Is Free Agency a certainty now?

[JeffDunne]

what do you mean it depends, I thought you were the expert?

perhaps you can tell the audience, how you tag an unrestricted free agent?

See the post above.

Do you really want to have this discussion? Look I'm happy to embarrass you yet again with your hopeless attempts at trying to come off as looking all-knowing, but it's clear you have no idea what you're talking about so maybe for once you could just admit that and save us all a lot of time.

so how did he join the 49'ers?

I don't know . . . maybe you traded for him while paying Madden?


Was this ignorant post an attempt at humour or are you really THAT clueless?

I'm guessing the latter.

 

[mcgarnacle]

Maybe I'm being naive, but I don't see how there can be a problem with the introduction of free agency and a strictly enforced salary cap. The emphasis is on a strict salary cap.

Sure, you may still get good players all going to the 'big' clubs, but those players will be taking a pay cut. I really don't think this will happen all that often. Also, even if a club loses a youngster they've been developing, with the new cap space, they can offer contracts to other free agents.

you aren't being naive. it's more the free agency-against crowd getting into hysterics by comparing the model put forward by the AFLPA to the model in europe which exists without a salary cap limit, or the model in the NRL where all players are essentially free agents because a draft doesnt exist.

futhermore, if the AFLPA get their way, a player will be at least 24-25yo before they can satisfy FA criteria.......a Judd or Ablett or Hodge or Ball......hardly players just out of development. these are established players who have accrued at least 7 years AFL service. All the above wouldve been eligible for FA at the end of the 2008 season if they were uncontracted. Goddard, Wells and Jared Brennan would be eligble at the end of this season...........Cooney, Sylvia, Brock McLean would be eligble after the 2010 season...........Delidio, Franklin, Roughead, Van Berlo would be eligble after the 2011 season.

Even this last group can be considered as post-development in terms of their standing in the game, yet under the free agency model proposed by the AFLPA they would still need to serve 2 more seasons before they could freely test the market. They would still need to go through the trade process if they want to move to another club now, unless there was the existance of restricted FA (RFA).

as mentioned in an earlier post, a system of compensatory draft picks can also be utilised if a team loses more than it gains via free agency. for example, if Geelong were to lose Gary Ablett in the FA signing period at the end of this season, and fail to gain a player via FA, or gain a player of lower standing such as Jay Schulz, then the AFL could award a selection to Geelong at a specific point of the next draft (say from rd 3 downwards). a value system would be required which would be heavily biased towards both players new salary (although it would require more transparency into player salaries and club payments), but it can also take into account other factors such as games played, honours, etc. this system of compensatory draft picks are not given up by a club which has gained a player. rather they are awarded as an extra round of (16) picks by the AFL throughout the draft. if a club has not has a loss outcome or even dealt via FA, they still receive picks but they are tacked on at the end of the draft proper (so basically they wont be used).

as touched on above, the use of restricted free agency in addition to the standard FA is also an option. RFA is a form of FA where a player who is uncontracted but has not accrued 7 years of AFL service, can still deal with the club of their 'choice' rather than risk ending up anywhere as is the case in the pre-season draft. if utilised in the AFL it could kick in at around 5 years of accrued service. one version of the model could be where the incumbent club has a right to match an offer from a rival club or come within a certain % of the salary offered and retain the services of the player. if the incumbent club decides to let the player go, it can be compensated with the player's destination club's 1st &/or 2nd round, or maybe later selections (once again dependent on a value system such as the new salary of the player at the new club) in the next national draft. In this case, the incumbent club still retains rights, but the player can deal with a clubs of 'their choice', the destination club might need to give up quite a bit, and the salary cap still does it's job of retaining competitiveness in the league.

so there are several options & formats for a FA model. the overall recruiting system would still retain the mechanisms of the salary cap, national draft and the exchange period. but it would give uncontracted established players with accrued service 'a choice' of club to freely deal with in order to continue their football career. it will also improve the competitiveness of the league as it will allow clubs without the cattle a mechanism to improve their competitiveness in a shorter period, rather than endure years of relying soley on the draft and waiting for players to develop and mature. it will also provide a realistic market for uncontracted established players (such as those currently being hoarded at Geelong and St Kilda as an example) and fringe players to value their services where they might be able to take advantage of better financial and playing opportunities, while spreading matured talent across the league.

