Earlier this week, Jack Riewoldt was forced to deny he wanted out of Richmond on the basis of a radio take from a journalist pretending to be a pundit. Get ready for more of this as the league’s trade period kicks off in earnest.
In many ways, we’ve been in trade mode for a month. The Roar’s Josh Elliott began publishing a weekly trade rumours column on August 6, while many movements have been pre-ordained if we believe reports.
Josh is responsible in what he publishes; nothing I have seen in his pieces has been idle speculation.
Unfortunately, those standards are not uniform.
In the past week, we’ve seen two examples of the unfortunate direction that more and more coverage of player movement is heading in.
The first was the Riewoldt farce. On a Sunday morning Melbourne radio show, Herald Sun journalist Jay Clark posited that the Richmond key forward should look at moving from the Tigers. The quote reads:
“I’m thinking that Jack Riewoldt needs to seriously consider his trade options. This is a man who’s not in the leadership, strangely has been snubbed from it for the past couple of seasons for reasons I still don’t understand, because when I listen to Jack I am always quite impressed by maturity and his passion for the Richmond Football Club, which is undoubted.”
Brian Taylor, in his inimitable way, agreed. The only thing missing from the quote below is a “Good call Lingy” or “That’s right Darce” as a prefix.
“I think he has already got in his mind that he wants out.”
Pure, unadulterated, idle speculation. There wasn’t even the veil of sources, or whispers or ‘the vibe’, this was a journalist playing the role of pundit, throwing stuff at the wall.
Clark’s comments spawned an article on the radio station’s website:
Unfortunately, the spitball stuck. Since Sunday, the ‘Riewoldt wants out’ narrative has been pervasive, like the bindi grass infiltrating my pristine(ish) Sir Walter wintergreen in these winter months. Every major online news outlet has published a story on it:
“Richmond forward Jack Riewoldt says he has no interest in leaving the Tigers”
“Bruise-free Jack Riewoldt playing as if he doesn’t want to be at Richmond”
“No need for Jack to leave Tigers, says Bomber”
“Riewoldt is going nowhere: Ox”
(As an aside, the first article in the list above was published on the Herald Sun, Clark’s news house, but without attribution.)
It culminated in Riewoldt batting away the rumours on his regular spot on AFL 360 on Tuesday night, expressing disappointment that his name had been caught up in trade rumours. Riewoldt also had a dip at the media culture more broadly.
“At the moment it’s just click bait,” he said. “Back in the good old days … they [journalists] were actually reporting the story, rather than lighting the fire under it and seeing if there’s any smoke there.”
Sage words indeed. Ironically, Riewoldt’s quote both confirms Clark’s view of the spearhead as a mature head, while simultaneously calling the rumour mongering as precisely what it is.
That’s the egregious example of this week; the hullabaloo surrounding the reigning AFL MVP and Brownlow Medallist Nat Fyfe is somewhat more defensible. Barely.
In a live TV spot on Channel Seven news in Perth, Fyfe answered a question about his future with a great degree of candour. We as fans often bemoan athletes’ rent-a-quote stylings, and Fyfe is one of the good ones in that he lets his personality shine through. Indeed, on this occasion, he might have been a bit too straight down the line.
“The idea of free agency is that players do have a say in their career and it would be remiss of me not to look at every possible option,” he said. “But if I see a strong future at Freo, then that’s where I’ll be playing my footy.”
Red alert! Red alert! Fyfe to leave Fremantle!
If you squint a little, then that’s the take, right? If he sees a strong future at Freo then he’ll stay. So, it holds that if he doesn’t see a strong future, then that’s not where he’ll be playing. And I, football writer, don’t see a strong future at Fremantle, so it means he’s gone. Seems logical.
Of course, if the Dockers were 18-3, not 3-18, then this wouldn’t even be a discussion. But that’s not where we find ourselves, and boy it set tongues wagging. Fyfe was linked to St Kilda, to Gold Coast, to Hawthorn, and in recent days, Collingwood.
