That's garbage, adc. He isn't leaving any decisions to his manager; who would do that? "Mr Manager sir, I'll play for whatever club you tell me to next year". Please.

He clearly meant that he was leaving the contract negotiation to his manager. That's a long way from leaving the decision to his manager.

Yes, but many of these kids are led wholely by the advice of their managers. Very few, if any, seem to go against the managers direction.

Seems like every second AFL player, when asked about contracts, uses the line that they are leaving that up to their manager. They are not old or mature or smart enough to say to the manager, "right, I'm playing for X club next year so get the deat done now!" Nor are they necessarily wise to do so when the managers get them top dollar that they couldn't achieve on their own.

If it was only about contract negotiation, then players would simply hire a lawyer to negotiate and draw up a contract each time theirs was up for renewal.

Unfortunately, AFL player managers are an industry unto themselves (and in cases like Nixon, a law unto themselves). Dimwitreou and his pals have only just started scratching the surface regarding the reining in of their power, eg. no new player club kick-backs.

Yes, but many of these kids are led wholely by the advice of their managers. Very few, if any, seem to go against the managers direction.

Seems like every second AFL player, when asked about contracts, uses the line that they are leaving that up to their manager. They are not old or mature or smart enough to say to the manager, "right, I'm playing for X club next year so get the deat done now!" Nor are they necessarily wise to do so when the managers get them top dollar that they couldn't achieve on their own.

If it was only about contract negotiation, then players would simply hire a lawyer to negotiate and draw up a contract each time theirs was up for renewal.

Unfortunately, AFL player managers are an industry unto themselves (and in cases like Nixon, a law unto themselves). Dimwitreou and his pals have only just started scratching the surface regarding the reining in of their power, eg. no new player club kick-backs.

True. Any good manager will also pursue the best offer available. Ultimately it is up to the player where he wants to play but players don't have a choice who drafts them and if they are not entirely satisfied where they are currently at, they will be easily swayed.

He will stay, dont be sucked into the 'he is mates with Tom so he will leave'. Thats just ridiculous.

Will sign for 3 and the naysayers should be forbidden to back slap when he does.

True. Any good manager will also pursue the best offer available. Ultimately it is up to the player where he wants to play but players don't have a choice who drafts them and if they are not entirely satisfied where they are currently at, they will be easily swayed.

Easily swayed ? You say players dont have a choice on who drafts them - by the same token if a players doesnt want to go to a bottom side and the club plays hardball then the player doesnt have a choice of where his next destination is.

The below figures are taken from 2010 which eliminates the GWS and GC factor where they had a window to take uncontracted players.

3.3% of players in the AFL moved to other clubs - thats around 1 player per club. Of those trades (and drafting via the preseason) - 70% of them would be considered mature players. That means less than .5% of young players will leave your club every year.

GWS cannot take Blease as uncontracted as they took Scully last year but I think the can take him in the preseason draft if he falls out with the club ?

Unless he wants to go to GWS or GC or the Dees wont play ball on money and actually decide to trade him, then the chances of him going are slim.

From here on in the traded players average will increase because of free agency but FA doesnt affect the youth.

In short - unless Blease wants to go to GWS or GC , he aint going anywhere

I heard the full interview and was impressed. He was fairly honest and open and came across as thoughtful and articulate. He gave very few, if any, straight-bat answers except for the one about his future with Melbourne. But you could tell he definitely wants to stay at Melbourne, it all just needs to be worked through.

After the Scully rubbish I don't think any MFC supporter will ever be persuaded until the ink is dry, and I will believe nothing as a certainty in this instance until I see that ink on Blease's contract.

Easily swayed ? You say players dont have a choice on who drafts them - by the same token if a players doesnt want to go to a bottom side and the club plays hardball then the player doesnt have a choice of where his next destination is.

The below figures are taken from 2010 which eliminates the GWS and GC factor where they had a window to take uncontracted players.

3.3% of players in the AFL moved to other clubs - thats around 1 player per club. Of those trades (and drafting via the preseason) - 70% of them would be considered mature players. That means less than .5% of young players will leave your club every year.

GWS cannot take Blease as uncontracted as they took Scully last year but I think the can take him in the preseason draft if he falls out with the club ?

Unless he wants to go to GWS or GC or the Dees wont play ball on money and actually decide to trade him, then the chances of him going are slim.

