Trade Rumours 2025

[Bornadog]

Good luck with this Pies

image.png

[ReLoad]

Good luck with this Pies

image.png

great news!

[whythelongface]

Good luck with this Pies

image.png

Jeepers. How old will their list be? Next they will be looking at recruiting Boomer Harvey for midfield coverage

[EasternWest]

Then the union gets involved and they'll sue for constraint of trade or something.

I'm not sure the clubs have any power sadly EW.

Walk them to the psd, but likely they'll get where they want anyway with some ridiculous loophole.

Bloody unions.

I suppose you're probably right. I'm not actually anti players expressing where they want to go - they've been traded like stock for a long time so a bit of power going back their way is fine - but there needs to be some balance.

[doggies ftw]

The answer is pretty simple for mine:

- Uncontracted, earn under a certain amount per year (not sure on the figure but ie 500k etc) = can pick a state, but club can deal with any club they see fit in this state. I don’t think it’s fair for clubs to be shipping say a rookie on $150k to the otherside of the country. So this lets them pick their state.

Also the clubs offer to players needs to be in writing and within a certain value of the other one. Ie if Adelaide is offering 500k and port is offering $200k you can’t just ship them to Port.

Generally I think MOST players would get where they want to go, so I don’t think this changes much. clubs would do the right thing by them as it would also affect club culture, and their 40 mates still at the club etc if you completely ****ed someone over and shipped them to the other side of the country for no reason. BUT it forces the club targeting the player to play fair and cough up market value. Plus most of these players aren’t high priority so clubs would deal in good faith.

- Uncontracted, not yet FA but earn over salary threshold, you’re a top earner at the club they’ve paid you handsomely you want out you can go where the club gets the best deal - boo hoo you have to move states on a $700k contract, this isn’t difficult for you. Again most clubs would try to do the right thing ie if you wanted to go Brisbane and they were offering pick 12 but Freo was offering pick 10 I doubt any club would trade to Freo, as it’s bad business and will upset players but forces targeting team to play fair.

I would also allow a nomination of say 3-5 clubs at least as a starting point to get this through. Ie you can nominate Dogs, Lions, North etc and club can get the best deal they see fit.

Uncontracted - free agency status, you’ve earnt the right to go wherever you see fit with no concessions. Go for it

Contracted - Obviously everyone has to agree otherwise you can hold the player or club to the original contract. Security for both player and club.

This seems pretty straight forward, and fair for both players and clubs. The current system is whack - I think realistically it wouldn’t change a lot. As clubs wouldn’t offer big money contracts to players that don’t want to be there, players would get where they want to go 99% of the time. But it restores balance to the clubs, and means teams would be keeping other teams accountable to play fair.

Geelong not offering a deal to get Bailey Smith, they’ve given us a take it or leave it 17 or he goes to the draft. We don’t want this, 17 other clubs don’t want this - it makes Geelong stronger for no reason. In the above scenario what would happen is other clubs would come in and say well we’ll offer pick 5. Smith would kick up a stink and say I’m not going to Ie Saints. Doesn’t matter, both us and saints would call the bluff and say to Geelong we will send him elsewhere, you’re not negotiating in good faith we don’t give a **** - Geelong come back with 2 late 1st rounders. Baz gets where he wants, Geelong pays a fair price everyone’s happy.

Other teams would keep teams like Geelong accountable, because no one wins when one contender makes out like bandits

[Grantysghost]

The Lions were massive dicks with Dunkley, they traded out their first and still got what they wanted. Poor form.

[azabob]

The Lions were massive dicks with Dunkley, they traded out their first and still got what they wanted. Poor form.

Didn’t they tell us what they were going to do and gave us a deadline. The deadline passed so they did what they did

[JanLorMill]

The Lions were massive dicks with Dunkley, they traded out their first and still got what they wanted. Poor form.

Joke system. They still got 2 father sons at pick 2 and 11 that year.
3 GFs in a row!

[Grantysghost]

Didn’t they tell us what they were going to do and gave us a deadline. The deadline passed so they did what they did

You wouldn't have to be Sherlock Holmes to think trading out your highest pick when you want Josh Dunkley is taking the piss.

