The AFL fishbowl is kidding itself if it thinks Geelong’s attempted raid on Port Adelaide club champion Travis Boak is an isolated incident.
And it is bordering on delusional if it thinks the transition to free agency will be painless.
The dust has settled now following Chris Scott’s trip to Adelaide last week with brass band members Joel Selwood and Jimmy Bartel in tow, and it looks like Boak will stay at Alberton for the next two years at least – so says the grapevine.
But this strange fear lingers. How dare Geelong approach a contracted player like that?
Is this the future? Are we about to go down the path of rugby league, where players switch or commit to other clubs in the middle of the season?
Oh, the horror!
Here’s the thing. It’s not the future – it’s the present. This is normal.
Throughout the whole Boak conversation, it’s almost been forgotten that the only reason we know about Scott, Selwood and Bartel’s flight of fancy is because a journalist caught wind of it.
This was not a brazen, unprecedented move. This was a painfully regular thing caught on camera.
Clubs are already allowed to meet with players, according to AFL rule 4.7, but they are not allowed to reach agreement.
If this rule is meant to stop clubs like Geelong from meeting with wantaway players like Boak, it is broken.
If the AFL wants to legislate against this, then they will find it near impossible – especially considering that at the same time they are trying to give the player more control over his destiny.
The Cats simply wouldn’t have been doing their job properly if they weren’t throwing the kitchen sink at a player who is so openly considering moving.
North Melbourne did the same thing with Boak, but somehow escaped the scorn.
Is this disrespectful to Port Adelaide? Barely, considering that club is using the media to pressure the player into making his mind up about his future.
Is this illegal? No. Unethical? Certainly not in the world of modern professional sport.
Are Geelong supposed to be good boys and wait until the end of the season, when another club may pounce before? This would be unwise. The Cats have been burnt before.
Their former coach was tapped up by a rival club, and a certain bald-headed superstar was locked in ongoing talks with an expansion side mid-season.
Boak’s is the most recent case, but there are dozens of others. There have to be. It’s so incredibly naive to think otherwise. In fact, the AFL encouraged it with the introduction of GWS and Gold Coast.
Tom Scully and Gary Ablett were both approached directly while they were still under contract.
Other players and clubs do the same. It’s hard to imagine Collingwood forward Travis Cloke hasn’t caught up with the many and varied clubs interested in his services.
And to pick another example out of the air, does anyone really think Essendon only started talking to Suns starlet Josh Caddy during last year’s trade period?
Certain players will soon be allowed to test the open market, with no strings attached, and move freely.
And we’re expecting them not to commit to moves before round 24? There is simply no stopping it.
We are burying our heads in sand if we think it will not continue. The only difference is it will never again be caught on camera.
Yet this AFL culture of smoke and mirrors continues.
This is a culture where nobody says anything about their future, because if they reveal they’re off to another club – as Phil Davis and Nathan Bock found out at Adelaide and as the Power threaten to do with Boak – those players will be unfairly told to clear their lockers.
Loyalty is so important, so prized in the AFL that if players want to leave a club, they have to lie through their teeth for a whole year, wait until just after the last game of the season, and then skip town before coming clean.
Is enforced dishonestly loyal behaviour from clubs? And isn’t the circus that surrounds a player who puts contract talks off more distracting than if they actually said they were on the move?
The mere thought of becoming like rugby league is too much for some AFL heavies to even consider… but is it really that bad, compared to what we have?
At least in the NRL, players and clubs are upfront. When someone wants to move, they say it. When other teams offer terms, everybody understands. And if a player decides to shift clubs at the end of a season, then at least everything is out in the air, so that everyone can get back to the business of playing football.
The AFL loves its precious tradition, though, so that won’t happen – not willingly.
But a move towards a modern player movement system like free agency, and this immature view on loyalty and negotiation in the wake of the Boak situation, simply won’t mix well.
amazonfan
Roar Guru
I wanted to comment on the Richmond/Port article, however it seems to be closed. "And, to top it off, the most damning statistic of them all – skipper Domenic Cassisi’s contribution of 12 first-half disposals gave his side a net metres gained of -44." What are you talking about? What does metres gained have to do with football?
Bayman
Guest
Vince, Unfair??? Players rights??? Spare me, mate. A contract does not guarantee a game and it's only an opinion as to which players are in the best 22. And the player's opinion, frankly, doesn't count. One day you are, the next day you're not. Andy Otten was in the best 22 a year or so ago. Then a knee, then others went past him. Now he's a fringe player until he proves otherwise and, like the boy pushing the barrow, he's got the job in front of him. There's no great difference, really, if a club decides that a player leaving has relegated himself to number 23. The club's obligation is to the club, not the player - otherwise they'd be playing 35 guys every week. The view you put forward is typical of modern day thinking. Everybody is entitled, everybody's got rights etc. Remember that old outdated notion that the club is more important than the individual? I still think it's the case. Let's not forget which is the tail and which is the dog here. Players play only if the club thinks it's a good idea - not the other way round. The day the AFLPA starts telling clubs who they can play and who they cannot play is the day AFL footy will become nothing more than a sad joke. Players rights....Vince, seriously?
Vince Rugari
Expert
It's unfair because if you have a contract and you are in the best 22, you should be playing. To relegate a player to the reserves just because they're going to be elsewhere next season is not cool, and as I said above, I'm surprised the AFLPA aren't kicking up more of a stink about the threat. Player rights and all...
Vince Rugari
Expert
It's unfair, and I'm surprised the AFLPA aren't doing more about it.
