We’ve had a ton of fun covering the AFL free agency and trade period here on The Roar this year, and to wrap up my own personal involvement I’d like to bring you six things this year’s silly season showed us we need.
We had laughs, we had debate, we had plenty of banter. I had a bad cold for most of the second week and fever dreams so wild that one morning I woke up 100 per cent sound in the belief that Nat Fyfe had overnight been traded to Essendon.
I guess what I’m saying is, it was a memorable time.
My thanks to all the readers who tuned in for our coverage and got involved in the comments. I hope you enjoy these final thoughts before we move on to the fixture tomorrow, and then the draft in November.
More clarity, and freedom, around future picks
The decision to allow clubs to trade future draft picks has facilitated much more even deals and added a new element of risk into trading that just makes the whole thing more fun to observe.
However, the concept needs a tune-up. At the moment, the rules regarding whether or not clubs are allowed to trade future picks lack specificity.
The biggest example of this has only recently come to light, as it was revealed that Hawthorn traded both their first and second-round picks in the 2017 draft this year – something that was thought to be illegal.
The AFL ‘interpreted’ a rule that it itself wrote a little over a year ago, saying that because the Hawks had traded in a 2017 second-round pick from another club, it was allowed to trade its own 2017 second-round pick despite the fact it had already traded its own 2017 first-round pick.
Confused yet?
There were also headaches over Geelong’s ability to trade out their 2017 first-round pick, given that they had already traded out their first-round picks in the 2015 and 2016 drafts.
Clubs are supposed to take at least two first-round picks in every four-year block, or lose their future-pick trading privileges. But does this mean that clubs cannot put themselves in a position to not have two picks every four years? Or does it just mean that once they have done so, only then are they penalised? The AFL is yet to clarify.
Let’s cut all these corollaries and put more power in the hands of the clubs. Tell them you can trade as many future picks as you like, and if you wind up screwing yourself over, don’t come crying to Gillon.
Not only would it be a lot simpler, but I suspect it would further enhance the benefits that the future-pick rule already offers to trade time.
No more free agency compensation picks
I won’t go into too much detail on this one as I already talked about during the trade period itself.
Ever since free agency was introduced, I have been a believer that there should not be compensation picks in the process.
In the years since it came about, we have time and time again seen clubs exploit free agency so they can attract a compensation pick of higher value than they would otherwise have received.
Pick 3 to Melbourne for James Frawley, pick 23 to Fremantle for Chris Mayne – clubs can’t be blamed for taking advantage when those kind of wildly over-value rewards are on offer.
I would make the free agency compensation rule function in the same way as the priority pick rule – awarded only at the AFL’s discretion, and only in very serious circumstances.
A meaningful difference between trades and free agency
This is another topic that I have hit upon once or twice before, so I won’t put you thought too much of it here.
However, something needs to change as far as a player’s ability to nominate a club of choice and refuse all other considerations.
It essentially turns trading into a slightly more complicated version of free agency and there’s really no sense in having both of them if they’re going to be essentially the same thing.
During this year’s trade period, Nathan Hrovat received offers from both Carlton and North Melbourne, and told his team, the Western Bulldogs, he’d be happy to be traded to whichever they could strike a deal with.
That is the attitude that I would like to see more of – a player who wants a trade realising that they are not a free agent, and have to work with their current club and their potential new club to find a solution that benefits all parties.
Either more time, or less
Once again this year we saw trades only trickle through over the first days, before we finished with a flurry of action in the last five hours.
It’s not a great system. As a result we had eight trades supposedly submitted in the last 16 minutes, the details of many not revealed until more than an hour after the deadline.
That just opens up way too many questions about the AFL’s conduct in and around trade period, especially when we find out as per the Hawthorn news that some trade details were incorrectly processed and reported by the AFL.
It’s often said that if trade period was only three days long, no less trading would get done – and that’s probably right, though there might be a few more small-name players walking to the PSD.
Alternatively, trade time could be made much longer – it could stretch from the end of the season until the night of the draft, and even include live trading during the draft itself.
I’m not sure which of these approaches would be better – I’d probably favour the latter – but I suspect either would be an improvement over what we have now.
Pre-trade education and counselling
If the AFL is willing to put professional mediators in with Hawthorn and Gold Coast to talk through a Jaeger O’Meara deal, maybe they should’ve been willing to put them in with O’Meara and Gold Coast months, even a year before to see if the relationship there was reparable.
More players are seeking trades these days than ever before. For many of them it is the right decision, but for some, it’s not. The AFL should do more to educate players about the repercussions of seeking a trade, and perhaps even counsel wantaway players to make sure the choice they’re making is right for them.
What disturbs me a little is how many players are seeking trades very early in their careers. These guys are 19, 20, 21, and are as good at making major life decisions as you and I were at that point in time (not very). Their main sounding boards are their managers, who stand to make a tidy profit from helping them move clubs. Does that seem right to you?
A little more honesty
Just a quick one to close things out, but how sick are you of getting fed the party line and nothing else by clubs during trade period?
It’s clear to anyone and everyone that Sam Mitchell was traded away from Hawthorn to make salary cap room, and yet the Hawks have refused to sell it as anything other than ‘doing the best thing for Sam’.
Your fans aren’t that dumb, Hawthorn.
If you don’t have the guts to tell us the real reason you’re doing something, then don’t do that thing in the first place.
That’s not too hard, is it?
Dexter The Hamster
Guest
What about the clubs that might benefit? Seems St Kilda have done well out of it, and this might materialise in a few years time. Those clubs that are smart about it might benefit, just as those clubs who were smart about free agency have benefitted.