 

[JeffDunne]

don't worry, take your time.

Someone seems to have this conversation with their tail between their legs.


BTW, some great posting mcgarnacle.


And don't forget your AE tips this week too!

 

[WHOME]

Luke Ball has played in the AFL for a long time, he understands the rules, if he doesn't like them he can go to any club of his choice - in country Victoria.

 

[Blogger]

you aren't being naive. it's more the free agency-against crowd getting into hysterics by comparing the model put forward by the AFLPA to the model in europe which exists without a salary cap limit, or the model in the NRL where all players are essentially free agents because a draft doesnt exist.

futhermore, if the AFLPA get their way, a player will be at least 24-25yo before they can satisfy FA criteria.......a Judd or Ablett or Hodge or Ball......hardly players just out of development. these are established players who have accrued at least 7 years AFL service. All the above wouldve been eligible for FA at the end of the 2008 season if they were uncontracted. Goddard, Wells and Jared Brennan would be eligble at the end of this season...........Cooney, Sylvia, Brock McLean would be eligble after the 2010 season...........Delidio, Franklin, Roughead, Van Berlo would be eligble after the 2011 season.

Even this last group can be considered as post-development in terms of their standing in the game, yet under the free agency model proposed by the AFLPA they would still need to serve 2 more seasons before they could freely test the market. They would still need to go through the trade process if they want to move to another club now, unless there was the existance of restricted FA (RFA).

as mentioned in an earlier post, a system of compensatory draft picks can also be utilised if a team loses more than it gains via free agency. for example, if Geelong were to lose Gary Ablett in the FA signing period at the end of this season, and fail to gain a player via FA, or gain a player of lower standing such as Jay Schulz, then the AFL could award a selection to Geelong at a specific point of the next draft (say from rd 3 downwards). a value system would be required which would be heavily biased towards both players new salary (although it would require more transparency into player salaries and club payments), but it can also take into account other factors such as games played, honours, etc. this system of compensatory draft picks are not given up by a club which has gained a player. rather they are awarded as an extra round of (16) picks by the AFL throughout the draft. if a club has not has a loss outcome or even dealt via FA, they still receive picks but they are tacked on at the end of the draft proper (so basically they wont be used).

as touched on above, the use of restricted free agency in addition to the standard FA is also an option. RFA is a form of FA where a player who is uncontracted but has not accrued 7 years of AFL service, can still deal with the club of their 'choice' rather than risk ending up anywhere as is the case in the pre-season draft. if utilised in the AFL it could kick in at around 5 years of accrued service. one version of the model could be where the incumbent club has a right to match an offer from a rival club or come within a certain % of the salary offered and retain the services of the player. if the incumbent club decides to let the player go, it can be compensated with the player's destination club's 1st &/or 2nd round, or maybe later selections (once again dependent on a value system such as the new salary of the player at the new club) in the next national draft. In this case, the incumbent club still retains rights, but the player can deal with a clubs of 'their choice', the destination club might need to give up quite a bit, and the salary cap still does it's job of retaining competitiveness in the league.

so there are several options & formats for a FA model. the overall recruiting system would still retain the mechanisms of the salary cap, national draft and the exchange period. but it would give uncontracted established players with accrued service 'a choice' of club to freely deal with in order to continue their football career. it will also improve the competitiveness of the league as it will allow clubs without the cattle a mechanism to improve their competitiveness in a shorter period, rather than endure years of relying soley on the draft and waiting for players to develop and mature. it will also provide a realistic market for uncontracted established players (such as those currently being hoarded at Geelong and St Kilda as an example) and fringe players to value their services where they might be able to take advantage of better financial and playing opportunities, while spreading matured talent across the league.

Some very good ideas there! The compensatory picks is something I didn't think of, because you may have a club who has lost all their star players due to free agency, but for whatever reason, they can't attract free agents. Those clubs would need to be compensated somehow.

