Clubs need more power for the good of the game: Hardwick ..... (afl site)

[one-eyed]

On the move: Clubs need more power for the good of the game: Hardwick

Damien Hardwick 
afl.com.au
February 22, 2015


Fans are the cornerstone of our game. I'm reminded of it every time I hear the roar of the Richmond faithful. The players put on the show but ultimately it is the fans that give us the best game in the world. Without them we have nothing.

And from my experience what fans want is the chance to believe that success is just around the corner, that all the emotional investment they make in their team will be rewarded. At clubs we do everything we can to deliver that dream.

At the moment we have some elements in our game that make taking significant steps very difficult. Make no mistake, winning a premiership should always be difficult, and it is. However, there are some things that I believe need to be considered to ensure clubs are afforded every opportunity to deliver for their fans. It is then fairly and squarely up to clubs to prove they are good enough to grasp that opportunity.

I'm specifically referring to player movement mechanics, which I think will need some adjustment to ensure it is fairer for all clubs when it comes to list management.

Clubs currently have three ways to acquire talent: draft, trade and free agency. The draft is the only element that comes close to true parity. A player nominating for the draft cannot dictate the club of his choice.

Yes, it has been compromised in recent years but we all understand why and we all signed up for that. Our game needs to keep growing and that was a necessary requirement to deliver that outcome.

The biggest problem clubs that are battling to lift themselves from the bottom have is the time it takes to rebuild a list.

We draft kids at 17 and 18 who are not physically ready to play the game at a consistent level until their early 20s and then generally won't peak until around the age of 23-24 and beyond.

There is a significant difference between our draft and the NFL draft for example. NFL teams are drafting guys who come in and impact straight away because they have played four seasons of college football first.

Russell Wilson, who played for the Seahawks in the Super Bowl, is the team's star quarterback in his third season but turns 27 at the end of this year. Our boys in their third year are turning 21 and still trying to develop their bodies to play AFL football.

People shouldn't overlook the minimal advantage provided by draft for teams who finish near the bottom of the ladder. Sure they get first crack at the elite talent in the junior pathways but when these boys take the field they are one of 18 on the ground. The gap between the best teams and the poorest teams is far more than one good player, and as a result a team must stay at the bottom for a long time to rebuild their talent.

I'm not saying the draft is broken ­ it's perfectly fine - but it is clear to me that other adjustments need to be made to player movement mechanics to give clubs an opportunity to build quickly.

The draft was introduced for a reason ­ for talent to be evenly spread throughout the competition. At the age of 18 a player has no choice of where his football home is but once his first contract is up, or even before it is up, we have seen players hold clubs to ransom.

Basically they manipulate the player movement process to find a way to the club of their choice. Trade me or I will walk the following year and you'll get nothing. This leaves clubs vulnerable ­ they are essentially forced into doing a deal or potentially get nothing in return.

How can this imbalance be redressed? My view is that up until the time that players have earned the right to free agency, clubs should be able to trade players to clubs of their choice, not the player's choice. Naturally any exchange would need to ensure financial terms of existing contracts are honoured.

Players who have competed in the league for a significant period do deserve extra rights compared to their younger counterparts. They deserve the opportunity to consider their options, particularly given they operate in such a highly-regulated employment environment.

But until such time, clubs need more control in the interests of a more equitable competition. It will give clubs more options when it comes to developing lists and I think that is critical. Poorly performed clubs need to be able to get better quicker. Our draft just does not allow for this. We need to be innovative in other ways to make this happen.

The Seahawks were the first Super Bowl winner (2014) to win a playoff game in their following season for nine years. I think our fans deserve the opportunity to think they can realistically compete sooner rather than later.

A total of just six clubs have featured in the last seven Grand Finals.

In the long-term a more competitive competition will better engage fans and drive revenues that will ultimately reward the players. Compromises therefore need to be made so everyone wins.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2015-02-21/clubs-deserve-power-dimma

[Phil Mrakov]

 

[The Big Richo]

I would respectfully suggest Damien stop worrying about running the AFL and focus on keeping his job.

[Penelope]

He is correct though, and is probably pointing out something that is making his job that bit more difficult.

I also wonder if he is just talking in general or from real life experience? Perhaps he has had trades fall through because the player he wanted to trade out refused to go?

