free agency: what will it mean for us?

[ThePunter]

Clubs have control over players with whom they have no current contractual arrangement.

Nick Stevens was out of contract at Port Adelaide, yet Port Adelaide prevented him getting to his preferred destination because his preferred club could not satisfy Port Adelaide.

St Kilda did the right thing under the system with Luke Ball, and fortunately for Ball, he ended up where he wanted to go anyway.

But the system is an ass.

Players currently not under contract should go wherever they want to go, as long as their salary can fit under the cap.

We have the draft and the salary cap - they are the tools under which parity are achieved.

Controlling players currently not under contract is a relic of the previous system of clearances that we inherited from soccer. Having this along with the draft and salary cap means we have an inconsistent, mish-mash system.

[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.

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.

Clubs will fall over because as you say there is an optimum number of clubs for the sale of the game to television. That number is in reality is probably between 12 and 14. A 14 team comp would not shorten the season and a chance to consolidate the fixture so that Melbourne v Freo didn't happen would be something that the AFL would love.
There will already be too many clubs in the AFL's perfect world view once GC and GWS are added. The AFL is looking to maximise revenues that is all, not equalisation, not fairness for all and not the supporters interests.

We already do not have a working salary cap and never will have until all player payments are included regardless of the source. However, that will never happenas it is restraint of trade. Therefore we are depending upon an already compromised system being used to protect another system from rorting.

Do you not think the AFL looks at other sports around the world to see how to maximise profits. The most profitable leagues in the world are the English premier league, the spanish league and the italian scudetto. They all have one thing is common, they can only be won by a very small number of teams. These super teams produce huge revenues for the leagues. Vlad would love to have a similar situation in the AFL and don't think for a minute that he wouldn't love a couple of clubs to go to the wall.
He proved that that situation would be just what he wanted with trying to make North move to the Gold Coast, they wouldn't go. So now he has his GC club something has to give.

Initially 8 years sounds reasonable I give it till 2015 before it drops to 6 and then to 4 and then to full free agency.

[saintlee]

"THE AFL has confirmed players will be eligible for free agency after eight years of service in 2012.

The league is currently holding a press conference with the AFL Players Association where the new rules have been announced.

Clubs will have the option of matching any offers to players who are among their top 10 highest paid players.

The player will then have the option of remaining with the current club, being traded or nominating for the draft.

As reported in the Herald Sun this morning, If the player moves clubs, their original team will be compensated with a draft pick similar to the rules governing players moving to the new Gold Coast and western Sydney teams.

Once a player has served 10 seasons at a club, they will be able to move clubs without their original team having the option of matching the offer.

That same rule apply to players outside the top-10 paid players after eight years of service. Delisted players will also be free to sign with a club of their choice without going through the draft."

Article:
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/f ... 5833482809

[Zed]

I'm not a fan of free agency. Whilst we are strong and a premiership contender there is no threat. But lists change and premiership windows open and close. Its when we are in a rebuilding stage that our players will be most vulnerable.

The value of being loyal to 1 club ie a 1 club player, is being eroded bit by bit - a concept that in 20 years from now may well be perceived as a quaint concept from the past - much like the screw punt and drop kick. The value of playing in a premiership will never fade. Get ready to hear a lot more of "After 8 years, I just felt like I needed a fresh start."

I agree the salary cap provides protection from a player payment perspective but the reality is there will be some clubs that will always have more money for facilities etc than others. As good as our new facilites will be, I really cant see us matching what the financially strong clubs eg Crows will always have on offer off the field year in, year out eg facilities, coaching etc. So what that means is the stronger clubs spend less time rebuilding and more time in finals contention. Net result, the strong get stronger the weak get weaker.

I hope I'm wrong and its all a storm in a teacup.

[plugger66]

Great news that it has finally happened. Better for players and depending on how your clubs wants to attack rebuilding, better for them as well. Will not have any impact on the waeker clubs mainly because the AFL want 18 clubs and they will make sure it stays that way.

[chook23]

The salary cap AT ALL 18 clubs must be the same....

especially one of new processes of the restricted trade you can match the offer etc.....

equal cap.... what you choose to pay an indivdual(s) level starting point

[White Winmar]

It's great news and a great system until your own club loses a star player or two. I'm sure the fans of the system will take a different view then. Just look at the hue and cry over Ball this trade period. And that was supposedly done according to the rules as well! Would there be any less hue and cry if the same thing happened under free agency? I repeat, a great idea until it adversely affects your club. As for those who believe there won't be any rorting or skullduggery going on under a new free agency system, I've got this bridge for sale in Sydney,..................

[aussierules0k]

...

