what do we do if a trade for rok isnt done?

[tombomb]

A few scenarios are possible for tomorrow and friday

1. a suitable trade is found
2. a club offers an unsuitable trade but we have to take it or risk losing him for nothing
3. no trade is done

2 or 3 seem far more likely

then ... if no trade is done,

what do we do?

personally, i dont think Ryan O'keefe should ever play for this club again. He has been paid very very well, he also pulled this crap after 2005 grand final. Actually i can clearly remember him being interviewed during the parade after the game and being asked if he would re-sign or not. This isnt a case of a footballer leaving to chase more opportunities, he is leaving to chase more money.

Nick Stevens left PA, PA refused to trade with collingwood as they were lowballing them. the following year Fremantle gave their first 3 draft picks for Josh Carr.

Ok, maybe that kind of dumb trading is a thing of the past ... well freo are still around so we can always hope, but - we need to make an example of okeefe. Next time a player wants to leave he will know he cant wait until the weekend before the trade period to say he wants out or put his asking price at a laughable 600k and leave us no room to move at all.

He can go into the preseason draft and think about his actions at Port Adelaide or freo.

[liz]

From a purely disinterested POV (ie putting Swans allegiences to one side) I'd rather we lost him for nothing in the PSD than let the reigning premiers rip us a new one. Even if he landed up at Carlton, it would be better to see him play with them and increase their competitiveness than see him strengthen further one of the two teams already some way ahead of the competitition.

Watching a competition where the GF seems inevitable by around round 4 or 5 (or even during the pre-season) is boring as bat @@@@. The more teams there are who are competitive, the better.

The Hawks - at least with hindsight - ripped off a few clubs to get where they did. Yes, those clubs were compliant at the time but still, they clearly benefitted from other clubs trying to do the right thing at the time and help move players around. The Hay and Croad trades are two clear examples. Maybe the Thompson one to a lesser degree.

If they think they can continue to ponce around while other clubs do them favours because they refuse to trade unless they are absolutely pantsing the other club in the trade, they can just sit out trade week as far as I am concerned.

[Old Royboy]

This whole ROK saga simply illustrates why free agency needs to be introduced. If any other worker wants to relocate they simply resign when their contract is up and move on. Not so if you happen to be an AFL footballer. The restrictive trade rules also enable clubs like Geelong and Hawthorn to pay blokes less than their market value and get away with it.

Under free conditions, clubs losing a player for any reason can shop around for a suitable replacement. Under the AFL system, they can easily be stiffed.

The salary cap (properly enforced) ensures equality. With free trade the smart clubs would prosper and the dumb ones fail. Don?t blame ROK, blame the AFL.

[digital]

We dont know it all..but on the surface, ROK has sdhafted the Swans. Agreeing to a deal, then pulling this capper. Do we take a stand, and let him go into the PSD? Certainly would make us stronger ethically, but we also need balance that with results.
Its a difficult call, but, no would blame PR and Co if they took the hardline. Certainly the Hawks are dead keen, then they have to come to oiur terms, provided they are reasonable.

Can you imagine, we take the hardline, Hawks come to terms with ROK and we dont do the trade. ROK goes into the PSD, we get zero except a lot of medals for bravery, but ROK totaly will not get thru to the Hawks. s pointed out, if he went to the Blues or Essendon, would benefit the competition, not the Swans, certainly njot the Hawks, and probably not ROK.
At the end of the day, if they agree with ROK, they will come to a sensible deal, which will be more than Pick 16,

[NMWBloods]

I see nothing wrong with agreeing to stay and then changing his mind. Nothing the club wouldn't do if it suited them and nothing employees don't do in other fields of employment.

[Plugger46]

I see nothing wrong with agreeing to stay and then changing his mind. Nothing the club wouldn't do if it suited them and nothing employees don't do in other fields of employment.

I agree with you.

[liz]

This whole ROK saga simply illustrates why free agency needs to be introduced. If any other worker wants to relocate they simply resign when their contract is up and move on. Not so if you happen to be an AFL footballer. The restrictive trade rules also enable clubs like Geelong and Hawthorn to pay blokes less than their market value and get away with it.

Under free conditions, clubs losing a player for any reason can shop around for a suitable replacement. Under the AFL system, they can easily be stiffed.

The salary cap (properly enforced) ensures equality. With free trade the smart clubs would prosper and the dumb ones fail. Don?t blame ROK, blame the AFL.

Agree with all of that, and I can see the AFLPA re-raising free agency after this trade period, at least in a limited form.

The Mark Seaby situation is a perfect example. The guy doesn't seem to care where he plays and money doesn't seem to be the issue. He just wants to play. He may not be a world-beater but ala Jolly, he could well turn into a pretty solid ruckman.

Alternatively, come up with a trade system that gets rid of the lumpiness of trade currency. A lack of trading liquidity is half the problem. Give clubs a certain number of points that can be used to trade with other clubs. If two clubs are interested in a trade, appoint an independent body to determine the value of that player. It shouldn't be hard to come up with a set of objective criteria to apply, based on a combination of factors such as age, number of games played, playing honours (eg best & fairest finishes). If both clubs agree to the points value, the trade goes ahead. And the points get carried forward from one season to the next, so that a club can stock up on points if it wants to to get a big treasure chest for future years. You could expand the system if you wanted so that if a player loses a player into the PSD, they get granted a number of compensatory points.

By decoupling these supposedly precious draft picks from the recruiting of experienced players, clubs might start actually trading and helping players do want they want to do while retaining some equity amongst the clubs.

[reigning premier]

Hope he enjoys his time at Melbourne......

[Robbo]

We should ask for pick 16 and nothing less. If they want him then they can come and get him.

They're the one's who have to be reasonable here.

[liz]

We should ask for pick 16 and nothing less. If they want him then they can come and get him.

They're the one's who have to be reasonable here.

Stuff pick 16. They've indicated they treasure it dearly. Ask for Thorpe and pick 34. Not Boyle, not Dowler. And if they're not prepared to deal, walk away.

[Robbo]

I reckon they're bluffing on that. Clubs with wide open premiership windows don't treasure draft picks IMO. They don't need kids right now.

[573v30]

I reckon they're bluffing on that. Clubs with wide open premiership windows don't treasure draft picks IMO. They don't need kids right now.

I agree, their premiership window is wide open with some saying it was 1-2 years early. Them "bottoming out" in 2004-2005 has rewarded them with good draft picks (2004 - Jarryd Roughead, Lance Franklin, Jordan Lewis and 2005 - Xavier Ellis, Beau Dowler, Grant Birchall) and I don't think they'll be rushing in the new players in the side too soon (unless there are injuries). There's a really good chance the Hawks are willing to give up their 1st Round pick (#16) for ROK.