Sure it's great for fringe players. But how do you ensure that fringe players are the only ones that move?

Movement of anything more than fringe players could destabilise the club giving up the player and impact on their season.

Do not want.

Take some players from the lower leagues, recruiting AFL club has to make some sort of donation to that club to compensate. Limit of one player recruited per AFL club.

Here is Jason Taylor's take http://www.sen.com.au/news/afl/06-16/dees-recruiter-talks-mid-year-trading-draft#UyzRIZugwYlwpHIy.97

“I’d be happy to go along with guidelines the AFL put in place with anything but the answer to that in short would be no,” said Taylor on SEN radio. 

 

I fear the AFL is playing this as a carrot to get the AFLPA over the line on the CBA , instead of agreeing to a fixed % of revenue.  I don't think the AFL should use key features of the game as bargaining chips with AFLPA.  Simply, I don't like the mid-season trade because it is more watering down of the game we know and love that was once called 'aussie rules'. 

13 hours ago, sue said:

That sounds like a recipe for loading weaker teams long term with players who by definition are worse than those in the top teams.   How can you be so relaxed about that?

Sue it's about opportunity. Your not just taking rubbish that teams don't want.  Someone like Kennedy from the Swans who couldn't get a game in the hawks team for so long could be the type of player you get. It's just someone who needs opportunity that you can't always get at a team pushing for a flag and a player might not be wanting to wait. 

Over-dramatic? Sure. But if you're going to put a law in place then you need to consider the extreme examples of how it might be exploited as well as the genuine motivations for the proposal (i-e not to cover for injuries). And it's not like those in the industry are averse to exploiting a rule change for their own advantage. I'm not suggesting writing off an idea based on those extreme examples, but to consider the potential permutations and adjust the legislation. List management is a major factor in our competition. To have a mid-season change of landscape is against the spirit of the competition, and potentially bad for all parties involved - including the players.

E.g. Hawthorn, a team close to bottoming out in terms of list profile, need an additional ruck due to injuries to push for another flag. They invite Spencer, our back-up ruck not getting first-grade games, along for the ride. Is this fair to Sydney etc., who can't secure a trade? Will Spencer be cast back into the wilderness once those injuries return or a rebuild is enacted? If Spencer asks for a mid-season trade, and we were to deny it, where does that leave those parties for the remainder of the season? It all seems to lead to an unnecessary ugliness for the game when instead you could have agreed de-listings and a mini-draft (I know this last part is contradictory but it would be a more even playing field).

I still haven't heard anyone's recollections of how this worked in the past (as recent as 93?) and what rules were in place back then . . .    

Before my time, but . . . http://www.blueseum.org/Greg+Wells

Maybe someone can recall?

14 hours ago, adsy said:

Sue it's about opportunity. Your not just taking rubbish that teams don't want.  Someone like Kennedy from the Swans who couldn't get a game in the hawks team for so long could be the type of player you get. It's just someone who needs opportunity that you can't always get at a team pushing for a flag and a player might not be wanting to wait. 

While there may be case like that, on average it will work to favour top teams.