Misiti meets with Collingwood today!

[BUCKS]

Lets hope that we are still his first choice!

Anyone heard anything yet?
Or do we have to wait till after the weekend?

Joe please join the Magpie Army!

[CQ]

yeah he would be a good pick up providing his price tag isnt too much.

249

[magpies36]

Can someone please explain to me how we can get Misiti of Geelong have a lower pick than us and they are interested. How do we prevent this. I do not understand at all.

Sav is a legend.

[BUCKS]

Simple, Geelong wont go for Misiti if he does not want to play for them... Why would Geelong go for a player that does not want to play for them?

I think Geelong have learnt their lesson with Justin Murphy!

Lets hope he chooses Collingwood first!

[magpies36]

Makes sense. I had a feeling it was that, but was not 100% sure. I read somewhere about players being able to put a price tag on their heads that would prevent other clubs from picking them up. So, for example, Misiti if he knows that Geelong cannot afford 1.5mil over 3 years because of salary cap and he wants to play for Collingwood, he will nominate this price tag. Geelong cannot then pick him up but Collingwood can afford him, so they pick him up. The price he signs for though, does not have to be the same as the one on his head


This is what i had read somewhere, but it did sound a bit suss to me.


Sav is a legend.

[MarkT]

Magpies36, there are only 3 ways we can get Misiti as far as I can see:
1. No other team will/can pay his asking price so he remains available at our pick in the December Draft (assuming he doesn't nominate for the November draft).

2. Bribery - we pay clubs not to draft him (it worked beutifully with Garry Shaw!!!)

3. We sign him to a contract and if he is not registered with us by the AFL because, for instance, Geelong draft him, he takes the AFL to court and challanges the rules as a restraint of trade. He would probably win (IMO). The AFL may then have to make a deal or rule alteration to avoid the challange or press ahead and risk the entire draft and/or salary cap system being ruled illegal. This would be unpopular in some quarters but would receive the backing of the power clubs I suspect - especially Carlton where Elliot has threatened it before and has had legal advice on it.

The question is, is it worth it? If it would win us a flag next year I would say yes. I don't think it will so how much committment do Collingwood have to abolishing the draft. We can now put up or shut if we so choose.

So is it time to end football socialism? What do Collingwood supporters think?

Remember we may loose, say, Nick Davis to Sydney when his contract expires and get nothing for him. We may also pick up every talanted player because we have the great Eddie who, no doubt, would be a great negotiator for us.

[Bones]

If a players contract has expired or he gets the arse from a club, he then should be free to go to any club he wishes. Screw the draft and trade crap. If challenged in court i think the AFL would get more than egg on their face.
Who in their right mind would want to go to Geelong anyway.

[junkboy75]

fair points MarkT. however I don't think challenging the league over issues of trade is such a good idea (unless it is warranted), nor should we abandon the notion of football socialism. I think the present salary cap situation is worthwhile and has, in fact, worked to equalise the competition to a certain extent. it can only hurt the game if players and clubs start to take the league to courts over matters of trade, player movements and salary cap issues if no serious breaches have occurred, i.e. the player or clubs are just out to get their way. we are not carlton, nor would we ever want to be.

examples of the disruptions that court proceedings can cause include the current situation with brett kimorley where the NSL and st george/illawarra are being taken to court over salary cap issues. the most contentious of these is the bosman ruling in european soccer over player movements. this meant that clubs can offer huge sums of money to pinch players from other clubs who have no power to prevent it. the result? super rich teams who dominate their respective domestic leagues. I would not like to see a league that is dominated by an aussie rules equivalent of Man Utd.

as for misiti, there is no doubting that he is a quality player. I would support a move for him if the terms are favourable to c'wood, as they were in the trading period before time ran out. he will obviously not address the current deficiencies in the club, ie. backup ruckman, but will add depth to an already emerging midfield. however, if he does a st kilda and asks for unreasonable terms then I say, screw him.

"consectatio excellentiae"

[MarkT]

Fair points Junkboy. I think it's a double edged sword anyway you look at it.

The salary cap and draft can be viewed independantly or as one. The original aim was twofold. To save clubs from going broke and to even out the competition.

