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

[Demonic Ascent]

Adelaide have a right to be angry regarding Lever, however their frustration should be at the AFL rather them Melbourne.

Jake Lever has essentially garnered the same rights as a Restricted Free Agent as he has: Nominated a preferred club, Negoitated a salary and contract and is now requesting a trade.

Amazingly Adelaide is actually in a worse position now than when Dangerfield nominated Geelong, as they don't have a right to match the contract and force him to stay.

Initial Draft contracts should allow the Club to retain the rights to a player until eligibility for Free Agency (period should probably be reduced) unless all parties agree to a trade. This could be done by implementing 3 year contracts + a 2 year team option (Similar to the NBA)

I'm actually interested in people's Thoughts here, do you think the current system is flawed?

Agreed, rookie contracts should be longer with club options to extend up to 4 or 5 years. At that point players should become RFA until they reach 8 years when they become UFA (except for top 20% of earners at each club who remain RFAs). Clubs should also have the right to trade contracted players without their consent.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

So long as the majority of drafted talent comes from Victoria things won't change. All things favour the Vic clubs from father son rules to player movements and everything in between.

Players have WAY too much power. Footy should be a ruthless business.

It works both ways, pretty sure we lost Scott Thompson to your mob for a mid first round pick just as he was showing promise after a couple of years of injury. Went on to be a 300 game champ of your club.

We also lost Farmer to Freo for a 2nd round pick from memory. Pies lost Beams to Lions the go home factor works both ways and when a player goes home to a non-Vic state there are only two options, a Vic club has to compete against 9 other clubs for a signature when a player wants to return to Vic.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

WA, SA, etc, players know that they will probably have to move state in order to fulfill their dream of playing AFL, while Victorian players usually sook it up and head home because they feel they're entitled to play at home in Melbourne

I think it's more they don't want to have to live in glorified country towns like Adelaide and Perth where the biggest attraction is Bingo Thursdays

 

[sjohns12]

My rough idea would be:

When a player is selected in a draft the team has the option to sign a player to a deal for 1-4 years, all of these contracts come with a two year team option (team has the option to extend the contract another two years). When this contract expires a player becomes a free agent.

All players selected in the rookie and pre season drafts become free agents after six years.

All players signed through free agency or trade become free agents after spending six years at their club.

Players can still request trades before their contract expires or if their contract has expired but are not free agents, however they do not automatically have the power to veto a trade. If a player is out of contract but not yet a free agent they are not obligated to sign for any club, however, if they choose not to they are barred from playing for any club until the appropriate time period to becoming a free agent has passed, at this point they would become a free agent.

 

[Jakksynn]

Presumably the clubs they talk to would need to at least match the player's contractual terms...

Rance opts to move to WA because he's homesick (AKA WCE offered him $1M/year for the last 2 years he wants to play) and WCE offer up pick 13
Freo is offers up a minimum wage, 8 year deal, but offers up pick 5.

Richmond takes pick 5 (of course), leaving Rance screwed.

Somehow I don't think the AFLPA would sign off on a deal that allowed that....

Of course, that's an extreme case, and clubs wouldn't want to upset the players coming to them by messing them around that badly, but shaving 50-100K, and/or adding/subtracting a year could certainly happen.

Yeah player would have to be able to set their contract term. Still gives more of chance for the club losing the player to get fair compo

 

[tandino]

I think it depends on your view of what the club is.

The way I see it, the 'business' is the AFL, not the club
The clubs are much closer in reality to 18 branches of that one business, than 18 separate businesses.
He doesn't want to leave the business, he just wants to change branches.
Like any good business, you want all your branches to be performing, and you put rules in place to spread the talent around.

That's not an unreasonable position.

My view based on a few in depth and therefore boring reasons is the 18 clubs are each individual businesses conducting their activities in a competitive marketplace. In most other industries when a fixed-term employment contract expires people are free to come and go as they please. The clubs as a collective restrain the movement of employees within professional football to a certain extent, which is legally questionable and as such why most of these Lever-type deals eventually get done.

 

[sregit]

Lever is uncontracted and Adelaide needed to pay up to try and keep him. Contract aside, a fair method would be for an independent panel set his worth. Melbourne wants to give next to nothing and Adelaide wants to much.
Arbitration.

 

[MisterMarcus]

Lever is uncontracted and Adelaide needed to pay up to try and keep him. Contract aside, a fair method would be for an independent panel set his worth. Melbourne wants to give next to nothing and Adelaide wants to much.
Arbitration.

That would be even worse, imho..

The AFL's secret-herbs-and-spices recipe for Free Agency, applied to all players wanting to change clubs? It would be a mess...

 

[Thetrader15]

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?

