I've been thinking of this for a while; I think I may have even suggested it before. I want to actually propose this idea now and see what everyone thinks. I propose that an ORFFA team continues to have rights to any players they delist because they have either retired from AFL, or are delisted by their AFL club. I propose that if such a player were to re-enter the AFL, that all ORRFA clubs could have an opportunity to bid a draft pick they'd be willing to use on the player, and then if the ORFFA club with that player's rights wanted to select the player, they couldelect to use whatever is their next pick after the winning bidded pick. This would all be worked out prior to the draft and either club would be obliged to use the pick they agreed to. I'm not sure I've explained this well, but it's the same format as the current father-son process in the AFL. I imagine most understand that already. Ive been thinking this for some time already and then the news today that Mitch Clark is coming back to AFL prompted me to post the proposal. I'm curious about what others think. Using Mitch Clark as an example. He retired, so Bama delisted him. If he comes back, Bama would own his rights still, so to speak. If Bama wanted him back, he could nominate him as a returning player that he has rights to. All clubs would have an opportunity to bid a draft pick they'd be willing to use on him. Lets just say I bidded my 1st round pick and nobody bid a higher pick than that. Bama would then be able to choose whether he lets me use my 1st pick on Clark, or if he wanted him, he could use his 1st pick, which is a couple of picks after mine. (In a real scenario, we would have to be nominating actual pick numbers etc) If Bama decided not to elect to draft him, I would be forced to use my pick I bid. If Bama decided to 'match' my bid, he would be forced to use the relevant pick. Ive got further ideas regarding how it would ]worklogistically, but just wanted to gauge interest first. What do you all think?
What you've proposed makes sense to me ant, just to check, 'their next pick after the winning bid' This is regardless of how much after? I am thinking specifically of someone whom has traded out of a round, where it's conceivable a coach has bid pick 20, and the 'rights holder's' next pick is 50..
Yes, my thinking is the next pick, regardless of how much later it is. I was thinking that the bidding process would have to be after the trade period and before the draft. Another aspect that I forgot to add before, is that if no other club bids for the player, then the club with rights must use their final live pick to select the player. And no other club is allowed to select the player.
Just wondering if there is not a simpler solution here. The way I see it, there are two official delist periods (prior to the PSD and MSD). My suggestion would be that any post-season banter from coaches, whereby they plan to delist player X or Y, is basically regarded as 'proposed' delistment. Delistments only become official once posted in the official delist thread during the delist period. From what I have seen in some trade blocks, coaches are actually using the threat or proposal of delistment as a carrot to lure would be suitors. Let let me know if I'm off the mark here.
grav wrote: Just wondering if there is not a simpler solution here. The way I see it, there are two official delist periods (prior to the PSD and MSD). My suggestion would be that any post-season banter from coaches, whereby they plan to delist player X or Y, is basically regarded as 'proposed' delistment. Delistments only become official once posted in the official delist thread during the delist period. From what I have seen in some trade blocks, coaches are actually using the threat or proposal of delistment as a carrot to lure would be suitors. Let let me know if I'm off the mark here. Yeah, I think that's how it already is. Im referring to situations where a player has already been delisted at a previous time.
Interesting ant - a couple of questions: 1. For how long might the 'pre-emptive right' exist? For example, If Dayle Garlett were to re-enter the draft in 2015, 2016, 2020 would you still hold that pre-emptive right? 2. If another coach were to suspect Dayle might re-enter the draft in 2016 and picked him up in a draft before that time does your pre-emptive right disappear as you have been 'gazzumped'? 3.I see the proposal as a form of compensation for losing a player from a list because the player opts out of the system. However, an ORFFA coach can delist the player and replace him at the next draft. If a pre-emptive right is held the coach has both an option and a compensation player. Would the replacement player have to be delisted before the original player can be redrafted? Is that a sort of double dipping? May have some more thoughts on this later, but that's enough to go one with.
Leaving 1 and 3 aside for ant chels, # 2 can't happen, you can only draft listed eligible AFL players.
