If Hawthorn get Mitchell & O'Meara then ...

[Cranky Franky 1,483]

Then the system is broken & the AFL needs to fix it.  You can't equalize the competition with a Draft & Salary cap then let the top sides top up their teams with A grade players every year.  Either the top 4 sides should be banned from picking up players of a certain level of ability or they should have draft picks taken off them.

[Bluey's Dad 3,419]

Personally I think this has more to do with players being able to 'nominate' their preferred destination than it being an AFL equalisation issue/failure. However, it might be an unanticipated by-product of free agency, as these 'nominations' have seemingly increased every year since free agency commenced.

[Demon Jack 6,277]

While not on the same scale, the same thing can be said about Geelong likely to pick up Deledio and Tuohy during this trade period. 

 

[Straight Sets Simon 23,113]

12 minutes ago, Choke said:

Personally I think this has more to do with players being able to 'nominate' their preferred destination than it being an AFL equalisation issue/failure.

This.

It could be easily fixed by not requiring players who are not free agents to give their permission to be traded to a certain club.

[DistrACTION Jackson 6,418]

2 minutes ago, Clint Bizkit said:

This.

It could be easily fixed by not requiring players who are not free agents to give their permission to be traded to a certain club.

This is the only way.

The US use free agency works well because it works both ways. Players can be traded to any club without their permission while not a free agent, however, once a free agent they can also move anywhere and the team they were playing for isn't compensated.

At the moment we have free agency, plus we have a system where players need to agree to trades and therefore 90% of the time get to the club of their choosing anyway.

Something has to change with the system!

Edited October 11, 2016 by Is Dom Is Good

[Sir Why You Little 34,430]

Contracts mean absolutely nothing now, except that a player will be paid.

All  players are now free agents.

Is this what the AFL wanted or were they blindsided??

What ever the answer the clubs need more leverage as now the players hold 100%

 

As a side note...it is nice to see other clubs bleeding for a change rather than the MFC, we have had enough unrest...Time to stand up

[Nasher 33,047]

If Hawthorn get Mitchell and O'Meara, then...

They will have to pay for them.  I'll save the wrist slashing until I see the outcome.

[Diamond_Jim 11,727]

9 minutes ago, Clint Bizkit said:

This.

It could be easily fixed by not requiring players who are not free agents to give their permission to be traded to a certain club.

Did not realise we had this rule. Well and truly agree that it should go.

Many US companies have as part of their terms of employment that you will agree to relocate. Have not seen it with an Australian company but perhaps professional sportspeople should see it as part of their business.

[Straight Sets Simon 23,113]

1 minute ago, Diamond_Jim said:

Did not realise we had this rule. Well and truly agree that it should go.

Classic example, in about 2003 or 2004 we were going to trade Ryan Ferguson to Hawthorn for Brad Sewell however the deal fell through because Ferguson didn't want to go to Hawthorn.

 

[Nasher 33,047]

20 minutes ago, Clint Bizkit said:

This.

It could be easily fixed by not requiring players who are not free agents to give their permission to be traded to a certain club.

The chances of this rule being abolished are so close to zero that all you do is waste the finite seconds of your life mentioning it.  Players rights type rules are never going to regress.

[Ricky P 757]

One of the problems is that clubs have to pay almost 100% of the salary cap. This means that Brisbane are paying their players the same as the Doggies. If effectively means they are being forced to being paid above market rates given their players aren't very good. If this was abolished, clubs that were poor onfield would be able to throw more money at good players. At the moment the only motivating factor for players moving is to play in a flag. Fair enough. If the salary cap thing was abolished, a financial incentive would exist for good players to go to poor clubs. Then there'd at least be a bit of movement both ways. 

[TGR 1,367]

What do you mean if?

 

Barry was spotted yesterday wearing a Hawthorn tracky/rain-top.

It's done.

[bush demon 1,881]

Transferring to Hawthorn, or 'Bronzing up',   formerly a prisoner's ritual and now ingrained  in the national draft...

[DemonLad5 1,637]

We we will still beat them next year

[McQueen 17,862]

It's interesting. Both O'Meara and Mitchell must think the Hawks are still contenders. Maybe it's the club culture that they want to be a part of?

Surely, if the main desire was to play in Victoria, they would be open to a trade with any number of clubs.

[Straight Sets Simon 23,113]

55 minutes ago, Nasher said:

The chances of this rule being abolished are so close to zero that all you do is waste the finite seconds of your life mentioning it.  Players rights type rules are never going to regress.

Sorry.

[Bring-Back-Powell 13,122]

I like the rule the AFL introduced regarding future draft picks.

A club must have a first round draft pick twice over a 4 year period (2015-2018), unless the club traded back into the first round.