From here on in the traded players average will increase because of free agency but FA doesnt affect the youth.

In short - unless Blease wants to go to GWS or GC , he aint going anywhere

Not sure that quoting figures from only 1 year is a big enough sample to close the case, Nutbean.

Of late, MFC have lost (regardless of quality) Scully, Cheney, and Buckley to other clubs - none of them 'mature' players. We've also lost mature players in Junior and Bruce (and now possibly Green to GWS). There may be others i havent thought of. How does that fare with your stats?

Some of what you say is true, but in this individual case, Blease can leave quite easily, regardless of whether he is part of the 3.3%, 0.5% or whatever stat applies from the past.

Add Miller (mature) and the Emo (not mature) to that list.

Any player who says "I'm staying with club X and I'm just waiting for my manager to sort out the details" would be a bit foolish. His manager would go ape since his negotiating powers would be reduced to zero. No matter what the intentions you have to say "I'm leaving it to my manager".

If any player does say it, I'd bet the deal is so close to being done that the remaining points in dispute, if any, are trivial.

Not sure that quoting figures from only 1 year is a big enough sample to close the case, Nutbean.

Of late, MFC have lost (regardless of quality) Scully, Cheney, and Buckley to other clubs - none of them 'mature' players. We've also lost mature players in Junior and Bruce (and now possibly Green to GWS). There may be others i havent thought of. How does that fare with your stats?

Some of what you say is true, but in this individual case, Blease can leave quite easily, regardless of whether he is part of the 3.3%, 0.5% or whatever stat applies from the past.

Edit: add Miller (mature) and the Emo (not mature) to that list.

But of those, only Cheney was a trade.

To get Blease, GWS would have to either get permission from us, or trade.

All of the other players (other than Bruce), were delisted by us and subsequently picked up by other clubs. There is approximately a 0% chance of Blease being delisted by the MFC at the end of the season.

...nothing more simister than that

Scott ?

But of those, only Cheney was a trade.

To get Blease, GWS would have to either get permission from us, or trade.

All of the other players (other than Bruce), were delisted by us and subsequently picked up by other clubs. There is approximately a 0% chance of Blease being delisted by the MFC at the end of the season.

Yep, no way. Also as i said earlier in this thread if we force him into the draft to get to a club who wanted him they would have to use one of their early draft picks to get him (assuming another club didn't get him). For argument's sake lets say GWS want him. Will they prepared to use the number pick in the draft? No, of course not. I'm not sure where their next one is (have they got an early pick as part of a under 17 trade?, if not they might get one) but again i doubt they'd want to use a first round pick on Blease. I'm not sure any club would and even if they did it would be a risk for Sammy to take (ie that he would slip through to a club that he wanted to go to, ie the club with the immediate preceding pick, say number 15, might like him).

We have the upper hand here.

But of those, only Cheney was a trade.

To get Blease, GWS would have to either get permission from us, or trade.

All of the other players (other than Bruce), were delisted by us and subsequently picked up by other clubs. There is approximately a 0% chance of Blease being delisted by the MFC at the end of the season.

Maybe splitting hairs and not wanting to digress any further, but the point Nutbean was making that i commented upon said nothing of trades or delisting. It was about players leaving one club for another.

I was making the comment that while we think we have the upper hand, Blease is the one wanted by us and out of contract, so he has the ability to leave to another club (not specifically to any one club) if he wants to. Statistics from 2010 are not applicable for 2012 in this regard.

Yes, you are correct that Blease won't be delisted by the Dees in 2012. Well done on that point, good Doctor.

Maybe splitting hairs and not wanting to digress any further, but the point Nutbean was making that i commented upon said nothing of trades or delisting. It was about players leaving one club for another.

I was making the comment that while we think we have the upper hand, Blease is the one wanted by us and out of contract, so he has the ability to leave to another club (not specifically to any one club) if he wants to. Statistics from 2010 are not applicable for 2012 in this regard.

Yes, you are correct that Blease won't be delisted by the Dees in 2012. Well done on that point, good Doctor.

It is splitting hairs and not actually looking at little closer at who we traded - apart from Scully last year exactly which other players was a "required" player that opted out ? The closest is Bruce and he was required on our terms only not his.

Keep going back through the history- good 2-3 season players who are wanted by their clubs generally dont move. These trade figures would become even smaller if you go back through history and take out the go home factor- Gunston to the Hawks for example. Boak and Tippet are other examples of players who arent necessarily disgruntled but reportedly want to go home.

