Free Agency Compensation must be abolished

[dean33]

I’ve been saying this for years but why does the AFL compensate teams for losing Free Agents? The rest of the competition should not be disadvantaged because a club lost a free agent. Not only will it remove another grey area for the game in the AFL’s secret formula for awarding compo but surely the club is already being compensated by having that players salary removed from their cap. If you are freeing up $800-$1milfrom your cap you are in a good position to go out and grab your own free agent.
AFL is full of compromises everywhere however this is one that must be removed.

 

[WillHayward]

Cos free agents tend towards leaving shit teams to go to good teams?

AFL had figured out the salary cap alone isn't enough.

North have had a "war chest" for ten years.

 

[HirdsTheWord]

the maths involved in compensation picks should be more upfront.

But if teams continue to pay overs for average players. Not sure what the AFL can do about it.

We did it with McKay, Hawks did it with Battle.

 

[Bald]

At the very least - you shouldn't be compensated for losing unrestricted free agents.

 

[HirdsTheWord]

At the very least - you shouldn't be compensated for losing unrestricted free agents.

yes you should

because generally RFA/URFA players almost always go to better teams than the ones they leave.

shit teams would be constant feeders clubs to successful ones if there was no compensation.

All that's happening is that clubs are overpaying players to avoid losing draft capital to get said player. No system would be perfect.

In this instance Hawks are happy and Saints even more so. Its everyone else who is annoyed lol.

 

[RUNVS]

Not surprised a fan from a Melbourne based club would say this.

It is the non-Victorian clubs that suffer from this more, and it is also harder for the non-Victorian clubs to get free agents too. Teams like GWS and Gold Coast would be screwed if Free Agency compensation was not a thing.

 

[SplintWhisky]

Cos free agents tend towards leaving shit teams to go to good teams?

The issues the fans always seem to have is the secretive and opinion based nature that the compensation seems to be. If they made it transparent and published the salaries, then the fans would be fine.

If the formula is known and other rules are brought in to remove "smoothing" contracts, then if a side wants to game the system, let them. It will blow up in their face at some point. Which then highlights the next issue which is the AFL doesn't appear to want to let clubs reap what they sow.

Free agency compensation is necessary but shouldn't be so opaque.

 

[Bald]

yes you should

because generally these players almost always go to better teams.

shit teams would be constant feeding clubs to successful ones.

All that's happening is that clubs are overpaying players to avoid losing draft capital. No system would be perfect.

Nah, sorry, if you're outside of the top 25% of TPP, then you aren't valued enough and as such shouldn't be compensated for.

 

[iameviljez]

I disagree, because it will just lead to the gap between top and bottom of the ladder turning into an absolute chasm. As other posters will point out, Free Agents aren't leaving Brisbane/Geelong/Sydney/Collingwood at nearly the same rate as bottom clubs. GWS an exception for obvious reasons

I say this despite the fact that such a change would seriously help Geelong, as it currently stands.

What does need to change is the way that Free Agency Compo is allocated directly after the club's pick. It's ridiculous that, for example, if Richmond gets Band 1 compo for a Free Agent, they suddenly get a 1-2 hit in the draft, and North's p2 is pushed back to p3 though it had no involvement in the deal.

Free Agency compo should be allocated at the end of each round - give more than one pick if you have to.

There are a few other changes I'd make:

• End of contract = free agent. No "restricted free agent" bullshit, just free agent.
• Top draft picks to have a longer initial contract (say, 3y for second round, and 4y for first).
• Herbs and Spices to be made public. There is zero reason to keep it secret IMO.

 

[iameviljez]

The issues the fans always seem to have is the secretive and opinion based nature that the compensation seems to be. If they made it transparent and published the salaries, then the fans would be fine.

Yeah, nobody ever doubted that Steven Motlop would magically net Geelong a pick that would satisfy Gold Coast for the Gary Ablett Trade Mark II.

 

[HirdsTheWord]

Nah, sorry, if you're outside of the top 25% of TPP, then you aren't valued enough and as such shouldn't be compensated for.

disagree but is what it is.

The fact you are on a list long enough to trigger free agency in the first place would suggest you are valued enough. Thats a lot of time to invest in a player, for them to leave and get nothing for it.

All the power can't just be in players hands. Clubs need to be protected also to a degree.

 

[Bald]

disagree but is what it is.

The fact you are on a list long enough to trigger free agency in the first place would suggest you are valued enough. Thats a lot of time to invest in a player, for them to leave and get nothing for it.

All the power can't just be in players hands. Clubs need to be protected also.

Yeah I think we can agree that the clubs need more power. For what it's worth I'm a huge advocate for clubs being able to trade (provided they're given a notice period) or hold players whilst they're contracted.

 

[Obeanie1]

the maths involved in compensation picks should be more upfront.

But if teams continue to pay overs for average players. Not sure what the AFL can do about it.

We did it with McKay, Hawks did it with Battle.

Clubs manipulate the system.

Results in two teams winning and the remaining teams paying.

And the AFL allow it and create the inequities. So then they can employ more mates to form a committee to fix the debarcle they created.

Self serving con artists of the highest order.

 

[iameviljez]

For what it's worth I'm a huge advocate for clubs being able to trade (provided they're given a notice period) or hold players whilst they're contracted.

Hold players, yes. And they should do that more often.

Trade without consent, hell to the no. What about the players' kids and partner? There's a reason this shit only goes on in the USA, where even ordinary players are paid millions, and workers' rights are an afterthought.