chels wrote: Interesting ant - a couple of questions: 1. For how long might the 'pre-emptive right' exist? For example, If Dayle Garlett were to re-enter the draft in 2015, 2016, 2020 would you still hold that pre-emptive right? 2. If another coach were to suspect Dayle might re-enter the draft in 2016 and picked him up in a draft before that time does your pre-emptive right disappear as you have been 'gazzumped'? 3.I see the proposal as a form of compensation for losing a player from a list because the player opts out of the system. However, an ORFFA coach can delist the player and replace him at the next draft. If a pre-emptive right is held the coach has both an option and a compensation player. Would the replacement player have to be delisted before the original player can be redrafted? Is that a sort of double dipping? May have some more thoughts on this later, but that's enough to go one with. Hi Chels. ill try to answer your questions... 1. I do not think there should be any time limit or expiry of rights for a player initially delisted due to the reasons outlined in OP. 2. Len has answered this one. 3. This question has various aspects to it. I am purposefully going to try to keep my answer simple. Yes, a player would need to be delisted, in order to have a draft pick available. I do not believe there should be any stipulation on which players we delist to create that available draft pick. Also, please note that the player needs to be re-drafted with a pick that is close to market-value for the player. I hope this answers your questions
Hey Ant - this idea definitely has merit. My only qualm would be including 'delisted' players in this category. Players are delisted every year in the AFL - some don't play on, some get picked up by someone else. Some go play in the SANFL, WAFL, VFL, etc. OK, as an example - Nathan Gordon was delisted by Sydney end of 2012. Spent 2013 in the SANFL. Drafted by Richmond in late 2013. If someone had Nathan Gordon's rights in 2012 and then delisted him, I don't think it is fair that they retain rights over Gordon when he is re-drafted back into the league. He should be back in the player pool and free for anyone to draft. Mitch Clark, for mine, is a different case. He retired, and now is looking to come back into the league. If, say, big Jono Brown decided to play one more year despite announcing his retirement, that would be similar. Or, in a case which happened very recently, Jason Winderlich announced his retirement at the end of the season, but then 2-3 weeks later reversed his decision and will play on in 2015. The Lilacs have him on their list and have been lucky enough to reverse their delistment decision on Jason due to the short period of time between his retirement and 'un-retirement'. But if Jason had made his mind up to return after lists were settled next year, then the Lilacs should have first right of refusal on him. So, yeah - exceptional circumstances like 'unretirement', we should have something like this. But for others, perhaps not. My 2c.
All too hard for me... I say stiff shit... bit like the LTI thing (which I started and then backflipped on) Hey Abbbotttttttt!
Have to agree with Bandit on this one. I say pooey.......you delist a player, that's it. He's goneski. If he decides to come back, you'll have the chance to use that high draft pick on him. And I'd guess most times you will get him back -- not many other coaches will use a 1st rd pick on a wishy washy, do I want to play or not flip flopper
Here's the format of the AFLs father-son process, which I have based this proposal on: <ul style='background-image: none;] <li style='background-image: none;]1. Individual clubs are free to nominate potential father-son recruits within the eligibility guidelines.</li> <li style='background-image: none;]2. A meeting is held where clubs can bid for the nominated players. Each club has the option to bid for the nominated players.</li> <li style='background-image: none;]3. If a bid is made, the club that nominated the father-son player must use its next available selection if it wishes to retain its hold on that player. If a club nominating the father-son player declines to match the selection nominated, the club with the successful bid must use that selection at the Draft to select the player.</li> <li style='background-image: none;]4. Any club that makes a successful bid on a father-son selection must commit to pick the player they nominate.</li> <li style='background-image: none;]5. If no bid is made by another club, the club that nominated the father-son eligible player will forfeit its last selection in the draft to select the player.</li> </ul>
Not sure that I'm a fan of the idea either, but if it does generate enough support I think any bidding (or whatever we'd call it) should be done eitherprior to the trade period, or perhaps during the first week of the trade period, rather thanafter it. I think knowing the outcome of that processwould give any prospective bidder, be it the former owner or another interested party, more certainty headinginto the trade period as they'd know what picks or players they have to trade. Using Clark as an example, if I'm looking to top up with older players rather than youth, then I might be keen to bid an early pickon Clark or to then offer that pickup fortrade if I was unsuccessful. If successful in my bidding, I might thenhave a player who is surplus to needs in that line that Imight be able to tradeto improve another line. For similar reasons, I alsothink it would be useful for the former owner to know whether they will get that player or not before the trade period ends. So I think knowing the result is more reasonable than having to wait until all the activity has finished to find out. Again, though, I'm moreinclined to agree with Bandit & sNoZ.
I'm happy with a simpler process whereby: a) if a player retires then returns, the previous owner can use their final draft pick to have him back (in the first draft that he is available). They haven't gained anything by him retiring then having them back. b) if a player is de-listed then it's up to you as to whether you keep him or not. If he is picked up by another team then good guessing, if not then you rolled the dice and lost. Delistments are a big fat slimy grey pig, so I don't think we should tackle it, as it could get messy.
Prap wrote: I'm happy with a simpler process whereby: a) if a player retires then returns, the previous owner can use their final draft pick to have him back (in the first draft that he is available). They haven't gained anything by him retiring then having them back. b) if a player is de-listed then it's up to you as to whether you keep him or not. If he is picked up by another team then good guessing, if not then you rolled the dice and lost. Delistments are a big fat slimy grey pig, so I don't think we should tackle it, as it could get messy. I think this is a good proposal. Delistments - nah, don't touch them. But retiring and un-retiring ... that's a different thing. Only question I'd have - would the team wishing to gain back the unretired player have to say before the draft they are going to re-draft him with their last pick?
Add my vote to Bandit, Snoz, JC and Lenny ... way too hard for what? 1 player every year or two? Tough bikkies I say, you cut a bloke its on you.
I think having someone of high value retire on you months from a draft, then after you have done the hard months without him he suddenly reappears post said draft and wants to play. To have that player go to a semi random club would be grating and I totally get why ant has raised it. However, taxes suck and I still pay them. On balance I am in the harden up camp.