Then why have trades at all? Once out of contract you can just rock up the next day at another club

 

[SplintWhisky]

Unfortunately being uncontracted Leaver has the power but I want something to come in for the whole threat of walking to the draft and the home club not getting anything. I think that if that option is used then the player has to go to the preseason draft and can only nominate their contract to be the same as the one at their previous club.

For example lets say Leaver earned 1m over his 3 years at Adelaide. Adelaide and Melbourne can't get the deal done so he has to go to the preseason draft. The max contract he can nominate in the draft is 3 years equalling 1m. That theat of clubs not swooping in then is eliminated and makes a greater emphasis on getting the deal done because if those rules are in place and I am north or collingwood i am taking him

 

[Thetrader15]

Lever is uncontracted and Adelaide needed to pay up to try and keep him. Contract aside, a fair method would be for an independent panel set his worth. Melbourne wants to give next to nothing and Adelaide wants to much.
Arbitration.

Who's on the panel? Luke Darcy, Mick Molloy and Leigh Matthews?

They can't the FA, MRP or tribunal right, let's not give another thing to them to F up

 

[Thetrader15]

Unfortunately being uncontracted Leaver has the power but I want something to come in for the whole threat of walking to the draft and the home club not getting anything. I think that if that option is used then the player has to go to the preseason draft and can only nominate their contract to be the same as the one at their previous club.

For example lets say Leaver earned 1m over his 3 years at Adelaide. Adelaide and Melbourne can't get the deal done so he has to go to the preseason draft. The max contract he can nominate in the draft is 3 years equalling 1m. That theat of clubs not swooping in then is eliminated and makes a greater emphasis on getting the deal done because if those rules are in place and I am north or collingwood i am taking him

I think getting rid of the PSD and these delisted players just go in the national draft with all the kids.

Who are Brisbane going to pick up now? Cam Rayner or Lever for 800k/4?

 

[wal]

I think it's more they don't want to have to live in glorified country towns like Adelaide and Perth where the biggest attraction is Bingo Thursdays

Victoria, the USA of the southern hemisphere

 

[ItsAllAboutMe]

Clubs should be able to trade player contracts like they do in the NBA, player still gets paid but the club gets to take back the upper hand.. AFL players are too soft and have too much power in the negotiations. If they want to earn the big bucks they need to be prepared to play where they are told. Build in a $100k relocation bonus so that no one is financially worse off having to relocate but the clubs need to get some control back.

 

[DynaBass]

Jake Lever is out of contract is he not?

What moral right does a business have to restrict the movement of an employee that's out of contract?

Still under contract till after the draft so the club currently does have the right to restrict his movement. He's free to do as he pleases in the PSD.

 

[SherbertLemon]

I agree with the OP in principle.

I'm all for free agency and for players who have been in the system for 6-8 years to have the right to go to their choice of club, they have earned that right.

IMO that right should not be given to player who has been at a club for 2-3 years.

I believe that once a player enters the draft, that the clubs should have full rights to that player for 4 years, after that the club should have the option of a 5th year (I believe the NFL works like this but am happy to be corrected). Within that time, the clubs should have full rights to trade that player to any club they wish, with or without the players consent, or cut that player within that 5 year period.

IMO the players have too much power. If these mummy’s boys don't like moving interstate and getting paid upwards of 200k a year as a 21 year old, then by all means quit the AFL and see if you can move back home and get a job that pays that kind of money with no trade or degree behind you.

This
This
This
This.

Why even have a draft (and free agency for that matter) if a player has to
1. Agree to a trade
2. Make exclusive nominations, effectively making the clubs leverage null in trade negotiations.

My club will probably benefit from this over the off season, but it doesn't make it right.

Patrick Ryder was trade while contracted and his contract was front loaded too.

Players have too much power. It's a NATIONAL comp. If you're homesick, that's cool, just forfeit your rights to play AFL and then go home and get a degree, get a post graduate diploma, and stare at spreadsheets all day like every other joe blow.

Cue the "derp they haff rights like any other employee deep". No, they've agreed to participate in a national sporting comp which has equalisation provisions. If you get drafted to Brisbane, pack your fun bags and wait until you're a free agent, then you've earned the right to negotiate terms.

COME AT ME COUNTER POINTS I WILL
REK YOU

 

[BK Eaglesfan]

Still under contract till after the draft so the club currently does have the right to restrict his movement. He's free to do as he pleases in the PSD.

This is the challenge for clubs. Fine to push a player to the PSD, but have we ever seen a club pick up a player in this circumstance who made it clear where he wanted to go? For the club, even IF the player ended up somewhere they didn’t want to be, it’s the classic cutting off your nose to spite your face. Whatever Adelaide believe is fair for Lever in this case, there’s a big gap (and risk) between that and nothing if they hold firm and it goes south on them. Players know this, clubs can’t really afford to let a highly rated young player leave for norhting.