 

[HirdsTheWord]

Yeah I think we can agree that the clubs need more power. For what it's worth I'm a huge advocate for clubs being able to trade (provided they're given a notice period) or hold players whilst they're contracted.

i dont think there is a perfect solution.

We all are supporters of 1 team in an 18-team comp, and if your team slides down the draft order because of a compo pick that doesn't make sense, i get why ppl get shitty. Essendon now have to work harder to land Kako. Which sucks.

But the fact is Hawthorn are paying Battle 900k a year on a 5-year deal shows he is valued. He clearly isn't worth it, and its hawthorns risk, but you'd be hard pressed to argue that St Kilda shouldn't be compensated for that. We did the same thing with McKay.

The AFL can't restrict clubs offering dumb deals (even they probably should lol). The only thing i get the shits with is if clubs make stupid deals, and then the AFL bails them out with priority picks like North when they paid 700k a year on 5 years to ****in Jared Polec.

 

[SplintWhisky]

I disagree, because it will just lead to the gap between top and bottom of the ladder turning into an absolute chasm. As other posters will point out, Free Agents aren't leaving Brisbane/Geelong/Sydney/Collingwood at nearly the same rate as bottom clubs. GWS an exception for obvious reasons

I say this despite the fact that such a change would seriously help Geelong, as it currently stands.

What does need to change is the way that Free Agency Compo is allocated directly after the club's pick. It's ridiculous that, for example, if Richmond gets Band 1 compo for a Free Agent, they suddenly get a 1-2 hit in the draft, and North's p2 is pushed back to p3 though it had no involvement in the deal.

Free Agency compo should be allocated at the end of each round - give more than one pick if you have to.

There are a few other changes I'd make:

• End of contract = free agent. No "restricted free agent" bullshit, just free agent.
• Top draft picks to have a longer initial contract (say, 3y for second round, and 4y for first).
• Herbs and Spices to be made public. There is zero reason to keep it secret IMO.

With the points changes as well being made I have one extra to add to this list.

- Free Agency compensation picks are worth no draft points. The point associated with any draft pick are locked in.

For example, Brisbane are now getting really screwed as they will have to sell a player because their pick 18 is now worth 7% less because of no fault of their own.

 

[BallaratBulldog]

Cos free agents tend towards leaving shit teams to go to good teams?

AFL had figured out the salary cap alone isn't enough.

North have had a "war chest" for ten years.

The dogs have been in finals for 7 of the last 10 years (includes two grand finals, flag)

It is more to do with going to bigger clubs. The same ones.

 

[iameviljez]

With the points changes as well being made I have one extra to add to this list.

- Free Agency compensation picks are worth no draft points. The point associated with any draft pick are locked in.

For example, Brisbane are now getting really screwed as they will have to sell a player because their pick 18 is now worth 7% less because of no fault of their own.

Well, at the very least it does lock in the value of/protect the integrity of the first round of picks.

 

[iameviljez]

It is more to do with going to bigger clubs. The same ones.

Yeah, pretty much. We're protected (even if we fall) by our unique selling proposition. Hawthorn, Richmond, Collingwood, Carlton and Essendon are "big". The Dogs, Saints, Dees and Roos can unfortunately go kick rocks.

 

[CakeEater]

Id actually prefer to abolish the f/s discount.

If hes a pick 1 then you have to pay the equivalent of pick 1

 

[HirdsTheWord]

Id actually prefer to abolish the f/s discount.

If hes a pick 1 then you have to pay the equivalent of pick 1

IM ok with this also.

Same with Academy players. You get the chance to get them, but you need to pay the equivalent value.

The fact they are a f/s or an academy player should only give you the chance to bid on them, not get a discount.

 

[dean33]

Cos free agents tend towards leaving shit teams to go to good teams?

AFL had figured out the salary cap alone isn't enough.

North have had a "war chest" for ten years.

Shit clubs can become good clubs by just being better run. Brisbane used to find it hard to hang onto anyone however they become a better run club which translated to holding and attracting players which resulted in onfield success.
Just do better.

 

[SplintWhisky]

Well, at the very least it does lock in the value of/protect the integrity of the first round of picks.

It does but I guess it also screws up other clubs who have their later picks values change more dramatically because the drop in value is not linear. Going from 50 to 52 at the moment is a 9% drop, 60 to 62 is a 15% drop.

 

[Art Vandelay_]

I’ve been saying this for years but why does the AFL compensate teams for losing Free Agents? The rest of the competition should not be disadvantaged because a club lost a free agent. Not only will it remove another grey area for the game in the AFL’s secret formula for awarding compo but surely the club is already being compensated by having that players salary removed from their cap. If you are freeing up $800-$1milfrom your cap you are in a good position to go out and grab your own free agent.
AFL is full of compromises everywhere however this is one that must be removed.

There's two outcomes.

1. AFL aims to remove compensation by introducing forced trading. AFLPA will never agree.

2. AFL aims to remove FA as a result. AFLPA will never agree.

So long as the AFLPA block both these options there will be compensation attached to FA. The AFL will not allow bottom clubs to be repeatedly pillaged.

 

[HirdsTheWord]

Shit clubs can become good clubs by just being better run. Brisbane used to find it hard to hang onto anyone however they become a better run club which translated to holding and attracting players which resulted in onfield success.
Just do better.

that's def true and is a big part of it, but it's not the whole story.