Is Free Agency a certainty now?

[skipjack]

Point taken.

The salary cap must stay in place, and in addition, must be monitored much more tightly than it is at the moment.

Also, I'm not envisioning dozens of players moving to strong clubs at the same time - more a trickle of players that keeps strong teams at the top without ever having their "turn" at the bottom.

These clubs miss out on the best young kids in the ND but it doesn't matter, they can just keep poaching via FA.

 

[MarkT2]

Probably this...http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/a...cy/story-e6frf9jf-1225786062951[/quote]Thanks

Thanks for that. From what I heard this moring the AFLPA are putting pressure on for some sort of deal sooner rather than later.

 

[Furn]

Heres the thing. If we have just the salary cap as the only means of equalisation, then it will only keep the comp equal if players soul motivation is money.

A player doesn't have to go to the club offering the most money and most likely wont want to.

For example lets say Pavlich wants to leave Freo. He's a free agent so he can just sign with whoever he wants. He decides to go back to SA, so it's a choice of PA and Crows.

PA having just lost SB and having a couple of ordinary years have plenbty of money so they offer a $5mil 5 years deal. The Crows can only afford $3.5 mil for 5 years.

Now Pavlich like money like everyone else, but he also wants to win a flag like all players. He wants to have the best facilites and play in front of a sold out crowd every week. The Crows have a good team and the best facilities and bigger crowds but Port are offering more money.

So its a 50-50 decision for Pav. He could go either way.

But the point is that it PA had to offer alot more than Adelaide just to get Pav to consider them. Therefore having a salary cap wont make for an even comp because there are other factors involved in where a player decides to go and the teams that are more attractive in these other variables will do better.

 

[footylover18]

Fair enough, I should clarify. I used these as an example of teams that dominate year after year after year.

With Free Agency would have quality players allowed to move freely to clubs that are already successful, with attractive facilities and shady "sponsorships", rather than the current system whereby without a mutually acceptable trade, these players pretty much automatically go to a lower performing club via the draft.

This creates the cycle (which may be slow moving - but a cycle nonetheless) of the powerful clubs getting stronger and weak clubs getting weaker.

Once again, it's up to the AFL to put rules in place to stop these "shady sponsorships" from happening and then police it.

 

[footylover18]

Heres the thing. If we have just the salary cap as the only means of equalisation, then it will only keep the comp equal if players soul motivation is money.

Who said that FA will be the only means of equalisation? The draft will still be in place.

 

[footylover18]

Point taken.

The salary cap must stay in place, and in addition, must be monitored much more tightly than it is at the moment.

Also, I'm not envisioning dozens of players moving to strong clubs at the same time - more a trickle of players that keeps strong teams at the top without ever having their "turn" at the bottom.

These clubs miss out on the best young kids in the ND but it doesn't matter, they can just keep poaching via FA.

If you look at the various leauges around the world, the ones with a salary cap and free agency, it will show that your fears are not what will occur at all. The draft will still be the most effective and cost efficient way to build a great side. There is no question about that. This idea that clubs will just buy FA's and thus never bottom out is simply wrong.

Think about it, how often are true marquee players even out of contract? The vast majority sign extensions well before they are eligibile to be free agents anyway. This notion that there will suddenly be massive player movement around the league is false. There will be more movement, but it will predominantly involve either fringe players or mid level talent. The true elite players will very rarely hit free agency.

 

[mcgarnacle]

there's no doubt that some clubs will have a 'prestige' which, all things being equal, might give them an advantage at attracting players. this is expected in any competition. if all clubs had the same attributes and there were no distinguishing features between them, then all that would be left is a generic homogenous competition offering no real interest at all. my interest in AFL has waned because IMO, the game is heading down this route. players dont end up at a club because they have some sort of affiliation, such as being a junior or supporter, but rather, because they were simply next best available in the draft - a process akin to picking out a bunch of players for your team in the schoolyard. ive never understood the worship for these players who for the most part dont have an attachment to the club and are wearing the colours simply because it was the only option.

the constant argument from those against FA is that a few teams such as WCE, ADE, COL, ESS, & CAR will end up getting all the best FA's. well a club will have to fit all these players within the salary cap. your Man Utd, Chelsea, Real Madrid and Barcas (which have been tossed up several times as an example of the flaws of FA) dont have this imposition placed upon them.

paycuts or not, the overwhelming majority of players making it to FA will also be considering their future. and if a club such as COL can attract all of Ablett, Judd, Brown, Reiwoldt, Scarlett, Hayes, Sandilands, Goodes, Glass & pay them what they're all worth (undervaluing them at 600k each per season at least which still comes to $5.4m on 9 players) and then build the rest of the list around witches hats and expect to win a premiership, then good luck. and all those players, who are aguably the best in their positions, wont want to play for COL or any one club anyway because they're all from different states and wont have a preference for the same club.

