It’s time to abolish restricted free agency compensation

[RUNVS]

RFA compo, zones/academies, father son are all things which distort the equalizing power of the draft.

RFA helps equalise the draft, stopping bottom teams losing their best players and getting nothing in return.

 

[RUNVS]

Also think of Gold Coast losing Tom Lynch to, at the time, the best team in the competition.

They got pick 3 in compensation, which while still probably not enough was at least something.

I am sure there will be people on this thread saying "well the freed up cap is compensation enough" but in reality that cap space would be useless for Gold Coast as all it would mean is having to pay their current players more in order to reach the minimum salary cap. Gold Coast have a terrible record of attracting talent to their club and odds are they would not have been able to use that cap space to attract anyone else.

So all that would have happened was you removing the most important player in one of the worst teams and handing said player to the best team in the competition. Not only would it not be fair but it would make the competition worse as you would make the gap between the best teams and the worst teams even greater.

 

[kreuze_missile]

If West Coast and North were to align all player contracts to finish at the end of 2025, then in free agency completely switched lists, would they end up with the first 70 picks in the draft?

That's the illogical conclusion that would eventuate if two clubs game theoried the whole thing...right?

I understand what you are saying... but most of the players on their lists shouldn't trigger any compensation.

However, the AFL's mystery compensation fomula seems to have a pity factor so North would most likely end up getting Pick 1 for Jack Ziebel.

 

[kreuze_missile]

RFA helps equalise the draft, stopping bottom teams losing their best players and getting nothing in return.

Clubs do not have to lose any restricted free agent.. they retain the rigth to match the contract. If a club chooses to not may pay market value for their own player why should they be rewarded for letting them go?

RFA does not equalise the draft at all. It dilutes it for the 16 clubs not part of the deal.

And it inventivises clubs to let their players walk in exchange for draft picks that are above market value.

 

[kreuze_missile]

Also think of Gold Coast losing Tom Lynch to, at the time, the best team in the competition.

They got pick 3 in compensation, which while still probably not enough was at least something.

I am sure there will be people on this thread saying "well the freed up cap is compensation enough" but in reality that cap space would be useless for Gold Coast as all it would mean is having to pay their current players more in order to reach the minimum salary cap. Gold Coast have a terrible record of attracting talent to their club and odds are they would not have been able to use that cap space to attract anyone else.

So all that would have happened was you removing the most important player in one of the worst teams and handing said player to the best team in the competition. Not only would it not be fair but it would make the competition worse as you would make the gap between the best teams and the worst teams even greater.

Tom Lynch was a restricted free agent and Gold Coast should have matched the offer. Apparently it was lower than what GC were even offering.. so matching would have also come at a discount.

Clubs have to stop bending to the will of players. Plenty of examples of players requesting trades, not being granted, and then going on to resume their careers as normal. Clubs need to stop living in fear that players will sulk it up and underperform if they don't get what they want.

If you want to earn the right to choose where you play then do your 10 years and become an Unrestricted Free Agent. Otherwise shut up and do the job your employer pays you to do.

 

[Purple Suit]

RFA helps equalise the draft, stopping bottom teams losing their best players and getting nothing in return.

Everyone complaints about it but the real issue is the receiving club getting a free hit. The team who gets the compo is usually terrible and I can’t remember any examples of a dynasty built on the back of the compo.

It’s a quasi priority pick & gives the AFL the excuse to play their favourite game, changing the rules behind closed doors.

 

[Dangerousfield]

The whole thing is yet another AFL cobbled together on the run crap shoot. But, LOL, I'm sure Patrick Dangerfield could sort it out for them!

 

[Saab NLAW]

It stops teams from using it too, example being when dangerfield had to get traded as Adelaide warned the cats they would match their compo or gws with Jeremy Cameron, but those scenarios barely come up.
If there was no compo like in the nba where clubs will always match to force a trade different story, but struggling teams in the past (Melbourne with frawley, gc with Tom Lynch and now north with McKay) will always use this as it’s solid compensation for the scenario they were in.

