Wanting a trade home....

[Adz2332]

talking with blokes at work about how far it has gone in players favour with free agency, cant be traded while contracted if they dont want to be, but can demand a trade even while in contract etc etc

The one thing that seems to get up everyones noses is the go home demand.
I have no problems players want to go home, fine. But why can they decide on what club they want to go to? they arent free agents yet?
If say ollie wants to return home to vic, we should be allowed to deal him to the best offer of the vic clubs. he still gets to go home?
Same with SA players, want to come home? well you have two teams, deal them to the highest bidder.

The layers have way to much power!

 

[Plugger46]

An example for me is. Dangerfield wanted to leave us i had no problems with him electing a club because of his Service.
Leaver played 3 years with around 50 games and demands to go to Melbourne footy club that's the problem. We should've traded him to a club were we could've gotten a better deal. Mind you i do understand the go home factor but if you want to play elite level foott that's the risk you take.

 

[Jesslc]

talking with blokes at work about how far it has gone in players favour with free agency, cant be traded while contracted if they dont want to be, but can demand a trade even while in contract etc etc

The one thing that seems to get up everyones noses is the go home demand.
I have no problems players want to go home, fine. But why can they decide on what club they want to go to? they arent free agents yet?
If say ollie wants to return home to vic, we should be allowed to deal him to the best offer of the vic clubs. he still gets to go home?
Same with SA players, want to come home? well you have two teams, deal them to the highest bidder.

The layers have way to much power!

Port Supporter claims players have too much "power"... interesting.

 

[Isaac Cumming No 1]

talking with blokes at work about how far it has gone in players favour with free agency, cant be traded while contracted if they dont want to be, but can demand a trade even while in contract etc etc

The one thing that seems to get up everyones noses is the go home demand.
I have no problems players want to go home, fine. But why can they decide on what club they want to go to? they arent free agents yet?
If say ollie wants to return home to vic, we should be allowed to deal him to the best offer of the vic clubs. he still gets to go home?
Same with SA players, want to come home? well you have two teams, deal them to the highest bidder.

The layers have way to much power!

You'll be pleased to know you can. He has to agree or go to the draft. I cant see him going personally but I guess it's possible.
Usually the player nominates a club who wants them and is willing to keep them to the standard they want to become accustomed to. That club is motivated and likely to offer fair trade value. It's not certain and when we traded Treloar to the Pies it went to the wire before we got what we wanted.

 

[Blackas87]

If Ollie Wines wants to go home, this year is uncontracted, he is allowed to sign the best deal for him. If say Essendon and Wines agree at $800k a year for 4 years, then perhaps Port can trade him to any Vic club that agrees to those terms. If no other club agrees to Wines contract demands you get stuck with trading with Essendon.

What if though Wines agrees to terms with the Gold Coast? It's not going home, he just wants to live in Coolongatta. Is he allowed to go there?

 

[Portology]

An example for me is. Dangerfield wanted to leave us i had no problems with him electing a club because of his Service.
Leaver played 3 years with around 50 games and demands to go to Melbourne footy club that's the problem. We should've traded him to a club were we could've gotten a better deal. Mind you i do understand the go home factor but if you want to play elite level foott that's the risk you take.

Let me rephrase what you've said re Lever:

"After three years of indentured service, Lever was out of contract and wanted to go home. Best for the Crows would have been to sell him 'home' to the highest-bidding employer of our choice regardless of how he felt about his new employer. Football is a game not a lifestyle choice".

Yeah nah. It's a bloody job.

Clubs and the AFL would definitely prefer not to piss off a player enough to get the whole salary-cap-and-draft system challenged in court as a restraint of trade or a collusion by a cartel to price fix (I Am Not A Lawyer*; go easy if I've nominated poor potential grounds there). So on top of the formal cap-and-draft limits it's in everyone's interest to let the practice of trading evolve 'unwritten conventions' like these sorts of negotiations that often, but not always, get a player to his desired destination. That openness, in practice, lets the whole system avoid a crisis that might take it to a court.

*funny acronym, that

 

[Portology]

If Ollie Wines wants to go home, this year is uncontracted, he is allowed to sign the best deal for him. If say Essendon and Wines agree at $800k a year for 4 years, then perhaps Port can trade him to any Vic club that agrees to those terms. If no other club agrees to Wines contract demands you get stuck with trading with Essendon.

What if though Wines agrees to terms with the Gold Coast? It's not going home, he just wants to live in Coolongatta. Is he allowed to go there?

Not even a restricted free agent, so stop right there, the rest is invalid.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2018-03-22/official-afl-releases-list-of-2018-free-agents

 

[Blackas87]

Not even a restricted free agent, so stop right there, the rest is invalid.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2018-03-22/official-afl-releases-list-of-2018-free-agents

I know he's not a free agent, he is still uncontracted and needs to sign a contract for next year, he's allowed to sign a big contract, he may ask Port for $800k a season. Just because he's not a free agent, doesn't mean he can't have a big pay day.

