I feel that trade period really drags on a bit too log. I understand that clubs need to sit down and talk, then go back and talk behind closed doors before returning for more talk and argy-bargy etc. However considering the middle of trade week is generally pretty barren in terms of actual trades made, why not condense the whole process a bit. I say 2-3 days is plenty. Here are a couple of reasons I think reducing the duration of trade week would make it more appealing:

1. Reduces the amount of rumour and innuendo that can possibly be leaked, thus preventing a scenario in which rumours could potentially personally hurt a player and/or their relationship with their club (ie. today's Campbell Brown fiasco).

2. It would possibly reduce the amount of game-playing and posturing etc. Clubs may be made to think on their feet rather that devise elaborate schemes and using 'hold-off' tactics to get more out of trade. This may lead to more trades being completed, as teams don't have time to have '2nd thoughts'.

3. It may reduce the mount of 'choice' a player has to decide how they are utilized during the trade period. I may be in the minority here, but I think it is absolutely ludicrous that a player is able to 'choose' the club to which he is 'traded'. This is an obscene indulgence afforded to the better players only, and very much against the AFL's 'equalization' policy that is supposedly designed to provide clubs with 'cyclical success'. All i see coming out of this farce of a system is that if you have the name, facilities and ability to pay players 'under the counter', then you will have players clamouring over each-other to 'choose' their new club.

Feel free to agree or disagree, but considering the transfer of players (many of whom are much loved such as Brock McLean) is a pretty unsavoury business, I feel the quicker we get over this testing time for all clubs and players, the better.

Personally, I will be happy when this thing is over and we can think about our daft picks and how to use them. Now that is a drama i'm happy to last and last for as long as possible. There's no greater contrast than the joy and promise of a new draftee vs the stoic acceptance of a traded player that he was unwanted in one place, but may turn it around at another. Yes i am aware that some players ask to be traded and some need to be traded for their own good, but there are usually people who get hurt in the process. Josh Kennedy had to leave Carlton to accommodate Judd. Campbell brown may have at one stage been headed to Port as a 'done deal', but due to a Hawthorn supporter backlash that deal never eventuated (yes, i feel that they tested the water on that one, got their clear response from the fans and then got the prez to come on air with head between tail and tried to convince us all that it never happened).

Trade period is a necessary evil and should start and end as quickly as possible before it gets too ugly. Any thoughts?

Our trade period is tiny. try following a sport where trading is allowed for months on end. There is always speculation, but it adds some extra spice to following a team. Our AFL system is basic, shortening it will just make it a non event.

Ending the trade period as quickly as possible just forces rushed deals, and doesn't give teams enough time to explore multiple options (remember things change as other trades change the landscape during the trade period. one day of trading only would not allow this to happen)

Trade period is peak for the Demonland forums, people love it!

I understand your points wrath.

But we are not the rest of the sporting world. We have a unique sport. An 'indigenous' code of football as they say. Where loyalty means something totally different compared to world football.

Specifically, I don't think 2 or 3 days of trading makes it a 'non-event' as you put it. I think a non-event is two or 3 whole days where there is barely a real trade to be reported.

Also, I think 'rushed' trades would be good for trade period and for footy. It makes more of an art of the process. It's like playing cards... you don't give someone forever to make their decision. Sure it would be lovely to have all the time in the world, but the recruiters who can hold their nerve, come in with realistic expectations and be willing to negotiate will be the ones who come out on top.

If you want to compare us to the rest of the world, then there should be no question as to whether a player agrees to be traded elsewhere and hence no reason for the player to be consulted as to whether he agrees to a trade. The process is therefore speeded up and more trades go through.

Finally, I understand the supporter fascination with draft period, but I'm not so sure 'the 'people love it' as much as you think. Obviously there is traffic on the board at this time of year, but I don't think it is because people love the trade period. I think it is more to do with people hoping for any word to allay their fears that their favourite player might be traded, their club might be making a huge mistake for which they have a right to tear up their membership, the anticipation of the position in which a team will be left at the conclusion of trading or simply wish ill fortune on another team. Either way, 2 or 3 days of trading compared with 5 would not do much to diminish the excitement of trade period, just condense the gratuitous voyeurism of the whole fiasco.

Also, I think 'rushed' trades would be good for trade period and for footy.

No. If a team feels rushed they will always revert back to not making the trade instead of making a trade that they feel they haven't had enough time to consider.