 

[Snake_Baker]

Victoria, the USA of the southern hemisphere

It beats North Korea (W.A.)

 

[SwampRat]

I have no issue with players leaving clubs for more opportunities or more money.

But if you come out and state you want to move back to Victoria for 'family reasons' - then you're open to getting traded to any club where that family is based.

If Lever just came out and said Melbourne offered him the most money and that's why he would prefer to be traded there, I wouldn't have a problem.

This solution gives players no say as to contract conditions. All else being equal, a player will want to move to a club that offers more money/ longer contract.

 

[pugsville]

It's not flawed. It's been deliberately designed this way. Won't ever change either. Victorian clubs would freak out if they actually had to pay fair value for players.

On balance the interstate clubs pick players for under more than victorian clubs. Simple supply in demand when players to interstate less bidders. Melbourne is a crowded market.

 

[pugsville]

By virtue of the fact there are more players drafted out of Victoria than anywhere else, there likely to be more players heading home to Victoria and the current system gives advantage to the teams recieving players, not the other way around.

But is there 5 times more players returning to Victoria?

 

[Fitzroy bears]

My rough idea would be:

When a player is selected in a draft the team has the option to sign a player to a deal for 1-4 years, all of these contracts come with a two year team option (team has the option to extend the contract another two years). When this contract expires a player becomes a free agent.

All players selected in the rookie and pre season drafts become free agents after six years.

All players signed through free agency or trade become free agents after spending six years at their club.

Players can still request trades before their contract expires or if their contract has expired but are not free agents, however they do not automatically have the power to veto a trade. If a player is out of contract but not yet a free agent they are not obligated to sign for any club, however, if they choose not to they are barred from playing for any club until the appropriate time period to becoming a free agent has passed, at this point they would become a free agent.

Like most of what you said, but would insist that draftees that become free agents after 4 years are restricted free agents.

Think 6 years is too long for rookie listed player, would perfer to scrap the rookie list all together and extend the primary list to 48 and have an additional 2 spots available for category b type rookies, so 50 in total.

Also like the idea of non trade clauses for frontended contracts to protect clubs from Ablett type situations.

 

[Roylion]

This is the challenge for clubs. Fine to push a player to the PSD, but have we ever seen a club pick up a player in this circumstance who made it clear where he wanted to go?

At the end of 2009 season 25 year old former St Kilda captain Luke Ball who had played 142 games requested to be traded to Collingwood. A deal between the two clubs, however, was not settled before the trade week deadline despite mediation from the AFL. On 10 November 2009 Ball officially left St Kilda and nominated for the national draft. On 26 November 2009 he was drafted to Collingwood with their first pick (number 30 overall).

Those who nominate for the pre-season draft may set the terms for their contracts. Lever could do this and most likely end up at Melbourne, if they kept a list spot free for him.

For the club, even IF the player ended up somewhere they didn’t want to be, it’s the classic cutting off your nose to spite your face.

St Kilda received nothing for Ball. In the washup they would have been better to trade for him, as Ball got where he wanted to go.

Clubs for the most part have been wary of letting uncontracted and contracted players go for nothing. Most clubs will trade contrated players on the basis that they can get more for them while contracted than if they are uncontracted. The closer players get to the end of the contract, generally the easier it is to persuade their club to let them go.

Whatever Adelaide believe is fair for Lever in this case, there’s a big gap (and risk) between that and nothing if they hold firm and it goes south on them. Players know this, clubs can’t really afford to let a highly rated young player leave for norhting.

Lever will almost certainly be traded so that Adelaide can get at least something for him. It'll most likely be to Melbourne too.

 

[Thetrader15]

I think it's more they don't want to have to live in glorified country towns like Adelaide and Perth where the biggest attraction is Bingo Thursdays

Clearly never been to Adelaide. Friday is the best bingo night be a mile

 

[Thetrader15]

At the end of 2009 season 25 year old former St Kilda captain Luke Ball who had played 142 games requested to be traded to Collingwood. A deal between the two clubs, however, was not settled before the trade week deadline despite mediation from the AFL. On 10 November 2009 Ball officially left St Kilda and nominated for the national draft. On 26 November 2009 he was drafted to Collingwood with their first pick (number 30 overall).

Those who nominate for the pre-season draft may set the terms for their contracts. Lever could do this and most likely end up at Melbourne, if they kept a list spot free for him.



St Kilda received nothing for Ball. In the washup they would have been better to trade for him, as Ball got where he wanted to go.

Clubs for the most part have been wary of letting uncontracted and contracted players go for nothing. Most clubs will trade contrated players on the basis that they can get more for them while contracted than if they are uncontracted. The closer players get to the end of the contract, generally the easier it is to persuade their club to let them go.



Lever will almost certainly be traded so that Adelaide can get at least something for him. It'll most likely be to Melbourne too.

How many players have the Saints lost since?