2017 trading, drafting, list management

[Boddo]

Not correct, they are not in the same situation. Players picked in the last round of the ND get a two year contract, rookies only get a one year contract.

It's why teams pass with late picks in the ND where they could have grabbed a player they want but who then went before their first pick in the RD a couple of days later. There is enough doubt surrounding late picks that you don't want to be paying them more $ for two years when you can see what they've got for less $ for just one year.

Have I read your post correctly Boddo?

- - - Updated - - -

Leo Barry'ish?

Have you read mine. "They train, they live exactly the same but get paid less" they are in exactly the same situation. Contract wise it could have easily been a one year contract for anyone taken after round 5 or 6. We used to have lists of 52 then they were reduced as stand alone reserves disappeared, which is fair. Players taken late in the draft had pay parity then. E.g chris grant taken at pick 105. Now we've gone full circle n back to larger lists with stand alone reserves with Cat A rookie players only being rookie by name. No pay parity. I'm surprised no1 can see this. They are basically main listed players getting underpaid.

[Boddo]

Under 18 on Saturday Vic Country v Vic Metro. Going to be live on afl.com.au if you get the chance watch it. A lot of top end talent will come from these 2 squads.

[liz]

Have you read mine. "They train, they live exactly the same but get paid less" they are in exactly the same situation. Contract wise it could have easily been a one year contract for anyone taken after round 5 or 6. We used to have lists of 52 then they were reduced as stand alone reserves disappeared, which is fair. Players taken late in the draft had pay parity then. E.g chris grant taken at pick 105. Now we've gone full circle n back to larger lists with stand alone reserves with Cat A rookie players only being rookie by name. No pay parity. I'm surprised no1 can see this. They are basically main listed players getting underpaid.

They also train exactly the same as Buddy Franklin and Josh Kennedy but I don't think anyone is suggesting they should get paid the same. Plus there is also a tier of pay scales amongst draftees, with first and second round draftees getting more than later round draftees.

[Boddo]

They also train exactly the same as Buddy Franklin and Josh Kennedy but I don't think anyone is suggesting they should get paid the same. Plus there is also a tier of pay scales amongst draftees, with first and second round draftees getting more than later round draftees.

There is a tiered system n I've known that for a while. But there is no way you can tell me Robbie Fox has done less than Jake Waterman, who was taken last in last years draft. In any workplace EBA negotiations this would be highlighted very quickly. Your looking at it from a club point of view I'm looking at it from a fairness point of view. They are only rookies by name.

[liz]

There is a tiered system n I've known that for a while. But there is no way you can tell me Robbie Fox has done less than Jake Waterman, who was taken last in last years draft. In any workplace EBA negotiations this would be highlighted very quickly. Your looking at it from a club point of view I'm looking at it from a fairness point of view. They are only rookies by name.

Elite sport isn't "fair", if you measure fairness by pay equality.

What the rookie system does do is encourage clubs to give a chance to players they might otherwise ignore. I doubt Kieren Jack, Nick Smith, Reg Grundy, Dane Rampe, Jake Lloyd, Tom Papley et al spend too much time regretting those first couple of years when they were at the bottom of the pay scale.

[Boddo]

Elite sport isn't "fair", if you measure fairness by pay equality.

What the rookie system does do is encourage clubs to give a chance to players they might otherwise ignore. I doubt Kieren Jack, Nick Smith, Reg Grundy, Dane Rampe, Jake Lloyd, Tom Papley et al spend too much time regretting those first couple of years when they were at the bottom of the pay scale.

But their basically not rookies anymore, Cat A rookies are senior players in every sense. They train, eat and can play senior footy just like I've stated numerous times. Those players wouldn't get ignored they would still be drafted. I've got no doubt in time the Cat A rookie will disappear n have the same pay structure as the last draftee in the ND.

[bloodspirit]

They also train exactly the same as Buddy Franklin and Josh Kennedy but I don't think anyone is suggesting they should get paid the same. Plus there is also a tier of pay scales amongst draftees, with first and second round draftees getting more than later round draftees.

The very point I was going to make! It's always the same. Almost every sensible comment I have to make you either make it first or you make it better. The tone here is not sycophancy but frustration.

There is nothing fair about AFL wages. The players all work, play and train about the same but the pay disparity is vast. Much like in the wider workplace where merchant bankers make vastly more than small family store owners or a cellist in the symphony orchestra who work/train the same type of hours. At least in AFL, the pay disparities are generally due to differences in talent (or perceived talent). That's just the way it is. There's nothing fair about it but even those on the bottom getting better than a living wage and have a pretty good lifestyle for their income + benefits + great workplace.