[Boots]

We've been absolutely shafted twice recently in the trade period, and it's been because we've had two stars refusing to sign contract extensions and using that in the trade period to give their chosen club insane leverage. It was particularly bad with Smith. We spent pick 7 on him, and paid him for a year where he didn't play. We lost pick 7, lost a key burst midfielder, gained pick 17, and gave a much better club the piece they needed to keep contending.

Literally any observer can see that was a lopsided trade with very real consequences for equalisation, and it should never have been approved. But the problem isn't the trade system, it's the contract system. Waiting until you are out of contract to hold your club over a barrel is a shortcut to free agency, but without any compensation for the losing club. It's a massive loophole that needs to be closed.

Players should of course be able to choose their club and broker a deal, but clubs need to be able to meaningfully say no to the deal. The Bulldogs have not been able to do that for two significant stars. I don't fully understand why the PSD isn't a solution - refuse to sign a contract and pick a team to escape to, sure, but then, the risk you run is that if you pick a team with no draft capital, you might not get to pick your club. It would also give the club losing the player a bargaining chip to bring the player back to the contract negotiation table.

Honestly, the Bailey Smith fiasco is turning me off AFL. Watching him blossom at Geelong, watching Geelong make a grand final, hearing he's in contention for a Brownlow before Bont. All of these things are just diabolical. But then just two years beforehand, Dunkley did the same thing at the Lions. These two teams can also attract talent like Jeremy Cameron and Lachie Neale - and also somehow pay for them in trade capital. How? Again, this loophole needs to be closed.

Geelong is a tight unit, and Chris Scott is a good coach. Their system works and they recruit well. We have also struggled with club culture, clearly. We shouldn't be one-eyed about this. But Geelong are also abusing a system that is full of loopholes that are being kept open by a range of powerbrokers for a range of reasons, some of which border on corruption. Almost any coach could win with Patrick Dangerfield and Bailey Smith feeding Jeremy Cameron. It's deeply dispiriting and sucks a lot of the fun out of the sport for me.

[Willow18]

I think they need to move towards free agency becoming the norm for anyone out of contract. Not just players in their 5th & 7th years etc.

make it years 1-5 RFA, then unrestricted after that,

if they’re desperate to keep compensation, we would have got pick 12 for Smith, still lopsided but for whatever reason that Smith wanted to leave, it’s better than nothing and certainly better than listening to everyone discuss how fair Geelong’s offer was.

[comrade]

We've been absolutely shafted twice recently in the trade period, and it's been because we've had two stars refusing to sign contract extensions and using that in the trade period to give their chosen club insane leverage. It was particularly bad with Smith. We spent pick 7 on him, and paid him for a year where he didn't play. We lost pick 7, lost a key burst midfielder, gained pick 17, and gave a much better club the piece they needed to keep contending.

Literally any observer can see that was a lopsided trade with very real consequences for equalisation, and it should never have been approved. But the problem isn't the trade system, it's the contract system. Waiting until you are out of contract to hold your club over a barrel is a shortcut to free agency, but without any compensation for the losing club. It's a massive loophole that needs to be closed.

Players should of course be able to choose their club and broker a deal, but clubs need to be able to meaningfully say no to the deal. The Bulldogs have not been able to do that for two significant stars. I don't fully understand why the PSD isn't a solution - refuse to sign a contract and pick a team to escape to, sure, but then, the risk you run is that if you pick a team with no draft capital, you might not get to pick your club. It would also give the club losing the player a bargaining chip to bring the player back to the contract negotiation table.

Honestly, the Bailey Smith fiasco is turning me off AFL. Watching him blossom at Geelong, watching Geelong make a grand final, hearing he's in contention for a Brownlow before Bont. All of these things are just diabolical. But then just two years beforehand, Dunkley did the same thing at the Lions. These two teams can also attract talent like Jeremy Cameron and Lachie Neale - and also somehow pay for them in trade capital. How? Again, this loophole needs to be closed.

Geelong is a tight unit, and Chris Scott is a good coach. Their system works and they recruit well. We have also struggled with club culture, clearly. We shouldn't be one-eyed about this. But Geelong are also abusing a system that is full of loopholes that are being kept open by a range of powerbrokers for a range of reasons, some of which border on corruption. Almost any coach could win with Patrick Dangerfield and Bailey Smith feeding Jeremy Cameron. It's deeply dispiriting and sucks a lot of the fun out of the sport for me.