Vince Rugari
Expert
Mate, I'm a Port fan. This whole thing hurts. I hope to hell we keep him... But I have to cal it as I see it.
Vince Rugari
Expert
To be honest, it doesn't really matter if Boak is a free agent or not - the AFL don't want anyone declaring they're going to change clubs in the middle of a season, free agent, contracted, anyone. And re: blatant - it wasn't blatant. They were sprung. They didn't call the media.
tonysalerno
Roar Guru
Boak's contract negotiations have nothing on the drama that is happening at Collingwood with Travis Cloke. I believe Boak will sign with Geelong and Cloke will sign with Collingwood it's just a matter of pay and other conditions.
amazonfan
Roar Guru
"Adelaide, or any club, is not obliged to keep playing these guys if they perceive no benefit to the club in doing so. How is that so hard to understand?" Nobody is having any difficulty in understanding that. What many of the people here are saying is that if a player believes that, by being 'honest', the result will be that he is no longer played, then he will keep his mouth shut. Why should he reveal his decision if it will affect his playing time. If I was the manager (or brother) of a player who had decided to leave his club, I would implore him to remain silent until the end of the season. "Given Adelaide’s current ladder position who can say they were wrong – or unfair. The only people they needed to be fair to were themselves and their suporters – certainly not to two players who were baling out." Yes, and the two players need to be fair to themselves. Perhaps they should have said nothing.
Bayman
Guest
Vince, In essence I agree with what you say. This has been going on for years and will continue to do so. The only thing on which we may disagree is your assertion that Adelaide treated Bock and Davis unfairly by sending them off early. How so? They were leaving the club so had no role to play. The club decided, quite reasonably in my view, that their spots would go to a player who, they thought, was still going to be on the list next year. It provided an early opportunity to test some players who, perhaps, would not have been tested quite so soon in other circumstances. Indeed, my memory of Davis is that he got his opportunity as a result of Bock signing with the Suns. They found a player and then, unfortunately, lost him in similar circumstances. Now, we can argue that Davis should have been given a better go from Adelaide much earlier - thank you Neil Craig - and that lack of recognition earlier perhaps helped Davis decide to leave - but that's a different discussion. Personally, in the circumstances, I had no problem with Davis signing with GWS. Equally, I had no problem with Adelaide telling him to leave early. Same with Bock. Adelaide, or any club, is not obliged to keep playing these guys if they perceive no benefit to the club in doing so. How is that so hard to understand? The club was never going to threaten the premiership at that time and far better to see what was available among the rest of the group. Equally, I'd be quietly confident that if Patrick Dangerfield had agreed to join Geelong next year he would not have been told to go now because a tilt at the flag is very much a possibility. As you suggest, timing is everything - and different situations produce different results. These decisions from Adelaide were less about spite and more about pragmatism. Given Adelaide's current ladder position who can say they were wrong - or unfair. The only people they needed to be fair to were themselves and their suporters - certainly not to two players who were baling out.
Winston
Guest
I don't understand why they drop players if they come out midseason saying they're leaving. Presumably, the fact that someone else wants a player means he is a good player. So, unless the current club is thinking of tanking, why would they not play their gun players? In fact, if I was the coach, I would play that player to the ground and squeeze the last drop out of him before he leaves. I just wouldn't worry about his welfare that's all. It's like us normal people changing jobs. The day you resign, either they throw you out straight away (because they don't want you stealing trade secrets, client contacts etc) or they keep you there for the month and get you to do all the crap which nobody else wants to do. It sounds terribly old-fashioned the way AFL clubs deal with this situation.
Matt F
Roar Guru
This is the dilemma that the players have. If they are honest and say that they're leaving, then they get dropped, even if their form warrants selection in the best 22. However, if they don't announce anything then we demand that they tell us everything and that "all we want is honesty." Then you have a situation like Boak's where everybody assumed that his silence on the issue meant that he was 100% out the door and a small portion of the public/media called for him to be dropped weeks ago. However strong reports are out now that he will stay with the Power which, if true, means that he was actually being honest with everyone when he said that he was unsure.
adam214
Guest
I understand the article and what it saying. But commenting on travis boak after all that Port Adelaide being through in the recent past it does seem a bit kicking someone whilst there down seeing a club like geelong who can throw money at players like travis boak because of the expansion and nationalisation of the league which of course involved Port Adelaide and others. It just doesn't well with me but i'm getting to the stage where he should stop stuff everyone around and sign one way or another.
damo
Guest
Adelaide has two great examples of this at both ends of the scale. Jack Gunston, who was obviously courted by Hawghorn, skipped town without telling the club, lied to all concerened, and completely burnt his bridges. Phil Davis had the luxury of a season restricting injury so he wasnt going to play any wah. i'd rather the player be honest but then get punished by the club is not fair. maybe a midseason trade window? Or, with so many clubs now having directly linked state league sides as reserves, perhaps players who come out openly can leave and play the remainder oof the year in the state leagues
Ian Whitchurch
Guest
If a player doesnt want to play somewhere else, they can force a trade - Clarke is the poster child. A better solution is to re-sign your good players before they become potential free agents.
Jack Russell
Roar Guru
Boak isn't the best example because he's not a free agent. Situations like his happen every year, albeit not quite as blatant as sending heavies interstate to try and convince players. Boak cannot come out now and say he's going to Geelong, because he can't sign with them until a trade is done with Port, or he enters the draft and Geelong picks him. Cloke is a free agent, and probably a better example. Clubs can sign him up and there's zero Collingwood can do about it.