Football Professionalism - NRL v AFL

[LeeToRainesToRoach]

But 30 years ago it was commonplace for players to change clubs mid-season.  Mick Malthouse crossing from St Kilda to Richmond for example.

It was within the rules of the day, and chiefly a recourse for struggling players. Malthouse wasn't getting a game at St.Kilda and wouldn't have broken any hearts.

That emerging players are being paid like all-time legends is a perversion of the system.

People have said that every year for 150 years.  There is nothing new about playrs moving for money.  The AFL originally split from the VFL over the issue of professionalism in the 1880s.

Not sure if you mean VFL/AFL/1980's or VFA/VFL/1880's?

 

[Phar Ace]

People resign and serve out notice periods all the time in all sorts of employment

And may have restrictive covenants in place as well.

I wonder whether we will see the day that players move to contractors?

 

[Lennox Street]

It was within the rules of the day, and chiefly a recourse for struggling players. Malthouse wasn't getting a game at St.Kilda and wouldn't have broken any hearts.

And here is the key point. Footy fans are hypocrits of the worst sort. If we want Jackson, Foley, Hislop etc out of the club we offer them up for trades, demand they be delisted. No talk of loyalty or duty or service there. Wallace gets told to F off after 5 years of dedicated service and we all offer to fetch his hat and coat. When Houli walks out on the Bombers we celebrate the fact, we don't call him a merecenary.

If we want Martin, we demand he show us loyalty. And for what? Because we pulled his name out of the barrel some Tuesday night in November? He should devote 10 years of his life to use because we coincedently had pick 3 the year he turned 18?

Plenty here are dreaming of knifiing Foley or Jackon by sending them away in a trade - thereby showing no loyalty on our part. We then want to use the pick to take O'Meara - who we will then demand show 15 years loyalty to us!!! We are prepared to sack people to demand loyalty from people???

That emerging players are being paid like all-time legends is a perversion of the system.

No it is a tactical decision by 1 football club in a unique situation who despite the GWS spin found they couldn't get any established players to sign for them. If they had gotten their targets like Reiwoldt, Pendlebury or Thomas there wouldn't have been an issue.

Not sure if you mean VFL/AFL/1980's or VFA/VFL/1880's?

And how do you think we got a star like Maurice Rioli in the first place? We boought him. And paid him more than established players at the club. We effectively forced out Raines and Raines left for a huge offer. Nothing new under the sun.

Meant VFA/VFL. Professionalism and pay has had fans whingeing for 150 years. Fred Fanning kicked the record number of goals in a game and left to play for Hamilton for a triple-his-money offer in the 1940s. We like to imagine the landscape is new and radically different and the world is going to hell in a handbasket - but every middle aged person has said that in every generation.

 

[Streak]

Rugby League = for me.

But they are great marketers of their game.

 

[LeeToRainesToRoach]

And here is the key point.  Footy fans are hypocrits of the worst sort.  If we want Jackson, Foley, Hislop etc out of the club we offer them up for trades, demand they be delisted.  No talk of loyalty or duty or service there.  Wallace gets told to F off after 5 years of dedicated service and we all offer to fetch his hat and coat.  When Houli walks out on the Bombers we celebrate the fact, we don't call him a merecenary.
...

Professionalism didn't begin with the VFL. For years afterwards it was illegal to pay players, although some clubs bent the rules - notably Carlton (surprise!). Dan Minogue had his photo turned to face the wall at Collingwood after leaving for Richmond; Ron Todd's photo met the same fate when he chased the VFA cash.

Some players are fan favourites, some aren't. Plenty were dismayed at Collins being traded. Houli said the other night that he'd been unhappy at Essendon for a number of reasons. In the end we support the club, but when stars like Raines depart, they take part of us with them. We didn't outbid a rival on Rioli, we merely offered him more than he could earn in the lesser competition that was the WAFL. It was accepted that the best players came east.

