New Draft Proposal

Two_Pies · Posted: Wed Nov 19, 2003 10:41 am

Point in case is the PAFC. Yes they weren't dictated to by anyone and they have to their credit let a "valuable" player go to Carlton for the grand sum of nothing...imagine letting the likes of Licca go for nothing we would be up in arms. This sort of mentality negates the intentions of the AFL level playing field. However an independant body to assess player worth in any deal would be a time-consuming long drawn out affair. Trade week would become trade month(s). The clubs would unable to assess mutiple deals without certainty.

No. 35 · Joined: 30 Jun 2003 Location: Melbourne

I think it could be a quicker process. ATM clubs are taking a week to battle it out for a decision that comes down to the last couple of hours if not minutes.

Two_Pies · Posted: Wed Nov 19, 2003 11:08 am

Depending on the form such a body would take that may be so. At least the ability to have some recourse to a third party instead of lumping it would be a good thing. Some clubs do need to get their business act together. How does Melbourne go from claiming they will break even to their million plus loss in the space of a few months?

Brown26 · Posted: Thu Nov 20, 2003 8:26 am

no way - think about it - an "independant body" independant from the clubs, established by the AFL, would consist of past players and administrators, so let's just take a chunk of people who have been on previous things like this:

Robert Walls
Mark Meclure
Ron Barassi
la la la see where we're getting at...

The people would either be still loyal to their old clubs, (would the stevens deal have gone through with the above "independant panel" knowing Carlton had pick numero uno in the draft?) or, worse, be loyal to the AFL "It is the opinion of this independant panel that the trade of N. Buckley to the Fremantle Football Club for pick number one-hundred and fifty-three is fair and honest trading by both parties."

What would've happened if the independant body had've said a trade of stevens for didak would've been appropriate. No way! Maybe now, but didak has much more improvement left than Stevens, will give us longer service, will be better, and he didn't want to go to port. Maybe in the short term it would be an "appropriate" deal, but in the long term it's ridiculous!

There is no way a club should give over the ability to decide deals to anyone other than their football department - the football department just have to become better at it.

- Ben

Two_Pies · Posted: Thu Nov 20, 2003 11:22 am

It would all depend on the form that such body would take. I don't believe for one second that the power to make financial decisions would be removed from the clubs. An arbitrator/mediation panel may be useful in getting some deals done as opposed to 11th hour madness that happens now. Imagine if your job and where you were to work was handled in such a manner .... I for one would feel absolutely like a piece of meat being hawked in a market. And for the clubs to not be able to get their best from the process due to uncertainties and inability to know what the may be able to offer other clubs in terms of picks etc.

TheGaffer · Joined: 29 Sep 2003 Location: Melbourne

The independant panel scenario would not work as the clubs will not make any deals but leave all of them up to the panel to judicate.

The issue is that the clubs are their own worst enemy. No matter how long they are given to officially trade, all the deals happen in the last two hours. The reason is simply they don't want to commit to a deal just incase there is a better one around the corner. With death knock approaching they all start to panic and things happen.

The independant panel will get bogged down with incomplete deals and the whole process will turn to shite and take weeks not days.

Collingwood were just as much to blame in the Stevens non deal as were Port. Each thinking the other would back down first. Hawthorn on the other hand knew that North were also playing similar games and therefore took the initiative to look after their interests and look elsewhere with Rawlings.

I suggest the AFL make the trade period 36 hours, which would then force the clubs to take it serious from the start and not play games with each other for the first 3.5 days.

piedys · Posted: Thu Nov 20, 2003 7:00 pm

Yes, reduce it to 1-2 days. Enough with the poker faces and games of bluff leading up in the days before the 2.00pm deadline.

dyso

Daks · Joined: 19 Aug 2003 Location: Melbourne.

David · I dare you to try Joined: 27 Jul 2003 Location: Andromeda

I have no problem with trade week going for that long, but there's no point if the clubs are just going to wait until the last 30 minutes to do the trades. This year's was just ridiculous.