I don't know about everyone else but I used to think a contract meant something.

In fact back in the day a mans word was his bond.

...but now it seems you just sign a contract and abandon it when it no longer suits.

The Beams thing is the last straw for me.

In Hogan's case, those saying that if he stays we need a long term commitment.

He might as well sign on for 5 years and boot off next year if he feels like it.

It's definitely time that clubs are able to trade players in contract to wherever the club wants.

At least that would put some value back in the contract.

2 hours ago, rjay said:

I don't know about everyone else but I used to think a contract meant something.

In fact back in the day a mans word was his bond.

...but now it seems you just sign a contract and abandon it when it no longer suits.

The Beams thing is the last straw for me.

In Hogan's case, those saying that if he stays we need a long term commitment.

He might as well sign on for 5 years and boot off next year if he feels like it.

It's definitely time that clubs are able to trade players in contract to wherever the club wants.

At least that would put some value back in the contract.

You have my vote. The union will resist but the players will only have themselves to blame. 

The conduct of Beams and (Tim) Kelly has been disgraceful.

In other cases (eg Shiel & Hogan) it is a combination of the players seemingly wanting out, and the clubs wanting to maximise compensation before players become eligible for free agency.

I agree that the players will only have themselves to blame if the rules are tightened, but I can't see this happening. The AFL love anything that puts the game on the front page of the papers over the off season.

Yep, the balance has swung too far to the players who hold the whip hand in every negotiation. Clubs have to grovel to player managers.

It won't change until a Collingwood player, eg De Goey, signs a huge contract and then waltzes off a year or two later. Then Eddie will demand that the system be changed, and the AFL will fall in line rather than wear diatribe after diatribe over the airwaves.

3 hours ago, rjay said:

I don't know about everyone else but I used to think a contract meant something.

In fact back in the day a mans word was his bond.

...but now it seems you just sign a contract and abandon it when it no longer suits.

The Beams thing is the last straw for me.

In Hogan's case, those saying that if he stays we need a long term commitment.

He might as well sign on for 5 years and boot off next year if he feels like it.

It's definitely time that clubs are able to trade players in contract to wherever the club wants.

At least that would put some value back in the contract.

I think Mitch McGovern  requesting a trade away from Adelaide  just 12 months after signing a three-year contract was the final straw 

I don't reckon the AFL would relish the idea of facing the players in court in a restraint of trade action and so have very little power.

4 minutes ago, demonstone said:

I don't reckon the AFL would relish the idea of facing the players in court in a restraint of trade action and so have very little power.

I see this argument used a lot but I'm not so sure it holds up or is as easy to make as many say.

I think players are bound by the conditions of the AFL and are contracted as such.

In effect the AFL are really the employers, the clubs are divisions or franchise holders if you like.

An employer can move people around in the organisation but of course the employee has the ultimate say and can leave.

If a player doesn't like it then he could move to the VAFL, WAFL or other organisation.

It's not as simple as a restraint of trade, it's just the other organisations don't have the prestige and money of being employed in the AFL.

There maybe other legal precedents that could be argued, I would have to defer to the legal minds on this but I don't think restraint of trade would be the problem. The players still have a choice as we all do within reason.

Can't argue with any of that rjay, but the AFL has always done anything and everything to stay out of the courts, and rightly so.

Another aspect is that the players have the ultimate threat of refusing to play (going on strike) unless they get what they want, which is a situation nobody would wish to see.

The conduct of beams?

You mean damien barrett writing a bs story based on nothing?

Beams has done nothing. Not requested a trade or anything.

Barrett should be sacked for lying

 

 

Edited October 11, 20186 yr by biggestred

1 minute ago, biggestred said:

The conduct of beams?

You mean damien barrett writing a bs story based on nothing?

Beams has done nothing. Not requested a trade or anything.

Barrett should be sacked for lying

he'll more likely get a bonus for being creative and generating more clicks

The Lions paid a pretty heavy price to get Beams too.  Picks 5 (Jordan De Goey), 25 (traded with North for Levi Greenwood) and Jack Crisp who has been a pretty regular player for the Pies.

If the Beams rumor is true, then either Collingwood would need to repay something in the order of the premium they put on Beams or Brisbane should tell him to either turn up to their preseason or sit a year out off the AFL so he can put himself in the draft so that he can play for Carlton, St Kilda or the Bulldogs.  The AFL can't stand for any more draft tampering like in the Luke Ball fiasco either.

Recollecting on all this, it also reinforces to me that two first round picks for Jessie should be the absolute minimum.

I have to feel for Brisbane: paid through the nose to get him, and had the assets to do so.

