By the way, I’m not saying I am squeaky clean when it comes to this stuff. As senior coach at Adelaide and Fitzroy there were occasions when I wasn’t blameless in some of the games that were played in trade week. Perhaps I am mellowing as time passes but the trade week process needs an overhaul.
The one thing that trade week proved beyond doubt was that the final decision on what is fair and reasonable needs to be taken out of the hands of clubs. And this is based on the fact that the decision-makers – that’s right – the coaches, match committee and assistant coaches – are basically incapable of making a decision when it comes to deeming what is a fair trade.
If these people were capable of making a good honest assessment and as such trade appropriately, Jade Rawlings would be playing for the Kangaroos and Nick Stevens for Collingwood. The problem being that nobody conceded ground as they should have if they were acting reasonably – the result means everyone loses. Two players at two clubs they didn’t want to be at and one club walked away with nothing.
And why has it happened? Because too many people live in the dim, dark ages of trading when the aim of recruiting staff is to brag about that club’s they stitched up. The days of ‘winning’ in these deals are over. Some people should be ashamed of what transpired recently.
Our coach Kevin Sheedy and recruiting manager Adrian Dodoro have long advocated in-house the need for the final decision on trades to be taken out of the hands of the people who can’t even agree to a deal that is fair for all. The call for a committee of ombudsmen to sort out these stalemates is one that I strongly agree with.
The committee could comprise someone from the AFL – let’s say Kevin Sheehan – a representative from the AFL Player’s Association – Brendan Gale, a legal representative Dyson Hore Lacy or perhaps Peter Gordon and an independent chairperson with AFL experience – let’s say David Parkin.
Once the player has nominated his desire to change clubs, he must nominate the club of his choice and agree to the terms of his contract. The AFL must be satisfied with all terms and conditions. The club that then lost the player must be totally and fairly compensated of that player. I mean Nick Stevens is a future 10-year player – he’ 23-years-old – and Port Adelaide got nothing for him.
So the clubs haggle and hassle. Bluff and counter bluff. Talk about what is fair and what is unfair. Basically they are incapable of making a decision. So at a pre-determined time the committee steps in and players, managers and clubs are interviewed. All Scenarios are looked at. The committee decides what is fair and the clubs have 48 hours to lodge an appeal if they see fit. The decision is made and deemed fair and reasonable.
This is a professional business and people’s livelihoods are at stake. This ludicrous week of trading threatens that standing. Let’s put these stalemates in the hands of people who can act independently and fairly because the club personnel with their obvious bias are incapable of acting responsibly.
I’ll give you just one small example – although I could rattle of many. A year or so ago when we looked like losing Blake Caracella, we offered him to a club in exchange for a top 10 draft selection. A Premiership player for a top 10 draft selection – that’s right! The club baulked, stuttered and bumbled and the deal never got done.
Now I don’t care who you are or where you come from, Blake Caracella is worth a top 10-draft pick. It’s funny how things work out – that club missed the finals and Caracella played in another Premiership. We finished with Damian Cupido and Adam McPhee. Had the deal been done, things would have worked out very differently.
Clubs do need an opportunity to negotiate and try and keep players but we have to draw the line somewhere. If the committee of ombudsmen had been in place Rawlings, Stevens and at one stage Nathan Brown and the all clubs involved would have walked away as winners.