Martin's knocked back one offer, but I don't pretend for a minute this points to him being a career Richmond player. Even other clubs' supporters like him; it will be shattering if he one day chases the money. But the amounts being offered are obscene and terribly hard to resist on any logical basis. Taking Riewoldt, Pendlebury or Thomas instead of Ward or Scully doesn't make it any more acceptable. As I said, it's a perversion of footy's culture.

You're obviously a lot more comfortable with it all than I am. If I was to look at footy clinically and perceive that the guernsey has no symbolic power and that players are only out there to do the best they can for themselves financially, I might just give it all away.

 

[Phar Ace]

You're obviously a lot more comfortable with it all than I am. If I was to look at footy clinically and perceive that the guernsey has no symbolic power and that players are only out there to do the best they can for themselves financially, I might just give it all away.

Like soccer you mean? ;D

 

[LeeToRainesToRoach]

Jake Niall sums up the situation pretty well.

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/fans-not-happy-as-footy-loses-the-faith-20110921-1kl8o.html

 

[martyshire]

IMO, the AFL (including fans and players) have been slower to accept the absence of loyalty than other codes (NRL, Soccer, etc) because of the game itself.

IMO, 1%ers and sticking up for your team-mates is much more important in Aussie rules than it is in other codes. There are so many times when being loyal to your team-mates helps your team do well. Admittedly I am not an NRL fan but I get the impression that the individual actions and duties of players are more clear cut. Everyone knows what their job is at a specific point in time (tackle, receive, corral, etc). In Aussie Rules, there are so many more split-second decisions to make and a team that embraces loyalty to each other does well. In Soccer, the team with the best players does well.

I'm sure the AFL will follow other codes' leagues and loyalty will become less important, but it will require a pretty significant cultural change and people won't be happy.

 

[Lennox Street]

IMO, the AFL (including fans and players) have been slower to accept the absence of loyalty than other codes (NRL, Soccer, etc) because of the game itself.

"Loyalty never tested is no loyalty at all". For generations players have had very little option to change clubs. If a club refused to sell or trade then that was that. A guy like Nick Stevens could force a club's hand and go via the PSD but me no guarentee to end up at the club of his choice anyway. Until the 1983 Foschini case guys couldn't move zones without a club's permission via a clearance - and the club could refuse.

Whenever players have had the chance to move - they have. Whenever their loyalty has come up against opportunity they have moved. Whether it was North and the 10 year rule, or Sydney and Edelsten's checkbook. I mean people act like Tom Scully's move is unique; it isn't even the first time a new Sydney team has poached a young Melbourne star - Gerard Healy anyone?

There never was loyalty. There was players who through zones, transfer fees, trade rules etc had little practical choice but to stay where they were.

 

[martyshire]

...

There never was loyalty. There was players who through zones, transfer fees, trade rules etc had little practical choice but to stay where they were.

Maybe, but even if you are right, the way the game is played creates a culture that makes spectators (if not parts of the industry as well) believe that there is loyalty. That's why it is harder for the AFL community than other codes to accept 'disloyalty'.

 

[LeeToRainesToRoach]

Whenever players have had the chance to move - they have.  Whenever their loyalty has come up against opportunity they have moved.  Whether it was North and the 10 year rule, or Sydney and Edelsten's checkbook.  I mean people act like Tom Scully's move is unique; it isn't even the first time a new Sydney team has poached a young Melbourne star - Gerard Healy anyone?

There never was loyalty.  There was players who through zones, transfer fees, trade rules etc had little practical choice but to stay where they were.

Offering $800K+ to a 20yo unproven player is unique.

If player loyalty no longer exists, it has been killed by big money and the draft system. It wasn't that long ago that players had day jobs and had to get permission to knock off early for training. They also grew up in a club's zone and knew from a young age they were bound to that club. The father-son rule is one of the few concessions the AFL makes to tradition.

Even so, many players have knocked back bigger money to play up the road. They just don't make headlines like the ones who want out.

