Trade Radio Discussion

[daisycutter 29,892]

The only FA scenario in which the receiving club should give up anything is when a player is a restricted free agent and the initial offer is matched by the club that owns the restricted free agent, which then forces a trade negotiation. This is the Dangerfield situation. Adelaide still had a limited form of ownership over Dangerfield, so working out a trade is fine in that scenario.

If the receiving club has to give up something in any other FA scenario, then we don't have true free agency. Free agents by definition don't belong to any club. Why should a club losing a free agent be compensated for something that they no longer own? It makes no sense. Either the club does everything it can to bring that player back on a new contract before FA becomes an issue, or they lose the player to FA and try to lure another free agent to replace them. You win some and you lose some.

Compensation of any sort for losing free agents is a joke. What we have now in the AFL is a half-arsed bastardised version of FA that just distorts the player market. It distorts the national draft order if compensation picks are given to clubs losing FAs, all that does is push 17 other clubs down the draft order. Yes the MFC was a major beneficiary of this system with the Frawley compo, but we would never have got that pick if the AFL had a proper FA system. The trade market is distorted if teams don't want to make trades for fear of jeopardising their compensation pick. FA is supposed to increase player movement, not restrict it! The worst thing is that the incentives for free agents are totally skewed towards joining the stronger clubs at a given time due to the way the AFL has implemented FA. Putting arbitrary limitations on the length of time a player can serve with their club before a player can become a FA (I think it's 10 years currently before they reach unrestricted FA, I might be wrong there) just means that players will be incentivised to join the current contenders so that they can have a better chance of winning a flag in the couple of years they have left before retirement.

The sooner the the AFL and the Players Association take the clamps off FA and let the clubs fend for themselves, the better. We either have it in an undiluted form (ie a player is eligible for FA as soon as they are out of contract, no compensation for FA loss, restricted FA can still have a place) or we don't have it at all. FA should be the ultimate incentive for clubs to get their act together on and off field, otherwise they will be left behind. The clubs should really be left to sink or swim in the FA sea, but the way the system is currently set up, there will be only be a few big clubs doing the swimming.

Some people will disagree with that, and that's fine. Feel free. All I'm saying is that the AFL shouldn't half-bake FA because it throws up other consequences for player movement and it increases the gap between the haves and the have-nots. Do it properly or don't do it.

disagree. fa receiving clubs should always pay. to avoid any possible failure of receiving/relinquishing club agree on payment the afl would use the points style system they are introducing with f/s and academy players.

in this case the afl would determine the "price" and the receiving club would be docked the points which they could pay out of this year/next year picks. simple

further more when the afl determine the points "price" it can be scaled for equalisation purposes.

i don't see why the receiving club should get a bonus and all the other clubs effectively subsidise the move

this way the player gets to his club and the recipient club pays a fair price to the relinquishing club a fair return

[Deecisive 1,709]

I hope we pick where Howe goes rather than him, depending on who can offer the best trade.

As a member I don't think we should be bending over backwards to get Howe to his club of choice.

Ship the #$$%^$@ off to the best offer.

I cannot see Howe looking to get the best deal for Melbourne, he has shown his loyalty is to the $$

[RalphiusMaximus 6,103]

what an absolute bargain for geelong.

I actually think it's a pretty decent deal for both clubs. I'd like it more if Adelaide had held out for two first round picks (ie this year and next year), but this is good. The real bonus is that they now have real problems trying to trade for Henderson and Smith. They'll probably have to give up players to get it all done.

Geelong recruiting team are building a big hole of no youth to try maintain their ladder position. Repercussions is going to be gold

Get real. They've got a stack of promising young players to compliment elite players in Dangerfield and Selwood. They've done it brilliantly. They've brought in Dangerfield, S.Selwood, Henderson and Z.Smith and given up picks in a year that has a shallow draft.

I actually agree that Geelong are shafting themselves. To get Henderson and Smith across the line they may well have to use up next year's top pick as well as give up more young players. This is quite similar to what Brisbane did a few years ago and we can hope for similar results. Of the players coming in I really only rate Dangerfield as seriously top line. Is he enough to make up for the retirements they'll have in the next few years?

I hope we pick where Howe goes rather than him, depending on who can offer the best trade.

As a member I don't think we should be bending over backwards to get Howe to his club of choice.

Ship the #$$%^$@ off to the best offer.

So far Howe hasn't expressed a preference for any one club, so we should feel free to auction him off to the highest bidder. Let's see if we can get a first round pick for him.

[SaberFang 7,151]

Would seriously LOL if Geelong told Henderson they no longer had the tradeable assets to secure him. Wouldn't that be fun!

Lachie's mum might have to ring up Gillon and give him an earful!

[RalphiusMaximus 6,103]

Would seriously LOL if Geelong told Henderson they no longer had the tradeable assets to secure him. Wouldn't that be fun!

Lachie's mum might have to ring up Gillon and give him an earful!