I must admit, my initial model of free agency is nowhere as sophisticated as yours. With the form of free agency and restricted free agency you propose, are these models used in other sports?

 

[Crow-mo]

See the post above.

Do you really want to have this discussion? Look I'm happy to embarrass you yet again with your hopeless attempts at trying to come off as looking all-knowing, but it's clear you have no idea what you're talking about so maybe for once you could just admit that and save us all a lot of time.

go ahead.

you've been threatening to embarrass people for years. just put me on the list.

you cannot tag an unrestricted free agent. you can tag one player BEFORE he becomes eligible, but you cannot tag an UFA. despite your ignorant pansy arsed attempts at being clever, still you come up with nothing.

and if Luke Ball was treated like a franchise player, he would never have wanted to leave.

I don't know . . . maybe you traded for him while paying Madden?

you don't seem to know much about anything, including the things you claim to be an expert so this is no surprise.

Was this ignorant post an attempt at humour or are you really THAT clueless?

sorry, I am looking for the substance here. I have even taken up the cushions on the sofa, and all I can find is more JD piss n wind.

do you normally find empty rhetoric gets you through? because you keep ducking and shirking all that gets asked of you, and somehow think no one has noticed. well guess what? they have. they always do

* you said NFL doesn't have FA. it does.
* you said you can tag an UFA. you can't. and it wouldn't be relevant to Luke Ball anyway.
* you've been asked numerous questions, you've bottled out of answering any of them.

 

[Crow-mo]

You only tag UFAs. Tagging a RFA would be stupid. You tag them with the franchise or transition tag. They're not obligated to sign the contract.

you tag a player to STOP him becoming an UFA.

Every one of the big-4 in America has restricted free agency.

tell me about this?
MLB does not. and the NBA, has it 1 year before your contract runs out after which you are completely unencumbered.

The current AFL CBA has a very limited window for trades. There is no mid-season list changes anymore and the players can refuse any trade. The PA can complain all they like about Ball's situation, but it's the situation they negotiated and in some aspects actually created through their own wishes. Ball does have the ability to move through the PSD. He can enter the ND. He does not have to negotiate exclusively with St Kilda. That was the situation agreed to by the AFLPA. Their complaints about Ball suit their current agenda, but they're ignoring Rischitelli's decision to stay where he is against his club's wishes. The rules are the rules, and until 2011, they'll stay that way. Ball's the St Kilda club rep at the PA. He knew what he was getting himself into.

the problem with this, is the AFLPA wants new conditions and they will be negotiating for them in the NEXT CBA.

 

[Crow-mo]

So JD, how many more times do I need to ask about Haynesworth?

I mean you've cowered away like a little squib each time so far, but maybe you can help me out? how many times do I need to call you out, before you answer a basic question on your mastermind specialist subject?

 

[JeffDunne]

go ahead.

you've been threatening to embarrass people for years. just put me on the list.

you cannot tag an unrestricted free agent. you can tag one player BEFORE he becomes eligible, but you cannot tag an UFA. despite your ignorant pansy arsed attempts at being clever, still you come up with nothing.

and if Luke Ball was treated like a franchise player, he would never have wanted to leave.

As usual, play the semantics game when you've been shown to be clueless.

The question you asked - "what happens to an NFL player who has served 4 years, and is out of contract hmmm?"

And I answered "Depends if they'd CHOSEN to tage tag them". If you understand the tense of that statement it is 100% correct.

And that last statement tells me you don't even understand the meaning of the Franchise Tags. Quite often it's used because the player is disgruntled. In fact Luke Ball (if we wanted to keep him) would be a perfect situation to use it (if we hadn't already).

you don't seem to know much about anything, including the things you claim to be an expert so this is no surprise.

Talk about projection.

sorry, I am looking for the substance here. I have even taken up the cushions on the sofa, and all I can find is more JD piss n wind.

do you normally find empty rhetoric gets you through? because you keep ducking and shirking all that gets asked of you, and somehow think no one has noticed. well guess what? they have. they always do

* you said NFL doesn't have FA. it does.
* you said you can tag an UFA. you can't. and it wouldn't be relevant to Luke Ball anyway.
* you've been asked numerous questions, you've bottled out of answering any of them.

