Bradshaw a Swan

[Vonsteinman]

Just another scribe stirring the possum.

Agree with this.

"Sources say although Bradshaw is likely to slip through to Sydney, the Demons may decide to make a late play for Bradshaw in the days leading up to the draft if other options fall over."

We all whinge about umpires who think they are rockstars. How about the journos... Far worse than the umps.

[royboy42]

Would getting rid of Russell Robertson and taking Bradshaw, who is the same age, make any sense? We may talk premiership window but I think it's fair to say the Dees are a way off theirs.

I'm with you Goswannies...it just would not make any sense!

[liz]

Don't disagree with you there, but it's a myth that clubs won't draft a player who has indicated a desire to play elsewhere.

Agree - and its largely the reason why ROK is still a Swan, not a Blue,

[royboy42]

Liz, do you mean cos Carlton elected not to take him?? I don't quite follow you?

[ugg]

It means that ROK didn't want to risk getting picked up before Carlton's pick in the PSD, possibly ending up in Perth.

[CureTheSane]

Yep but there was no issue about refusing to be drafted to another club

There was a huge fuss actually.

Whilst there wasn't much chance of any other club picking up Plugger, his public comments were seen as a dangerous precedent which other players might utilise.
I'm sure the AFL changed the rules then and there to avoid any obvious 'threats and extortion' being made so as to guarantee a club of choice.

[royboy42]

got it ugg..ta

[liz]

There was a huge fuss actually.

Whilst there wasn't much chance of any other club picking up Plugger, his public comments were seen as a dangerous precedent which other players might utilise.
I'm sure the AFL changed the rules then and there to avoid any obvious 'threats and extortion' being made so as to guarantee a club of choice.

I don't think the rules were changed then. I think they always stood and still stand.

My recollection is that there was a bit of a stink because everyone knew he would only play for Sydney. I don't recall him ever coming out and saying that though - though maybe he was asked and didn't outright deny it.

[Primmy]

Could you imagine the scenario if another club had in fact picked up Plugger......for better or for worse, that is one personality who stuck by his own rules.

Watched him turn right out of the Moore Park car park once while the rest of us were channelled left. The bloke in charge asked the copper on duty "what on earth are you doing letting that car go through!!!". The fella replied, "but that was Plugger". Pretty much said it all.

[top40]

This is a scenerio which demonstrates that complete lack of freedom of any individual player, flying in the face of the Trade Practices Act and even the Australian Constitution. Surely however a player the age of Daniel Bradshaw could basically state to a club like Melbourne prior to the PSD:

"...pick me and I will simply retire straight away. It will be a complete waste of pick and a very bad PR exercise for your club."

[CureTheSane]

This is a scenerio which demonstrates that complete lack of freedom of any individual player, flying in the face of the Trade Practices Act and even the Australian Constitution. Surely however a player the age of Daniel Bradshaw could basically state to a club like Melbourne prior to the PSD:

"...pick me and I will simply retire straight away. It will be a complete waste of pick and a very bad PR exercise for your club."

And how would you feel if Goodes was desperate for another flag and nominated Geelong as the only club he'd play for next year.
Out of contract and happy to play for half of what he is on this year, he simply says "I will only play for Geelong"

By your argument, players should be allowed to swap teams mid season, just as other employees are able to switch jobs at any time.
Is putting a player on a contract a contravention of the Constitution?
No, because they agree to a contract.
Likewise, they agree to act ethically.

[top40]

And how would you feel if Goodes was desperate for another flag and nominated Geelong as the only club he'd play for next year.
Out of contract and happy to play for half of what he is on this year, he simply says "I will only play for Geelong"

By your argument, players should be allowed to swap teams mid season, just as other employees are able to switch jobs at any time.
Is putting a player on a contract a contravention of the Constitution?
No, because they agree to a contract.
Likewise, they agree to act ethically.

I am not referring to players breaching existing contracts or switching club in the middle of the season. They are entirely different scenarios. And for what is it worth, the example you give about mid season club switches demonstrates where the AFL does have some aspects of a superior player-contract system compared with the NRL.

