Wanting a trade home....

[jackenny]

I wouldn't mind the AFL moving toward 'full free agency'. Basically, player contracts are fairly binding, but as soon as a contract ends, they're a free agent who can sign up with any club willing to take them. On the other hand, I wouldn't mind early termination fees being included in contracts on both ends - ie, if a player is delisted, they're still entitled to being paid out (how it already is), but it only seems fair that players should be expected to pay an agreed amount if they choose to break their contract early, too.

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.

I would like to note that any attempt to challenge a club that you're still contracted to (if you're looking to be traded out) will probably end in the club's favour. In Buckenara v Hawthorn Football Club Limited, Buckenara lost his case (alleging a restraint of trade by not permitting him to return home to play for West Coast) because he was still under contract by Hawthorn.

I also don't think the salary cap and draft system is as easy to beat in court as some people think. In Buckley v Tutty, it was ruled "a legitimate object of the League and of the district clubs to ensure that the teams fielded in the competitions are as strong and well matched as possible, for in that way the support of the public will be attracted and maintained, and players will be afforded the best opportunity of developing and displaying their skill. It is therefore legitimate to aim to provide a system that will ensure sufficient stability of membership to permit those who play for a club to be trained as a team and to develop a team spirit, and that will prevent the stronger clubs obtaining all the best players, thus leaving the weaker clubs with teams that are unable effectively to compete with their stronger opponents." It's easy enough to prove the AFL's draft system and salary cap are a restraint of trade, but the reasons and reasonableness of these measures is looked at by a court, too. Basically, the AFL has to prove their salary cap and draft system are reasonable measures to ensure evenness in the competition for the sake of and benefit of the sport and public. With the amount of QCs at the beck and call of the AFL, do people really think the AFL wouldn't be able to prove that?

 

[MaddAdam]

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.

Ben Cunnington got severely homesick in his first year or two at North. We couldn't trade him anywhere as Cobden don't have an AFL team yet.

But he had serious home sicknesses, unlike what, as you say, many players affect to have.