Add in their shitsville home ground advantage and all the ‘alleged’ offences off field that get swept under the rug and it’s easy to see why Geelong is the worst club in the league…in my completely objective opinion.

[doggies ftw]

I think they need to move towards free agency becoming the norm for anyone out of contract. Not just players in their 5th & 7th years etc.

make it years 1-5 RFA, then unrestricted after that,

if they’re desperate to keep compensation, we would have got pick 12 for Smith, still lopsided but for whatever reason that Smith wanted to leave, it’s better than nothing and certainly better than listening to everyone discuss how fair Geelong’s offer was.

Mate that would be an unmitigated disaster for clubs like ours, we’d probably never compete again in an AFL world like that to be honest.

Wed have got pick 12 sure Geelong would have still got Baz AND kept pick 17?

That’s putting even more power to the big clubs

[Bumper Bulldogs]

Good luck with this Pies

image.png

Great news. I honestly didn’t want a cancer like May in our squad

[Bumper Bulldogs]

The answer is pretty simple for mine:

- Uncontracted, earn under a certain amount per year (not sure on the figure but ie 500k etc) = can pick a state, but club can deal with any club they see fit in this state. I don’t think it’s fair for clubs to be shipping say a rookie on $150k to the otherside of the country. So this lets them pick their state.

Also the clubs offer to players needs to be in writing and within a certain value of the other one. Ie if Adelaide is offering 500k and port is offering $200k you can’t just ship them to Port.

Generally I think MOST players would get where they want to go, so I don’t think this changes much. clubs would do the right thing by them as it would also affect club culture, and their 40 mates still at the club etc if you completely ****ed someone over and shipped them to the other side of the country for no reason. BUT it forces the club targeting the player to play fair and cough up market value. Plus most of these players aren’t high priority so clubs would deal in good faith.

- Uncontracted, not yet FA but earn over salary threshold, you’re a top earner at the club they’ve paid you handsomely you want out you can go where the club gets the best deal - boo hoo you have to move states on a $700k contract, this isn’t difficult for you. Again most clubs would try to do the right thing ie if you wanted to go Brisbane and they were offering pick 12 but Freo was offering pick 10 I doubt any club would trade to Freo, as it’s bad business and will upset players but forces targeting team to play fair.

I would also allow a nomination of say 3-5 clubs at least as a starting point to get this through. Ie you can nominate Dogs, Lions, North etc and club can get the best deal they see fit.

Uncontracted - free agency status, you’ve earnt the right to go wherever you see fit with no concessions. Go for it

Contracted - Obviously everyone has to agree otherwise you can hold the player or club to the original contract. Security for both player and club.

This seems pretty straight forward, and fair for both players and clubs. The current system is whack - I think realistically it wouldn’t change a lot. As clubs wouldn’t offer big money contracts to players that don’t want to be there, players would get where they want to go 99% of the time. But it restores balance to the clubs, and means teams would be keeping other teams accountable to play fair.

Geelong not offering a deal to get Bailey Smith, they’ve given us a take it or leave it 17 or he goes to the draft. We don’t want this, 17 other clubs don’t want this - it makes Geelong stronger for no reason. In the above scenario what would happen is other clubs would come in and say well we’ll offer pick 5. Smith would kick up a stink and say I’m not going to Ie Saints. Doesn’t matter, both us and saints would call the bluff and say to Geelong we will send him elsewhere, you’re not negotiating in good faith we don’t give a **** - Geelong come back with 2 late 1st rounders. Baz gets where he wants, Geelong pays a fair price everyone’s happy.

Other teams would keep teams like Geelong accountable, because no one wins when one contender makes out like bandits

I’ve always wondered why other clubs can’t bid in then player like the draft.

on the other hand when you spend Pick 7 on a player like Smith and then develop him why should any other club not have to offer pick 7 to get him in the next trade. Like the father and son rule. You can nominate a club but if another club offers pick 4 Geelong should have to work that out in points or draft picks to secure your services