Could the AFL catch a cold from the draft?
Roar Guru Related coverage
The week of the 2009 AFL draft looms as a test of patience for the AFL Players Association with the AFL’s draft laws. In the background is the issue of Free Agency, which is lurking like Swine Flu ready to strike again.
The draft system exists on the goodwill of both the AFLPA and the AFL and clubs in that 99 percent of the time all parties are best served by the draft system.
The drafting of unloved St Kilda player Luke Ball in either the main draft or the pre-season draft will test the resolve of all parties.
Ball has been accused of draft tampering by some for nominating which clubs he would like to go to. In a draft system, you go to the club who picks you.
Normally there is some outside discussion as clubs and players align with each other to form a positive partnership. It is unhealthy for any club to pick up a player who does not want to play for them.
However, Luke Ball may prove to be a problem.
Collingwood appears his first choice, with Essendon second. However, Melbourne or Richmond with early draft picks could pick up Ball.
If Ball refuses to go to any club, he has to stand out of the game for two years. This appears harsh, but you’re either in or out with the draft system, as free agency is currently not in the rules.
One thing is for certain, the AFLPA will be watching closely how the Luke Ball situation unfolds. It has to be said that it is very unusual for a high profile player like Ball not to be traded in trade week.
The draft might get the blame when, in fact, it was the two clubs (St Kilda and Collingwood) who were at fault for not reaching a mutual agreement when the trade window was wide open.
Looking to join The Roar team? We're searching for an experienced Group Sales Manager to lead our team in Sydney. Yes, this does mean you get to work with the site all day long! If you're a digital media sales star, we want to hear from you. Apply now.
Passionate about your AFL? Then sign up to The Roar's brand new daily AFL email, delivering Roaring articles directly to you day-in, day-out. You'll love it!
Click here to join now!
- Explore:
- AFL, Luke Ball, St Kilda Saints
November 24th 2009 @ 7:22am
Michael C said | November 24th 2009 @ 7:22am | Report comment
moral of the story – NEVER seek a trade to Collingwood (especially with Malthouse at the helm).
November 24th 2009 @ 11:06am
Gibbo said | November 24th 2009 @ 11:06am | Report comment
it is all collingwoods fault for going after a player and then not getting the deal done.
November 24th 2009 @ 11:14am
Pippinu said | November 24th 2009 @ 11:14am | Report comment
Everything is Collingwood’s fault.
November 24th 2009 @ 12:50pm
ren said | November 24th 2009 @ 12:50pm | Report comment
Especially WWI and WWII.
November 24th 2009 @ 7:23am
Kurt said | November 24th 2009 @ 7:23am | Report comment
The issue of free agency is ‘like swine flu lurking to strike again’. Have you been attending the Justin Langer school of over-the-top metaphors!
November 24th 2009 @ 7:26am
Pippinu said | November 24th 2009 @ 7:26am | Report comment
As you say, it works in 99% of cases to suit everyone’s interests – the Ball case is unique in recent history.
November 24th 2009 @ 8:44am
JiMMM said | November 24th 2009 @ 8:44am | Report comment
Dare I say it, but maybe the NFL has the right of it with some form of free agency for long serving players, but still a draft to help struggling clubs.
November 25th 2009 @ 6:44am
Redb said | November 25th 2009 @ 6:44am | Report comment
Agree. The draft is a good system for the younger players. But big name players like Ball need alternatives. There is mediation possible during trade week to get clubs working together, it appears the AFL either missed the opportunity to get involved or didn’t push St Kilda and Collingwood hard enough to gain a resolution.
Redb
November 24th 2009 @ 9:47am
Art Sapphire said | November 24th 2009 @ 9:47am | Report comment
Ball wants to go to a Collingwood. Collingwood can fit him in their salary cap.
If the 2 teams con’t come to an agreement. All the AFL has to do is impose non-negotiable terms..
E.G – A tribunal can determine whether Ball is worth a first or second round draft pick depending on the age + salary, etc. etc.
If Collingwood don’t agree with the determination, then should the Magpies not be able to take him.
Also, Ball would feel better about playing for a club other than those smelly skunks.