FA will finally give players who satisfy FA criteria a choice of where they want to play their football. they deserve to have that option, a choice to negotiate with the club of their choice without being held to ransom by their incumbent club. the average AFL career is 4 years. under the AFLPA proposal, a player will not be eligble for FA until he has accrued 7 seasons of AFL football......nearly twice the average career.

it will also provide relief for the poorly-performing clubs who are usually in the cellar for at least 5 years (or longer than the average AFL career) before they can even attempt to be competitive. this is not just on the field, but also off the park with onerous player wage requirements not reflective of their list, loss of revenue from gate take, loss of brand value due to unfavourable scheduling, etc, affecting their bottom line. although the reward of draft picks for their mediocraty may aid them down the track, these clubs basically have their head shoved down the toilet bowl for near on a decade and basically dont have any mechanism available to realistically improve their fortunes in the short-term.

FA will spread the talent more widely.

 

[SinCitySainter]

there's no doubt that some clubs will have a 'prestige' which, all things being equal, might give them an advantage at attracting players. this is expected in any competition. if all clubs had the same attributes and there were no distinguishing features between them, then all that would be left is a generic homogenous competition offering no real interest at all. my interest in AFL has waned because IMO, the game is heading down this route. players dont end up at a club because they have some sort of affiliation, such as being a junior or supporter, but rather, because they were simply next best available in the draft - a process akin to picking out a bunch of players for your team in the schoolyard. ive never understood the worship for these players who for the most part dont have an attachment to the club and are wearing the colours simply because it was the only option.

the constant argument from those against FA is that a few teams such as WCE, ADE, COL, ESS, & CAR will end up getting all the best FA's. well a club will have to fit all these players within the salary cap. your Man Utd, Chelsea, Real Madrid and Barcas (which have been tossed up several times as an example of the flaws of FA) dont have this imposition placed upon them.

paycuts or not, the overwhelming majority of players making it to FA will also be considering their future. and if a club such as COL can attract all of Ablett, Judd, Brown, Reiwoldt, Scarlett, Hayes, Sandilands, Goodes, Glass & pay them what they're all worth (undervaluing them at 600k each per season at least which still comes to $5.4m on 9 players) and then build the rest of the list around witches hats and expect to win a premiership, then good luck. and all those players, who are aguably the best in their positions, wont want to play for COL or any one club anyway because they're all from different states and wont have a preference for the same club.

FA will finally give players who satisfy FA criteria a choice of where they want to play their football. they deserve to have that option, a choice to negotiate with the club of their choice without being held to ransom by their incumbent club. the average AFL career is 4 years. under the AFLPA proposal, a player will not be eligble for FA until he has accrued 7 seasons of AFL football......nearly twice the average career.

it will also provide relief for the poorly-performing clubs who are usually in the cellar for at least 5 years (or longer than the average AFL career) before they can even attempt to be competitive. this is not just on the field, but also off the park with onerous player wage requirements not reflective of their list, loss of revenue from gate take, loss of brand value due to unfavourable scheduling, etc, affecting their bottom line. although the reward of draft picks for their mediocraty may aid them down the track, these clubs basically have their head shoved down the toilet bowl for near on a decade and basically dont have any mechanism available to realistically improve their fortunes in the short-term.

FA will spread the talent more widely.

The problem is in the policing of the salary cap. I would agree with you except for the fact that the AFL has rubber stamped such deals as the Judd Visy arrangement. The genie is out of the bottle, you cannot put it back in. They have created a precedent.

I also cannot accept the statement that free agency will spread the talent as the opposite is almost certain to occur.

 

[footylover18]

The advantage of FA isn't that the talent will DEFINATELY be spread more evenly amongst the competition. The advantage in my eyes, at least from the clubs point of view, is that it gives the club another avenue in which to build a side.

The way the AFL is structured atm is such that the ONLY way to build an elite side is through being really really shit for a 3-4 years and stockpiling picks. There is no other way to get a great side. People winge about tanking, well what else is a club supposed to do? Look at the WB, for a few years now they've basically had a very complete side minus a key position forward. There was very very few opportunities for them to get that key forward that would have truly completed their side, they've spent some draft picks trying to find one but by the time that these kids develop their window maybe be closed. It's only through some luck that they were able to land Barry. The competition is just so predictable. Be really crap for some years, draft well and then you'll have a good side. How boring. Adding FA will allow clubs to get a little more creative in how they are able to build a side. FA is the first thing that should occur, the next thing is the right to trade future draft picks (just the following year), and possibly even a mid yr trading period (during the break), now that would be fun.

 

[DeanoT]

The problem is in the policing of the salary cap. I would agree with you except for the fact that the AFL has rubber stamped such deals as the Judd Visy arrangement. The genie is out of the bottle, you cannot put it back in. They have created a precedent.

I also cannot accept the statement that free agency will spread the talent as the opposite is almost certain to occur.

There are very few Visy's out there willing to subsidise the payroll of a football club. Even Visy these days without Dick being around, it remains to be seen if such deals are made. I'd like to hear your argument for why free agency will concentrate the talent in the hands of a few clubs. I have seen this comment a few times now. Not one of those putting the argument forward has been able to build a case for it, while myself and others have built arguments for the opposite.