I kind of have a feeling they may trade Smedts to Carlton as part of the deal. I think that would be a hell of a laugh.

[mo64 5,881]

I actually think it's a pretty decent deal for both clubs. I'd like it more if Adelaide had held out for two first round picks (ie this year and next year), but this is good. The real bonus is that they now have real problems trying to trade for Henderson and Smith. They'll probably have to give up players to get it all done.

I actually agree that Geelong are shafting themselves. To get Henderson and Smith across the line they may well have to use up next year's top pick as well as give up more young players. This is quite similar to what Brisbane did a few years ago and we can hope for similar results. Of the players coming in I really only rate Dangerfield as seriously top line. Is he enough to make up for the retirements they'll have in the next few years?

So far Howe hasn't expressed a preference for any one club, so we should feel free to auction him off to the highest bidder. Let's see if we can get a first round pick for him.

It doesn't work that way.

As for Geelong, they'll back themselves to climb up the ladder, and future draft picks decrease in value. Hawthorn have been topping up since 2008 Premiership, and it didn't hurt them long term.

[rjay 25,306]

I cannot see Howe looking to get the best deal for Melbourne, he has shown his loyalty is to the $$

So far Howe hasn't expressed a preference for any one club, so we should feel free to auction him off to the highest bidder. Let's see if we can get a first round pick for him.

Just a thought, Howe might be waiting to see what Collingwood have to offer after they do their prime trades. He is not top of their list at the moment but as the trade period shakes out he might be looked at. Perhaps he's been told to hold on.

[McQueen 17,867]

The funny thing is a lot of us were unhappy giving up pick 23 for Frost.

The Roos mantra has always been that draft picks are speculative and it is often better to take a known commodity. Something our club did not do in the past...

Hawthorn have been top of the heap for nearly a decade following that model after getting the foundations of guns via the draft.

Trade to fill needs to help execute game plan. Top up after top up until those A graders start to burn out, hoping that over the years you can pick some real talents with late picks.

[monoccular 17,642]

where is the discount for wada risk?

I am still bewildered by this whole WADA issue - why take the risk, basically, of losing your second round pick, and a big wad of salary cap when WADA could say "see you in 2 years"

I was hoping we would use that pick for young Rioli

I mean St say I do like the bio of Rioli. I wanted us to draft uncle Cy but we left him

[Devo 104]

disagree. fa receiving clubs should always pay. to avoid any possible failure of receiving/relinquishing club agree on payment the afl would use the points style system they are introducing with f/s and academy players.

in this case the afl would determine the "price" and the receiving club would be docked the points which they could pay out of this year/next year picks. simple

further more when the afl determine the points "price" it can be scaled for equalisation purposes.

i don't see why the receiving club should get a bonus and all the other clubs effectively subsidise the move

this way the player gets to his club and the recipient club pays a fair price to the relinquishing club a fair return

What you're advocating for is a trade, not a free agent acquisition. Free agency isn't about getting a fair return for any clubs or ensuring a win-win outcome. It's not about equalisation either. The league has other measures for achieving equalisation (you can debate how effective they are, but that's getting off topic). FA is about freeing up player movement and a spur to the poorly run clubs to sort themselves out, that's all it is.

If clubs want to get a return before losing a free agent, they should trade the player a year out from FA eligibility. Roosy himself has talked about this being the way of the future in the AFL.

[nutbean 8,838]

I am still bewildered by this whole WADA issue - why take the risk, basically, of losing your second round pick, and a big wad of salary cap when WADA could say "see you in 2 years"

One part of me says there must be an "out" clause in any contract with any Essendon player transferring to a new club and the AFL has sanctioned that - no payment and no inclusion in the salary cap. Therefore the only cost is the draft pick. Otherwise if the AFL took a "buyer beware" approach there wouldn't be a club that would trade in an Essendon player.

However there is nothing announced by the AFL and for sake of corporate governance the AFL could not possibly keep any future contract concession arrangements secret ?

Therefore I am totally bewildered like you.

[DistrACTION Jackson 10,214]

Hawthorn have been top of the heap for nearly a decade following that model after getting the foundations of guns via the draft.

Trade to fill needs to help execute game plan. Top up after top up until those A graders start to burn out, hoping that over the years you can pick some real talents with late picks.

Yeah exactly! I feel we have the young guns in place with Viney, Hogan, McDonald, Brayshaw, Tyson, Salem and possibly Petracca.

We just now need to build around them.

I also feel if we can bring in competitive players that get us into or close to finals next year we will suddenly find it a lot easier to lure a free agent, which apparently next year there is a truckload!

[old dee 24,002]

One part of me says there must be an "out" clause in any contract with any Essendon player transferring to a new club and the AFL has sanctioned that - no payment and no inclusion in the salary cap. Therefore the only cost is the draft pick. Otherwise if the AFL took a "buyer beware" approach there wouldn't be a club that would trade in an Essendon player.

