Bradshaw set to dump Lions

[bulldogtragic]

The HUN (via The Courier Mail) is reporting Daniel Bradshaw is set to walk out on the Lions after being offered for trade.

Interesting. Melbourne and Richmond will surely circle.

[Remi Moses]

The HUN is reporting Daniel Bradshaw is set to walk out on the Lions after being offered for trade.

Interesting. Melbourne and Richmond will surely circle.

Wouldn't think either of these two will chase Bradshaw. Voss and his scatter gun approach has claimed it's first victim

[bulldogtragic]

Who at the top end of the PSD will look at him then Remi?

If Melbourne get Ball with pick 18. They still have the salary cap space and need to cover Watts for a year or two.

[LostDoggy]

Well. This is ridiculous.

So they get Fev and sacrifice an entire team (one that made the semi-finals this year, remember!) in the process. What odds for Vossy being first coach out the door next year? Surely a 1-6 or 2-9 record after the first seven to eleven rounds, which is not out of the realms of possibility -- I just can't see how the Lions will be a coherent team next year, and it's not as if Vossy is a veteran coach who can pull this out of his arse -- would see the vultures start to circle.

[bulldogtragic]

Apparently OFFICIAL!!!

Pissed with Voss!!!

Sydney named potential front runners with lowish PSD pick and cash too.

[LostDoggy]

Full forwards coming out of everywhere this year - why didn't it happen last year:mad:

[strebla]

Had to happen loyalty in Brisvegas now means exactly zero he might be the first but I doubt he will be the last

[BulldogBelle]

Jason Roe looks interesting for us. 193cm key defender. Not exactly the best player in the world but might appreciate a change.

[BulldogBelle]

Jason Roe looks interesting for us. 193cm key defender. Not exactly the best player in the world but might appreciate a change.

Sorry - off topic. Lets talk Bradshaw. Got distracted!!

[azabob]

The HUN (via The Courier Mail) is reporting Daniel Bradshaw is set to walk out on the Lions after being offered for trade.

Interesting. Melbourne and Richmond will surely circle.

The Age went with this in today's paper and the suggested he is looking at Carlton.

[Nuggety Back Pocket]

Apparently OFFICIAL!!!

Pissed with Voss!!!

Sydney named potential front runners with lowish PSD pick and cash too.

Bradshaw would have been good for us at Full Forward with Barry Hall at centre half forward. Unfortunately we didn't have room in the salary cap cum trade week but it was being given serious thought.
When was the last time the Bulldogs boasted two key forwards?

[LostDoggy]

Bradshaw would have been good for us at Full Forward with Barry Hall at centre half forward. Unfortunately we didn't have room in the salary cap cum trade week but it was being given serious thought.
When was the last time the Bulldogs boasted two key forwards?

How many old men do we need in the side? Bradshaw would have been good had we not got Hall. Now we have Hall, forget about Bradshaw, we aren't an old peoples home.

[ledge]

How many old men do we need in the side? Bradshaw would have been good had we not got Hall. Now we have Hall, forget about Bradshaw, we aren't an old peoples home.

You just hate old people Ernie.:D
Couldnt care less how old he is if he can still perform age is no barrier!

[Sockeye Salmon]

Trading is the work of the devil

[Doc26]

Trading is the work of the devil

How would you view free agency from the clubs perspective ?

[Sockeye Salmon]

How would you view free agency from the clubs perspective ?

Briefly.

If (when) free agency come in we could very well cease to exist.

Certainly us winnning the premiership would be about as likely as Portsmouth winning the Premier League title.

[The Coon Dog]

How would you view free agency from the clubs perspective ?

Don't get SS started on free agency! ;)

[Doc26]

Don't get SS started on free agency! ;)

Ooh I agree, would see that as the work of the devil and player managers his little helpers.
Would also likely condemn me from ever seeing a Doggies premiership in my lifetime. Although I fear the free market capitalists amongst us about to pounce.