[waswan]

We need Jones and Florent

Agree but...... Not Jones at all costs, I still reckon anything north of 600K and id be searching the market, I don't believe he is the best we can get for that money, new CBA or not

[Boddo]

The very point I was going to make! It's always the same. Almost every sensible comment I have to make you either make it first or you make it better. The tone here is not sycophancy but frustration.

There is nothing fair about AFL wages. The players all work, play and train about the same but the pay disparity is vast. Much like in the wider workplace where merchant bankers make vastly more than small family store owners or a cellist in the symphony orchestra who work/train the same type of hours. At least in AFL, the pay disparities are generally due to differences in talent (or perceived talent). That's just the way it is. There's nothing fair about it but even those on the bottom getting better than a living wage and have a pretty good lifestyle for their income + benefits + great workplace.

Does the cellist of the symphony orchestra work in the same industry as the merchant banker? Does the cellist perform the same task as the merchant banker? Or course not.

[liz]

Does the cellist of the symphony orchestra work in the same industry as the merchant banker? Does the cellist perform the same task as the merchant banker? Or course not.

The cellist sitting in the back desk of the orchestra certainly earns a whole lot let than the leader of the section.

I am not sure whether you're trying to argue that all AFL players should be paid exactly the same. Or is there a point at which it's OK for some players to be paid more? If it's OK at some point, how do you decide what that point is?

Opening up senior opportunities to most rookies will benefit them because it grants them better opportunities to be selected for the senior team if their reserves performances warrant it. And then they will receive match payments on top of their base salary. For those who still qualify for match payments, these are identical, regardless of where you were taken in the draft or any other dimension of pecking order within the lower reaches of a club's list.

[Boddo]

The cellist sitting in the back desk of the orchestra certainly earns a whole lot let than the leader of the section.

I am not sure whether you're trying to argue that all AFL players should be paid exactly the same. Or is there a point at which it's OK for some players to be paid more? If it's OK at some point, how do you decide what that point is?

Opening up senior opportunities to most rookies will benefit them because it grants them better opportunities to be selected for the senior team if their reserves performances warrant it. And then they will receive match payments on top of their base salary. For those who still qualify for match payments, these are identical, regardless of where you were taken in the draft or any other dimension of pecking order within the lower reaches of a club's list.

No as I've pointed out regularly Cat A rookie players are just like last round draftees and perform the same training & preparation and now can play senior footy just like a senior listed player and as I have said numerous times should be paid accordingly as I have stated numerous times, the same as the last round draftees. They are rookies by name only. The cellist argument is a strawman argument.

[Mug Punter]

No as I've pointed out regularly Cat A rookie players are just like last round draftees and perform the same training & preparation and now can play senior footy just like a senior listed player and as I have said numerous times should be paid accordingly as I have stated numerous times, the same as the last round draftees. They are rookies by name only. The cellist argument is a strawman argument.

Agree that the rookies should be paid the same as later round draft picks.

And I like the fact now their opportunities aren't restricted which does beg the question, why have the rookie draft at all? I assume that rookie salaries are still exempt from the TPP and limited to the CBA amount so maybe it was to stop clubs stockpiling in the rookie lists. It's all I can think of apart from clubs being happy to have as much as possible to pay elite talent

Re the issue that 707 rightly pointed out re the greater uncertainty of later picks, surely that could be accommodated by draft picks from round six being on one year deals with the clubs having a second year option at their discretion

[Boddo]

Agree that the rookies should be paid the same as later round draft picks.

And I like the fact now their opportunities aren't restricted which does beg the question, why have the rookie draft at all? I assume that rookie salaries are still exempt from the TPP and limited to the CBA amount so maybe it was to stop clubs stockpiling in the rookie lists. It's all I can think of.

Re the issue that 707 rightly pointed out re the greater uncertainty of later picks, surely that could be accommodated by draft picks from round six being on one year deals with the clubs having a second year option at their discretion

I'm just surprised the organisation that is supposed to represent the players, the AFLPA, did not pick up on this. The Rookie draft is relevant for Cat B rookies.

[liz]

No as I've pointed out regularly Cat A rookie players are just like last round draftees and perform the same training & preparation and now can play senior footy just like a senior listed player and as I have said numerous times should be paid accordingly as I have stated numerous times, the same as the last round draftees. They are rookies by name only. The cellist argument is a strawman argument.

And how is their preparation different to first and second round draftees?

[Boddo]

And how is their preparation different to first and second round draftees?

It's not. Are you advocating they be paid the same as 1st or 2nd round draftees? I'm not but I am saying they are exactly the same as a main list player n should be treated accordingly which imo means they should should be part of the main list and paid the same as a 6th round drafted.