However there is nothing announced by the AFL and for sake of corporate governance the AFL could not possibly keep any future contract concession arrangements secret ?

Therefore I am totally bewildered like you.

IMO the industry is taking the view that any penalties will be low and it will be at worst like losing a player to injury for a couple of months vs a number of good years from a player.

[Bluey's Dad 3,419]

One part of me says there must be an "out" clause in any contract with any Essendon player transferring to a new club and the AFL has sanctioned that - no payment and no inclusion in the salary cap. Therefore the only cost is the draft pick. Otherwise if the AFL took a "buyer beware" approach there wouldn't be a club that would trade in an Essendon player.

However there is nothing announced by the AFL and for sake of corporate governance the AFL could not possibly keep any future contract concession arrangements secret ?

Therefore I am totally bewildered like you.

I agree.

The only other thing I can think of is that a club might figure "well, a draft pick in the 20's won't play for a year, if WADA bans an Essendon player for a year we haven't lost anything, we just haven't gained as much". Maybe?

[jnrmac 20,276]

Backspace bro.............

Hah ha too lazy!

[nutbean 8,838]

I agree.

The only other thing I can think of is that a club might figure "well, a draft pick in the 20's won't play for a year, if WADA bans an Essendon player for a year we haven't lost anything, we just haven't gained as much". Maybe?

The draft pick 20 will only cost sub $100K if he doesn't play for a year - as opposed to $400K for Melksham ?

[daisycutter 29,892]

The draft pick 20 will only cost sub $100K if he doesn't play for a year - as opposed to $400K for Melksham ?

i wouldn't presume a banned player is entitled to payment whilst banned, especially if he just negotiated a new contract

however stranger things have happened

on top of that a banned player could well sue essendrug for lost wages and other damages the outcome of which could be unpredictable (and prolonged)

it's one of those areas the media for some reason doesn't want to explore

[ManDee 7,319]

I am still bewildered by this whole WADA issue - why take the risk, basically, of losing your second round pick, and a big wad of salary cap when WADA could say "see you in 2 years"

It is possible that it is next years second round pick - subject to WADA.

We pay overs but next years and without risk. Mahoney did say a second round pick. Thats what I would do.

[Jesse Christ 2,884]

i wouldn't presume a banned player is entitled to payment whilst banned, especially if he just negotiated a new contract

however stranger things have happened

on top of that a banned player could well sue essendrug for lost wages and other damages the outcome of which could be unpredictable (and prolonged)

it's one of those areas the media for some reason doesn't want to explore

The two Collingwood players (scums name's escape me) who recently were banned for performance enhancing drugs were suspended with pay, and I can't see Milkman agreeing to a contract that would see him lose money- if staying with drugs inc would not have affected his salary

[daisycutter 29,892]

The two Collingwood players (scums name's escape me) who recently were banned for performance enhancing drugs were suspended with pay, and I can't see Milkman agreeing to a contract that would see him lose money- if staying with drugs inc would not have affected his salary

hmmmm....i take your points

a real can of worms. under wada laws you can now be banned for upto 4 years and nothing stops you being fully paid under a contract for 4 years?

i would have to think the employer has some options within the contract to take action

maybe in the filth case they just decided not to exercise their options?

Edited October 13, 2015 by daisycutter

[Demon_JB 1,389]

Not sure if anyone is listening to trade radio right now, but this list manager bloke from GWS sounds like an arrogant [censored].

[Bonkers 994]

Not sure if anyone is listening to trade radio right now, but this list manager bloke from GWS sounds like an arrogant [censored].

Gubby Allen is a well known arrogant [censored].

[sue 9,195]

On the WADA issue, I'm presuming the AFL have told clubs of a policy to ameliorate the risk of trading with EFC. I don't think they have any corporate governance reason to make it public, though perhaps it is surprising there have been no leaks.

Still there will be some risk, and whether it is ameliorated by that, clauses in contracts or whatever, or the likely length of a ban, I think we have to trust that the club has its head around all that better than us - we are not privy to the facts.

[Jesse Christ 2,884]

hmmmm....i take your points

a real can of worms. under wada laws you can now be banned for upto 4 years and nothing stops you being fully paid under a contract for 4 years?

i would have to think the employee has some options within the contract to take action

maybe in the filth case they just decided not to exercise their options?

The club must know that any penalties incurred from players will be minimal, otherwise it goes against all rationale that we sign him to a 4 year deal. Needless to say if we sign him and there's a penalty > 3 months (in season), there goes all faith and goodwill the club has built up, MFCSS will run rampant and the future will be dead again

[beelzebub 23,390]

hmmmm....i take your points

a real can of worms. under wada laws you can now be banned for upto 4 years and nothing stops you being fully paid under a contract for 4 years?

i would have to think the employee has some options within the contract to take action

maybe in the filth case they just decided not to exercise their options?

Given when the offence happened ( alleged...lol ) and that this is an appeal the maximum still applicable is a 2 year ban....just saying