[Sockeye Salmon]

Don't get SS started on free agency! ;)

I am passionate about this issue because it will destroy the fabric of our game as we know it.

[azabob]

I am passionate about this issue because it will destroy the fabric of our game as we know it.

The reality is, with each generation the rules change, the game changes. I agree it will change the fabric of our game, but I get the feeling the younger generation (under 25) dont care to much for tradition or one club players.

They want everything now.

[hujsh]

I don't know about that bobmurphy.

[GVGjr]

The Bradshaw saga during the trade period is the classic reason why a form of restricted free agency should be allowed.
When the option of acquiring a better player was presented to the Lions the intention by the club was to jettison him off to the Blues. That deal fell through but they still got their preferred player. Where did this leave Bradshaw? Pretty much up the creek without the paddle and the option of being the 3rd wheel in the twilight of his career.

To me, given his service and age etc Bradshaw should be able to nominate any club that wants him and he should be able to get there without a problem.

Clubs (and supporters) treat players pretty poorly when they are approaching their use-by date so when a player like Bradshaw effectively gets squeezed out then I can't see why he shouldn't be able to nominate a club and not have to wait for the drafts.

I'm not sure how this could be administered but I think in this example Bradshaw should be able to get to any club he wants and not necessarily which ever club drafts him.

[Sockeye Salmon]

The reality is, with each generation the rules change, the game changes. I agree it will change the fabric of our game, but I get the feeling the younger generation (under 25) dont care to much for tradition or one club players.

They want everything now.

Then the game is in trouble.

Does this mean we'll end up with a T20 version of AFL?

Perhaps the audience could vote off 1 player at the end of each quarter?

[Sockeye Salmon]

The Bradshaw saga during the trade period is the classic reason why a form of restricted free agency should be allowed.
When the option of acquiring a better player was presented to the Lions the intention by the club was to jettison him off to the Blues. That deal fell through but they still got their preferred player. Where did this leave Bradshaw? Pretty much up the creek without the paddle and the option of being the 3rd wheel in the twilight of his career.

To me, given his service and age etc Bradshaw should be able to nominate any club that wants him and he should be able to get there without a problem.

Clubs (and supporters) treat players pretty poorly when they are approaching their use-by date so when a player like Bradshaw effectively gets squeezed out then I can't see why he shouldn't be able to nominate a club and not have to wait for the drafts.

I'm not sure how this could be administered but I think in this example Bradshaw should be able to get to any club he wants and not necessarily which ever club drafts him.

Bradshaw is a good example of why there should be free agency, but there is no way of controlling it or stopping it being exploited.

What if WC offered Jon Brown a $2 million per year job as a Hungry Jacks environmental ambassador? Couldn't Brown say he was forced out by Fevola coming to the club?

All free agency will do is give clubs an incentive to cheat the system. It's bad enough as it is with the AFL approving dodgy deals. Dangle a player like Brown in front of some clubs and see how far they would be prepared to push the boundaries of legal.

[FrediKanoute]

Well, I guess in a sense that Bradshaw is exercising his right to move on, its just that he has limited choice as to where he ends up. I personally am against unrestrained free agency, especially as it exists in World Soccer, with a small group of European Clubs pretty much lording it over every other club in the world. Added to that is that anyone who grew up in the 70's and 80's saw the damage which Transfer Fees and player free agency had on the competition. Its no surprise that clubs like Carlton, Collingwood, Richmond, Hawthorn have been less dominant since drafting and salary caps were introduced.

I think that Allowing a 10 year player the right to free agency is about right. There is still the salary cap restriction which should act to restrain a club from carte blanche buying premierships. Any less than 10 years and you really are robbing a club who has invested $$$$ and time in developing a player into an elite of the competition from reaping the rewards.

