Other clubs trade activity

[hujsh]

It has to be two-way. If players can nominate clubs, then clubs should be able to trade them wherever they like. If a player is good enough/happy to sacrifice something else in their contract than they can opt for a no trade clause.

I don't like the idea of making players go to other states unwillingly though.

Maybe players can be traded but if it requires them/their family to relocate it needs their permission. If they agree to move to a particular state any club within that state is then fair to deal with.

[Rocco Jones]

I don't like the idea of making players go to other states unwillingly though.

Maybe players can be traded but if it requires them/their family to relocate it needs their permission. If they agree to move to a particular state any club within that state is then fair to deal with.

I guess that's something that can be part of the contract as well. Can be traded to any club within said state. The demanding to be traded to one club thing needs to stop.

[bulldogtragic]

I guess that's something that can be part of the contract as well. Can be traded to any club within said state. The demanding to be traded to one club thing needs to stop.

I'm not sure that would change that much as I think the SA & WA clubs love it in particular. That is to say, neither team rarely (perhaps never at all) gets in a bidding war with the other. Almost as if they're working it together behind the scenes to ensure the trade value is as cheap as they can get it, there was seemingly no competition for Hamling, Yeo, McCarthy, Bennell etc. Recent prices theyve acquired players for dirt cheap.

I'm not sure what the answer is. But the players seemingly want all the perks of models round the world, but don't want the obligations in the same models to move them.

[GVGjr]

I don't like the idea of making players go to other states unwillingly though.

Maybe players can be traded but if it requires them/their family to relocate it needs their permission. If they agree to move to a particular state any club within that state is then fair to deal with.

You've just destroyed the whole draft process

That's why I think you can nominate a state not a club if you want to break your contract.

[bulldogtragic]

You've just destroyed the whole draft process

That's why I think you can nominate a state not a club if you want to break your contract.

Outside of Victoria, it's in the interests of both clubs to conspire and divvy up talent. They do it already, some quite well. That would potentially put Victorian clubs at a disadvantage in both incoming and outgoing trades.

[GVGjr]

Outside of Victoria, it's in the interests of both clubs to conspire and divvy up talent. They do it already, some quite well. That would potentially put Victorian clubs at a disadvantage in both incoming and outgoing trades.

If clubs do that then you don't break the contract and keep them but players can't nominate Victoria with the proviso that it has to be Essendon if they want to break their contract. It's Victoria nothing else.

[bornadog]

You've just destroyed the whole draft process .

If you don't want the risk of being drafted to another state, don't play AFL - stick to the local state league.

There should be a longer minimum too of leaving a club - once drafted 3 years should be mandatory.

[GVGjr]

If you don't want the risk of being drafted to another state, don't play AFL - stick to the local state league.

There should be a longer minimum too of leaving a club - once drafted 3 years should be mandatory.

I think for anyone drafted in the first two round that would be a fair approach

[hujsh]

You've just destroyed the whole draft process

That's why I think you can nominate a state not a club if you want to break your contract.

Yeah I think when you go into the draft you accept that as a reality. When you sign a contract with a club and are a bit older, potentially have a young settled family I see it as a somewhat different situation.

[GVGjr]

Yeah I think when you go into the draft you accept that as a reality. When you sign a contract with a club and are a bit older, potentially have a young settled family I see it as a somewhat different situation.

Hasn't that been addressed with the FA option after a period of time and loyalty at a club?
I think it's a bit rich for players to want the security of contracts, sometimes long term deals, but also have the ability to pressure clubs into breaking them the moment they can secure more money elsewhere?

That's one of the primary reasons why Lever is coming home but only to Melbourne because they are offering the coin that the Crows can't. The thing is though that Adelaide shouldn't only have one team to deal with because Lever has been in the system just 3 years and he now has the whip hand in the negotiation. It's very lopsided with the players and that isn't right

[hujsh]

Hasn't that been addressed with the FA option after a period of time and loyalty at a club?
I think it's a bit rich for players to want the security of contracts, sometimes long term deals, but also have the ability to pressure clubs into breaking them the moment they can secure more money elsewhere?

That's one of the primary reasons why Lever is coming home but only to Melbourne because they are offering the coin that the Crows can't. The thing is though that Adelaide shouldn't only have one team to deal with because Lever has been in the system just 3 years and he now has the whip hand in the negotiation. It's very lopsided with the players and that isn't right

I don't see any real relation. In fact I don't see how free agency addresses my point at all. Do you mean because young players can eventually go home because I'm talking about established players being traded across the country and having to drag their family from state to state.

I think a compromise of some sort between the two extremes would be necessary, hence why I suggested state nomination.

[GVGjr]

I don't see any real relation. In fact I don't see how free agency addresses my point at all. Do you mean because young players can eventually go home because I'm talking about established players being traded across the country and having to drag their family from state to state.

I think a compromise of some sort between the two extremes would be necessary, hence why I suggested state nomination.

I'm looking at the Jackson Trengove example. After 8 years at the club he's been given the chance to look at other clubs

I don't believe players should just be traded to any club but if they have a contract then they shouldn't be able to nominate just one club as their destination. If a player has a contract and wants to go back to WA for example then his current club can sound out the two clubs there. If a deal can't be struck then the player stays.

That's all that I'm saying

[hujsh]

I'm looking at the Jackson Trengove example. After 8 years at the club he's been given the chance to look at other clubs

I don't believe players should just be traded to any club but if they have a contract then they shouldn't be able to nominate just one club as their destination. If a player has a contract and wants to go back to WA for example then his current club can sound out the two clubs there. If a deal can't be struck then the player stays.

That's all that I'm saying

Oh so we're agreeing with each other. Cool

[Twodogs]

I don't see any real relation. In fact I don't see how free agency addresses my point at all. Do you mean because young players can eventually go home because I'm talking about established players being traded across the country and having to drag their family from state to state.

I think a compromise of some sort between the two extremes would be necessary, hence why I suggested state nomination.

I'm looking at the Jackson Trengove example. After 8 years at the club he's been given the chance to look at other clubs

I don't believe players should just be traded to any club but if they have a contract then they shouldn't be able to nominate just one club as their destination. If a player has a contract and wants to go back to WA for example then his current club can sound out the two clubs there. If a deal can't be struck then the player stays.

That's all that I'm saying

Oh so we're agreeing with each other. Cool

In fact the two of you are in furious agreement.

[bulldogtragic]

In fact the two of you are in furious agreement.

Agree.