[plugger66]

Yes they should leave it how it is and then go to court and lose and have total free agency. That would be much better. The AFL have done the right thing other we would have eventually headed down the court path. Most great players will stay if your club is run well. Why do people always look at the negative side of things. We may lose players. Well we did this year so whats the difference. We may actually be better off.

[older saint]

Looking at overseas models free agency has really hurt a lot of sports, especially in the US.

The problem lies in the compensation or lack there of. IF teams are smart what they will look to do is trade players who they do not think they can keep to clubs the year before the become eligable for free agency and the same issues will arise. A club at least can get something for a player and the new club does not have the problem to deal with.

How would the AFL fairly compensate a club for say a Nick Reiwoldt, Gary Ablett, Buddy Franklin, they cannot. If it comes via drat picks and lets say Ablett wants to go to the team that finished 2nd they have pick 15 in the draft, not fair compensation really.

Ball will be the ALFPA pinup boy for this but lets be real he is a fringe first 22 player now.
The clubs with the best "VISY" type deals will reap the benefit - pay a samll salary and work for Visy type company promoting the benefits of watching grass grow.

We have a competition which has a history of salary cap rorts and this will only continue. Look at the last 10 years of NBA, NFL, Premier League ( a little different) the same clubs remain strong a few move up and down and a few remain consistently in the bottom part - why would you want to go there .

[Moccha]

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.

It's going to cause a distortion in contracts. The good to elite players will get paid very well while the middle of the road players will suffer a reduction in payments. Those teams that will prosper are the ones with the larger salary caps ie Sydney, GC and West Sydney.

[joffaboy]

Clubs will fall over because as you say there is an optimum number of clubs for the sale of the game to television. That number is in reality is probably between 12 and 14. A 14 team comp would not shorten the season and a chance to consolidate the fixture so that Melbourne v Freo didn't happen would be something that the AFL would love.

Absolutely incorrect. The AFL got $860 milll because there was 8 games a week to sell.

The TV stations could work their Business models and plans to optimise these 8 games and therefore have a ROI through advertising

There will already be too many clubs in the AFL's perfect world view once GC and GWS are added. The AFL is looking to maximise revenues that is all, not equalisation, not fairness for all and not the supporters interests.

The AFl will be selling their rights on the basis of 18 clubs and expect $1 bill from rights. Therefore it is inconcievable that any club will be allowed to fall over within the next 6 years

We already do not have a working salary cap and never will have until all player payments are included regardless of the source. However, that will never happenas it is restraint of trade. Therefore we are depending upon an already compromised system being used to protect another system from rorting.

Maybe so, but this comes under being a stong competitive club. The system is socialised enough with SC and draft, if a club can LEGALLY suplement a players contract outside the SC , then why should it be restrained from doing so?

Do you not think the AFL looks at other sports around the world to see how to maximise profits. The most profitable leagues in the world are the English premier league, the spanish league and the italian scudetto.

Do you think the AFl compares apples to oranges also? Name one of those Leagues where one city of four million has 9 teams.

They all have one thing is common, they can only be won by a very small number of teams. These super teams produce huge revenues for the leagues.

So what? There is no Salary Cap and their competition isn't for half a country of 20 million. Our revenue is limited and therefore the maximisation of revenue the AFl has calculated involveds primarily, broadcast rights. If those rights are sold on the basis of 9 games by 22 H&A rounds (198 H&A matches) and it falls short by 22 matches because a club is allowed to fall over, that means 11.1% of the contract is unfullfilled and the league would be down over $110 million in reveue of the term of the contract or 22 mill a year.

Profit maximisation means fulfilling your contractual obligations. Proping a team up with a couple of mill a year is worth it.

Vlad would love to have a similar situation in the AFL and don't think for a minute that he wouldn't love a couple of clubs to go to the wall.

How does this correlate with selling an 18 team competition over 5 years for broadcast rights???

He proved that that situation would be just what he wanted with trying to make North move to the Gold Coast, they wouldn't go. So now he has his GC club something has to give.

Didn't happen, just like Dogs didn't merge, just like Hawks and Melbourne didn't merge. Factr are facts and the facts are 18 teams x 5 years = broadcast rights

Initially 8 years sounds reasonable I give it till 2015 before it drops to 6 and then to 4 and then to full free agency.

Where do you get that from? Just made it up?

Maybe the situation will change after the next broadcast rights, but at the moment all clubs are safe and will be given assistance to at least 2016.

[aussierules0k]

...

[joffaboy]

Hey joffaboy....

SinCitySaint was simply posting an opinion that (after reading his OP twice) didn't hold any malice or anger.

Your response is full of both.