[Sockeye Salmon]

Well, I guess in a sense that Bradshaw is exercising his right to move on, its just that he has limited choice as to where he ends up. I personally am against unrestrained free agency, especially as it exists in World Soccer, with a small group of European Clubs pretty much lording it over every other club in the world. Added to that is that anyone who grew up in the 70's and 80's saw the damage which Transfer Fees and player free agency had on the competition. Its no surprise that clubs like Carlton, Collingwood, Richmond, Hawthorn have been less dominant since drafting and salary caps were introduced.

I think that Allowing a 10 year player the right to free agency is about right. There is still the salary cap restriction which should act to restrain a club from carte blanche buying premierships. Any less than 10 years and you really are robbing a club who has invested $$$$ and time in developing a player into an elite of the competition from reaping the rewards.

Because the 10 year worked so well in the 70's ... :rolleyes:

[boydogs]

I think that Allowing a 10 year player the right to free agency is about right. There is still the salary cap restriction which should act to restrain a club from carte blanche buying premierships. Any less than 10 years and you really are robbing a club who has invested $$$$ and time in developing a player into an elite of the competition from reaping the rewards.

Reminds me of the Tom Cruise/Nicole Kidman divorce, IIRC he cut it off just in time to avoid the division off assets that is required for 10 year marriages. I don't know much about the free agency debate, but would clubs just trade 9 year players to get something for them instead of just losing them for nothing?

[GVGjr]

Bradshaw is a good example of why there should be free agency, but there is no way of controlling it or stopping it being exploited.

What if WC offered Jon Brown a $2 million per year job as a Hungry Jacks environmental ambassador? Couldn't Brown say he was forced out by Fevola coming to the club?

All free agency will do is give clubs an incentive to cheat the system. It's bad enough as it is with the AFL approving dodgy deals. Dangle a player like Brown in front of some clubs and see how far they would be prepared to push the boundaries of legal.

That's just a consideration and not a good enough reason to not explore the option further.

My view on the Brown example you have offered up is that if the Lions attempted to trade Brown but failed then he should, within reason, have the opportunity to get to a club that might want him.
Clubs and supporters turn on the older guys when it suits them and I can appreciate why the players want to explore this option.

I'm not sure what the right recipe is but long serving players shouldn't be just squeezed out of the system or be drafted by clubs that they don't want to go to if they can identify somewhere that would be of a mutual benefit.

[Remi Moses]

Who at the top end of the PSD will look at him then Remi?

If Melbourne get Ball with pick 18. They still have the salary cap space and need to cover Watts for a year or two.

It would have to be a team going to challenge in the next season or two. Let's be honest melbourne aren't going to play finals for at least 3 years . My bet is the Cheats

[Doc26]

That's just a consideration and not a good enough reason to not explore the option further.

My view on the Brown example you have offered up is that if the Lions attempted to trade Brown but failed then he should, within reason, have the opportunity to get to a club that might want him.
Clubs and supporters turn on the older guys when it suits them and I can appreciate why the players want to explore this option.

I'm not sure what the right recipe is but long serving players shouldn't be just squeezed out of the system or be drafted by clubs that they don't want to go to if they can identify somewhere that would be of a mutual benefit.


Options should still continue to be explored re something other than free agency to address the Brown (Bradshaw) example provided. However I would prefer to err on the side of protecting the viability of the competition first rather than the individuals financial interests towards the back end of their career.

Not really related but as much as a player such as Daniel Bradshaw may have been treated shabbily during this trade period it is swings and roundabouts where in past contract negotiations Daniel has in my opinion been one of the better ones in shopping his name around to force the Lions hand in improving his position when it was he who had the upper hand and not the club.

[GVGjr]

Options should still continue to be explored re something other than free agency to address the Brown (Bradshaw) example provided. However I would prefer to err on the side of protecting the viability of the competition first rather than the individuals financial interests towards the back end of their career.

Not really related but as much as a player such as Daniel Bradshaw may have been treated shabbily during this trade period it is swings and roundabouts where in past contract negotiations Daniel has in my opinion been one of the better ones in shopping his name around to force the Lions hand in improving his position when it was he who had the upper hand and not the club.

