Free Agency with the same salary cap in place would be fine. Base it on the NFL model with different levels of free agency to allow clubs some sort of protection for their top players (Franchise tags, TFAs, RFAs, EFAs).
In response Mental Magpie, your idea that less teams, no cap, more players per team and free agency, is ridiculous. Less teams equals less games. T.V stations are not going to pay more for less product. Look at the AFL's theory that the two new teams will probably push the next rights deal over $1b. What will happen if there is less games played per week and over the season as a whole. If the AFL is thinking more games=more $$$, than the opposite to that would be less games=less $$$. You say that people will watch because of the increased quality but the quality is all relative. In the new "EPL" AFL last versus second last would generate the same amount of interest as 15th versus 16th in the current AFL. Last in the "EPL" AFL would be seen in the same light as Melbourne is this year.
No cap means player wages will increase, whilst the T.V money theoretically will not. Not only will player wages increase, expanded lists means the total money clubs pay on lists would also rise. This all in the face of less T.V money and gate revenues from less games being played over the year. Say the Dogs, Roos, Dees & Saints went out of existence in the "EPL" AFL, most supporters would not follow the remaining teams in the streamlined AFL, or if they did, not with the same passion. That is almost 120,000 memberships per year lost, not to mention non members of those clubs. You would be lucky to convert 10% of those into paying members of the remaining clubs within 5 years of the loss of teams. Your less is more approach has serious flaws in it, because the remaining clubs will have the shoulder the burden of increases in wages on top of an increase of the lists, with very little new money coming into the game.
Finally, the introduction of free agency with no salary cap. That will send clubs broke quciker than the current system, because as history has shown, clubs cannot help themselves, even WITH a salary cap and restricted player movement. Imagine how bad they would go without the AFL regulating how much they can spend and no restrictions on who they can chase. Look at the '80s with no salary cap. Collingwood was close to going under in 1986 iirc, almost as bad as we were in 1989, 96 & 02.
The reality is that the way things are now are as close to as good as it can get.
In response Mental Magpie, your idea that less teams, no cap, more players per team and free agency, is ridiculous. Less teams equals less games. T.V stations are not going to pay more for less product. Look at the AFL's theory that the two new teams will probably push the next rights deal over $1b. What will happen if there is less games played per week and over the season as a whole. If the AFL is thinking more games=more $$$, than the opposite to that would be less games=less $$$. You say that people will watch because of the increased quality but the quality is all relative. In the new "EPL" AFL last versus second last would generate the same amount of interest as 15th versus 16th in the current AFL. Last in the "EPL" AFL would be seen in the same light as Melbourne is this year.
No cap means player wages will increase, whilst the T.V money theoretically will not. Not only will player wages increase, expanded lists means the total money clubs pay on lists would also rise. This all in the face of less T.V money and gate revenues from less games being played over the year. Say the Dogs, Roos, Dees & Saints went out of existence in the "EPL" AFL, most supporters would not follow the remaining teams in the streamlined AFL, or if they did, not with the same passion. That is almost 120,000 memberships per year lost, not to mention non members of those clubs. You would be lucky to convert 10% of those into paying members of the remaining clubs within 5 years of the loss of teams. Your less is more approach has serious flaws in it, because the remaining clubs will have the shoulder the burden of increases in wages on top of an increase of the lists, with very little new money coming into the game.
Finally, the introduction of free agency with no salary cap. That will send clubs broke quciker than the current system, because as history has shown, clubs cannot help themselves, even WITH a salary cap and restricted player movement. Imagine how bad they would go without the AFL regulating how much they can spend and no restrictions on who they can chase. Look at the '80s with no salary cap. Collingwood was close to going under in 1986 iirc, almost as bad as we were in 1989, 96 & 02.
The reality is that the way things are now are as close to as good as it can get.
