free agency: what will it mean for us?

[bigcarl]

what will this mean for st kilda?

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/f ... 5833211887

THE AFL is set to announce the terms of free agency at press conference this afternoon.
As revealed in the Herald Sun this morning, AFL chief executive Andrew Demetriou is expected to make the announcement to club presidents and chief executives at a meeting in Melbourne today.

The AFL has announced a joint press conference for 2pm today with the AFL Players Association where it expected to change the way players move clubs.

[Nattens]

And back to the 70s/80s we go!

[Milan Faletic]

And back to the 70s/80s we go!

Yep. Instead of contracts on serviettes, they will be on the side of a Visy cardboard box

[saintsRrising]

what will this mean for st kilda?

It will probably hurt most teams who have no chance of a flag....as you would imagine that in most cases it would be players who have had little finals experience who might want to move.

However too could be players who have blown their savings who want to top up before retirement.

[plugger66]

Great idea and about time the players, after 8 years of service, get to pick the club they want to play for. Shouldnt really hurt most clubs if you do the right thing by the players and there is still a salary cap.

[IluvHarvey]

Great idea and about time the players, after 8 years of service, get to pick the club they want to play for. Shouldnt really hurt most clubs if you do the right thing by the players and there is still a salary cap.

Will hurt clubs with a lot players from interstate as a lot more will be heading home now.

[plugger66]

Great idea and about time the players, after 8 years of service, get to pick the club they want to play for. Shouldnt really hurt most clubs if you do the right thing by the players and there is still a salary cap.

Will hurt clubs with a lot players from interstate as a lot more will be heading home now.

Why is that? After 8 years they may love where they are living or want to at least finish at the club they started. They have also got to be wanted by someone else in their original home state.

[IluvHarvey]

Great idea and about time the players, after 8 years of service, get to pick the club they want to play for. Shouldnt really hurt most clubs if you do the right thing by the players and there is still a salary cap.

Will hurt clubs with a lot players from interstate as a lot more will be heading home now.

Why is that? After 8 years they may love where they are living or want to at least finish at the club they started. They have also got to be wanted by someone else in their original home state.

It just makes it easier for players to "go back home".

[plugger66]

Great idea and about time the players, after 8 years of service, get to pick the club they want to play for. Shouldnt really hurt most clubs if you do the right thing by the players and there is still a salary cap.

Will hurt clubs with a lot players from interstate as a lot more will be heading home now.

Why is that? After 8 years they may love where they are living or want to at least finish at the club they started. They have also got to be wanted by someone else in their original home state.

It just makes it easier for players to "go back home".

And so it should if they have given 8 years of service to one club.

[White Winmar]

Darwinism returns to the AFL. Just watch the rich cannibalise the poor now. The first step on the road to "rationalisation".

[IluvHarvey]

Great idea and about time the players, after 8 years of service, get to pick the club they want to play for. Shouldnt really hurt most clubs if you do the right thing by the players and there is still a salary cap.

Will hurt clubs with a lot players from interstate as a lot more will be heading home now.

Why is that? After 8 years they may love where they are living or want to at least finish at the club they started. They have also got to be wanted by someone else in their original home state.

It just makes it easier for players to "go back home".

And so it should if they have given 8 years of service to one club.

So you think it is good for Roo to go home to Queensland now and we get nothing in return? Thanks for the 8 years Roo Bye!!

[plugger66]

Darwinism returns to the AFL. Just watch the rich cannibalise the poor now. The first step on the road to "rationalisation".

I dont get that at all. We still have a salary cap and the AFL are even looking into the Visy type jobs. It shouldnt make much difference at all apart from probably average players getting more second chances. Most stars will continue to stay at the one club if treated right.

[White Winmar]

Agree in principle, P66 that the salary cap should act as a natural "watchdog" in protecting the integrity and balance of the competition, but when did a sense of fair play and adhering to the rules ever stop clubs like Carlscum, Essendon, Collingwood, WCE etc.? They'll almost see it as a challenge to invent new ways of circumventing the system. All I can suggest is we find some more rich backers, have plenty of money on tap and opportunities "outside the game", with which to satisfy current players and lure new ones.

[plugger66]

Great idea and about time the players, after 8 years of service, get to pick the club they want to play for. Shouldnt really hurt most clubs if you do the right thing by the players and there is still a salary cap.

Will hurt clubs with a lot players from interstate as a lot more will be heading home now.

Why is that? After 8 years they may love where they are living or want to at least finish at the club they started. They have also got to be wanted by someone else in their original home state.

It just makes it easier for players to "go back home".

And so it should if they have given 8 years of service to one club.

So you think it is good for Roo to go home to Queensland now and we get nothing in return? Thanks for the 8 years Roo Bye!!

Why is it that we think we will always lose the good players when something like this is suggested. Maybe we will get Browny from Brisbane.

[saintlee]

Darwinism returns to the AFL. Just watch the rich cannibalise the poor now. The first step on the road to "rationalisation".

I dont get that at all. We still have a salary cap and the AFL are even looking into the Visy type jobs. It shouldnt make much difference at all apart from probably average players getting more second chances. Most stars will continue to stay at the one club if treated right.

I would have thought it benefits average players most as well.....doubt that many big names will move as long as they are looked after.....

The challenge for st kilda is to maintain good culture, good facilities, good coaches....the players will stay if they are happy

[IluvHarvey]

Great idea and about time the players, after 8 years of service, get to pick the club they want to play for. Shouldnt really hurt most clubs if you do the right thing by the players and there is still a salary cap.