You know it makes sense
Mr Demetriou – looks like you need a competent Operations Manager. You can contact me thru the Roar .
As as Essendon supporter, I don’t want Luke Ball playing at my club. He did not want to be their in the first place.
November 24th 2009 @ 11:15am
Pippinu said | November 24th 2009 @ 11:15am | Report comment
Art
don’t mind this idea of some form of arbitration (it’s already a highly regulated labour market – may as well go the whole hog!!)
November 24th 2009 @ 11:45am
Michael C said | November 24th 2009 @ 11:45am | Report comment
Given that this sort of system is already in place with respect the father-son selections,
I could only imagine it or something like it is amongst the options around a freer-trade/draft system.
November 24th 2009 @ 11:52am
Art Sapphire said | November 24th 2009 @ 11:52am | Report comment
Well, Michael, considering my idea is so sensible, why hasn’t it been introduced already.
The AFL are potentially looking at a real fiacso in a few days time.
November 24th 2009 @ 1:03pm
Michael C said | November 24th 2009 @ 1:03pm | Report comment
LIke most things….they bubble away on the back burner for a while until someone knocks the pot and spills a little, a bit more or a lot.
But, the AFL and AFLPA having been nibbling away for a little while now – so, it just needs a catalyst – this might well be it.
btw – if someone other than Collingwood selects him, I’d imagine Ball just has to go there – - after all, he did nominate for the draft – but with conditions. Perhaps though, they should stipulate that players can’t nominate conditions in the main draft and only in the pre-season one. But – you can’t have it too easy to just sit out until then, as, the trade period is the only way the ‘original’ club can secure some form of compensation.
November 24th 2009 @ 1:09pm
Firestarter Bob said | November 24th 2009 @ 1:09pm | Report comment
It’s unAustralian not to have free agency.
November 24th 2009 @ 1:17pm
Pippinu said | November 24th 2009 @ 1:17pm | Report comment
oh I dunno – bureaucratic meddling in the labour market looks entirely Australian to me!!
November 24th 2009 @ 1:17pm
Luke W said | November 24th 2009 @ 1:17pm | Report comment
While I enjoy the AFL, I must admit to having no clue how the draft system works. I thought it was only for young players coming through the junior ranks? I didn’t realise that established players like Luke Ball (sorry, I’ve never heard of him) were able to be drafted? I thought once they were drafted they were then based on contracts. Sorry this is a bit off topic, but I’m sure I’m not the only one who doesn’t really understand the draft system.
November 24th 2009 @ 1:24pm
Pippinu said | November 24th 2009 @ 1:24pm | Report comment
Luke
it’s a fair enough question, and I agree with you that it does get confusing at times (it’s taken me 20 years to get my head around it, and even now, I get confused by things like rookie lists and international rookies and scholarships and the like).
But essentially – absolutely anyone can put their name in the draft (if you’re not already contracted). Players into their late 20s have been known to have been drafted (although obviously it’s quite rare).
Anyone starting a career in AFL comes through the draft, whether you’re 18 or 28.
If you’re like Ball, an established players, you end up with four choices as you approach the end of your contract:
1. negotiate a new contract with your current club;
2. seek out another club (but the two clubs must come to an accomdation by way of trade picks);
3. go into the draft if 1 and 2 don’t happen;
4. leave the AFL altogether and do something else (either retire or play in one of the semi-professional comps).
If you go via 3 and you reject the club that drafts you, you’re out of the AFL system for 23 months, which in most cases will be the equivalent of going to point 4.
November 24th 2009 @ 1:27pm
Firestarter Bob said | November 24th 2009 @ 1:27pm | Report comment
Anyone starting a career in AFL comes through the draft, whether you’re 18 or 28. – Karmichael Hunt excluded?
November 24th 2009 @ 1:46pm
Michael C said | November 24th 2009 @ 1:46pm | Report comment
The regular exceptions outside of the draft involve NSW/International scholarships however they also have to be elevated at some point onto the main list.
There’s been a separate rookie draft too.
For K.Hunt, he fits into the Gold Coast capacity as a start up club to sign x number of unsigned players and a few other ‘concessions’ that will come GWS’s way too. Obviously, that’s not standard practice.
