nutbean

Already vented to the editor and now changed ( much better ) - umm please address me as Nutbean "power-broker" (fame has already gone to my head) In the first of this series, reader Jeff Robinson wonders why the AFL does not make young talent off-limits from the new, cashed-up franchises

I didnt think the editing did much to the story however I was horrified that when i clicked into news and it gives a taste of the stories Open Space: Evenness, what evenness? In the first of this series, reader Jeff Robinson asks why the AFL won't restrict expansion clubs' poaching of experienced players The argument and what I wrote on free agency and the suggested solution is not about restricting the poaching of EXPERIENCED players but the likes of Scully, Martin and now add Callum Ward to the list.

Yikes - it is up !!!! not one article but two - seems the hackles were raised by the challenging of AFL.com's impartiality!!!! http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/108525/default.aspx http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/108528/default.aspx

Not too much - one part about the player auction has gone - but all in all - feels the same. I am pretty sure it will get aired as he said he will squeeze it in. ( what will be interesting is what my byline says as I gave him three alternatives for the sign off). When it gets an airing I will be interested in feedback on whether it differs in substance from what I presented. Note - thanks to Hardtack as his edited version was submitted.

As stated perviously there are only two considerations 1/ Talent - undoubted talent. 2/ Fit for the team/playing group, team ethos and culture - undoubtedly NO. If we were considering Davis cup tennis singles - then maybe. But this is a team sport and he has no place in a team enviroment. I am little bemused by people saying "well, its Fev and its his personality and what major crime has he committed to be treated by the Lions as he has - who doesnt go out on NYE and kick their heels up ?" ( not necessarily on this thread or site) I pose this question - if it is no big deal what Fev has done, then lets consider two players on your list behaving like Fev, how about 4 players ? how about half the list going out and behaving as Fev does ? Is that a problem ? There is a certain standard of behaviour required of footballers in the team enviroment and Fev has been a constant and repetitive failure. Some bad boys do make good - some don't. When it comes to 44 other players on our list I am prepared to punt on signing a player with form queries, with injury queries but personality queries ? no ! I for one did not want Ben Cousins. I did not want Aker. I did not want Barry Hall. I do not want Brendan Fevola.

Nope - don't think so. I was sent the edited version and it really hasnt moved the substance of the article and the quotes are still in.

This article may actually get an airing - After submitting the article, I have been asked about the source of the AD quotes. Fortunately both of them came from articles on AFL.com !

As the CEO of a business that is turning over as much as the AFL is, whilst some may find it obscene, Demetriou's salary is not out of line on what CEO's for these size businesses are being paid. I am not egotistical enough to think that anything I write will have an impact on AFL thinking - but if AFL.com allows nonsense like Phelans article to be published under their banner, and when it is challenged the response comes back - "happy to allow a different opinion"- then I am gonna give it a go. ( actually I am egotistical - a published journo !!!! wooo hooo !!! I'm tipping that Demonland is as far as this article will go)

Better - Thanks !