On the first count, I think it has failed dismally. In fact it has set a lower limit to pay rates to the extent that our wooden spoon side was (over)paid to the level as the premiers or very close to it. Even if you don't have a floor pay like the currejnt 92.5% rule you get a tendancy to pay towards the maximum. This is clearly evident from what lower clubs have been paying players. If you look at club finances they are worse than ever. If clubs were more commercial enterprises a number would not be allowed to operate and directors would be personally liable for significant debts. For these reasons I am not convinced the aim has been achieved at all.

Has the draft evened out the competition? The consensus seems to be yes. In reality, this is the first year we have seen a club look at shedding real talent due to salary cap problems. Since the cap came in I am not convinced the gap between top and bottom is any less than it has historically been. In fact, under the old system Collingwood would most likely be playing finals by now because we have the resoyurces and committed supporters to ensure we raised enough money to get enough quality players to have never fallen as far as we did and to have risen faster. I do think the current system has evened out the middle of tyhe ladder though. So whilst I think the cap and draft have acted in some manner to help even the competition I don't think it has been achieved to the extent the AFL would have us all believe.

Apart from all this, who really thinks the salary cap is honestly applied by all clubs? Certain clubs are know to have systems to around the cap. In the past players or their wives were employed by friendly parties, houses have been bought from players above market value, domain names have been "packaged". The list is only limited by imagination - certainly not by integrirty.

The real question is, why should the competition be artificailly evened and why should clubs be protected from themselves?

St.Kilda will ask for assistance because they can't survive with thier debts and their level of income. Their income is a product of their appalling administration and pathetic long term playing performance, which is due at least in part to the poor administration/recruiting/player managemnt etc. Why should they be saved from themselves and for how long can it go on? Can they sighn another million dollar coach mid season if Thomas is a failure and then recruit Nick Davis for $1m when his contract expires at the end of the season and ask for more cash because they are broke? Where does it end?

I agree that it is unpalletable to fight footy in the courts but it is also not acceptable to operate under rules which are illegal, largely ineffective and restrictive of personal freedoms.

[junkboy75]

I don't have enough knowledge on the intricacies of the draft to provide a totally informed opinion. I agree that it is not perfect and, as you've pointed out, it has failed in certain areas. I do, however, agree in the principle of the salary cap system. I guess that it's up to the AFL and the clubs to continue to modify and evolve the system to the maximum benefit of the game.

I guess the bosman ruling, which was won on the principles of restraint of trade, does not apply as much for the AFL because uncontracted players here are free to move to other clubs anyway and the salary cap prevents "richer" clubs from using other smaller clubs as a feeder or free youth training scheme (well, with the exception of freo ) in one sense, you can argue that that is one of the positives of the salary cap. the level at which it is set is another issue.

as for the draft, I endorse most of mick malthouse's arguments in his recent article, which called for changes to be made. however, I would tread the issue with caution as, arguably, c'wood has in the past been beneficiaries of the same system that mick is now criticising. the eagles also won 2 premierships on the back of draft concessions. we must be careful when we discuss about the unfairness of things otherwise there may be hard to defend criticisms of the pot calling the kettle black.

"consectatio excellentiae"

[MarkT]

You are right Magpie greg. That is exacly how it works. If we wanted Misti we could get him to nominate $1m p.a. as his contrct and if we were the only club who could fit that into our cap we could draft him and pay him significantly less in line with our other players.

Junkboy the only thing I would add to what you said is that I think something like the Bosman ruling would have application here. The laws may be slightly different but probably not significantly. The problem is that a player who is out of contract cannot go to the employer of his choice. His ability to work/trade is restriced. That is what a court case would be challanging. A players right to choose where to ply his trade.

I agree that it opens a can of worms and that is why I raised the question. I hate the idea but I also hate what we have and I cannot justify it on either "moral" grounds or the AFL's sated aims given it's lack of effectiveness.

As for calling the kettle black, there have been some acqusations along those lines. All I would say is that the fact that you are handed Josh Fraser for finishing last and that you say "thanks" does not mean you have think it is a good system. It also does not mean you would be anything but incompetent in the eyes of your members and supporters if did so.

The rules apply to our opposition and if we said no thanks we would be last with the worst list and with no prospect of improving the list under the other restrictions imposed by that system. The real task for a club wanting to adress these kinds of issues to supply a viable alternative. Maybe that id free trade maybe not. personally I have trouble seeing a legal restriction on trade. I just don't think it is possible.