My critique is that well before the contract is signed, the player submitting himself to a PSD has no say at all in respect to where he wants to play. The players are effectively like chattel, if you get picked up by a club, you have to go. You as a player have no say at all.

That has its identical problems with young kids of age 17 or 18, who potentially might be picked in the National Draft. They may be very reluctant to leave their home city, their girlfriends, their family, their close friends, and be picked without any input from them, to travel to a completely different part of Australia. With that said, I am not suggesting any changes to the National Draft system; just that the clubs need to exercise common sense in considering the impact drafting a boy of 17 or 18 to another state might have. There are many examples of such problems, for example, Western Australian Des Hedland, as the 1998 Number 1 draft pick going to Brisbane and being miserable, and eventually ?coming home? to Fremantle.

The same common sense needed to be considered by the clubs who have priority over the Sydney Swans in the PSD. In the case of Daniel Bradshaw, you have a grown man of 31 with a family to consider. In theory he has no say under the PSD as to where he goes. Melbourne picks in up first, if he wants to play AFL in 2010; he has to go to Melbourne. Full stop, end of discussion. Most importantly, this a draft which has the effect of effectively forcing him to live in Melbourne against his own will. It arises before he signs any contracts. Too bad if the wife and kids don?t wish to live in Melbourne! Legally that imposition through such a draft system on an individual, breaches section 92 of the Constitution which states:

?On the imposition of uniform duties of customs, trade, commerce, and intercourse among the States, whether by means of internal carriage or ocean navigation, shall be absolutely free.?

Well, in this draft system a player and his existing club are not free, they both have no say at all if another club want to draft the player to contractually play interstate.

The AFL draft system could in my opinion be challenged in the courts. It also breaches relevant parts of the Trades Practices Act, and the principles adopted by the High Court in Buckley v Tutty (1971) 125 CLR 353, which considered the common law principles of ?Restraint of Trade?. It is should also be noted that a proposed Rugby League draft system was struck out by the Courts for the same legal reasons.

So what can Daniel Bradshaw do if Melbourne, against his wish says via the PSD:

?You?re coming with us?

Now at this stage there is no club-player contract. So we are not talking about breaches of contract here. Only that the Melbourne Football Club is exercising a right given to them by the AFL to pick a player. The player as no say in such process whatsoever. The only thing he could do at his age is to say:

?Well, if that is your position, and your right, then I will exercise the only freedom really available to me, and say, stuff you, I retire.?

[dimelb]

Here's another possibility.
Bradshaw takes a lead from a coach (forget which one, others will probably know) and tells a press conference: "If I say I will retire if a club other than Sydney picks me in the PSD, then the AFL won't even let me enter the PSD. So I would like to say very clearly that I am definitely NOT saying any such thing."

[i'm-uninformed2]

Here's another possibility.
Bradshaw takes a lead from a coach (forget which one, others will probably know) and tells a press conference: "If I say I will retire if a club other than Sydney picks me in the PSD, then the AFL won't even let me enter the PSD. So I would like to say very clearly that I am definitely NOT saying any such thing."

Reminds of the magic from jason "dizzy' gillespie after a test played on a howlingly dody pitch in india a few years ago. He came up with one (I think) that went like this:

"As a player, I'm not allowed make derogatory remarks about the pitch or curator - but I'm told a friend of mine told another friend that it was an absolute disgrace and a dog of a wicket."

[top40]

Here's another possibility.
Bradshaw takes a lead from a coach (forget which one, others will probably know) and tells a press conference: "If I say I will retire if a club other than Sydney picks me in the PSD, then the AFL won't even let me enter the PSD. So I would like to say very clearly that I am definitely NOT saying any such thing."

Your point is a very interesting one. I am not sure about this, but surely the AFL's mighty powers do not extend to unilaterally preventing a player from entering the PSD list, unless that player had serious conduct issues and was officially banned, a la Ben Cousins in 2007? I don't know the answer. However if such powers ARE avaialble to the AFL, it is in my view illegal, as it breaches an individual's freedom of movement and freedom to trade.