Jump to content

Unleash Hell

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Unleash Hell last won the day on September 13

Unleash Hell had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1,410 Excellent

About Unleash Hell

  • Rank
    Master Demon
  • Birthday 03/03/1982

Previous Fields

  • Favourite Player(s)
    Viney, Hunt

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
  • Interests
    Footy - what else!!

Recent Profile Visitors

4,615 profile views
  1. The Billy Hartung Thread

    I can't believe I agree with @picket fence But if we trade JW and pick up Hartung then I will join @picket fence in the angry emails to the club
  2. Stewart Crameri to the Dees?

    No movement? Not surprised
  3. Yes that is correct But then there are clubs like GC17 or the Brissy Bears who can't seem to retain talent no matter their players contractual status. Schace is a prime example of the problem - Brisbane invest pick 2 and lose him for basically half the price in 2 years. That is not fair by any means. This is partly the club's problem but it is an AFL wide issue. Even Freo and WCE to a limited extent have the same issues about attracting and keeping talent. IMO the AFL players want their cake and to eat it too. What I mean is the AFLPA have looked at other sports ie: the NBA, NFL etc and have picked the best parts from their agreements and introduced them in to the AFL CBA. Now that's fine and dandy but it's not necessarily fair to the clubs. In the NBA players can be traded without consent and Free Agency doesn't have restrictions. My point is the AFLPA will keep pushing for more open Free Agency in the future, but it has to be fair, they cannot just choose the good and ignore the bad, like the ability for clubs to trade contracted players with one year left on their contracts because they know they will leave. If you look at player movement over the last few years, you will realise the AFL is heading towards a more open free agency model, but it needs to be balanced, and I personally think as Free agency is more accepted in AFL it is a priority for the AFL to get the balance right between the power of the player and the club
  4. Yep again 100% agree The new CBA was introduced to give all players a bigger slice of the pie, but as we are seeing more and more with the limited talent pool clubs are over paying young talent to stay rather then leave and redraft We are lucky in the AFL that we still have some form of loyalty, but I guarantee the AFL will go down the NRL path sooner then later. I would hate to see the AFL get like the NFL or NBA. But in saying that I would support the ability to sign players on restricted contracts. For example mid season you need a ruckman - why shouldn't you be able to go the VFL and sign X for 3 months? The more money in the sytem the more movement there will be as managers and players look to secure their futures
  5. I 100% agree mate The AFL know this is coming, but luckily for all of us, the PA and the AFL will work together for it to be fair to clubs and players Some also say the clubs should have the power to trade players in contract without their consent. As of the AFL rules right now a player through their agent can negotiate their next contract a year or two out, we've also seen players like Schace (apologies for the spelling) request trades..... Just because there are restrictions doesn't mean there isn't a form of Free Agency.
  6. You are 100% correct in your definitions @demonzz But to speed this up my point is it doesn't matter what restrictions are imposed by the AFL for the length of service - ie - Restricted and Unrestricted or uncontracted They are still all forms of Free Agency. The AFL knows they can't stop Free Agency, like the NBA as an example, but no one (Clubs, players, AFL, Supporters) want open slather like the NBA, hence the restrictions imposed No club wants players to leave after 2 or 3 years, but guess what we are seeing it more and more. And it is a real problem for certain clubs. There is going to be a time where the more literal definition of FA im referring to will happen
  7. So maybe you'd care to explain to the uneducated the difference between how an out of contract' player is able to move clubs compared to an 'restricted'' Free Agent then @demonzz I am all ears... or eyes in this occasion. You can call it whatever you want, classify the players in to different categories but no matter how you put it, It's Free Agency
  8. Haha indeed. My sincere apologies, after all it's very rare for a Demonland thread to get side tracked with personal unrelated discussions
  9. Free Agency is alive and well m7
  10. I don't care how picky you want to be with definitions @faultydet. Out of contracted and uncorrected players alike are taking offers from rival clubs no matter what year of their contract or how long they have served at a particular club. How many players request trade now? If that's not Free Agency I don't know what is.... The reality is Free Agency is alive and well in the AFL and the players have all the power. Is it more complicated then that - yes, I understand the difference between the AFL rules and my definition. But if you believe the Rules are followed then you are kidding yourself
  11. I have let this go but i have nothing better to do atm....haha so, Players out of contract now are free agents. There are 2 x categories of FAs. Restricted and Unrestricted Lever was restricted Rockliff was unrestricted as examples from this year We are going to jave to agree to disagree re the trades. As i said i agree and acknowledge your in principle agreement but there are finer points which wouldn't be public that affect all deals. I dont think you've acknowledged in your analysis that the MFC didn't have the upper hand in the Lever and Watts deal. Levers manager was appointed List manager at the Pies before the Lever trade was completed. Do you really believe knowing that, that it would be wise to push adealide to not deal and force Lever in to the draft? Who'd do you think would be in his ear then? Lever to the draft was not a good option. Trading with adealide was our best option and the crows were very upset with his departure
  12. I have no problems with what you have said at all. My point about the bolded bit is - you like others have thought the initial MFC offer was fait accompli Without knowing the exact specifics of the negotiation (which your saying should have been take it or leave it), I prefer the deal to be done and Lever's fate and respect for the club in tact then his fate being in limbo and the potential for him to go elsewhere. What is your blind faith that Adelaide would fold and accept our offer rather then let him go to the draft? They were very vocal in their hard line stance for 'fair' compensation at the start of negotiations. Also Lever as a restricted free agent could have his contract matched or re-offered by Adelaide, if he wasn't traded he would have to be de-listed by Adelaide then enter a draft (being the ND or pre season). North, Pies, Blues and Dogs were all before us and especially the Pies and Dogs would have been very keen
  13. No arguement with the principal arguement from you and @hillie But who determines the trade value of these players in the argument?
  14. People seem to want to get caught up with speculation and winning or losing trades. If you compare the Gibbs and Lever trades on face value one would agree a 21 to AA nominee was traded for the same value as a 29 yo A grade mid. One club made their trade happen, the other waited 12 months. 2 questions Who would u prefer for 2 first rd picks? The 21 yo or the 29 yo? And, was the 12 months worth the wait for the crows? Some might even argue they paid more Why do people rate draft picks so highly on this site when clearly the strategy to accumulate high picks over a long period of time has not reaped rewards?
  15. Yawn, What was the Gibbs deal again? Didn't Carlton get more because the crows held out? No offence i agree with you in principle but without better evidence i don't know what your talking about