I'm not sure how discussions about a potential form of restricted free agency threatens the competition but whilst some might speculate on the negative it could equally be a positive.
I'm also not sure why long serving and loyal club stalwarts should be potentially treated as 2nd class with a take it or leave it approach?

We want and demand loyalty from our players (Lake for example) and yet we also expect the guys that have served us well to be expendable when it suits us.

Clubs have treated some players poorly and that is exactly the reason why the players union wants these discussions to be held.
It's easy to highlight potential flaws because some clubs might exploit it but the AFL needs to work on the clubs about that and we shouldn't expect the players to carry the burden. I think the players union has been a decent contributor to the growth of the AFL and they haven't been overly demanding.

Granted that the devil is in the detail but I'm not sure that the concept of restricted free agency is that much of a risk to the competition.

[bornadog]

Because the 10 year worked so well in the 70's ... :rolleyes:

It did for North;)

However, I agree with you SS, I don't like the concept of free agency, we will get screwed for sure. I also see how older p[layers can also get screwed around, late in their career. So, I don't know the answer.

[1eyedog]

Then the game is in trouble.

Does this mean we'll end up with a T20 version of AFL?

Perhaps the audience could vote off 1 player at the end of each quarter?


But this has already been happening for a long time. The percentage of total AFL players who play out of loyalty to their club is very low IMO and as BM suggests it will get even lower when this final batch of 'old timers' e.g. Johnno et al. finally hang up the boots.

The negotiations of Griffen and Cooney will be very interesting next year.

[Jasper]

The free agency thing should be allowed. It is grossly unfair on players that they cannot choose their employer. However if uncontrolled free agency is allowed then 'employers' will cease to exist. This connundrum could be solved by applying a set of rules, that legislate minimum compensation for clubs losing free agents. For instance:

1 - Players can only move after 8yrs service or 150 AFL firsts games (thereby allowing their market value to be apparent, ie not based on potential)
2 - Players will be given a value, calculated by averaging their salary over the past three years, and they are banded, ie Band 1 = $500K+, Band 2 = $400-$500K, Band 3 = $300-400K, Band 4 = $250-300K, etc (the bandings here are just examples)
3 - After a free agent nominates his preferred club, the gaining and losing clubs can negotiate a deal but the club losing the player must receive minimum compensation in the form of draft picks. ie Band 1 players are worth 2 first round picks, Band 2 are worth a first round and a second round pick, Band 3 are worth a first round pick, etc,
4 - Salary cap rules remain in place
5 - Trading of future draft picks in the two drafts following that trade week are allowed ie this year rather than the dicking around that we saw with Burgoyne (and assuming he was on over an average of $500K for the last three years), Hawks could have traded this years first round pick and next years first round pick to Port.

[Sockeye Salmon]

I'm not sure how discussions about a potential form of restricted free agency threatens the competition but whilst some might speculate on the negative it could equally be a positive.
I'm also not sure why long serving and loyal club stalwarts should be potentially treated as 2nd class with a take it or leave it approach?


We think our footy is the best game of all but then so do soccer, rugby and American football fans, so why is it that in a city of 4 million people we can have 9 teams all average mid-30,000 attendances?

It's not the game itself, it's our unique culture. Our tribalism.

Why is an Eastern suburbs snob like me so passionate about a Western Suburbs football club?

Because they are my boys. I can tell it's Johnno without seeing his number or face because I can see his short, quick steps when he runs. I have a bond with the guys in our team.

If players change clubs every contract like they do in European soccer they no longer become my boys, they're just a pack of mercenaries loyal to whoever pays them this week. The concept of being prepared to go into battle, to 'die' for the jumper is gone - and with it my passion for the 'club' (as different from the 'team').




We want and demand loyalty from our players (Lake for example) and yet we also expect the guys that have served us well to be expendable when it suits us.

Clubs have treated some players poorly and that is exactly the reason why the players union wants these discussions to be held.