As others have said, free agency will allow clubs to rebuild quicker through recruitment AND drafting, not just drafting. Look at Richmond. It has had many high first round picks over the past decade, and now has nothing to show for it, except Deledio and Cotchin, who are both still a work in progress. They are at least 3-4 years away from real success, and if they draft poorly again over the next few years, they will need to go through another rebuild period. The addition of free agency will allow them to recruit players who can't get game time, or maximum $ for their worth at other clubs, helping them to shorten the rebuild phase.

 

[Galactico]

That is EXACTLY what would happen. It won't happen over the course of one season, but absolutely clubs would be forced to become more efficient with their funds and would be encouraged to spend money on things like training facilities. Your arguments are basically the same that are expressed in the industries that are protected by tarriffs. Tarriffs, like our the current system in the AFL rewards inefficiency and mediocrity.

In fact wouldn't FA also help clubs climb out of these financial holes that some currently find themselves in? Wouldn't a club like Melbourne or PA get a massive boost in membership, merchandise sales, sponsorships etc if they were to somehow land a marquee player like say a Pavlich? In FA there would be a remote chance of that sort of signing occuring, in the current system? No chance, unless clubs wan't to seriously mortgage their future.

Very well said.

That is the biggest problem with the AFL. Spin it whichever way you like....for a professional sporting competition it does a good job in promoting amateur hour when it comes to certain clubs constantly living off drips, promoting tanking during the season to obtain quality draft picks and having clubs with run down facilities and substandard medical and conditioning teams.

Yet this is the 'pinnacle' of our beloved sport? Of course we need certain measurements in place (i.e salary cap) but really with the way its structured currently and especially the tanking debacle every year....its hard to take it seriously sometimes.

 

[Black Ball]

If I was a player I would want to have free agencly, I cant think of anything more sensible than when a player finishes a contract he should be free to move on unrestricted the same as any other form of employment. This bullshit about clubs deserve to get something back for losing a player is not on.

 

[footylover18]

If I was a player I would want to have free agencly, I cant think of anything more sensible than when a player finishes a contract he should be free to move on unrestricted the same as any other form of employment. This bullshit about clubs deserve to get something back for losing a player is not on.

Exactly.

People continue to act as if being the profession of being an AFL footballer means that they require a whole new set of rules that govern the way they go about their work. Is there any other profession where once your contract is FINISHED, you can't go and choose where you want to work next? I'm incredibly surprised that the players have yet to make a big deal of this. The arguments you hear against FA typically come from supporters of clubs who basically are worried about what it means for the clubs, you don't really hear many people talk about how the lack of FA affects the players.

A common anti-FA arguments is that the clubs should get something back for developing a player: Yes, they do get something back, they get the player and the skills that the player possesses. As i've said before, if they are a club that has it's shit together then they are well and truly in the box seat for retaining that player. There are plenty of options available that will allow clubs to get something back for losing a player, restricted FA is a good example. Also, if a player is about to become a FA and the club does not feel that they will be able to retain them, then the club will trade the player before he hits the market and thus get a return that way. You see this all the time in the NBA for example. I do believe that if FA does occur then the idea that a player has to agree to a trade should be abolished. The players can't have it all their way. With FA should come easier access to completing trades.

 

[greennick]

I havent read through this thread and cant really be bothered so this will have probably been stated before however i think the AFL are going to push off free agency for a while yet.

The main aspect that the AFL wanted to integrate was a competitive balance, a way of making sure that teams arent at the top for too long. This has been acheived, however with free agency its in danger of dissapearing. If players are allowed to pick and choose which clubs they go to, obviously they are going to pick the club which is most successful, eg clubs wanting to go to hawthorn, collingwood, geelong, bulldogs, st kilda. Free agency will make the already strong stronger and the already weak weaker. yes the draft and salary cap is there to stop competitive balance dissapearing altogether, but with free agency the teams at the top will have substantially longer premiership windows.

Yeah, because Geelong could fit in a heap more good players under their cap.

 

[greennick]

Very well said.

That is the biggest problem with the AFL. Spin it whichever way you like....for a professional sporting competition it does a good job in promoting amateur hour when it comes to certain clubs constantly living off drips, promoting tanking during the season to obtain quality draft picks and having clubs with run down facilities and substandard medical and conditioning teams.

Yet this is the 'pinnacle' of our beloved sport? Of course we need certain measurements in place (i.e salary cap) but really with the way its structured currently and especially the tanking debacle every year....its hard to take it seriously sometimes.

That all still happens in all the leagues with FA, and they don't even have priority picks.

And clubs often have substandard facilities because they don't have enough money. Sure a club like Melbourne may have had 31k members last year, but when 10,000 of them contribute around $50 to the club, they aren't doing the club much good. That is what 1,000 WC supporters on average contribute to the club. This is the inequity in the AFL that will take a long time to correct (likely never). There will always be poor and rich teams. FA will not change that.