After giving Geoff Slattery a serve that AFL.com never publishes anything remotely anti - AFL, he extended an invite for me to provide copy (albeit he said he would edit it fairly) - so I have given it a go. Firstly - a big thanks to old55 who really gave a workable solution and pointed me to free agency Secondly - whilst some, most, all may not agree with me - these are my views and I am looking for feedback on how the article reads and is my logic sound. EXPANSION CLUBS, UNCONTRACTED PLAYERS AND FREE AGENCY. EVENNESS? WHAT EVENNESS? Andrew Demetriou was recently quoted on the subject of free agency as saying "The agreed model is fair for all concerned in that it gives players more flexibility but also contains safeguards that will help maintain the evenness of the competition". The only thing missing from this statement is "maintain the evenness of the competition as long as the GWS and GC17 are little bit more even than the established clubs". Can the same litmus test of evenness be applied to the access to uncontracted players that GWS and GCS has compared to the free agency agreement ? Whilst it is understandable that the AFL want the expansion clubs to be successful, the unlimited access to uncontracted players (barring the amount that can be taken) together with a significantly increased cap available to the expansion clubs, flies in the face of Demetriou's desire for evenness. On the extra money available in the cap - "What's important about that is it's not a bucket of spare money and down the track you pay players over and above the odds," Demetriou said. "I mean they actually need that money because they've got more players on their list." These comments fail to point out the obvious – the expansion clubs have a disproportionate amount of new draftees on lower, fixed salaries meaning there is more to spend on uncontracted players. As to the comment about paying players over and above the odds – no one can deny this is exactly what happened with GC17 and will happen with GWS. That the expansion clubs have advantaged access to 17 years olds and the cream of the crop from the national draft is not so worrying to supporters. GWS and GC17 still have to nurture and develop this talent. Whilst it is understood that extra money given to the expansion clubs is also needed for retention, when this same extra money is used to lure players then the AFL is basically saying that all bets regarding evenness are off. GWS and GCS are rolling up to player auctions with a lot more AFL cash in their pockets to spend than the established clubs. And placing restricted access on free agency but not doing the same on access to uncontracted players for the expansion clubs has led to the farcical situation that the likes of Dustin Martin and Tom Scully can be targeted. The AFL, in the cause of evenness, should ask why the likes of Martin and Scully are at their respective clubs. The players were high draft picks, picks that Richmond and Melbourne received due to poor performances in effort to even up the competition. That there is a possibility of any second year player leaving a club, especially high draft picks that are meant to improve ailing clubs, is ludicrous – evenness apparently doesn't stretch too far. So what is the answer? With the AFL determined to give the expansion clubs a leg up with extra cash to spend why not at least protect it establishment clubs by limiting the access to uncontracted players by length of service, as the free agency agreement does. Why not give the expansion clubs a year's head start on free agency? Whilst players will head north for the lure of pay packets, at least the players will have given appropriate service to their clubs. This will at least be a better solution to maintaining the evenness in the competition that Andrew Demetriou keeps talking about.

I cant help myself - i had to post a comment under the article. Where he asked the question what did White, Rocca, Headland, Buckley and Grant all have in common - I commented that all went back to play in their home states - Besides Buckley who said before he got to Brisbane that he wanted to play in Victoria hence the one year contract. I also commented that if one more journo talks about us luring Jeff White home I will puke. He was always going to come home. We just rorted the cap to make sure he came home to us.

Im figuring that DemonHQ must have sent out about 25 tweets - got to read about Jurrahs great mark and even goals we should have kicked but missed. I am sure when we got to within 10 points The Bulls sisters must have looked at me oddly as I was looking down at my phone and did the Lleyton Hewitt - "Cmonnnnnnn"

sigh.....logic and common sense... a much undervalued commodity 1/ I learned that I had no idea when the second round would be when I booked to see Vika and Linda Bull at Wellers - hence I didnt go 2/ I learned the Vika Bull has the best set of pipes ever 3/ I learned that when you are sitting at table within a metre of Vika Bull singing you need to be very discreet when getting twitter updates on your phone of the score every 30 seconds as she gets rather shirty at my complete lack of concentration

It is in the preseason comp - 15 weeks and loss of half the year's premiership points - by round 15 it will be no case to answer to

We are going backwards - for most of last year we were playing games for premiership points - now we are playing practice matches Edit: please note sarcasm - its our second ( well third) PRACTICE match of the year. Jones is a good case in point - lots jumping on him and he tweeted he felt "rusty" - PRACTICE match

Thats the whole point - competing to keep your players on even playing with the same cap is fair and reasonable -cudos to the cats but they have done well on level playing field. The AFL bangs on about an even competition but has created a scenario where they have said to the clubs - heres $10 to retain all your players and to GWS and GC17 have said - heres $15 to go out and buy them. And the system where we have tried to keep an even playing field by giving access to better quality players ( aka higher draft picks) to the poorer club - well thats open slather for you as well. I agree it not all about money, but as Old has pointed out with pointing me to free agency, the AFL has gone out of its way not to undermine the cap and draft and keep eveness in the competition yet this philosophy does not apply to the rules governing uncontracted players to GWS and GC17. Old55 - If I am understanding you I do like your very simple premise - give GWS the extra money but let the free agency rules apply one year early for them alone ( should have been the same for GC17)

Whilst I don't really give a rat's about other clubs, this angst is not purely a Scully thing. Richmond should be aggrieved that they have had to pay well over the odds for Dustin Martin. That the AFL has let this situation occur when they are sprouting about Free Agency and "Eveness" of the competition is a joke.