But that's a point of difference between clubs, isn't it? Voss has treated his players like commodities he could buy and sell and Bradshaw has bit him on the arse.

Yes we have played the loyalty card with Lake but we held up our end of the bargain as well by not shopping around our players.


Who will benefit out of free agency?

1. Player managers will make a killing
2. Superstars already earing $600K a year will now earn $1M a year
3. Huge rewards for the best salary cap cheats
4. Lazy journos will have something to write about
5. Supporters who like see players move around like Supercoach


Who won't benefit out of free agency?

1. The 12 clubs who will no longer be able to compete
2. Any player who isn't a superstar being forced to take a pay cut (or get delisted) to fit the $1M in the salary cap of the star they just recruited.
3. The club who identified the best kid in the draft only to lose them to be an "Environmental ambassador" for Hungry Jacks.
4. The kid who just watched his favorite player switch clubs
5. The AFL when clubs become franchises and players become assets and the tribalism and passion starts to drop off.



As things stand now, if you want to get a star from another club you need to meet two sets of conditions.
1. Can you fit him under the salary cap?
2. Can you arrange a trade?


The first one is easy, give him the cash in a brown paper bag.
The second one is difficult and impossible to cheat.

The penalties for cheating the salary cap are huge and the reward is marginal considering what you need to give up to get the trade done.

Remove the trade factor and all you need to get Jon Brown is heaps of cash and a secret bank account.

[GVGjr]

Why is an Eastern suburbs snob like me so passionate about a Western Suburbs football club?

Because they are my boys. I can tell it's Johnno without seeing his number or face because I can see his short, quick steps when he runs. I have a bond with the guys in our team.

If players change clubs every contract like they do in European soccer they no longer become my boys, they're just a pack of mercenaries loyal to whoever pays them this week. The concept of being prepared to go into battle, to 'die' for the jumper is gone - and with it my passion for the 'club' (as different from the 'team').



So if I am reading this right you are wanting players to potentially limit their earning capacity and the right to squeeze out another season or two at the highest level at a club that wants them because you don't want it to follow the soccer example?
From what I have heard being talked about I really don't see that it would get to that.

The AFL and the players union have shown that they have the games and the clubs best interests at heart because they have stuck fat with the salary cap and the draft which is missing in European soccer. I don't see that what the players union are wanting to explore (a restricted form of free agency) is that much of a threat.

You seem to think that it's open slather (which would be a threat) but that's not what I have heard being discussed.
To me the Bradshaw saga is a classic reason why there needs to be some avenues for a long serving one club player to pursue other opportunities.

[Doc26]

I'm not sure what the right recipe is but long serving players shouldn't be just squeezed out of the system or be drafted by clubs that they don't want to go to if they can identify somewhere that would be of a mutual benefit.

I would suggest that more long term players would be squeezed out of the system and be drafted by clubs they don't wish to be with free agency as clubs struggle to maintain their star players whilst their value is strong in the marketplace .

Just assuming that Lake met the criteria this year for free agency I would suggest the probability of Eagleton & Aker being retained on our list would've been significantly less, to be replaced by a cheaper option. That is, while a player such as Lake has currency in the market the benefit of free agency may well suit them during that contract period but ironically may also eventually force them to end their career earlier than currently necessary as the next gun free agent looks to take their slice of the pie .

As their value decreases great servants of clubs would be increasingly pushed out of the system earlier than what is currently afforded them. Personally I do enjoy seeing our greats go around in the twilight of their careers and would not support any system which encourages their early departure simply to indulge the minority elite whether they be the star players, their managers or those clubs historically or geographically better positioned.

[Sockeye Salmon]

So if I am reading this right you are wanting players to potentially limit their earning capacity and the right to squeeze out another season or two at the highest level at a club that wants them because you don't want it to follow the soccer example?
From what I have heard being talked about I really don't see that it would get to that.