Really, there's no need for the agro mate.
Just puts people off posting.
Go and have a cold shower

Rubbish, there is no anger there, reread it, all i do is debunk his assertions.

Maybe yoiu just dont like what I have written. chill dude, dont let your imagination run away with you

[vacuous space]

Looking at overseas models free agency has really hurt a lot of sports, especially in the US.

The problem lies in the compensation or lack there of.

Compensation has little to do with it. By the time most American athletes hit free agency, their team has prepared for the possibility they'll lose him for nothing. With the mid-season trading they have, a lot of would-be free agents on bad teams get moved onto contenders before a team can lose them for nothing. Good teams with impending free agents tend to hold them knowing that they'll lose them for nothing.

Free agency doesn't determine who is good and bad over there. They're primarily top-up players like Lovett or Ball. The teams that win are usually the teams who draft the best (not the earliest), make some good trades and sign the odd free agent as the icing on the cake.

I think free agency will have very little effect here. There just isn't the mercenary culture amongst athletes here. Players want to stay where they are and win a flag with their mates. I don't think free agency will change that.

[ausfatcat]

Well they better start closing the loopholes in the salary caps or we for one are in big trouble.


Anyone else think this was one of the reasons clubs didn't draft Ball before pick 30 trying to stay this off?

[Con Gorozidis]

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!!

roo owes us nothing. nothing in return? he gives it to us week in week out everytime he runs on the field. and everytime he trains does a function etc etc

roos owes us nothing. id say its a fair deal between club and player.

id be sad to see him go of course - but i wouldnt begrudge the guy.

and as someone already said - it will mainly used by fringe/middling players looking for more opportunties - luke ball, brock mclean or an older guy trying to get one more year - barry hall, daniel bradshaw, spider everitt etc.

[joffaboy]

Well they better start closing the loopholes in the salary caps or we for one are in big trouble.


Anyone else think this was one of the reasons clubs didn't draft Ball before pick 30 trying to stay this off?

that would be the major concern.

remember the only way the AFL caught Carlton was through their own incompetence.

[stinger]

we had a type of free agency way back when......called the ten year rule....cost us one of our greatest ever players...and our greatest ruckman.....big carl ditterich...and got the roos their first premiership......they were able to recruit three superstars....rantall,wade and davis......scrapped after one year....

[vacuous space]

Anyone else think this was one of the reasons clubs didn't draft Ball before pick 30 trying to stay this off?

I don't think anybody thought Ball was worth $1M over two years. The Pies might have been able to leave him to pick 62 at that price. I don't think they were going to try and push their luck though.

[loris]

we had a type of free agency way back when......called the ten year rule....cost us one of our greatest ever players...and our greatest ruckman.....big carl ditterich...and got the roos their first premiership......they were able to recruit three superstars....rantall,wade and davis......scrapped after one year....

Was Stan Alves taken then also or was that later????

[IluvHarvey]

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!!

roo owes us nothing. nothing in return? he gives it to us week in week out everytime he runs on the field. and everytime he trains does a function etc etc

Nice way way to twist my words. The point I was making is that we would get nothing if he left this way. Not that he gives us nothing now. Of course he owes us nothing but obviously you will be happy just to let him go for nothing? Like Luke Ball are you happy we got nothing for him? Cause this will be occuring more!

[stinger]

we had a type of free agency way back when......called the ten year rule....cost us one of our greatest ever players...and our greatest ruckman.....big carl ditterich...and got the roos their first premiership......they were able to recruit three superstars....rantall,wade and davis......scrapped after one year....

Was Stan Alves taken then also or was that later????

no alves went to nth in 1977......the ten year rule was for season 1973......

[loris]

we had a type of free agency way back when......called the ten year rule....cost us one of our greatest ever players...and our greatest ruckman.....big carl ditterich...and got the roos their first premiership......they were able to recruit three superstars....rantall,wade and davis......scrapped after one year....

Was Stan Alves taken then also or was that later????

no alves went to nth in 1977......the ten year rule was for season 1973......

Oh ..... OK....when you are my age stinger.....4 years is like 4 minutes

[stinger]

we had a type of free agency way back when......called the ten year rule....cost us one of our greatest ever players...and our greatest ruckman.....big carl ditterich...and got the roos their first premiership......they were able to recruit three superstars....rantall,wade and davis......scrapped after one year....

Was Stan Alves taken then also or was that later????

no alves went to nth in 1977......the ten year rule was for season 1973......

Oh ..... OK....when you are my age stinger.....4 years is like 4 minutes

...i think the world is speeding up...anyway..it's all here...not so bad maybe...


http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/a ... -ozy7.html