Now Collingwood will want him back, and he is (allegedly) trying to force a move, but they don’t have half the assets Brisbane were forced to hand over. 

I can’t see the pies giving up anything equitable if such a move was forced.

For the record, he was a few years younger,  but they handed over Jack Crisp, picks 5 & 25.

Next who ever signs a contract say  4 years the Player  should request a back end contract. After the first year plead insanity or family issues and ask for a trade to your club of choice start all over again what a scam.   All jokes aside  what rights should a player have if he has a contract and doesn't keep his word? The club should have more rights as the player is privlidged to be in the position he's  in. 

POOR OLD SUPPORTER  not fair on us.

Yep, there needs to be a general reform of the trade system. I've got ideas but I'll spare you all a rant!

Hello

There is no trade

There never was a request

Its all just fake news

AND very distracting from "lets introduce positioning at centre bounces"

11 hours ago, rjay said:

I don't know about everyone else but I used to think a contract meant something.

In fact back in the day a mans word was his bond.

...but now it seems you just sign a contract and abandon it when it no longer suits.

The Beams thing is the last straw for me.

In Hogan's case, those saying that if he stays we need a long term commitment.

He might as well sign on for 5 years and boot off next year if he feels like it.

It's definitely time that clubs are able to trade players in contract to wherever the club wants.

At least that would put some value back in the contract.

Agree. These guys get the opportunity to play at the game at the elite level on very good money for people their age for maybe a period of 5 to 10 years. Can’t hack that and want to go home to Mum’s cooking!!

What gets me is that under current AFL "Rules" it is OK to break a contract.

The AFL have no moral fibre whatsoever and there are plenty of examples.

For eg they would have condoned the Drug Cheats if WADA hadn't overruled them.

It's anything goes in AFLWorld.

Yes contracts have become pointless; this may sound left field but a possible solution would be to have no draft at all and allow  players to head wherever they desire.

Exactly, do away with contracts.

After Hawks, Tiges, Filth and Drug Cheats have filled their lists the other teams get what's left.

There appears to be no solution when money defines the culture.

$cully typifies the gun for hire.

It is not just the players.

The AFL ran GWS are having to ship players left right and centre for a massive salary cap dump. The club (and AFL) must have known this would happen, yet still signed the contracts.

After reading an article about Sam Mitchell returning to the Hawks, he had a three year deal with WCE but left after one year, I was wondering why AFL clubs still bother with contracts? 

 

I know Carton have Bolton on an employee contract and I have only seen one real coach poached (Ross Lyon) so why do AFL clubs bother. 

 

Given the players/coaches complete disregard for contracts and clubs happy to break/trade them, is there any benefit to a contract? It seems the clubs get lumped with a contract in a long term injury situation but they have lost any real benefit of securing talent long term. 

On 10/11/2018 at 1:34 PM, biggestred said:

The conduct of beams?

You mean damien barrett writing a bs story based on nothing?

Beams has done nothing. Not requested a trade or anything.

Barrett should be sacked for lying

 

 

Barrett still employed and now by the AFL. Looks like you owe him an apology for calling him a liar.

41 minutes ago, Redleg said:

Barrett still employed and now by the AFL. Looks like you owe him an apology for calling him a liar.

Aye, looks like he was right. I still have a problem with him reporting stuff  before its happened though. 

If damo had said "we believe he is going to request a trade", thatd be fine. But he didnt, he said "beams is going to collingwood".

Damo then had to go back and say that "he actually hasnt yet".

Or perhaps its the editors fault for the inflammatory headline?

 

30 minutes ago, biggestred said:

I still have a problem with him reporting stuff  before its happened though. 

It's called a scoop, that's what he's paid for.

Like him or not, he's good at his job...

Yep, I get that he's annoying though.

On 10/30/2018 at 7:04 PM, Wolfgang219 said:

After reading an article about Sam Mitchell returning to the Hawks, he had a three year deal with WCE but left after one year, I was wondering why AFL clubs still bother with contracts? 

 

I know Carton have Bolton on an employee contract and I have only seen one real coach poached (Ross Lyon) so why do AFL clubs bother. 

 

Given the players/coaches complete disregard for contracts and clubs happy to break/trade them, is there any benefit to a contract? It seems the clubs get lumped with a contract in a long term injury situation but they have lost any real benefit of securing talent long term. 

Contracts protect the employee, not the employer, and that is the same for all of us.

I wonder how many of you who complain about footballers changing employers would think twice about ditching your own employer if a competitor came along and offered you double the pay and work you enjoyed more.

Give me a spell.