If a player wants to extend their career by a year or two they can request a trade (if he's trying to squeeze out an extra year or two it will almost always be agreed) or he can enter the draft.

Bradshaw is apparently negotiating with Carlton and Sydney. He'll work out terms and end up at the club he wants.




The AFL and the players union have shown that they have the games and the clubs best interests at heart because they have stuck fat with the salary cap and the draft which is missing in European soccer. I don't see that what the players union are wanting to explore (a restricted form of free agency) is that much of a threat.

You seem to think that it's open slather (which would be a threat) but that's not what I have heard being discussed.

The only restriction I've heard is 7 years service. Considering you get drafted at 18, by 25, just as you're hitting your peak, you can walk out for more cash to the best cheats.

[Go_Dogs]

The only restriction I've heard is 7 years service. Considering you get drafted at 18, by 25, just as you're hitting your peak, you can walk out for more cash to the best cheats.

From what I've heard, 10 years in the big push. I think it's a reasonable system, but there should also be some sort of compensation formula used, so that the deals can be done and both parties walk away not feeling too disgruntled.

Free Agency will definitely come in at some stage in the next 5 years as the new clubs role in, but restricting it to 10 year at one club players, and structuring how the compensation is determined gives clarity and fairness.



I'm not sure superstars will be the only benefactors - although anyone who survives in the system for 10 years is doing pretty damn well. Also, unless Vossy is coach, I'm not convinced that it will result in these guys getting (even more) ridiculous contracts. But hey, who knows. Maybe we could offer Pavlich and Judd $5M each, have a list of 24 and hope for no injuries?

[GVGjr]

From what I've heard, 10 years in the big push. I think it's a reasonable system, but there should also be some sort of compensation formula used, so that the deals can be done and both parties walk away not feeling too disgruntled.



That's what I heard talked about twice on the radio.

Lets look at Bradshaw.

He's 30, he played over 200 games for one club and they unsuccessfully hawked him around. The Lions eventually got the deal done for Fevola but as a result Bradshaw would become the 3rd wheel in the forward line if he was to stay.
Given his service to one team I don't think he should have to go back into the draft and potentially be drafted by say Freo. I certainly can see why there is a case to argue about him being able to go to the club of his choice. This is not necessarily about money for him just the opportunity to play senior football.

[Go_Dogs]

That's what I heard talked about twice on the radio.

Lets look at Bradshaw.

He's 30, he played over 200 games for one club and they unsuccessfully hawked him around. The Lions eventually got the deal done for Fevola but as a result Bradshaw would become the 3rd wheel in the forward line if he was to stay.
Given his service to one team I don't think he should have to go back into the draft and potentially be drafted by say Freo. I certainly can see why there is a case to argue about him being able to go to the club of his choice. This is not necessarily about money for him just the opportunity to play senior football.

Yeah, I would have no problem with this scenario that you've outlined. It's just a better way to do it, rather than the player (especially after the close of trade week as in Bradshaw's case) can still get to a club of his choice rather than having to hope it all works out via the PSD or ND.

How do you see it unfolding? Would you hold a 'free agency' week (or 2) after trade week, at which stage the list management stuff is a bit clearer and the more senior players can see the writing on the wall?

Do we need to place certain restrictions, not only on the age of the player, but a set of circumstances that allow a player to say, that's it I'm leaving? (Go home factors, more opportunities, extended career, more money etc)

I think it's a great idea, I just hope it is properly implemented and thought through, and going by the AFL's track record, I'm not totally convinced ;)

[GVGjr]

How do you see it unfolding? Would you hold a 'free agency' week (or 2) after trade week, at which stage the list management stuff is a bit clearer and the more senior players can see the writing on the wall?

Do we need to place certain restrictions, not only on the age of the player, but a set of circumstances that allow a player to say, that's it I'm leaving? (Go home factors, more opportunities, extended career, more money etc)



I honestly don't know how this will pan out and I've said all along that the devil is in the detail but we do know that the salary cap and the draft are working well for the competition and if done right, a restricted version of free agency could help the genuine players like Bradshaw not get forced out or into playing for a team that they don't want to.