1. No I didn't - fair dinkum do you have any pride? Straight out lie.
2. Clueless, ignorant comment. The ONLY people you franchise are players that would otherwise become UFA's if you didn't
3. Keep telling yourself that. Seems you believe any thought that springs into your head regardless of the facts.

 

[JeffDunne]

So JD, how many more times do I need to ask about Haynesworth?

I mean you've cowered away like a little squib each time so far, but maybe you can help me out? how many times do I need to call you out, before you answer a basic question on your mastermind specialist subject?

Why ask about how he got to the 49ers when he's never played a game for them.

That is of course unless you think Washington are the 49ers.

Seriously, are your for real?

 

[DarthTed]

Some very good ideas there! The compensatory picks is something I didn't think of, because you may have a club who has lost all their star players due to free agency, but for whatever reason, they can't attract free agents. Those clubs would need to be compensated somehow.

I hate the idea of compensatory picks. If you lose a player to free agency the compensation you receive is that you have the salary cap space to go after another free agent to replace them.

 

[Bollox]

Yeah the inevitable mudslinging after trade week always results in the amateur ambulance chasers whinging and wanting change. All thats happened is one bloke didnt get to the club he nominated...obviously because the potential destination club didnt offer up enough compensation under the current AFL process and guidelines for player exchanges...not enough to make it happen is the same thing as saying "i do not want him".

If the pies wanted him enough they would have paid something to get it done...obviously with an uncontracted player leaving their club the saints would prefer SOMETHING...some idiots in here seem to forget that clubs actually know that if they dont accept what is on offer they'll get nothing for them...yes they KNOW they get nothing and for some silly reason clubs now seem to think its a game of bluff where they believe a club will hand a guy over for peanuts rather than accepting nothing. Pathetic trading and akin to saying "i dont want him enough" or "only if he;s a bargain".

At the same time the average goose in here seems to think player trades/exchanges are meant to be at some sort of "fair" price..absiolute rubbish once again...the price is determined like all markets on demand and supply situations...if a club sees a need for an inside midfielder NOW and one is available you PAY THE PRICE...if you deem that price is too expensive then you simply dont want him badly enough or believe there are alternatives more suitable to your club. Simple.

To get something NOW is always more expensive than waiting 4 yrs with a 30-40% chance of getting exactly what u actually want i.e. a draft pick. Doesnt matter what it is...u either pay more to have WHAT U NEED NOW or pay less and take a risk on getting something cheap with no guarantees.

Thats entirely your own decision and the Pies simply decided they didnt see Luke Ball as important enough. The price wasnt exactly high from what i saw and draft pix are hit nd miss at the best of times...but if a club says they want a reasonable player in exchange then why has it been such a surprise to pies fans that the aints knocked back nothing draft pix ?...the difference between pick 20 and pick 30 is NOTHING when u get what will at least help u out NOW..but the pies for some reason fell for the same stupidity that seems to be rife at the moment..some sort of misplaced reasoning that every exchanged must somehow meet THEIR OWN version of "good price"...its simply whther u want the bloke or not and if u do then u pay the price like everywhere else in society. No point blaming the aints when the pies pretty much ignored the asking price and decided to try to get him cheap. All that remains is a bunch of disgruntled fans trolling their guts out hoping to deflect the inevitable mudslinging.

Then of course they come crying into this and other forums raising "free agency" arguments ...all in the hope someone thinks it wasnt THEIR clubs fault.

Go away and dwell on whether or not each player is actually an employee of the AFL rather than your club...and understand that there is basically no need for extreme change or even silly half baked bits and pieces change. Nor are the crybaby amateur ambulance chasers "technically correct" when they say its somehow "illegal"...utter trash kiddy garbage.

There's next to nothing wrong with the system already in place...certainly nothing that cannot be at least tweaked a bit when required. No need to throw the baby out with the bathwater..no need to introduce uncertainty to something that invariably works but has the occasional CLUB INDUCED hiccup. Panickers and whingers can cry all they like.

