BF posters and certainly not at that point. Players generally support each other and I would find it hard to believe that they wouldn't have been supportive if they felt Beams motives were genuine. I'm also pretty sure that the club would have been pretty quick to shut down any negativity if they too felt that the motives were genuine. It just looks a lot to me like the club smelled a rat from day one and has dealt with it accordingly.

There were about 1500 supporters in the audience on the night.
With a number that large there would bound to been 50 or so idiots who would have IMV, heckled and boo-ed Dayne.

 

[Smokeyr67]

There were about 1500 supporters in the audience on the night.
With a number that large there would bound to been 50 or so idiots who would have IMV, heckled and boo-ed Dayne.

And 1450 to shut those idiots down

 

[Manic Magpie]

Absolutely not.. for a multitude of reasons. I could fill a novel with reasons why this shouldn't happen

The novel would make fairly dull reading.

 

[Manic Magpie]

I think his no-show was completely understandable.
Why would Beams turn up to hear the crap that is being thrown his way for seeking a trade
I mean just look at the Neanderthal thinking on this board, IMV much of that type of vitriol would have been directed at him on the night

Did you notice Luke Ball wasn't there either.
Apparently there are different supporter rules for different non-attendees

You'd be the only poster here who still believes he is doing it all for his father. Wake up to the truth. Beams is after dollars and a freed-up culture rather than proximity to his dad.

Furthermore, had he attended the Copeland, none of this 'vitriol' would have occurred. He had the support of the vast majority of supporters prior to his non appearance at the awards.

 

[TwisTz]

Love the avatar

Second this. Made me laugh a fair bit. Quality.

 

[Black_White]

It would be impossible to do this - it would require the AFL to probe into a players personal and family life and relationships in a rather invasive manner and last time I checked no (private sector) employer has the right or authority to do so. There are also potentially mental health issues at play here which is another logistical (and legal) minefield.

It's a no from me.

The AFL already have the power, under the contract a player signs, to investigate close relations financials.
This is supposedly to stop brown paper bag payments.
Yes, I was surprised when I found out this fact as well.

 

[DNine]

The AFL wanted to resolve the go home factor for the Interstate clubs, by bringing these Academy's and giving them retention allowance, and being unfair about it. That was their solution. But truth is, it happens everywhere. It is three recent players now that wanted to go home to their home state for Collingwood. Nick Davis to Sydney, Sharrod Wellingham to West Coast and now Beams to Brisbane.

Beams knocked back an opportunity to play with the Suns as a zone selection, so he didn't want to play in his home state. Things changed.

I think the idea has a lot of merit. Get rid of the zone selections, get rid of the retention allowances, and bring in something that makes sure that if a player leaves to go home, the compensation is fair. I don't care whether Beams of someone of Beams' worth plays for us. Beams is just a name.