November 24th 2009 @ 1:52pm
Firestarter Bob said | November 24th 2009 @ 1:52pm | Report comment
So an existing loyal AFL player has less rights than a well paid blow in.
November 24th 2009 @ 2:14pm
Pippinu said | November 24th 2009 @ 2:14pm | Report comment
There are other exclusions – including international signings – I’m not sure how they work – but they effectively are excluded from much of the workings of the draft and cap – this helps explain why clubs like Hawthorn are willing to invest a bit of money in a place like NZ on the off-chance that they will pick someone up.
Other clubs have some links with some other countries for the same reason – it’s all long odds of course – but it might pay off in the long run.
November 24th 2009 @ 2:30pm
Michael C said | November 24th 2009 @ 2:30pm | Report comment
Yep!!, that about sums it up. It is though a fairly unique set of circumstances – - – but, it would potentially annoy the odd player who has loyally come through the system that Hunt, unproven at elite AFL standards is paid so handsomely.
However, again, only X% is from his ‘club’ and the other portions are from AFL HQ and AFLQ for the promotional component. It’s that aspect of the other thread – - there is a recognised component of Hunt’s deal that IS purely publicity…..and it’s paid accordingly.
November 24th 2009 @ 2:34pm
Michael C said | November 24th 2009 @ 2:34pm | Report comment
Pip – the example of Craig Bird at Sydney, as a NSW scholarship kid was such that they were able to secure him away on the NSW scholarship, and then ge a ‘free’ list elevation onto the senior list (or the rookie list – as appropriate).
It’s similar to rookies – except that rookies come through the rookie draft – so, no ‘free access’. Where as with NSW scholarships and internationals too – you just go out and find ‘em and sign ‘em and if you find a rough diamond, you can elevate them with you ‘cheapest’ draft pick onto the main lists.
I think that’s how it works.
November 24th 2009 @ 1:40pm
Art Sapphire said | November 24th 2009 @ 1:40pm | Report comment
The problem is Luke – the two clubs in question (Saints & Collingwood did not come to an accommodation) and even though he really wants to play for Collingwood (god knows why??) he has had no choice but to nominate himself for the draft. This does not stop another club that he does not want to play for from picking him up if they have an earlier pick.
Then as Pip stated – if you reject the club that drafts you, you’re out of the AFL system for 23 months.
Its a pretty stupid state of affairs and why my suggestion is such a winner – even Michael C agrees with me on this one and thats a first
November 24th 2009 @ 2:01pm
Michael C said | November 24th 2009 @ 2:01pm | Report comment
noo….surely not?…well,…..perhaps……
November 24th 2009 @ 7:35pm
albatross said | November 24th 2009 @ 7:35pm | Report comment
Has the Tutty case any relevance here?
November 24th 2009 @ 8:04pm
bever fever said | November 24th 2009 @ 8:04pm | Report comment
What is the Tutty case ? … please explain.
November 24th 2009 @ 8:23pm
MyGeneration said | November 24th 2009 @ 8:23pm | Report comment
I assume albatross is talking about Dennis Tutty, a Balmain first grader, who took on the NSWRL’s restrictions on player movements as ‘restraint of trade’, and won, way back in 1969, surviving High Court appeals over subsequent years. In relation to the AFL draft, I guess the question would be has anyone challenged it in court yet?
November 24th 2009 @ 8:23pm
Midfielder said | November 24th 2009 @ 8:23pm | Report comment
BF
Tutty was a RL player who in the late 60′s or early 70′s challenged the player transfer system… To get to the point the courts found that when a contract was finished the player was free to operate outside any rules a sport may place on them … where the sports rules where not supported by Commonwealth law…
The case was referred to a lot when some years back now the RL players union stopped any draft system being brought into RL as where sports the rules where not supported by commonwealth law or do not meet the requirement of the HMMMM ??? thinking of the department anti competition … the Trade Practices Act.
How this applies to AFL is … many legal experts believe if the AFL ever got a Tutty (i.e. a pissed off big time player ready to prove his point come what may) the AFL draft system would fail as it has no Commonwealth or State law to support it … and it is argued would also fail under the Trade Practice’s Act….