FFS, Frawley was an AA and in our top 3 players, Hawks gave him a massive contract and he walked into a premiership team as their best key defender.

McKay is an average footballer.

Only the most biased North fan could possibly do the mental gymnastics and come up with the conclusion that the two players deserve the same compensation.

Get your hand off it

 

[harper2bastinac]

FFS, Frawley was an AA and in our top 3 players, Hawks gave him a massive contract and he walked into a premiership team as their best key defender.

McKay is an average footballer.

Only the most biased North fan could possibly do the mental gymnastics and come up with the conclusion that the two players deserve the same compensation.

Get your hand off it

Tell me what hawthorn could have offered you that was the equivalent of pick 3, they would have refused to trade anyone worth it and their first rounders in 2014 and 2015 would have been 2x pick 18s

 

[speedy]

Need to get the new rules put in before North get pick 3 for McKay.








Then we can revert back to the old rules when a more worthy team benefits.

 

[Jimmy Yamazaki]

They should just get rid of the "restricted" part full stop. No RFA/no compo and just have it as Free Agency.

 

[catstragic]

RFA helps equalise the draft, stopping bottom teams losing their best players and getting nothing in return.

They get cap space in return..... same as all teams. The reward they get for being a bottom team is higher draft picks that year.

 

[RUNVS]

They get cap space in return..... same as all teams. The reward they get for being a bottom team is higher draft picks that year.

Please name all the players you can think of in the last decade who were a top player in a top team who went to a bottom team for extra money?

 

[kreuze_missile]

Please name all the players you can think of in the last decade who were a top player in a top team who went to a bottom team for extra money?

Lance Franklin

 

[RUNVS]

Lance Franklin

So in other words you can't think of anyone?

Getting rid of free agency compensation will just make it a lot harder for bottom teams to get back on top.

 

[banzai]

Tom Lynch was a restricted free agent and Gold Coast should have matched the offer. Apparently it was lower than what GC were even offering.. so matching would have also come at a discount.

Clubs have to stop bending to the will of players. Plenty of examples of players requesting trades, not being granted, and then going on to resume their careers as normal. Clubs need to stop living in fear that players will sulk it up and underperform if they don't get what they want.

If you want to earn the right to choose where you play then do your 10 years and become an Unrestricted Free Agent. Otherwise shut up and do the job your employer pays you to do.

The Lynch example is the best one of why FA should get no compo. So obviously if there was no FA compo GC would match, which would have been better for the competition. But why would GC match when Richmond had no high draft picks and the only players GC could convince to go would be to massively overpay a Brandon Ellis type (which they did anyway the following year).

So with no FA compo GC would match and Richmond would give 2 late first rounders and maybe 2 fringe players. That's no better than pick 3 for GC, but it's far better for the comp if the top team is weakened.

 

[kreuze_missile]

Getting rid of free agency compensation will just make it a lot harder for bottom teams to get back on top.

If free agency compensation didn't exist Tom Lynch probably still plays for Gold Coast, Ben McKay stays at the Roos, James Frawley doesn't leave Melbourne etc.

Bottom clubs should be exercising their right to match contracts and retain their players. Free agency compensation encourages them to let their players walk. They stay on the bottom longer as a result.

I don't think you could be more wrong if you tried.

 

[Walshawk]

Restricted free agency compensation is a poorly thought out concept unlike anything else in professional sport.

There’s no logical reason to reward clubs who choose not to match market value contracts. NONE.

The AFL’s mysterious compensation further adds to the stupidity of the system.

Prime example right now is Ben McKay.

North Melbourne are essentially being incentivised by the AFL to not retain a best 22 player.

If the AFL wants equalisation don’t reward clubs for choosing to get worse.

The Law of Unintended Consequences at work. It results bottom clubs to become weaker in the short term. Hopeless rule.