Thats all it is...a hiccup. The grass isnt greener on the other side coz yanks or poms work differently ...change is NOT inevitable in this regard coz it simply isnt necessary...the future is just as easily managed under the current guidelines in place and its a much rosier future without introducing some complex arrangement that simply results in a has and has not competition.

It aint broken coz Luke Ball didnt get traded...the demand simply wasnt there in this case in the same way it wasnt for Ryan OKeefe. Thats the market talking...the pies didnt want him enough and the saints were simply not prepared to accept peanuts (or draft pix instead of a reasonable player exchange) for him in a shallow draft. Who the hell wants a cheap lottery ticket when u ask for something tangible NOW.

 

[Brave Sir Robin]

For Christ's sake, change your tampon.

You could've said that whole spiel in two lines.

 

[Bollox]

For Christ's sake, change your tampon.

You could've said that whole spiel in two lines.

Did that upset you did it ?..a bit longwinded and repetitive for u was it ?

Awwww..shame i just rattled it off without catering for the irrelevant moronic element.... that doesnt even have the brains or ability to voice an opinion.

U need understand something tho...whetehr u like what u read or not, people like me just dont giveashit about what tiddly little morons want

 

[Redb#]

St Kilda have no rights over an uncontracted player. The trading system is a restraint of trade, and therefore illegal. Only needs one player or the AFLPA to challenge it, and it will come crumbling down.

Err no it's not if all parties agree to the draft system. The AFLPA and the AFL have an agreement until 2011-12?, Ball is a part of the AFLPA and is bound to the agreements they put in place.

The AFL has to create more options for uncontracted players/player wanting to move and introduce a form of limited free agency but its absurd to throw the baby out with the bath water.

 

[Brave Sir Robin]

Did that upset you did it ?..a bit longwinded and repetitive for u was it ?

Awwww..shame i just rattled it off without catering for the irrelevant moronic element.... that doesnt even have the brains or ability to voice an opinion.

U need understand something tho...whetehr u like what u read or not, people like me just dont giveashit about what tiddly little morons want

You make that sound like some kind of superior quality you have. I'm just saying that succinctness is a more admirable skill than mindless droning.

By the way, when I was in year three, one girl said she was going to shit in a square of tissue paper and bring it in for show and tell - that's kind of like what you just did.

 

[DeanoT]

Err no it's not if all parties agree to the draft system. The AFLPA and the AFL have an agreement until 2011-12?, Ball is a part of the AFLPA and is bound to the agreements they put in place.

The AFL has to create more options for uncontracted players/player wanting to move and introduce a form of limited free agency but its absurd to throw the baby out with the bath water.

Err, hate to break it to you, but it is irrelevant whether the two parties have agreed to it. Read the whole thread and you will see numerous examples of where I have highlighted that the AFLPA agreement to the terms means nothing.

A player, or the AFLPA, can challenge it now in the courts and win, regardless of any current agreement.

 

[Bollox]

You make that sound like some kind of superior quality you have. I'm just saying that succinctness is a more admirable skill than mindless droning.

By the way, when I was in year three, one girl said she was going to shit in a square of tissue paper and bring it in for show and tell - that's kind of like what you just did.

Ordinarily not, but in your case yeah of course. The insecure and morons pretty much self advertise in here like u did. They dont bother with the thread or an issue coz its beyond them...its only instant attention they crave and need to talk about "tampons" and "shit" or anything else they think might get a rise.

Its ok tho coz i cant imagine u would be offended ..must be a fairly regular thing u cop..that feeling others are talking down to you. Looking up big words in the dictionary wont cure wot you got champ.

 

[MarkT2]

All thats happened is one bloke didnt get to the club he nominated...

That’s all that needs to happen for one bloke to say enough is enough. If a player in the situation of Jade Rawlings or Nick Stevens a few years back or Luke Ball this year decided he wanted to play for a particular club and didn’t think his former club had been fair he might be aggrieved enough to take it further.

The AFLPA hold together illegal trade practices with goodwill. We have seen other codes have their player restricting rules deemed illegal in court. We have seen clubs and players operate outside of the trade rules in this competition before. The next TV rights will probably top $1b. At some point something is likely to give. I think the AFL will bring in some form of restricted “free” agency to avoid a player manager making a name for themselves.