November 24th 2009 @ 8:29pm
Pippinu said | November 24th 2009 @ 8:29pm | Report comment
The one key difference is that it would be impossible for a player to argue that their earning capacity has been restricted by opting into the AFL contract system (which all players have done, both individually and collectively via the AFLPA certified agreement).
November 24th 2009 @ 9:17pm
Firestarter Bob said | November 24th 2009 @ 9:17pm | Report comment
It’s not just earning capacity. It might come down to not wanting to relocate to or from a particular city.
November 24th 2009 @ 11:35pm
Midfielder said | November 24th 2009 @ 11:35pm | Report comment
Pip
I have no legal idea if a player challenge would be successful in a case against the AFL….But what I can tell you is many business of all sizes who have internal rules when challenged in court if the rule has no support in law … then you are in for a difficult time further if there are similar cases when the courts where asked found against similar interal rules then the business always looses.
So nothing to do with sport common sense says if challenged the AFL would have one hell of a case to defend…
November 24th 2009 @ 8:40pm
bever fever said | November 24th 2009 @ 8:40pm | Report comment
Yer thanks for that,
Dont think anyone has challenged it (the draft).
I have no doubt it is a restraint of trade, as is the salary cap, which rich clubs may not like.
But IMO it is good to equalise the clubs to some degree – call it socialism if you may.
As a fan i would much rather have this system than the problem the EPL and many other sporting leagues have in the club with the most money wins. (usually)
But the bonus is in aussie rules ( for advocates of the draft) is if this new Tutty challenges it could leave him out in the cold and he cannot then fly the coop to play footy overseas.
Makes sense not to fight city hall if you cant win.
November 24th 2009 @ 11:40pm
Midfielder said | November 24th 2009 @ 11:40pm | Report comment
BF
The person who challenges the draft ( if ever mind you) will more than likely not do it for money…They will have the shits big time and go stuff em … lets go to court…
I read a Tax case once where a railway worker had a superannuation expense claim of $ 120.00 knocked back by the ATO and took the case all the way to the Federal Court and won…
November 25th 2009 @ 1:48am
Kurt said | November 25th 2009 @ 1:48am | Report comment
Yeah, I think you’re right. The point is that so far the players have been prepared to accept the various restrictions put in place by the AFL in return for significant salary growth on the back of increasing TV deals. Sooner or later someone will break ranks and then we’ll see what happens.
November 24th 2009 @ 9:18pm
Firestarter Bob said | November 24th 2009 @ 9:18pm | Report comment
“All should hail King Tutty” By James Hooper From: The Sunday Telegraph April 13, 2008
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/all-should-hail-king-tutty/story-e6frexv0-1111116045385
November 24th 2009 @ 9:32pm
bever fever said | November 24th 2009 @ 9:32pm | Report comment
Yep thats a great story, i just wonder though, whether if he had it over if he would do it again, kids that get drafted these days have a minimum salary, so thats a difference straight away.
But i would imagine/hoping that anyone thinking of challenging the draft would be offered the best of advice and made aware of both sides of the coin.
The RL players union should name something in his honour or do something at any rate.
November 25th 2009 @ 7:00am
Redb said | November 25th 2009 @ 7:00am | Report comment
The critical difference with NRL players and AFL players is that they can convert to union , go to the ESL, Europe, Japan in rugby,etc and the NRL dont pay top dollar.
Luke Ball would be considered a pretty good player but probably not in the top 20 AFL players and he is asking for $500,000 per year.
Redb
November 25th 2009 @ 7:42am
Firestarter Bob said | November 25th 2009 @ 7:42am | Report comment
So Ball has less rights to fairness than say, oh, I dunno, how about Fevola?
November 25th 2009 @ 7:53am
Pippinu said | November 25th 2009 @ 7:53am | Report comment
Fevola found a club willing to deal with his former club.
November 25th 2009 @ 8:01am
Redb said | November 25th 2009 @ 8:01am | Report comment
give it up you have no interest in Aust footy, you just consistently troll AFL theads with your insipid comments – get a life.