What I would like to see is a strict criteria to qualify for it perhaps 10 years service to one team. It might be that clubs can only have one player head to them under this restricted free agency.

We have a unique competition unlike Soccer where players can move around freely for big money our competition is very regulated. It's also vastly different to Rugby where players move between sides, countries and even Rugby codes as opportunities present.

I think something that gives the older guys in the AFL a chance to extend their careers a bit longer if another team is interested is worth considering.

[Sockeye Salmon]

That's what I heard talked about twice on the radio.

Lets look at Bradshaw.

He's 30, he played over 200 games for one club and they unsuccessfully hawked him around. The Lions eventually got the deal done for Fevola but as a result Bradshaw would become the 3rd wheel in the forward line if he was to stay.
Given his service to one team I don't think he should have to go back into the draft and potentially be drafted by say Freo. I certainly can see why there is a case to argue about him being able to go to the club of his choice. This is not necessarily about money for him just the opportunity to play senior football.

Let's look at a Fevola hypothetical (leaving aside the fact that he was still under contract for a moment).

10 years with Carlton, just won another Coleman, could walk for nothing because he's mates with Eddie and channel 9 offered him a $2M a year contract to be on TFS.

Carlton would be totally hogtied to do anything about losing one of their 2 best players purely because another club has out-cheated them (yes, I see the irony of my example).



If Bradshaw is unhappy with his prospects he can put himself in the draft, he has options. Brisbane have (had) options too. They could have resisted the urge to chase Fevola and showed loyalty to their player. They could have sounded out his feelings about the whole issue before they considered offering him up for trade or bringing in someone else to do his job, then traded him once they found out his concerns.

Even by losing him for nothing in the draft they have only lost a spare parts 31yo.

My concern is clubs losing marquee players by being out-cheated because for the most part, they're they blokes worth risking salary cap penalties for.

[LostDoggy]

Hopefully this isn't off topic, but its great that there are players on the Western Bulldogs team that actually want to play for the club and actively seek out the club (eg Aker/Hall).
While other teams are having problems where "Key" players are wanting to leave, and clubs wanting players gone (Fev / Bradshaw / Ball).

[GVGjr]

Let's look at a Fevola hypothetical (leaving aside the fact that he was still under contract for a moment).

10 years with Carlton, just won another Coleman, could walk for nothing because he's mates with Eddie and channel 9 offered him a $2M a year contract to be on TFS.

Carlton would be totally hogtied to do anything about losing one of their 2 best players purely because another club has out-cheated them (yes, I see the irony of my example).
.

The way I see this restricted free agency isn't really out to protect the Fevola's of the world.
The better players make their own luck.

I'm more interested in looking after the Bradshaw's of the world that have been loyal to one club and are getting squeezed out.



If Bradshaw is unhappy with his prospects he can put himself in the draft, he has options. Brisbane have (had) options too. They could have resisted the urge to chase Fevola and showed loyalty to their player. They could have sounded out his feelings about the whole issue before they considered offering him up for trade or bringing in someone else to do his job, then traded him once they found out his concerns.

Even by losing him for nothing in the draft they have only lost a spare parts 31yo.

My concern is clubs losing marquee players by being out-cheated because for the most part, they're they blokes worth risking salary cap penalties for.

IMO Bradshaw has earned the right to be able to nominate some clubs that he is interested in going to. In a way the Lions turned their back on him so why should he have to suffer potentially being selected by Fremantle if he is serious about not going to the West?

I have no problems with what you have mentioned in the highlighted section but lets see the actual proposal before dismissing it. The salary cap and the draft have underpinned the viability of clubs and the competition so I'm confident the AFL won't just make it open slather and undo all the good work.

[LostDoggy]

Has picked Sydney, as his preferred destination.

[ledge]

Oh i thought he wanted to come to Melbourne.