I'd love it for GC to play massive hard ball with the Hawks over this.  In a lot of ways, they have far more to loose if they don't, as they could become a perennial go home club like Brisbane.

Similarly, most of the risk likely resides with the Hawks, if Jaeger never recovers from his injuries and the Hawks are forced to trade a player of reasonable ability out of their side to satisfy GC.

I can't see Sydney being silly and desperate in what they accept for Mitchell either, so hopefully it's not much of a net gain for Hawthorn in the end.

  On 11/10/2016 at 03:49, Nasher said:

I wonder why it's Hawthorn so anyway - they're not the only club that are a flag threat, and they're not the only club with money.  

I reckon a big part of why everyone is silent on this except fans is that because that the people who are involved don't think it's an issue.  It could be that the reason so many players seem to choose Hawthorn (or Collingwood) is because that's the club that pursued them the hardest have gave them the most compelling deal.  

Clubs always have a strategy when it comes to recruiting players, it could be that Melbourne's discussion goes, "yeah look we'd love Tom Mitchell, but with our talented young list we're not prepared to offer him that sort of money because we'll have a salary cap later, if Hawthorn want to throw everything at one last flag, let them go nuts...", or "yeah look we'd love Tom Mitchell, but we're not prepared to sacrifice ourselves out of the 2016 and 2017 drafts, or lose any of our key young talent, in order to get the deal done with Sydney.  If Hawthorn want to throw everything at one last flag, let them go nuts...".  

Next time someone ends up at a function with Todd Viney when he's in one of his candid moods, ask him about it.  

I think what is causing nerves is this trend of players in the O'Meara age bracket nominating their club of choice, and getting there, which is somewhat separate from which club chases the hardest. How you get around that issue without removing the player's rights to basically dictate their destination club is the question. I don't think there's an easy answer outside of that solution. But I agree that the amount of money and effort a club wants to invest in a player holds more sway than it is given credit for.

I'm really not that concerned by the prospect of Prestia and Mitchell going to Hawthorn who will have more than just two holes to fill to remain up the top. Neither will come cheap in terms of what Hawthorn will need to give up in order to get them, and one has played merely handful of games in the past two years while the other has only been tested as a 4th or 5th choice midfielder for oppositions to target. 

How about just letting the "issue" sort its self out.

Where Hawthorne is at as a club has been built up over 10- 15years.  In the early 2000's no one would go there, the club was a basket case. So they built up by the draft and developed a competitive and ultimately successful team.

only after their initial success did players from other clubs want to go there.

Geelong was the same. bulldogs are going to become that, same with GWS

We're on that same path. We're developing a list, success will come. When we're a successful club, players will be nominating us and our own players will choose to stay for less coin because of success.

all the crap about how can they afford players is just social media noise, I'm sure the hawks would welcome the AFL integrity unit to go over the books.

I will go out on a limb.

They will not get both!

  On 11/10/2016 at 00:46, Choke said:

Personally I think this has more to do with players being able to 'nominate' their preferred destination than it being an AFL equalisation issue/failure. However, it might be an unanticipated by-product of free agency, as these 'nominations' have seemingly increased every year since free agency commenced.

Maybe it is a bit of both.

Some of the attraction is being able to play prime time games at prime venues, and the AFL perpetuate this inequality year after year.  The inequality is both a club's ability to attract talent, and the resulting inequality in income.  The cycle continues unabated. 

  On 11/10/2016 at 00:46, Choke said:

Personally I think this has more to do with players being able to 'nominate' their preferred destination than it being an AFL equalisation issue/failure. However, it might be an unanticipated by-product of free agency, as these 'nominations' have seemingly increased every year since free agency commenced.

Spot on. Clubs need to be able to get fair value regardless if they're the lions or pies etc

All the power is with the players and aflpa. 

I'm no lawyer and a lot smarter people then i would know more about the issue in and be able to give more detail, but the main argument agsinst free trades would be the threat the players would sue clubs for restraint of trade and maybe breach some employment laws.

The question is, should all afl players be employees of the afl? But we risk becoming American and ruining the sport all together.

If the rich just get richer though and the poor are just nurseries for talent and leave the afl also is st risk of just vrleing boring rubbish.

This AFL Premier League scenario is getting closer to the real deal every year.  To be honest this whole thing makes me sick and have had a gutful of players like Mitchell who have been developed by their clubs and then just walk out to where they wish.

Omeara is another, GC has nurtured and taken care of him whilst he has bern injured.  Then the [censored] just nominates his club of choice....and yes it's Hawthorn!  

All the young players walking from their clubs after 3-4 years and cherry picking the current flag favourites is devastating for the competition.  Free agency is one thing, but clubs like Hawthorn are slowly killing off and raping the development work of lesser clubs.  It's a poxy disgrace!