Wow ! On one of the articles there is this quote from Vlad re free agency "Importantly, the agreement protects the integrity of the salary cap and draft -- key pillars in the ongoing success of the competition." "The agreed model is fair for all concerned in that it gives players more flexibility but also contains safeguards that will help maintain the evenness of the competition." Integrity of the draft !!!!! Maintain the eveness of the competition !!!!!! can the same litmus test be applied to the rules put in the place surrounding uncontracted player to GWS and GC17 ??? where are the safeguards that can allow any 2nd year footballer to be lured from a club on hundreds of thousands of extra dollars that the non expansion clubs dont have in their cap FAIL FAIL FAIL.

Thanks for that - does make some compelling reading

Quite frankly I dont give a rats tossbag about the compensation - The taking of any first contract, 2nd year player should not warrant a discussion about what compensation is fair but whether or not the taking of first contract players should be allowed in the first place ( this is not meant as a shot at Demonlanders - it is a shot at the AFL)

ooops - just read this after posting - can you see a similarity in what all the players when asked are saying to the media ? Not pre-rehearsed ?

I have so far seen comment from Watts, Maloney, Trengove, Jones, Green - all towing the same line - havent talked about it, exceptional kid, wanna play with him, make the right decision, good times ahead. Me thinks that the club has worded up the players that when the media comes a knockin and you get asked about Tom you answer "...........

Wow ! I think I am going to go down the plagiarising route - good article. I think the solution ( not that there is a completely fair and one size fits all solution) is that whilst these new clubs have more money to spend, creating this inequality, there should be a cap on the age of the uncontracted players that are allowed to be taken. I was going to suggest 24 but I quite like Jake Nialls suggestion on a moratorium on first contract players - that would contract one = 2 years and contrat two for a scully or gysberts would be 3 years - bring us to age 23 . These players have at least given 5 years service to their existing club.( although it still smacks of losing a player just coming into their prime ! - what a conundrum)

I will write it over the weekend and place it on here for review and suggestion - I am well prepared for people to have completely differing views from mine. I will put down the bottom of my article that these are the views of Journalist not Demonland. My thrust will be threefold - whilst it is the AFL's intention to have expansion teams in the competition and supporters understand that these clubs need a leg up the policies in place for these new teams undermines the decades longs philosophy of the league for a level playing field for all ( which has largely been successful due to the draft and the cap) - no problem with the tops picks in the draft going to GWS and GC17 - the new clubs still have to develop this talent successfully and these players are not being taken from existing clubs - the uncontracted players and extra money is a problem. If all clubs had the same cap then it is open slather - you have to be competitve in your offer to keep your player - no problems. But with the extra money, the new clubs are going to an auction with lots more cash to spend on the same house. This is further compounded as Old55 pointed out that GWS and GC17 have a disproportionate amount of first time draftees on fixed minimum salaries for two years meaning they have even more money than the established clubs to throw at uncontracted players On uncontracted players - the idea of giving the early draft picks to underperforming teams is to level the competition and surely taking a 2nd year player flies in the face of the AFL's rational behind having a draft at all. I am going to suggest a cap on the age of uncontracted players that can be taken - Whilst I would be devastated to lose Aaron Davey - given his tenure at the club this would not be in my mind the same as losing a Scully. Hence why I find the comparison of losing Scully vs Ablett so objectional - not the same at all. I am not sure how to write on the money issue - whilst I understand that extra money is necessary for retention and in a broad sense I understand that it is necessary to lure players - how can the AFL say it truely believes it is creating a competitive competition where all teams are given equal opportunity to win a flag when teams are being given extra money to pay the same amount of players ? ( can anyone fill me in what the extra money is ?)

Yikes - now I am in trouble - after challenging Geoff Slattery by email that no Anti AFL opinion is ever published and I would like AFL.com to publish my article loosely titled " AFL got it wrong - uncontracted players should be age/service capped before being eligible to be signed by GC17/GWS" - I got this reply Happy to receive your copy. As with any other it will be edited, but fairly. CHeers GS I guess I will actually have to write something !