Reducing the trade week would simply reduce the number of trades done. And that would be bad for the game and bad for the players, because a significant number of trades are driven by a player's desire to move clubs.

Last year when basically nothing was ever going to happen, coaches didn't even rock up until Thursday.

This year, because of the shakeups and relaxing of trade rules, everyone's having a dip. Multiple trades on every day, and we haven't even seen the carnage that'll occur on Friday. Suddenly 5 days doesn't seem enough.

I think it's fair enough. If you had a complicated trade, say involving Bradshaw, and you want to give him an afternoon or evening to think about it, then having a few extra days up your sleeves helps.

A couple of days would be plenty. Clubs can have their meetings,make their phone calls,do their bluffing and posturing outside of the official trading days.They could have many of the deals stitched up before entering this period IMO.

As I mentioned on some other thread, condensing it to 3 days. Start on Wednesday, finish Friday. Meet and greet on wednesday, then get into the knitty gritty for Thurs, Fri.

Having said all that, this year there is alot happening, and a week seems enough. Only if every year was like this year.

The English Premier League would laugh at our 1 week window.

Why do we need to condense it? We've had multiple trades completed on each day of this trade week.

Maybe I could see some merit in reducing the period if it went for days on end with no result... but it hasn't.

As I mentioned on some other thread, condensing it to 3 days. Start on Wednesday, finish Friday. Meet and greet on wednesday, then get into the knitty gritty for Thurs, Fri.

Having said all that, this year there is alot happening, and a week seems enough. Only if every year was like this year.

Why do we need to condense it? We've had multiple trades completed on each day of this trade week.

Maybe I could see some merit in reducing the period if it went for days on end with no result... but it hasn't.

You should read on....

The issue with condensing it is that a lot of the proposed trades rely on things like medical checks, meetings between players and their prospective new coaches, and you sometimes need to give the player a day or so to think about it, especially if it means relocating a family interstate.

It's fine the way it is.

You should read on....

Yeah, I skimmed, but I still fail to see a convincing argument of why it should be condensed.

Nevermind.

3. It may reduce the mount of 'choice' a player has to decide how they are utilized during the trade period. I may be in the minority here, but I think it is absolutely ludicrous that a player is able to 'choose' the club to which he is 'traded'. This is an obscene indulgence afforded to the better players only, and very much against the AFL's 'equalization' policy that is supposedly designed to provide clubs with 'cyclical success'. All i see coming out of this farce of a system is that if you have the name, facilities and ability to pay players 'under the counter', then you will have players clamouring over each-other to 'choose' their new club.

I couldn't agree with you more on this point, pringle.

I couldn't agree with you more on this point, pringle.

Its about the only thing holding Free Agency at bay...

Twice half its length!

Agree with your points overall pringle, especially equalisation. Though with two new teams en route and their yearly trades of picks/players to come, perhaps a little more of the available time (than the previous snore fests) will be used. Still 3-5 days in sufficient when grounded in months and months of assessment and discussions. A shorter timeframe might also force clubs to be a little more transparent with their players about potential dealings (to avoid a refusal breaking a deal.)

Been away from the board all day, but it seems opinions are split.

I feel that regardless of what we think, the amount of trading and time-frame over which it can occur will almost certainly increase in the future. Club allegiance is becoming less important as time passes, and one day I can foresee free agency and mid-season trade periods helping teams try to re-ignite a season. Sad thing is, that may mean the official end of an 'equal' AFL.

if anything i think it should be lengthed. allow everyone an opportunity to consider, discuss check up meet and greet etc, including the players and prospective team staff.

start it the monday after GF day. no one will really rock up except the predone deals (ie brock) can be signed off quickly. a couple of emails can be sent and players can go and meet and greet etc over the course of the first week, and then when the coaches and list managers sit down to do deals they already know which players are happy to go where, and just concentrate on picks etc

I actually think the trade period should be based on the Major League Baseball model, whereby trades can be made up until two months before the playoffs.

The trade period could open in early October and run through till round 15 of the next season. This would allow capable players like Matt Maguire to transfer to a club that would have actually given him a regular game in exchange for a player or a future draft pick. It would also allow clubs in a premiership window to trade for players from teams that are out of contention. In MLB it is quite common for a lowly club to trade away their ace for 3 prospects - win/win for both parties.

I actually think the trade period should be based on the Major League Baseball model, whereby trades can be made up until two months before the playoffs.

I'd be rather upset if that happened.