Will hurt clubs with a lot players from interstate as a lot more will be heading home now.

Why is that? After 8 years they may love where they are living or want to at least finish at the club they started. They have also got to be wanted by someone else in their original home state.

It just makes it easier for players to "go back home".

And so it should if they have given 8 years of service to one club.

So you think it is good for Roo to go home to Queensland now and we get nothing in return? Thanks for the 8 years Roo Bye!!

Why is it that we think we will always lose the good players when something like this is suggested. Maybe we will get Browny from Brisbane.

If we got Brown from Brisbane that would be just as bad!! I used Roo cause he fits the criterea. But you didn't answer the question, Would you be happy to lose Roo this way?

[plugger66]

Great idea and about time the players, after 8 years of service, get to pick the club they want to play for. Shouldnt really hurt most clubs if you do the right thing by the players and there is still a salary cap.

Will hurt clubs with a lot players from interstate as a lot more will be heading home now.

Why is that? After 8 years they may love where they are living or want to at least finish at the club they started. They have also got to be wanted by someone else in their original home state.

It just makes it easier for players to "go back home".

And so it should if they have given 8 years of service to one club.

So you think it is good for Roo to go home to Queensland now and we get nothing in return? Thanks for the 8 years Roo Bye!!

Why is it that we think we will always lose the good players when something like this is suggested. Maybe we will get Browny from Brisbane.

If we got Brown from Brisbane that would be just as bad!! I used Roo cause he fits the criterea. But you didn't answer the question, Would you be happy to lose Roo this way?

Yes I would if he doesnt want to play for the club just as Bally has done.

[SinCitySaint]

The idea of free agency is fine so long as the other rules are policed but they are not. With the Visy deal and other such agreements in place it will just give the larger clubs free reign to do as they want agin. Goodbye equalisation hello death of a couple of the poorer clubs.

[joffaboy]

Darwinism returns to the AFL. Just watch the rich cannibalise the poor now. The first step on the road to "rationalisation".

I dont get that at all. We still have a salary cap and the AFL are even looking into the Visy type jobs. It shouldnt make much difference at all apart from probably average players getting more second chances. Most stars will continue to stay at the one club if treated right.

I would have thought it benefits average players most as well.....doubt that many big names will move as long as they are looked after.....

The challenge for st kilda is to maintain good culture, good facilities, good coaches....the players will stay if they are happy

I think this is pretty spot on.

Make your club strong, stable and a place a player WANTS to stay at.

if after 8 years of service the player wants to move on - so be it.

The Roo example. Roo could have put off signing the contract extension and probably would have got more money at GC17 (dont know, just surmising), but he obviously feels he is welcome and needed at the STKFC, enjoys it, and these outweigh the benefits of moving clubs.

Others may not feel so, but as plugger66 said, their is still a Salary Cap, and Visy type deals will be (hopefully) thourougly screened.

I think anybody should be able to move especially if it is to secure their future.

Some people are down on G.Ablett for moving (allegedly) to the GC. But he has help to win Geelong two flags and is being offered (allegedly) twice the money geelong is offering.

I say good on him. Loyal service, two flags, what more do supporters want?

if a player has given 8 years of service, why not?

[plugger66]

The idea of free agency is fine so long as the other rules are policed but they are not. With the Visy deal and other such agreements in place it will just give the larger clubs free reign to do as they want agin. Goodbye equalisation hello death of a couple of the poorer clubs.

The AFL have bent over backwards to help struggling clubs and with a new TV rights deal coming up they will not want any club to fall over. Free agency will be a good thing for the players and the clubs.

[IluvHarvey]

Can someone tell me what the problem was to start with? Why change rules for the sake of changing them?

[joffaboy]

The idea of free agency is fine so long as the other rules are policed but they are not. With the Visy deal and other such agreements in place it will just give the larger clubs free reign to do as they want agin. Goodbye equalisation hello death of a couple of the poorer clubs.

The AFL have bent over backwards to help struggling clubs and with a new TV rights deal coming up they will not want any club to fall over. Free agency will be a good thing for the players and the clubs.

I cant see how clubs will fall over. The AFL has helped struggling clubs in the past because ALL 16 clubs make up the package the AFL sells for broadcast rights, therefore 10 mill or so out of a billion (thats what they may get this time) is bugger all to keep struggling clubs afloat.

And why will a "rich" club be better off? They still have a SC, so they can only go up to the limit of that SC.

If the SC significantly increases, well then that might be cause for concern.

However, remember, the average life of an AFL player is three years. Only a small % get to 8 years, and only a small % of those would change clubs after that time.

Storm in a teacup.

[joffaboy]

Can someone tell me what the problem was to start with? Why change rules for the sake of changing them?

Restraint of trade.

[IluvHarvey]

Can someone tell me what the problem was to start with? Why change rules for the sake of changing them?

Restraint of trade.

Was that really a problem? I don't believe so.

[saintlee]

Can someone tell me what the problem was to start with? Why change rules for the sake of changing them?

Improving the mechanism for players to change clubs. That is problem they are trying to solve.

Instead of running the gauntlet of the draft, players can move to their club of choice if a trade deal can't be reached....and they have served 8 years at the club that drafted them.

St Kilda won't struggle with this if they can maintain an attractive workplace environment.