Players not eligible for RFA, shouldn't be able to nominate a preferred club

[Jobe Watson]

Within the state isn't equal though.

A player wanting to go to SA (for example) has 2 clubs that might be interested...if one already has enough of that type of player, you've still got only one real bidder.

A player going to Vic however has 10 clubs...There will almost always be multiple bidders.

So unless you broke vic clubs up into 5 pairs and said 'if you want to go to Melbourne, then St Kilda also gets a bid', it's not the same.

An admittedly unequal situation, but better than what we currently have. A fairer solution would be that clubs can send departing players to any club, but that is far too harsh on players to be a sensible option.

 

[Mr_Moogle]

An admittedly unequal situation, but better than what we currently have. A fairer solution would be that clubs can send departing players to any club, but that is far too harsh on players to be a sensible option.

This is what I mean when I say Australians are precious about these things. There are so many high paying professions where workers are forced to move somewhere they might not want to go. What you are describing happens in so many sports around the world already (baskebetball, baseball etc). In a country like Australia, which is pretty homogenous in it's living standards, its really shouldn't be a problem.

 

[Paracleet]

Aren't they technically still under contract until the draft, hence why clubs are able to trade them?

Clubs should be able to trade a player who requests to leave, contacted or not, to whoever offers them the best trade within that state. If players want to pick which specific club to go to then they should be made to wait until free agency. Of course it will never happen because the AFLPA would never allow it. But it's how it should be.

Uh-huh, and on what terms? Team 1 offers a player 3 years and $750000 and pick 20 in trade and club 2 in the state offers 2 years at $450,000 but pick 10. Does this mean the player should be forced to accept a much worse deal when his career is only one injury away from ending? The system as it is clear restraint of trade away, which everyone just agrees to to stand for a range of reasons. A wiff of your idea and the players would be in court before the ink was dry.

 

[Mr_Moogle]

Uh-huh, and on what terms? Team 1 offers a player 3 years and $750000 and pick 20 in trade and club 2 in the state offers 2 years at $450,000 but pick 10. Does this mean the player should be forced to accept a much worse deal when his career is only one injury away from ending? The system as it is clear restraint of trade away, which everyone just agrees to to stand for a range of reasons. A wiff of your idea and the players would be in court before the ink was dry.

Nice strawman argument. I've not seen a single person in this thread suggest a club should be able to force a player to take a massive pay cut.

 

[Paracleet]

This is what I mean when I say Australians are precious about these things. There are so many high paying professions where workers are forced to move somewhere they might not want to go.

Their company forces them to go and work for someone else on terms they dictate? Not a good comparison

What you are describing happens in so many sports around the world already (baskebetball, baseball etc). In a country like Australia, which is pretty homogenous in it's living standards, its really shouldn't be a problem.

Yeah for shirtload more money. And they players associations agree to the conditions. In a regular employment market it would be restraint of trade.

 

[Paracleet]

Nice strawman argument. I've not seen a single person in this thread suggest a club should be able to force a player to take a massive pay cut.

So how would such a system work then? Clubs are forced to agree to accept a player at the best terms offered to them? What if it takes them over the cap?

 

[Monkey King]

The current system doesn't allow clubs to trade players to a club of their choosing, hence they have to deal with whatever club the player nominates and can't create a bidding war and get fair value. This is particulalrly bad for clubs outside of Victoria.

The current situation is no different for clubs inside or outside Victoria. Crows fans weren’t complaining when Sam Jacobs wanted to go home and nominated the Crows, threatening to walk to the PSD if a deal couldn’t be reached.

 

[Andre]

Their company forces them to go and work for someone else on terms they dictate? Not a good comparison

Yeah for shirtload more money. And they players associations agree to the conditions. In a regular employment market it would be restraint of trade.

From a business point of view the AFL clubs are essentially offices around the country. If your boss says ‘Go move to the office in X state, as your position will no longer be available here’, that’s not retrainst of trade. Players are free to leave the AFL to go play VFL, WAFL or SANFL. If they attempted to block that it’d be restraint. Players don’t as it’s obviously less money and prestige, but they’ve the option.

The current system is working ok. Really only Adelaide and Brisbane have cluster****ed their club cultures and are repeatedly on the end of players going. Everyone else doesn’t need to be messed with for their problems.

Long term Adelaide’s would be partially addressed by stop smooching up to the SANFL, help Port get them away from all junior development (there should be an SA TAC cup equivalent), as they are more concerned with snouts in the trough, parasitically living off the AFL clubs through the SMA, then ensuring SA has enough good players coming through to be drafted. If there were more good quality SA kids it’d balance more any going out.

 

[Mr_Moogle]

So how would such a system work then? Clubs are forced to agree to accept a player at the best terms offered to them? What if it takes them over the cap?

Why would a club try to bid for a player they can't afford in the first place?

The current situation is no different for clubs inside or outside Victoria. Crows fans weren’t complaining when Sam Jacobs wanted to go home and nominated the Crows, threatening to walk to the PSD if a deal couldn’t be reached.

I know, Carlton should have been able to take the highest bid from either Port or Crows if they both wanted to bid for him.

 

[Thuggee_Cult]

You mean like Hawthorn getting pick 19 for Lance Franklin?

That had more to do where Hawthorn finished on the ladder in 2013 (1st) and what we paid for him. If you guys finished last that year you would have got pick 2. There is a formula to it, it is not about what is fair or what he is worth.