Never mind that Fyfe was answering a direct question about free agency about as well as he possibly could have: “there’s this thing called free agency and it exists and I will be sure to explore what it could mean for me as a professional footballer.” Perhaps his mistake was the second half of the answer.
Regardless, the ‘Fyfe leaving Fremantle’ cottage industry sprung up overnight, and the takes were flying. It became so wild that there was talk Fyfe wasn’t liked at Dockerland because he was too into himself, and he’d prefer to play football in Melbourne so he could build his budding fashion brand.
You can’t make this stuff up – or maybe you can, and maybe that’s the problem.
It forced Fremantle (and Fyfe’s) hand, with the Dockers star taking to the club’s website to pledge allegiance and intimate he’ll begin talks regarding a contract extension post-haste.
It did bring to mind memes from across the pop culture spectrum, but still, definitive words like this are powerful in this new reality.
This might be the root of the AFL’s trade rumour problem. Fyfe committing to Fremantle isn’t newsworthy, because it’s unlikely to generate much interest beyond excited fans of the Dockers. But ‘Fyfe is going to explore free agency’ opens up a world of possibilities.
As I say, the Fyfe example is at least mostly rational, because they are the words that came out of his mouth – even if they were contorted somewhat to fit a neat narrative. But the Riewoldt example is an egregious example of how rumour and innuendo are set to drive the conversation.
Unfortunately, there is very little anyone can do to stop it. The dynamics and incentives of the media industry across the board, let alone in the AFL, are skewed overwhelmingly towards creating content that gets people to click. Trade rumour stories are the cleanskin reds to the fine wine of genuine, thought-provoking news and opinion content that carries with it much greater costs and risks to delivering page views.
There are always going to be trade rumours in the AFL; that cannot be denied. But it would be unfortunate if the events of this week, where a thought bubble that grew into a story, became a normalised part of the AFL media’s culture.
Macca
Guest
What's a leg worth if it doesn't have a functioning Patella tendon? What's a hand worth if you can't get to where the ball is?
Don Freo
Guest
I reckon legs and hands would rank higher. I'm contesting that doctor's claim.
Don Freo
Guest
That won't be a problem for me. O'Meara is pure class and will finish as one of the AFL's all time greats. I don't even have a problem with Hawthorn. I just think many of their players lack, morality and sportsmanship and much of their success comes from elements other than ability or ethics. O'Meara can only improve things. Hawthorn certainly has nothing to offer by way of trade or draft picks...except, perhaps, Cyril but I can't see O'Meara getting anywhere except Essendon. Melbourne is the only Victorian side with tradeable commodities but Essendon can just take him for free. GC will have to deal with them.
Macca
Guest
I just read an article in the sun quoting a doctor saying the patella tendon is the most vital part of your body to play football, might be an overstatement but it does highlight O'meara being high risk high reward, throw in him being able to walk for nothing and I doubt the Suns will get what they are currently asking.
Uncle Garry
Guest
I know there's more to life than laughing at Don Freo, but if O'Meara goes to Hawthorn his reaction will be berserk and priceless.
Mister Football
Roar Guru
PD Suns deserve to get a fair bit, but if they can't do a deal, he goes into the draft and the bombers would pick him up for nothing (worth noting that Jaeger is a West Australian and the bombers are currently coached by a famous West Australian).
Tanami Mehmet
Guest
There's a bloke in Perth named Kim Hagdorn who makes a living spreading rumors in the paper and on radio. Somehow people still take him seriously even though close to 100% of what he says is made up bull dust.
Paul D
Roar Guru
Gee they'd be filthy down there at the Suns. Not unexpected but. So - who's going to get him? My money is on Hawthorn. They'll have some space and are good at getting these sort of deals done. And you know O'Meara won't mind winding up there. Also - because I don't really know the rules around this all that well - what would the Suns get in compensation (if anything) if he was to walk to the draft and get picked up by whoever drafts him? Nothing? Compensation pick? That's the starting point for any negotiation, so anything above and beyond that is profit as far as GSC are concerned now.