Blease doesnt fit into this category either.

So in short

- players who dont have the go home factor

- players who dont want to play for a bottom club ( even GWS who offer bucketloads)

- players who are required by their club

- players who only have 2-3 seasons under their belt

dont generally move.

Cheney wasnt actually a trade either (technically he was) - he wanted out and we said sure so we got an upgraded millionth round draft pick.

Except Scully. A number 1 draft pick.

Wasn't Scully on SEN once? Now Blease is... it's all starting to add up

Yep, no way. Also as i said earlier in this thread if we force him into the draft to get to a club who wanted him they would have to use one of their early draft picks to get him (assuming another club didn't get him). For argument's sake lets say GWS want him. Will they prepared to use the number pick in the draft? No, of course not. I'm not sure where their next one is (have they got an early pick as part of a under 17 trade?, if not they might get one) but again i doubt they'd want to use a first round pick on Blease. I'm not sure any club would and even if they did it would be a risk for Sammy to take (ie that he would slip through to a club that he wanted to go to, ie the club with the immediate preceding pick, say number 15, might like him).

We have the upper hand here.

PSD Binman?

Don't think he has to nominate for the national draft, just the PSD which means either GWS or GC could get him that way doesn't it?

PSD Binman?

Don't think he has to nominate for the national draft, just the PSD which means either GWS or GC could get him that way doesn't it?

Yep good point - one that makes my claim of us having the upper hand look very silly! If we can't come to terms and de-list him he would nominate for the PSD if (and only if) it was GWS he wanted to go to (or at a stretch GC, but even them GC would have to deal with GWS to ensure they didn't pick him up - or he could put a price on his head only GWS would be prepared to match). In which case we probably would do some sketchy deal. Sheeds would love that. But would he really want to go to GWS?

Any way good point

Except Scully. A number 1 draft pick.

Who we lost through exceptional circumstances - GWS's rights to uncontracted players - something that will never occur again until more expansion clubs are added. We also got more than fair compensation for it.

Just because his best mate plays for GWS doesn't mean he'll go. Scully isn't his wife for [censored] sake. Sam would have plenty of other friends in Victoria and at the Demons.

Waiting for the "we're getting [censored] by the AFL again" post before anything has even happened.

Except Scully. A number 1 draft pick.

ummm

That was mentioned in the first sentence of my reply to your post.

I also said in my post that players didnt leave who didnt want to play for a bottom club and specifically mentioned GWS - if he wants to go GWS he can get there. He may even be fortunate and slip through to GC-but thats where it ends. He wants to go anywhere else we have got to agree and make it happen.

It was like the nonsense of Scully going to Richmond- how on earth was it going to happen.

So maybe I'll say it again - if Blease doesnt want to go GWS he aint going anywhere else.

In my estimation, the best thing that happened to Sam Blease was Tom Scully leaving Melbourne.

He's now his own man and developing a niche as a Melbourne footballer.

He doesn't need to go to the wilderness of a GWS that lacks a heart and soul and is an artificial implant on the western Sydney landscape where they couldn't even drag a decent crowd to their game against Collingwood.

Has he been up there just to have a look round yet?

If not, take a deep breath, relax. The whole $cully experience has people not only jumping at shadows but inventing them as well.

When a player says that his manager is dealing with that, he is in no way saying that the decision on which club he will be at next year is in his managers hands. He is saying that he has told his manager what he wants to happen and his manager is trying to get that outcome for him. In this case, given that other clubs can not make contract offers to him, this effectively means that he is planning on staying at Melbourne and his manager is hashing out the details with the club, trying to get the best possible deal for Sam. His recent form is only going to help on that front.

Its even simpler than that

If party A is negotiating in privacy with party B, why should they tell the press anything other than negotiations are continuing

What you get is just a bit of nice diplomatic spin to keep the chooks happy

My analysis of historical contract negotiations played out in the media is its merely a discussion of whether its a 2 year deal vs a 3 year deal.

Reckon MFC would like the 3 year deal while his currency is low/starting to build and get an extra year for "cheaper".

While a lot of "up and coming" players like a 2 year deal. This gives them the ability for their stocks to soar and have a new contract be drawn up at the end of those 2 years when they have "proved" themselves.