Full free agency after 5 years, with clubs able to trade players with a year to go (excluding players on their first contract)
No compo if a player leaves as a FA

Nailed it. That's how it should be.

 

[Jobe Watson]

Uh-huh, and on what terms? Team 1 offers a player 3 years and $750000 and pick 20 in trade and club 2 in the state offers 2 years at $450,000 but pick 10. Does this mean the player should be forced to accept a much worse deal when his career is only one injury away from ending? The system as it is clear restraint of trade away, which everyone just agrees to to stand for a range of reasons. A wiff of your idea and the players would be in court before the ink was dry.

That wouldn't happen. AFL wouldn't sign off on such a contract.

Just make it so that any subsequent offers have to be within a % of the highest offer... say 7%. So if a club is offering pick 15 at 500k and another club wants to bid with pick 10, they'll need to cough up at least 465k to the player.

 

[telsor]

An admittedly unequal situation, but better than what we currently have. A fairer solution would be that clubs can send departing players to any club, but that is far too harsh on players to be a sensible option.

and therein lies the other issue with this solution...the players.

trade rules are agreed to by the players association....why would they accept a change from 'club of choice' to 'state of choice'?

 

[Farm Boy]

There is no easy fix. Individuals are always going to be loyal to their family above their football club. So long as there are more Victorian football players - than interstate - then incentive to go home will always be there. Not only the incentive to go home, but also be paid more to do so. I don't think there is any way around it but to draft - and target - your own (players from your own state).

 

[Aramis]

It’s easily solved too. Just let players nominate a state and not a club. That way the clubs losin the player has a chance of getting decent compensation. And the player gets to “go home”

Too easy to manipulate, just because a player nominates a "state" instead of a "club" means nothing. His management will still only talk to the highest bidders.

What we really need to do is have it like the EPL, keep the wage cap though.
Clubs can pay transfer fees to the players club that way the club is on the frontline whether to accept or not.
Trading is so archaic and convoluted. If you're concerned about big clubs eating the smaller clubs have a total transfer fee cap at $5mil per club per transfer window.

Keep the draft and only players who have been in the system for a minimum of 2 years can be transferred. Simple and easy. You can use draft picks as sweeteners in transfers if you wish.

Example:
Melbourne and lets say Collingwood want Jake Lever.
Melbourne offer Lever a 800k per year contract.
Collingwood offer Lever a 650k per year contract.
Melbourne offer Adelaide a $1.5mil transfer fee.
Collingwood offer Adelaide a $2mil transfer.

Adelaide have the right to choose which offer they accept if the player is contracted, if a player wants to walk out on a club, you know what? back into the draft.

 

[threesixpio]

But if a player is out of contract, then what say does the club have at all? If my contract expires at work and they offer me another, I can knock it back and find work elsewhere and they can't do a single thing.

Players do have a lot of power but if the contract expires then aren't they entitled to that?

Pretty easy answer to this. We NEED to bring back Slavery - pronto

 

[Jobe Watson]

and therein lies the other issue with this solution...the players.

trade rules are agreed to by the players association....why would they accept a change from 'club of choice' to 'state of choice'?

Obviously they wouldn't, but these are all hypotheticals we're talking about here. I'm sure if they got an even bigger slice of the TV rights deal they'd consider anything.

 

[Footypie32]

Ideally I would prefer being able to trade players against their will, but I can't see that happening any time soon.

So how about a sort of transfer tax? Say in the vacinity of 10% to be payed by the club receiving the player. This would make poaching young players much less attractive.

 

[Strahany]

The players want the level of freedom assigned to players in leagues like the NBA, but without the drawbacks. In that competition, you could wake up one day to a message telling you to pack your bags and move across the country since you just got traded (mid-season, too). If players want to keep this extra power, then it must be balanced so that the clubs can pull a similar move if they so desire.

 

[telsor]

Ideally I would prefer being able to trade players against their will, but I can't see that happening any time soon.

So how about a sort of transfer tax? Say in the vacinity of 10% to be payed by the club receiving the player. This would make poaching young players much less attractive.

Tax the players initial contract...the fewer clubs he's willing to go to, the higher the tax.

 

[Tyler Hodges]

It’s easily solved too. Just let players nominate a state and not a club. That way the clubs losin the player has a chance of getting decent compensation. And the player gets to “go home”

Love this idea, great for equalisation aswell.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

I'm not fussed. Players can choose their club, they're human ffs. You get a trade.

There were better deals on the table for both Carlisle and Ryder. You just have to cop it.

 

[LoungeLizard]

I cant see why there isn't clauses in AFL contracts to say, if you want to play AFL then be prepared to play anywhere in OZ.
If players want to play near their families, then i'm sure they won't mind playing in a lesser league.

 

[Toump Ass]

Suck shit, Lever's a gun and Melbourne are winning the next premiership.

 

[ROOTA#6]

Sorry lads late to the thread and can't read all the previous posts.

This is a pet hate of mine. Players wanting to leave their current club should not be able to dictate where they go. We don't currently need free agency because players just get to where they want to go anyway.

If a player wants to leave a club...fair enough but that club should be able to,send him wherever they get the best deal for them

 

[Tazzaye]

Suck shit, Lever's a gun and Melbourne are winning the next premiership.

Lol