Liam Salter
Roar Guru
PD, that's an excellent idea. My preferred process would be the same, but they nominate a state of their choice and let the manager and the clubs take it from there!
Liam Salter
Roar Guru
Paul, from my limited legal knowledge (ala a few years of high school legal studies), you're correct. MattyB's argument is flawed, primarily because it shows no legal knowledge or even an attempt at brief understanding of the law or the AFL itself. It's blind speculation. But hey, don't we expect that from Matty these days? Matty, mate, with blokes like Paul around, you're gonna need to have some basis in your arguments! You're just gonna get taken apart if you don't. :)
Paul D
Roar Guru
I don't know whether to be delighted or appalled at your Caro reference. My view is that it is legal until a judge rules otherwise. If such a ruling ever eventuates. I think that's factually correct. There's a good article on the Roar from a few years ago about this issue. http://www.theroar.com.au/2012/10/30/the-afl-and-restraint-of-trade/
Pumping Dougie
Guest
Can you imagine the desperate Buckley & Eddie show if they were allowed to trade away all their future early picks, for immediate short-term gain to save their own individual legacy??? And they wouldn't be the only ones.
Pumping Dougie
Guest
Fair comment in part PaulD, but I don't think you can present as fact (Caroline-Wilson-like) your opinion that "prevailing opinion is that the salary cap and draft is legal". As you say, it hasn't been tested recently, and the AFLPA has raised enough doubt to make the AFL wary and grant free agency.
Pumping Dougie
Guest
It might work better if five step process (let's call it 'The Hrovat Rule'): (1) Player publicly advises he wants to leave club; (2) interested clubs formally notify their interest via AFL HQ (can include offer details); (3) Player Manager haggles with bidding clubs over their offer; (4) Player then specifies preferred two clubs for his club to negotiate a trade with (from the list that has notified their interest); (5) Player's current club negotiates the best deal it can between these two clubs.
Birdman
Guest
same dog, different fur.
The Original Buzz
Roar Rookie
Gil is a master at it though. Demetriou tended to bumble a bit at times and wasn't as polished in front of the press when taking the heat.
The Original Buzz
Roar Rookie
Shrewd as in the AFL will come out smelling like roses from this one by misdirection, prestidigitation and spin. Failing that they will fade from the spotlight by going very quiet on it.
Birdman
Guest
Gil is a fixer just like his predecessor - cut from the same cloth.
John Spehr
Guest
Re Trading Future Picks: Fantastic .............. NOT! Just like contemporary budgeting, we are 'spending' currency that we don't have. Next year some club will be wanting to trade a pick 3 or 4 years into the future. Sydney have done a 10 year deal with Buddy. Does anyone think he will be playing in another 6 years? There'll be legal applications to 'adjust' their salary cap limits, already 'spent' in the past. It's farce. Players will be selected subject to litigation pending. Draft, Rookie List, Mature Player List. Can we get back to playing football please.
Paul D
Roar Guru
Legal precedent is that it is in the public interest. It’s not a matter of opinion. It will remain so until it is successfully challenged in court. Not once too have you mentioned the gaping hole in your argument – AFL players are free to leave and seek opportunity elsewhere at any time. This isn’t a professional organisation like doctors where there is a governing body and legal qualification requirements and careers are for whole of working life. The courts view in the past has been the game is greater than the individual and there is manifest and demonstrable public interest in the success of the competition being predicated on what is theoretically an equal playing field between two sides both striving their utmost to win games within the rules provided for.
Cat
Roar Guru
Shrewd ... you mean like the shrewdness shown regarding the Whitfield
situationfiasco?Cat
Roar Guru
mattyBS have you ever bothered to apply the Nordenfelt test to the salary cap and/or trade systems?
While this article is 10 years old now, it is very well written, on point and excellently cited http://researchonline.jcu.edu.au/4659/ I suggest you read up and open your mind before blindly assuming its all illegal.mattyb
Guest
Paul,while I'm obviously no legal eagle and therefore have no objection to being slated as naive I can take your points aboard. Whether we are willing to classify football as a business or sport,and I agree it's very much a business now,I'm still not sure it can be classified as a public interest in the regard I think you might be suggesting.
Paul D
Roar Guru
Matty that’s frightfully naïve even by your standards. By that logic we don’t need a salary cap, anti-gambling provisions, anti-drug provisions, or any of the other legal framework. This is business. It’s sport too. But business as well. That means laws and regulations. The fact any player presenting a legal case as you suggest above would be considered an employee of the AFL with a binding contract signed between them and the AFL leaves your theory that it's "a bit of fun" absolutely stillborn.
The Original Buzz
Roar Rookie
Adding to what Paul D said, Gillon and co have a legal team that is consulted regularly on these issues. They are very aware of what to do and how. While you and I may know very little about the legal side of things, they are certainly across it. Just look at what has happened since Gillon has been at the helm, he is a very intelligent and shrewd CEO and will do everything he can to prevent bringing the AFL into the legal spotlight for the wrong reasons.
mattyb
Guest
Paul.Is barracking for your football side or cheering your favourite player a public interest or just a bit of fun though?
Paul D
Roar Guru
Wrong Matty, wrong. You assume it’s illegal. That is not correct. Legal precedent is that restraints are illegal – UNLESS they are demonstrated to be reasonable and in the public interest. This has not been tested in court recently and prevailing legal opinion is that the salary cap & draft are legal – the only case where a player would have a case would be if they were traded against their will and were still under contract. That would be open and shut in the player’s favour. This claim that the entire draft & cap system could be thrown out on a whim by a single player challenging it is typical of the unsupported nonsense you regularly post here.