If the pies wanted him enough they would have paid something to get it done...obviously with an uncontracted player leaving their club the saints would prefer SOMETHING...

Something? How Ball feels about it all probably depends a lot on what he thinks something should amount to. St. Kilda knocked back something. They wanted something else. Same with Port and the Stevens negotiations. I think a tipping point might be more likely when the club with the first PSD pick is from a state the player does not want to move to.

 

[JeffDunne]

The AFLPA hold together illegal trade practices with goodwill.

And I've heard paid legal experts in the field claim the AFL's rules would stand up.

It's not the cut and dry argument some would like to believe.

Regardless, the AFL do have other options and one of those is to lobby politicians. I'd doubt they'd need to though in that they own the AFLPA so it would simply be a matter of rewriting the existing rules based on the case ruling. Unless a player with deep pockets is prepared to challenge too, who is going to fund such a case? The AFLPA won't.

It doesn't matter how much Collingwood supporters wish we had a free and open market for players, it's never going to happen.

Free agency will improve the game but it won't result in what some pray for. It will simply open up the player transfer market and level the playing field even further.

 

[MarkT2]

And I've heard paid legal experts in the field claim the AFL's rules would stand up.

It's not the cut and dry argument some would like to believe.

I’ve have heard the opposite more often.

It comes down to whether the restraints of trade, which do exist, are unreasonable. It isn’t certain either way but I know which way my money would go.

Regardless, the AFL do have other options and one of those is to lobby politicians. I'd doubt they'd need to though in that they own the AFLPA so it would simply be a matter of rewriting the existing rules based on the case ruling. Unless a player with deep pockets is prepared to challenge too, who is going to fund such a case? The AFLPA won't.

Jack Elliot or a modern day equivalent? Ricky Nixon via a success fee legal practice? You should know though that it need not come to that. I am sure you remember Foscini and Morwood.

I am not sure lobbying politicians helps. They still have to deal with the constitution even if they could get a politician to bother. On a practical level, it would be difficult enough without considering the political and policy force behind NSW factions who couldn’t care less about the AFL’s problems.

It doesn't matter how much Collingwood supporters wish we had a free and open market for players, it's never going to happen.

Nothing to do with being a Collingwood supporter at all. In fact the Collingwood president is on record time and again stating the rules must be preserved and that they are by agreement rather than legality.

 

[Slattery_20]

Bloody hope there's not a Bosman situation.

 

[DeanoT]

Bloody hope there's not a Bosman situation.

As long as the salary cap remains, Bosman type situations will have little, if any, adverse impact.

No other league do I know of in the world except the AFL is there a salary cap AND a draft, AND no free agency.

Somethings gotta give.

 

[Slattery_20]

As long as the salary cap remains, Bosman type situations will have little, if any, adverse impact.

No other league do I know of in the world except the AFL is there a salary cap AND a draft, AND no free agency.

Somethings gotta give.

Why?
One, maybe two blokes don't get where they want to go per year - that we hear of.

There's an argument to say if Hawks allegedly (and this is not having a go @ Hawks, every club does it) hadn't been in Burgoyne's and Gibson's ear from July, they may have got Jolley who they really needed more by the time trade week rolled around, and Ball would have got to the Pies.

This is driven by the agents, taking power from clubs, giving it to the agents.
The clubs make the game, not the agents.

 

[JeffDunne]

No other league do I know of in the world except the AFL is there a salary cap AND a draft, AND no free agency.

That in itself doesn't make it wrong.

Are we that insecure in ourselves that we'd believe if others don't do it then it must be wrong?

I'm all for free agency but I also see what the AFL don't want to create. The NFL IMO have struck a great balance. (Private ownership I reckon guarantees a level of equality the AFL would never dream of creating. They don't like giving up power and they like the fact they can manipulate the competition. That however is a different argument)

One of the reasons I'm a fan of the NFL is that I like what fluid player movement creates. The AFL argues one of the strengths of the AFL is the lack of player movement. They believe it sells well and they believe it's one of the reasons 10 clubs in Victoria remain as strong as they do.

Personally I disagree but they know more about marketing the game than me.