 

[Kangas_11]

If free agency compensation didn't exist Tom Lynch probably still plays for Gold Coast, Ben McKay stays at the Roos, James Frawley doesn't leave Melbourne etc.

This is probably the most naive thing I've read on here. Removing compensation would do nothing to help struggling clubs retain players against free agency.

The idea that extra salary cap is the reward for teams losing FA's is also insane, considering the league has a 95% minimum spend against the salary cap. All this does is force the struggling team to overpay mediocre players to meet the minimum spend.

The compensation picks are an unfortunate middle ground, because the AFL and AFLPA have half-assed the Free Agency concept. For it to truly work, like in the US, clubs need to have the ability to use their salary cap to the full extent, and also trade players without their approval. But that's impossible in Australia, so compensation picks are necessary.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

Make the compensation come from the recipient club. I.e. some points value transfers

Within the system we have (that’s an important caveat) - this is actually the only really fair way to do it. If you want the player then you have to cough up draft picks.

It’s different to a trade in that there is no chance of the other club walking away - you are guaranteed to get your player. But you ain’t getting him for free. If we are going to be an equalised competition then true free agency shouldn’t really exist.

 

[Saab NLAW]

Tell me what hawthorn could have offered you that was the equivalent of pick 3, they would have refused to trade anyone worth it and their first rounders in 2014 and 2015 would have been 2x pick 18s

So you think North deserves the same compensation?

FFS, McKay is a plodder, on the open market he'd be worth a 3rd rounder

Get your hand of it

 

[Deepthroat]

Sadly, many North fans have conditioned themselves to seeing handouts as their only way forward.

Stuff the fundamentals of building a competitive squad.

It's embarrassing for them.

 

[Underarm]

If West Coast and North were to align all player contracts to finish at the end of 2025, then in free agency completely switched lists, would they end up with the first 70 picks in the draft?

That's the illogical conclusion that would eventuate if two clubs game theoried the whole thing...right?

Also you have to pay 5% of your Salary Cap for the other team to get a 1st round draft pick.

 

[TheCatStevensExperience]

Agreee. Free agency compensation affects clubs who maintain good cultures that create environments where players WANT to stay on.

Every compensation pick of any sort pushes better run clubs back in the draft queue. It's the same as priority picks in that regard. Run your club terribly and get bailed out by the AFL at the expense of clubs that do the right thing.

 

[TheCatStevensExperience]

The other reason Free Agency compo needs to be abolished:

Example 1:

Lynch exercises his free agency right to leave the Gold Coast.

AFL compensation is Pick 3 or whatever it is because Gold Coast are crap. Gold Coast accept the compo, knowing Richmond can't do any better than that and Richmond don't give up anything except cap space for Lynch.

All clubs get pushed down the draft order due to the compo pick.

Example 2:

Jeremy Cameron

5

Jeremy Cameron

Age

31

Ht

196cm

Wt

94kg

Pos.

Fwd

Career

Season

Last 5

D

12.5

3star

K

9.0

3star

HB

3.4

3star

M

5.4

5star

T

1.6

4star

G

2.6

5star

D

10.0

3star

K

7.1

3star

HB

2.9

2star

M

4.6

4star

T

2.0

3star

G

1.9

5star

D

8.2

2star

K

5.0

2star

HB

3.2

3star

M

4.6

5star

T

2.4

4star

G

2.0

5star

exercises his free agency right to leave GWS.

AFL compensation pick is Pick 10 or so, because GWS had a better year. GWS know they can squeeze Geelong for a bit more, so they match the bid and Geelong pay stacks more for Cameron than Richmond do for Lynch.

No clubs (other than Geelong) are affected in the draft because GWS take Geelongs pick.

That's not to say that Geelong didn't pay fair value (they did), but that Richmond paid nothing and all other clubs got shuffled down the order, shafts everyone except Richmond and Gold Coast.