[WilliamPowell]

He is correct though, and is probably pointing out something that is making his job that bit more difficult.

I also wonder if he is just talking in general or from real life experience? Perhaps he has had trades fall through because the player he wanted to trade out refused to go?

Agree al.

The point he makes is spot on

Contracted players have always had the right of veto on any trade.

The players wanted free agency, they got it but refused to give up the right of veto on trades

During trade tme the players hold all the cards not the clubs

Is it really fair if say GWS approach the RFC and offer their 1st round pick qand 2nd round for say an Ellis or Vickery and the RFC can't do the deal because the player being contracted says no?

[The Big Richo]

Fair protection for the players.

Clubs don't have to contract them and if they do then they should honour it unless both parties agree differently.

If Cotchin says next year he wants to go to Hawthorn is Richmond expected to just hand him over?

[Penelope]

i dont think that is his point, but in that case you try to get the best result for the club.

what he is saying, is that as a young bloke entering the draft you have no say where you go, but once drafted and your initial contract is up the same player can hold the club to ransom (to a degree).

So if a young draftee has no say in where he goes, whats the difference with a player who has only been in the system a few years having no say in where he gets traded too?

After a certain period of time as a player you earn the right to have some say, but until then, you take the cards dealt to you. thats the yin to free agencies yang, or whatever.

[one-eyed]

No trades without players' consent: AFLPA

Peter Ryan 
afl.com.au
February 23, 2015 5:33 PM


THE AFL Players' Association will not be entertaining the idea of players being traded without their consent after Richmond coach Damien Hardwick called for the change to player movement rules at the weekend.

Writing for AFL.com.au on Saturday, Hardwick argued that up until a player qualified as a free agent, clubs should not need players’ consent in organising trades, as long as the financial terms of any existing contracts were honoured.

Clubs have been concerned at players requesting trades to teams they nominate with time still running on their contracts.

However, AFLPA CEO Paul Marsh said the association would not agree to a situation where clubs could exchange players without their consent.

"This goes against everything the AFLPA stands for. Players are not pieces of property to be traded or sold," Marsh said.

“"Players are already subject to extraordinary restraints. We think these need to be lessened, not increased.

"The AFLPA will continue to advocate for a more balanced system that will work more effectively for the players and the game."

Marsh rejected the notion that players have too much power, with changes in recent seasons redressing some of the imbalance.

He also said the reasons players left clubs before their contracts expired during the recent trade period were varied and unique.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2015-02-23/no-consent-no-trades-aflpa

[WilliamPowell]

Arghhh...yes........

Paul March, CEO of the AFLPA who believed players dont' get paid enough and that it was an "indictment on the AFL" that there was only one player in the top 50 sports earners in this country (Ablett Jnt with $1.5 mil) let alone only one earning more than a million bucks

Also reckons despite there being the odd club (or half a dozen clubs) that are not operating profitably all clubs and the comp overall is financially strong 

[Andyy]

They get paid more than enough.

A better comparison would be AFL player payments VS other domestic leagues. You can bet they crap all over NRL, state cricket, our soccer league (whatever it's called), and the NBL etc.

International sport pays way more. Everybody knows that...

[tony_montana]

International sport pays way more. Everybody knows that...

Paul March doesn't   

[Penelope]

so the afl players association oppose players being able to be traded as the clubs see fit? Gee who would have seen that coming.....

Still think dimma is right. there would have to be a change to free agency rules though. Players would have to become eligible for free agancy based soley on years of playing AFL, regardless if it was one club or many.

[Andyy]

International sport pays way more. Everybody knows that...

Paul March doesn't   

Then I suppose he's a nobody. Doesn't belong with everybody.

[Andyy]

so the afl players association oppose players being able to be traded as the clubs see fit? Gee who would have seen that coming.....

Still think dimma is right. there would have to be a change to free agency rules though. Players would have to become eligible for free agancy based soley on years of playing AFL, regardless if it was one club or many.

100% agree.

If the average solid AFL player (not a fringe player) plays at least 13 years (until age 30+) then they should consider unrestricted FA maybe after 7 years, regardless of games played or clubs played for. Players should have NO SAY in trades until they are eligible for FA. They are drafted, serve their 7 years doing as clubs see fit, and are then able to pursue the team/career they want in the second half of their careers.

Or something similar...