 

[Lennox Street]

Offering $800K+ to a 20yo unproven player is unique.

But so is the GWS, their decision to target kids instead of established players, front-loading contracts and the 92.5% minimum salary cap.

And is about as unique as Greg Williams going to Sydney for a double-his-money offer after 2 seasons and 34 games at Geelong. For $150k transfer fee which, with inflation, is a far chunk of change (and on top of his salary).

And Melbourne purchased Brownlow medalists Peter Moore and Kelvin Templeton as part of the Barassi revolution in 1983. Can you imagine two Brownlow medalists moving to one club in one season, to join an existing Brownlow medalist? That makes a mockery of the 'money' economy that people are claiming has only just come into existence.

If player loyalty no longer exists, it has been killed by big money and the draft system. It wasn't that long ago that players had day jobs and had to get permission to knock off early for training. They also grew up in a club's zone and knew from a young age they were bound to that club. The father-son rule is one of the few concessions the AFL makes to tradition.

Being bound to a club with no choice of where you play doesn't make you loyal. It means you have no choice. Loyalty is about executing a choice. And from day 1, some have always moved clubs and done so for big bucks.

 

[Tango]

i say to all here, would you tell your existing boss if someone asked you for a chat about your future?
would you resignbefore you signed a contract?
I say no so why should it be difereant for a coach or footballer

 

[LeeToRainesToRoach]

And is about as unique as Greg Williams going to Sydney for a double-his-money offer after 2 seasons and 34 games at Geelong.  For $150k transfer fee which, with inflation, is a far chunk of change (and on top of his salary).

Williams was 22 and already a b&f winner, and had just polled 4 BOG's in the Brownlow. And nobody misses the superficial reign of Edelsten and his pink helicopter. Only Sydney people lapped that up.

Being bound to a club with no choice of where you play doesn't make you loyal.

It meant that the club had healthy support within its zone, with a good chance that locals would aspire to play for that club.

 

[Lennox Street]

It meant that the club had healthy support within its zone, with a good chance that locals would aspire to play for that club.

Locals who had no incentive to change clubs because of the Coulter Law which imposed maximum salaries. Again, it ain't loyalty if your choices are 10 pounds at Club A or 10 pounds at club B. When Richmond pay Jack Dyer 3 times the minimum through a "magic" gate that doesn't included in the attendance figures - well his loyalty isn't really being tested.

There is nothing new or remarkable about what is happening now.

 

[LeeToRainesToRoach]

Locals who had no incentive to change clubs because of the Coulter Law which imposed maximum salaries.  Again, it ain't loyalty if your choices are 10 pounds at Club A or 10 pounds at club B.  When Richmond pay Jack Dyer 3 times the minimum through a "magic" gate that doesn't included in the attendance figures - well his loyalty isn't really being tested.

There is nothing new or remarkable about what is happening now.

The Coulter Law was largely toothless since the VFL had no power to inspect the clubs' books, and in any case, extra payments like those made to Dyer (usually contributed by club supporters) wouldn't have been recorded. Players could and did change clubs - e.g. over 170 of them in the 1930's alone - but not for colossal sums (except in the VFL-VFA defections - see below). For example, club great Perce Bentley left for Carlton over a refused request for an extra ten shillings per game, and according to Dyer, ended up hating Richmond more than he did Collingwood.

The Scully/Ward/Ablett situation can only really be compared to the infamous transfers of Laurie Nash, Bob Pratt, Harry Vallence, Ron Todd and Des Fothergill to the cashed-up VFA. Collingwood refused to pay extra to its star players, so when Todd was offered £500 to go to Williamstown against the £3 pound match fees stipulated by the Coulter Law, it was no contest. Even then, club backer John Wren offered to write a blank cheque to keep Todd, but (as I'm fond of recounting) the Collingwood board refused and turned Todd's photo to face the wall instead. But those players were legends of the game.