 

[Adz2332]

i just used ollie as an example.
And im really on talking on the go home factor.
If a team offers 800k and another team in the same state agrees to or offers the same. the club then should make the decision based on where they can get the best deal for him. not the player.
They arent a free agent. players picking and choosing after a few years and the club ending up with less than the player is worth is a joke

 

[Struggle]

I think that if a player demands a trade while contracted, the current terms of that contact stick until it expires. No poaching contracted players with offers of more money.

 

[Portology]

I know he's not a free agent, he is still uncontracted and needs to sign a contract for next year, he's allowed to sign a big contract, he may ask Port for $800k a season. Just because he's not a free agent, doesn't mean he can't have a big pay day.

No, he's allowed to ask for a big contract, or to consent to Port negotiating a possible trade with a club ready to pay what he's after, or to refuse, de-list himself and take the draft, nominating a salary bid he hopes a club 'higher up' in his preferred list will accept. If he re-signs for two years this year, it's fair to expect Ollie he'd be in our "top 25%", making him an RFA at end 2020 season (end of 8th season/top 25%). That's how I understand the rules.

Port have had a few "Vic Country kids" over the years, there tends not to be the same "go home" factor as for "Vic Metro" kids - well they're not actually from Melbourne in the first place, yet still quite close to home from Adelaide, so it becomes a career thing or a relationship thing with coaches or playing group (eg some of the very public issues the Crows have had with player retention) more so than an emotional "go home" thing. I don't know who he grew up supporting. There is a family link to Carlton via a grand-uncle who played back in the 1940s. By all reports he and his family have a great relationship with Port, after starting with understandably low expectations back at the 2012 draft when we were in a big hole in terms of on and off field performance. Well we're "firmly inconsistent" now lol but we're definitely not at the bottom of any pile any longer. Plenty of reasonable talk of him as captain for next year should Travis Boak want to lighten the leadership load on himself. I'd be surprised if he considered any offers particularly seriously this time around TBH.

 

[Blackas87]

i just used ollie as an example.
And im really on talking on the go home factor.
If a team offers 800k and another team in the same state agrees to or offers the same. the club then should make the decision based on where they can get the best deal for him. not the player.
They arent a free agent. players picking and choosing after a few years and the club ending up with less than the player is worth is a joke

agree a team should be able to trade to any team in the same state offering the same contract.

But what if Ollie decides to agree on an $800k 4 year deal with Fremantle, he wants to live in Perth, no go home factor, Essendon also offer the same contract, why does Port lose its right to choose the better trade deal for them? What's the difference?

 

[Isaac Cumming No 1]

agree a team should be able to trade to any team in the same state offering the same contract.

But what if Ollie decides to agree on an $800k 4 year deal with Fremantle, he wants to live in Perth, no go home factor, Essendon also offer the same contract, why does Port lose its right to choose the better trade deal for them? What's the difference?

They dont.

 

[Blackas87]

No, he's allowed to ask for a big contract, or to consent to Port negotiating a possible trade with a club ready to pay what he's after, or to refuse, de-list himself and take the draft, nominating a salary bid he hopes a club 'higher up' in his preferred list will accept. If he re-signs for two years this year, it's fair to expect Ollie he'd be in our "top 25%", making him an RFA at end 2020 season (end of 8th season/top 25%). That's how I understand the rules.

Port have had a few "Vic Country kids" over the years, there tends not to be the same "go home" factor as for "Vic Metro" kids - well they're not actually from Melbourne in the first place, yet still quite close to home from Adelaide, so it becomes a career thing or a relationship thing with coaches or playing group (eg some of the very public issues the Crows have had with player retention) more so than an emotional "go home" thing. I don't know who he grew up supporting. There is a family link to Carlton via a grand-uncle who played back in the 1940s. By all reports he and his family have a great relationship with Port, after starting with understandably low expectations back at the 2012 draft when we were in a big hole in terms of on and off field performance. Well we're "firmly inconsistent" now lol but we're definitely not at the bottom of any pile any longer. Plenty of reasonable talk of him as captain for next year should Travis Boak want to lighten the leadership load on himself. I'd be surprised if he considered any offers particularly seriously this time around TBH.

I agree with you there, essentially you're saying he is allowed to give permission to Port trading him for the salary he is after, then he is allowed to sign his bigger contract. My point though if only one club is offering that and Port can't come to trade terms, wines enters the draft and puts the price on his head, he'll then get to the only club prepared to pay his contract demands.

 

[Blackas87]

They dont.

They haven't, but nothing is stopping that from happening.

 

[Isaac Cumming No 1]

They haven't, but nothing is stopping that from happening.

What I think your misunderstanding is the club doesn't have to find a club to match the players best offer to trade an uncontracted player. Both the player and the club have to sign off on the trade. The player can nominate for the draft if the club doesn't sign off on the trade.

 

[Blackas87]

What I think your misunderstanding is the club doesn't have to find a club to match the players best offer to trade an uncontracted player. Both the player and the club have to sign off on the trade. The player can nominate for the draft if the club doesn't sign off on the trade.

I know the rules, I think you are misunderstanding me. I agree there is a problem with the rules. Clubs have little power currently when players choose clubs to be traded to. This thread is about go home factor, I agree if Wines chooses a contract with Hawthorn stating go home factor, he should be open to any Vic club under the same terms, Port open to the best deal for them.