  On 11/10/2016 at 03:57, Rodney (Balls) Grinter said:

I'd love it for GC to play massive hard ball with the Hawks over this.  In a lot of ways, they have far more to loose if they don't, as they could become a perennial go home club like Brisbane.

Similarly, most of the risk likely resides with the Hawks, if Jaeger never recovers from his injuries and the Hawks are forced to trade a player of reasonable ability out of their side to satisfy GC.

I can't see Sydney being silly and desperate in what they accept for Mitchell either, so hopefully it's not much of a net gain for Hawthorn in the end.

I hope this is a massive fail for Hawthorn

Deal for McCarthy makes Mitchell worth a few bob!

  On 11/10/2016 at 06:46, Soidee said:

I hope this is a massive fail for Hawthorn

 

Hawthorn want everything for 50c on the dollar. I hope they are forced to cough up at the trade table. They have had some nice wins at the trade table in recent years. It's time they pay overs.

Hawthorn and Geelong have earnt their place in the competition. Players wanting to paly for them is nothing more than players wanting to go to successful environments.

If their bean counters can somehow make the numbers work then all power to them

 

Article by Jonathon Brown addresses this issue.   Simply players cant have it both ways.  If they want choice, then clubs should be able to trade them as they see fit while under contract.  

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/sport/afl/jonathan-brown-calls-for-change-to-afl-trade-rules/news-story/743cec9d7b35e472757637f4bd339e39

 

 

the clubs that are losing players to the big clubs are either

1. poorly performing and managed clubs who have struggled for a period of time (3 yrs +) - Brissie, GC, Melbourne till 2015, Carlton, or

2. Powerful well performing clubs trying to snag the final advantage that will land them the flag - Geelong, Sydney, Hawks

Most of the middle rung teams are been relatively unscathed and unable to attract, unless they have a gun with go home issues.

Essentially some of these top 4 teams (Hawks and Geelong) are in the decline and hoping top snag another flag before the window shuts, but by this strategy are ensuring that when it does shut, it will be brutal for a while coming back.

 

  On 11/10/2016 at 07:59, DemonWA said:

Hawthorn and Geelong have earnt their place in the competition. Players wanting to paly for them is nothing more than players wanting to go to successful environments.

If their bean counters can somehow make the numbers work then all power to them

Yes they have earnt their place, no arguments there.  Raping clubs who develop young draftees and then getting them in their prime is a total different argument.  NOT all power to them at the expense of the competition!  

  On 11/10/2016 at 02:03, McQueen said:

It's interesting. Both O'Meara and Mitchell must think the Hawks are still contenders. Maybe it's the club culture that they want to be a part of?

Surely, if the main desire was to play in Victoria, they would be open to a trade with any number of clubs.

Yep. Players are [censored] stupid. They are so clearly on the way down, but they'll still make finals (most likely) in 2017. So you go there for more opportunities and to play in a few finals.

  On 11/10/2016 at 09:18, Soidee said:

Yes they have earnt their place, no arguments there.  Raping clubs who develop young draftees and then getting them in their prime is a total different argument.  NOT all power to them at the expense of the competition!  

Its a competition.... there will always be strong clubs and no so strong clubs

This season proved that you don't need to be a power club to win it.

Crying about Hawks and Cats being attractive destinations for players is futile IMO

If the Dingley Hawks do get both O'Meara and Mitchell I hope.. the Suns and Swans make them do a fair deal.

Everyone knows O'Meara's talent and the Hawks have boasted that their medical staff will see to it that his injury woes are behind him so their first rounder + a quality mid young or career player seems fair. 

Mitchell again is worthy of another first rounder or a quality young mid career player.

If I was either the Suns or the Swans I'd be asking for one of Breust, Burton, Gunston, Shiels, Smith or Stratton.

It is high stakes for the Hawks. Do they want to go into the the final year of Hodge, Gibson and Burgoyne's careers with a 34  and a half year old Mitchell carrying their midfield assisted only by the rapidly declining Jordan Lewis?

 

 

  On 11/10/2016 at 00:46, Choke said:

Personally I think this has more to do with players being able to 'nominate' their preferred destination than it being an AFL equalisation issue/failure. However, it might be an unanticipated by-product of free agency, as these 'nominations' have seemingly increased every year since free agency commenced.

  On 11/10/2016 at 03:52, Sir Why You Little said:

The clubs will regain some power, it is purely a matter of time. 

Luke Ball started all this in 2009...

