Long time reader, first time... you know the story.

Id like to address the argument that the terms"football is a business" and "loyalty doesn't exist in footy anymore" justify trading away any players. They don't. Not really. Yet we hear these terms rolled out by footy clubs, the media and even players themselves all the time.

Think about it, if you are running a business, who is most important? Your customers and your employees, that's who. Look after these two stakeholders and you will go a long way towards success. Far too often the symbolic and qualitative value of players is completely ignored in favour of quantative stuff like how tall a player is, what's player A's efficiency like compared to player B, one players ranking this year vs last year etc. But what about the intangible stuff?

In thinking about the Trengove situation this week and the passing of Robbie Flower (kind of ironic that we celebrate one guys loyalty but look to trade an ex skipper) I can't help thinking that most footy people just don't get it. A quality person like Trenner's should be just about untouchable. And as an ex captain he should be absolutely untouchable. Whether it was a mistake to make him so is irrelevant because it sends a powerful message to everyone within the club and supporters alike. Being captain is something to aspire to and so should being a one club player (Tulip). It gives them a kind of legend status and you don't just trade away ppl like that. Otherwise what do you stand for? What culture do really have? If you think I'm being naive and romantic and ignoring the importance of on-field success then think again. The clubs last flag was in 64... then we sacked Norm Smith and then Barrassi walked. These aren't the only ones either. Alves, Wells? More recently we got rid of a heap of elder statesmen and it created a complete leadership vacuum. In fact I would say that we have a culture of moving on our most important ppl in the hope of a better return.

Now I'm not saying we should never trade or delist players. The bad eggs, the guys who just aren't willing to work for it, the off-field basket-cases, the one's who actually want to leave and others... yes. But someone of the calibre of Trengove? No. Ppl like that are incredibly rare. Most footy players are decent guys but not quite the "i'd have him as my son" type. It is said that good people make for good organisations. Well I can tell you it does, and so I'd be saying "at some point you've got to stand for something and so hands off our ex-skipper"! Otherwise, what message does it send to a guy like Jones and others? I'd bet we all want him to stay. But why should he?

As for loyalty I wouldn't say "it doesn't exist" id just say "it doesn't exist as a rule". There will always be the Abblett's and Buddy's that leave for a pay cheque and the Lake's and Frawley's that chase a flag. But if it doesn't exist then we would have hundreds, not a couple of dozen trade's every year. Players will be more loyal if you look after them and less loyal if you don't. And If you really look after them when they do right by you then only a few will leave since they know the culture is just so damn good. And good culture breeds success. Surely we know that by now? Swans, Hawks, Geelong anybody?

You've clearly put a lot of thought and effort in to the above post, but I think you're looking at it the wrong way. The way I see it footballers aren't employees, they're the product the football club(business) is selling. When the volume of products you sell is limited you want to make the biggest possible return from what you're selling. Unfortunately, if you think you can make more by bringing in a consistently good product at the expense of an old favorite, returns wise you do it.

Is if possible that Richmond approached us with an offer for Trengove and Jack, still contracted, jumped at the chance for a fresh start to his career?

players are commodities.

i think it was neil balme who called them as such last week on trade radio.

football is not only a business, it's a big business, and ideally the clubs are in the business of winning - it's just a matter of actually being able to win that's the tricky bit for teams such as ours.

We are a Milkbar playing against McDonalds.

when human beings are seen as commodities, or product, or stock, sorry, but you are in the badlands...

Edited October 14, 201411 yr by robbiefrom13

sport is an activity of people - people exhilirated by ability, cameraderie, imagination and in the case of football, love of the green grass you play on.

delete business

Edited October 14, 201411 yr by robbiefrom13

Being a commodity won't make a player back into a descending pack of players. It's a nonsense argument put forward by people with a limited understanding of the human psyche. Footballers play for the love of the game, for the cameraderie and acceptance of the group and some for the club that they love. And as such Club culture is created and enhanced and built upon. It amazes me that on these forums people talk of culture (or in our case lack of ),with little or no understanding of the concept. Culture cannot be bought and cannot exist by decreed. Excellent post Delta.

Thanks fofor the replies. Good to see a discussion that doesn't involve my set of steak knives for your two time brownlow medallist. I guess I'd counter the players are a commodity argument and ask you to think about what has changed at port Adelaide? Culture. Boak stayed and everyone walked taller. Hinkley came on board and tells all the players "I believe in you" and up and away they go. Waters are changing in Brisbane too.

People themselves are not commodities . Balme got that wrong. Maybe what he needed to say as qualification was the efforts and performances said people bring to the event IS effectively 'the commodity" > Thats the value.

The game is a deliverance of roles. Some can be done by many and others are all but unique to the talents of the person playing. Still though the value is what's delivered on game day.

Surrounding all this is an infrastructure and financing to facilitate it. In any man's language, thats business.

There will be those individuals who rise above this plateau and forever write their names on the fabric of the game but that doesnt deny the nature of what it was they stood upon.

Theres very little in life that ISNT a business, sometimes its just minding your own

You've clearly put a lot of thought and effort in to the above post, but I think you're looking at it the wrong way. The way I see it footballers aren't employees, they're the product the football club(business) is selling. When the volume of products you sell is limited you want to make the biggest possible return from what you're selling. Unfortunately, if you think you can make more by bringing in a consistently good product at the expense of an old favorite, returns wise you do it.

So are we trying to build a Business club, Or a family club? please explain, because I can't tell what the AFL is anymore, since it went full-time Pro.