https://www.codesports.com.au/afl/trade-hq/afl-pushing-for-players-to-be-traded-against-their-will-in-major-shakeup-to-player-movement/news-story/2d0ec95d26c0f8fa88f9132d44a64bbd

The AFL’s superstars would be traded against their will NBA-style under a radical proposal raised by the league as part of its pay talks with the AFL Players’ Association.

And the league has for the first time officially asked the AFLPA to consider a mid-season trade period under the next collective bargaining agreement to help increase player movement across clubs.

AFLPA boss Paul Marsh on Monday told the Herald Sun the players and the player union were firmly against any proposal to trade players against their will.

“They want to reduce player freedom contracts and take away choice of movement and they want us to fund past player liabilities,” Marsh said.

“They put some conditions around that (trading players) – players would have to be earning a certain amount to be able to be traded without consent.

Marsh said “certain coaches” supported the AFL’s proposal to move players without their consent – but the AFLPA’s position was that forcefully relocating players and their families was off limits.

Call it an ambit claim or call it just plain posturing.  It's not going to happen.

Doesn’t the AFL understand how much supporters value loyalty in their players, and continuity?

I think it will happen, not sure on this agreement. Simply based on the restrictive nature of current players are enforcing for trade to one a specific club, or players wanting to leave well before the end of their contract.   They can't have it both ways.  Given the limited number of places you can get traded too, it's not as bad as in the US.

 

 

Good luck trying to integrate a "conscripted" player into a playing group - Jim Tilbrook says "hi", and he wasn't conscripted.    

A step in entirely the wrong direction. Followed US sports for a long time.  The player movement is not something to be emulated IMHO

Does that mean, sell the house and move the immediate family to Gold Coast or maybe Tasmania. 

Edited April 24, 20231 yr by kev martin

This should never happen yet it sort of does with draft players. 

Edited April 24, 20231 yr by YearOfTheDees

25 minutes ago, Demonstone said:

Call it an ambit claim or call it just plain posturing.  It's not going to happen.

It will eventually. Currently players have all the leverage and clubs just have to roll over. If a player signs a contract with a club the club owns the services of that player and should be able to trade them wherever they want (while in contract). Players want the security of the long term contract with the ability to dictate a move at a whim if they get a better offer (and let's not even mention front loaded contracts).

I would be happy to see the following;

- rookie deals are 2 years (as currently) with clubs given the option of 1 + 1 years (so effectively clubs get 4 years with draftees)

- 5th year options after that similar to the NFL

- clubs can franchise tag players

- clubs can trade players wherever while players are in contract

- after initial rookie contract/5th year options players are free agents for the remainder of their careers unless franchise tagged

Probably some more manoeuvring within that but this would free things up and ensure both clubs and players had flexibility to determine the future of their careers/list management.

Edited April 24, 20231 yr by Dr. Gonzo

14 minutes ago, monoccular said:

Good luck trying to integrate a "conscripted" player into a playing group - Jim Tilbrook says "hi", and he wasn't conscripted.    

Well they are meant to be "professionals" - you want to be an amateur go back to the VAFA.

This should happen. And if the players don’t like it they can sign shorter contracts

Easy. Call their bluff. 

This needs to happen if equalisation is to ever get close to happening. [censored] what Dangerfield thinks.

10 minutes ago, Waltham33 said:

A step in entirely the wrong direction. Followed US sports for a long time.  The player movement is not something to be emulated IMHO

The cat is out of the bag though - players can determine movement but clubs can't. This just levels the playing field.

32 minutes ago, rpfc said:

This should happen. And if the players don’t like it they can sign shorter contracts

Or negotiate no move clauses. Give up some $$$ to stay where they are

AFL players will also earn tens of millions of dollars each year in their contracts and merchandising deals, I presume?

I have no problem with this provided there is a significant relocation bonus payable while not in your home town.

Same city ... no payment required

I simply ask why we need this? Who is this benefitting? Certainly not the public.
My preference is that players must see out their contracts; and that clubs must not trade players against their will. Simple.

Unlike other sports like rugby, gridiron, soccer,  basketball etc, there is resistance in our code slave trade like player moves. Would be a shame if our game goes down that level.

should happen; won't happen

Don't see a problem to be fixed.  

If the Football Deptartments can't or won't do their job, they need to retire or improve and not expect the players to bail them out.   If you freely make a contract, you should stand by it and cop the consquences of soft earlier decisions.

Still disappointed that Woey Senior and Jack W didn't tell the club to stick it. 

 

The NBA is a bit unique in the sense that, unlike domestic leagues, it has a global reach. Most NBA fans are fans of star players, not the teams themselves.

LeBron fans moved from Cleveland, to Miami, back to Cleveland and so on.

We get just about all our best players signed up and the AFL cracks the sh@#$, andwants to change the rules

2 hours ago, monoccular said:

Good luck trying to integrate a "conscripted" player into a playing group - Jim Tilbrook says "hi", and he wasn't conscripted.    

so does his brother John.

2 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Well they are meant to be "professionals" - you want to be an amateur go back to the VAFA.

I reckon most AFL players don't earn anywhere near enough to be required to move interstate mid year.  Personally I wouldn't move interstate for anything less than a $200k relocation fee given the direct and indirect costs along with the disruption to the whole family.