Players nominating there own destination before they qualify for free agency is definatly a problem.  The current system is way to far squewed in favour of players and dominant "desternation" clubs.  When a player says they want out, the club is force to trade, usually for less than market value or risk walking away with nothing.  One way this could be rectified is by:

1.  Giving a club who's player walks at the end of a contract, the next consecutive draft pick after the draft pick used to recruit them at that draft.  That way the club is asured of getting true market value for the player and players are not at the liberty they currently are to play the bluff of the original club;

2.  Increase the penalty for players doing a Luke Ball and threatening not to play for anyone but their nominated club for that year.  They don't play for the club that picks them that year and they don't play in the AFL for two or three seasons.  Probably would have had a different outcome in the Cameron McCarthy scenario.

3.  Under this kind of a scenario players are still in control of their own lives should they not want to move interstate.  They can play in the AFL and move to where they are picked, or they can play VFL, WAFL or SAFL like the Jarman's and many others did for a number of years before either being ready to make the move or in Andrews case being able to play in one's own state.

The purity of the draft and equalisation has a lot of merit.  A return to the bad old days of the rich dominating the league is bad for competition.  In the present day, we have virtually just replaced the rich with the presently successful.

  On 11/10/2016 at 09:37, demoniac said:

If the Dingley Hawks do get both O'Meara and Mitchell I hope.. the Suns and Swans make them do a fair deal.

Everyone knows O'Meara's talent and the Hawks have boasted that their medical staff will see to it that his injury woes are behind him so their first rounder + a quality mid young or career player seems fair. 

Mitchell again is worthy of another first rounder or a quality young mid career player.

If I was either the Suns or the Swans I'd be asking for one of Breust, Burton, Gunston, Shiels, Smith or Stratton.

It is high stakes for the Hawks. Do they want to go into the the final year of Hodge, Gibson and Burgoyne's careers with a 34  and a half year old Mitchell carrying their midfield assisted only by the rapidly declining Jordan Lewis?

 

 

The issue with O'Meara is that the effort the Hawks put into attracting him is commensurate to him being one of the all-time best talents. But they're trying to trade for him as if he's an injury risk. They're trying to have their cake and eat it too.

They've said "no Breust" and "no Shiels" so far, and they've baulked at a first-rounder. It reads like they're trying to bend GCS over for a 3rd rounder and a fringe player (e.g. Brand), and get GCS to "pay" for O'Meara's injury risk. It's the Hawks who should "pay" for the injury risk.

I just get the feeling that GCS will blink.

 

I don't like the current AFL culture of non-FA players nominating the club they want to go to. But I'm not convinced there is a problem.

Yes, two players have nominated each of Geelong and Hawthorn, but both clubs have indicated there are problems. Geelong said on radio today it will struggle to fit both Deledio and Tuohy into its salary cap and to do so, it seems it has looked at trading Caddy - some on here are having a go at Caddy but IMO he's an important part of Geelong's midfield. Neither Deledio nor Tuohy fix Geelong's current problem of an over-reliance on Dangerfield and Selwood but Caddy helps with that. 

Meanwhile the mere fact Breust heard his name being used as trade bait has "rattled" him and, again, Hawthorn is going to release at least one of its promising mid-tier players (whilst its top-tier players age another year) to get Mitchell and O'Meara in.

The rule that has been brought in requiring clubs to have two first round picks every 4 years is a good one and will assist in stopping the stronger clubs from continually trading out their first round pick for established talent (which, IIRC, Hawthorn has repeatedly done over the last 5 years).

Let's wait and see what the end of the trade period looks like before deciding the system is broken.

  On 11/10/2016 at 02:45, Fat Tony said:

The answer to fixing this is via the salary cap. Give the wooden spooner $100K more cap space than 17th, and 17th $100K more than 16th etc. This would mean that the bottom team would have an extra $1.7m in the salary cap than the premier. Players could then become free agents from after the initial contract but the competition would still be even.

Aside from tanking, the other problem this has is what happens when the wooden spooner makes a rise up the ladder the following year and their salary cap then comes down. That would create more problems than it's worth.

May have already been mentioned....(I'm on N/S and haven't read everything)

Saints have made big offer to Tom Mitchell.

  On 11/10/2016 at 19:25, Bombay Airconditioning said:

May have already been mentioned....(I'm on N/S and haven't read everything)

Saints have made big offer to Tom Mitchell.

Saints seem to be after about 10 players each year. 

  On 11/10/2016 at 21:29, Redleg said:

Saints seem to be after about 10 players each year. 

Seems they dont cop the "scattergun" tag as much as they should

  On 11/10/2016 at 21:29, Redleg said:

Saints seem to be after about 10 players each year. 

"Seem to be", is that the same as everyone is linked to Collingwood.

Sam Mitchell and Brad Hill have been vital to the way Hawthorn play. 

Losing them for Tom Mitchell (a star) and then 2 unknown prospects in Vickery and O'Meara at least evens things up.

Hopefully both Gold Coast and Sydney get maximum return and then it's up to Clarkson to work his magic - and the Docs with O'Meara.