I'm saying what if he chooses the Gold Coast? Wants to live Coolangatta? No go home factor, just wants to live there, or GC offer him a deal no one else can match. Port would lose being open to more than 1 trade option. If he nominates the draft and no one can match GC's offer, Wines will get to where he wants.

 

[Isaac Cumming No 1]

I know the rules, I think you are misunderstanding me. I agree there is a problem with the rules. Clubs have little power currently when players choose clubs to be traded to. This thread is about go home factor, I agree if Wines chooses a contract with Hawthorn stating go home factor, he should be open to any Vic club under the same terms, Port open to the best deal for them.

I'm saying what if he chooses the Gold Coast? Wants to live Coolangatta? No go home factor, just wants to live there, or GC offer him a deal no one else can match. Port would lose being open to more than 1 trade option. If he nominates the draft and no one can match GC's offer, Wines will get to where he wants.

It's possible depending on the destination clubs drafting position, they can do it way. There is no "go home fact8r" trading rules of course. In nearly all cases in the draft it would be a risk though.

 

[Portology]

I agree with you there, essentially you're saying he is allowed to give permission to Port trading him for the salary he is after, then he is allowed to sign his bigger contract. My point though if only one club is offering that and Port can't come to trade terms, wines enters the draft and puts the price on his head, he'll then get to the only club prepared to pay his contract demands.

In the unlikely scenario he went to draft, it's even more unlikely that only one club is prepared to "match the bid" before the pick belonging to "hypothetical club of preference". Brisbane would certainly be one. The Saints, in their current state, another. ugh.

I don't see a bloke who screams "will play location roulette for cash" here.

I think he'll agree terms well before end the season. I'd like to hear it in the bye week post Shanghai game v Suns. Disclaimer: no inside info!

 

[Portology]

I agree with you there, essentially you're saying he is allowed to give permission to Port trading him for the salary he is after, then he is allowed to sign his bigger contract. My point though if only one club is offering that and Port can't come to trade terms, wines enters the draft and puts the price on his head, he'll then get to the only club prepared to pay his contract demands.

In the unlikely scenario he went to draft, it's even more unlikely that only one club is prepared to "match the bid" before the pick belonging to "hypothetical club of preference". Brisbane would certainly be one. The Saints, in their current state, another. ugh.

I don't see a bloke who screams "will play location roulette for cash" here.

I think he'll agree terms well before end the season. I'd like to hear it in the bye week post Shanghai game v Suns. Disclaimer: no inside info!

 

[Blackas87]

In the unlikely scenario he went to draft, it's even more unlikely that only one club is prepared to "match the bid" before the pick belonging to "hypothetical club of preference". Brisbane would certainly be one. The Saints, in their current state, another. ugh.

I don't see a bloke who screams "will play location roulette for cash" here.

I think he'll agree terms well before end the season. I'd like to hear it in the bye week post Shanghai game v Suns. Disclaimer: no inside info!

Possibly, the only situation when a player entered the draft as the 2 clubs couldn't agree on a trade was Luke Ball switching to Collingwood. I know Melbourne and another club threatened to draft Ball but he refused to talk to any other club than Collingwood. I the end those clubs didn't want to take a player that refused to go to their clubs, Collingwood ended up drafting Ball with the pick St Kilda refused to accept in a trade.

I'm not sure clubs would want to play a high salary on a player that doesn't want to be there.

 

[BloodySwan]

An example for me is. Dangerfield wanted to leave us i had no problems with him electing a club because of his Service.
Leaver played 3 years with around 50 games and demands to go to Melbourne footy club that's the problem. We should've traded him to a club were we could've gotten a better deal. Mind you i do understand the go home factor but if you want to play elite level foott that's the risk you take.

Lever still had to sign the dotted line to go to the demons or any other club and that's where the player gains the upper hand. The crows could have played hard ball and thrown him into the draft but that hasn't happened in a long time.

The players have only been able to give their preference because the club's let the players choose.

 

[00Stinger]

An example for me is. Dangerfield wanted to leave us i had no problems with him electing a club because of his Service.
Leaver played 3 years with around 50 games and demands to go to Melbourne footy club that's the problem. We should've traded him to a club were we could've gotten a better deal. Mind you i do understand the go home factor but if you want to play elite level foott that's the risk you take.

you weren't happy with the 2 first round pics?

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

 

[Hamingja]

you weren't happy with the 2 first round pics?

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

Lever is a terrible example, they got a great deal.

Tom Mitchell would be a better one. I'm sure other Melbourne teams would have offered a better deal but the Swans just had to accept what Hawthorn had available as the Hawks were also trying to get the O'Meara deal done.

 

[pebblestone]

OP is spot on.
McCarthy was happy as a lark when he signed a 2 year extension with the Giants. Then he turns around 6 months later and demands to go to Freo because he misses his mum?
If he really needed to go home that bad, he'd go anywhere, not sit out a year.

It's like "homesick" is the trade equivalent for "mental illness", as in it's a very real and unfortunate condition, but it gets thrown around by those who want to hide their real motivation, making the punters cynical about the issue.