So Geelong and Collingwood will not be able to trade future first round draft picks this year and next, thereby reducing the chances of them trading in a big fish this year. I cannot see how Collingwood can trade in Rockliff without a first round pick this year and being unable to trade a future first rounder.

Assuming Hawthorn depart with their first round draft pick and future first round draft pick for Mitchell and O'Meara, they will have little bargaining power next year.  

[biggestred 4,273]

Remove the minimum salary cap

[Fat Tony 4,397]

The answer to fixing this is via the salary cap. Give the wooden spooner $100K more cap space than 17th, and 17th $100K more than 16th etc. This would mean that the bottom team would have an extra $1.7m in the salary cap than the premier. Players could then become free agents from after the initial contract but the competition would still be even.

[Sir Why You Little 34,430]

4 minutes ago, Fat Tony said:

The answer to fixing this is via the salary cap. Give the wooden spooner $100K more cap space than 17th, and 17th $100K more than 16th etc. This would mean that the bottom team would have an extra $1.7m in the salary cap than the premier. Players could then become free agents from after the initial contract but the competition would still be even.

Yeah great idea

Teams would Tank to get a bigger Salary Cap

Brilliant. 

[TeamPlayedFine39 8,154]

1 hour ago, Nasher said:

The chances of this rule being abolished are so close to zero that all you do is waste the finite seconds of your life mentioning it.  Players rights type rules are never going to regress.

I tend to agree.  This move could be genius on the behalf of the Hawks, but it is also far, far more risky than any of the other big trades they've done.

JOM has astronomical potential, but may never play to his high standards again.

Mitchel is a decent player, but is no replacement for any of the Hawks (soon to retire) stars.

But even more than that is the risk or disturbing the playing group.  In the past they've traded away picks and recruited free agents.  For these two trades to both happen, they'll need to trade out good, established and most likely premiership players; that can tear the heart out of a team.

 

Personally, I think they're over-reaching trying to bring in both. 

[P-man 13,168]

Need to lower or abolish the cap floor so the lower clubs aren't placing average players on contracts beyond their worth simply to meet minimum spend obligations. They need as much leeway as possible to attract players.

The problem is player movements that are financially motivated rarely end up being success stories.

I don't think it's panic stations. The Dogs this season showed that the status quo is more shakeable than many might have thought.

[Rodney (Balls) Grinter 10,578]

2 hours ago, Nasher said:

The chances of this rule being abolished are so close to zero that all you do is waste the finite seconds of your life mentioning it.  Players rights type rules are never going to regress.

The AFL need to grow a pair and be prepared to take on the players and AFLPA over this issue.  If the players want FA, then cop the other end of the stick as well.

It's beyond time that the AFL stopped pandering to the overpaid minority and started doing what's best for the competition and the sport again.

[Nasher 33,047]

24 minutes ago, P-man said:

Need to lower or abolish the cap floor so the lower clubs aren't placing average players on contracts beyond their worth simply to meet minimum spend obligations. They need as much leeway as possible to attract players.

The problem is player movements that are financially motivated rarely end up being success stories.

I don't think it's panic stations. The Dogs this season showed that the status quo is more shakeable than many might have thought.

I wonder why it's Hawthorn so anyway - they're not the only club that are a flag threat, and they're not the only club with money.  

I reckon a big part of why everyone is silent on this except fans is that because that the people who are involved don't think it's an issue.  It could be that the reason so many players seem to choose Hawthorn (or Collingwood) is because that's the club that pursued them the hardest have gave them the most compelling deal.  

Clubs always have a strategy when it comes to recruiting players, it could be that Melbourne's discussion goes, "yeah look we'd love Tom Mitchell, but with our talented young list we're not prepared to offer him that sort of money because we'll have a salary cap later, if Hawthorn want to throw everything at one last flag, let them go nuts...", or "yeah look we'd love Tom Mitchell, but we're not prepared to sacrifice ourselves out of the 2016 and 2017 drafts, or lose any of our key young talent, in order to get the deal done with Sydney.  If Hawthorn want to throw everything at one last flag, let them go nuts...".  

Next time someone ends up at a function with Todd Viney when he's in one of his candid moods, ask him about it.  

[Sir Why You Little 34,430]

3 minutes ago, Rodney (Balls) Grinter said:

The AFL need to grow a pair and be prepared to take on the players and AFLPA over this issue.  If the players want FA, then cop the other end of the stick as well.

It's beyond time that the AFL stopped pandering to the overpaid minority and started doing what's best for the competition and the sport again.

The clubs will regain some power, it is purely a matter of time. 

Luke Ball started all this in 2009...