Macca
Guest
http://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/jaeger-omeara-to-leave-gold-coast-suns-seeking-move-to-interstate-club/news-story/4ffcb18b212f4b834eb4b382b99ab86e
Paul Potter
Roar Guru
It seems that the problem with stuff like the "Riewoldt wants out" business is the impression that people try and place themselves in the shoes of the player and ascribe their own opinions onto the player, rather than treating the player in a way that a reasonable person could deem fair. Note that I'm not saying as you yourself would always want to be treated, because proper journalism can sometimes mean not treating someone as you yourself would want to be treated, such as asking hard questions. Indeed, it often means everyone is often left at least partially dissatisfied, but someone who is properly reporting the story can credibly defend themselves against criticism much better than Damien Barrett in that example you just used.
James
Guest
Pot calling the kettle black in regards saying Josh doesn't report idle speculation. That entire article linked to this one is idle speculation quoting other idle speculation. There is no difference. Show me the press conference where o'mearea has said he's leaving the GC. Or Show me any press conference where a player listed in that article has said they are leaving. There isn't. So it's just speculation. But it still gets reported on here. Everything is purely speculation until a contract is signed. Deals collapse and people change their mind. If you wanted to take the morale high ground, then articles on here should only be posted once a deal is signed.
Ryan Buckland
Expert
Yeah, what Paul said. I'm not talking about people (myself) taking a position on what a club should do using evidence; there's a big difference between that and the garbage tossed around about Jack Riewoldt being reported as fact. I can see how you could conflate the two, but I think there is a very clear line.
Paul D
Roar Guru
I think there's a fair whack of difference between a pundit saying "Here's my opinion on what I think club X should do in terms of trades and list management" as opposed to a pundit claiming to know the mind of a player or claiming inside knowledge when it's just their opinion, saying “I think he has already got in his mind that he wants out.”
Cat
Roar Guru
What the game needs is more players like Dane Swan willing to say what they think and less players/clubs spewing out the same politically correct, super-sanitised load of nothing. Rumours are far more interesting than anything said by 99% of the footy world. My own coach is one of the worst, Chris Scott has mastered talking for 10 minutes without saying anything substantive. Bomber Thompson needs to get another coaching gig just so we can have the occasional post game conference worth listening to. The sound bites that come from clubs and the players the clubs hand pick to send out to do media is just too boring and pointless.
Liam
Guest
You're not wrong, Ryan. The media certainly love a rumour, and it is ever hungry for something, anything to write about. It happens every year, and it generally is around this time that the line between rumour and conjecture are blurred. It's usually around this time of year that the bottom of the ladder sides are speculated around as possible trade bait to garner draft picks. Is Bryce Gibbs likely to get a trade? Everiit? What about Dwayne Zorko or Tom Rockliff? Is Fyfe interested in leaving Western Australia for money? Lachie Neale? Did the Roar run with any of these? I seem to recall an aspiring pundit who speculated at length about what the Blues could do, well before their draft last year, just as I recall similar articles discussing possible trades to and from all the clubs, for the sake of speculation. It's good to know that some media are aware of their responsibilities to the truth, even if they aren't aware of their own borderline hypocrisy .
Paul D
Roar Guru
I know and I am saying the focus should be on the bulk of the money going towards raising that minimum.
Pumping Dougie
Roar Guru
Paul D, I'm pretty sure players already do have a minimum, base contract price stipulated by the AFL. There's definitely a minimum, base contract for newly drafted players coming out of the TAC Cup.
Pumping Dougie
Roar Guru
Yep, likewise this factor figured into the Doggies signing an inflated contract for Tom Boyd. This was mentioned by Peter Gordon at the time but largely overlooked by the media.
Wilson
Roar Guru
Fair call. With Mitchell I don't think he will leave I think that is just anther one of those rumours Swans have had some good luck the the Rookie draft over the years and will be interesting to see how there academy players go as well.
Paul D
Roar Guru
Aransan – hence my saying the new cap should contain some sort of floor and ceiling price for player contracts. Maybe not a ceiling actually – but definitely a floor price. If you had a floor price and mandated that players must earn at least X amount of money, the ceiling would take care of itself as clubs would have necessarily less money to splash around on godfather deals.