It would be back to the 1970's. Half the competition would be uncompetitive.
-
LIVE: Sydney v Brisbane Lions - 2:30PM AEST Sat
Squiggle tips Lions at 61% chance -- What's your tip? -- Ticketing Buy, Sell -- Teams on Thurs »
-
Weekly Prize - Join Any Time - Tip Grand Final
The Golden Ticket - MCG and Marvel Medallion Club tickets and Corporate Box tickets at the Gabba, MCG and Marvel.
Round PF Winner: Still Me
-
AFLW 2024 - Round 4 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Unfettered Free Agency
- Thread starter Wally Carter
- Start date
- Tagged users None
It would be back to the 1970's. Half the competition would be uncompetitive.
sherb
Hall of Famer
It would be totally unbalanced - some clubs seemingly permanently powerful, with others the direct opposite.
The premiership winners list would continually be dominated from by the select few clubs (see Timmy's point re winners from 67-89 inclusive).
The club I support benefited as much as anyone in the old days and I for one never want to go back there. I'd much rather an even competition.
And I'd rather wear the restraints we have in place than end up with a farcical "competition" like the English Premier League.
Carlton Geelong went close too. Both had financial positions worse than fitzroy.
Hawthorn and North have been railroaded to a certain extent - the Hawthorn merger was a travesty (as I said in another thread)
I'd wager that if North had joined Hawthorn out at waverley in 2000, and the AFL had been fully supportive, they would both be powerful clubs by now
Wally Carter
Cancelled
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #79
It would go beyond that, half the competition would never have a fighting chance to get better and would disappear.
Contrast it to now, when half the comp decide to be uncompetitive after r8
Wally Carter
Cancelled
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #81
Whoa, that is a big call.
If you cant make the 8 you cant make the 8. Cant see how free agency can fix that.
Not making the 8 and not being competitive are two seperate points. Hawthorn, Port and WCE were all reasonably competitive this season. If Essendon failed to beat Hawthorn, not made finals then would be seen as uncompetitive since we had some fine games this year topping some of the biggest clubs? (ie. Saints ... in both games we played them we were competitive).
You just dont get it do ya Jeff...you and the others are trying to squat an ant with a sledgehammer. Trying to alter the way things are done entirely simply because u BELIEVE there's a major problem and only your idea can fix it.
If the AFL wanted to fix these exaggerated issues they could...they have options galore. You dont need to blast away and alter the landscape simply because the road needs repairing.
YOU and others perceive there's all these major problems needing some sort of massive change...there's always problems needing tweaking...you're simply advocating the most difficult and zero guarantee fix.
Some people are naturally like that arnt they Jeff...must always look for the big picture change even when unecessary. They're always experts on the subject too.
Jeff...with the way people think these days all that'd happen with FA is a shift of discontent...away from the cursing and ridicule of clubs perceived as not trying their best... toward the cursing of the individual player for not trying his best.
I just cant see any advantage anywhere. Therefore no need for it.
I just cant see any advantage anywhere. Therefore no need for it.
JeffDunne
TheBrownDog
That is because you don't understand it.
Free agency doesn't mean a free market.
The people that will benefit most from free agency are players currently thrown on the scrapheap of lower leagues simply because of their birth certificate.
People get paranoid about star players transferring clubs every year. Free agency won't increase the number of movements at the top end of lists if implimented properly.
It wasnt me who made the presumption that half the comp deliberately choose to be uncompetitive.
Wally Carter
Cancelled
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #89
Jeff, you are the one with the misunderstanding, in relation to this threads topic.
"Unfettered free agency" means that the cheque book rules the competition.
Please stop hijacking this thread with your opinions on limited free agency.
Thanks.
Dynamics
Cancelled
- Jul 23, 2007
- 6,791
- 11,875
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
This is the fundamental flaw that the AFL simply believes is worth tolerating in order to serve what they see as the greater good of the competition.
It must be immensely frustrating for players to be so powerless within the current set-up and you just can't deny that fact. You can support the lack of any form of free agency, but to deny that it prevents players from doing what so many of us take for granted - plying our trade with whom we see fit - is to ignore a pretty basic flaw in the system. It should AT LEAST be acknowledged, if not rectified.
Wally Carter
Cancelled
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #91
That is complete rubbish.
Ball has nominated his price and whoever picks him up must pay that price. How is that denying him his right to "ply his trade"?
The day players get to choose where they can ply their trade is the day the draft and the competition become redundant.
Your comments seems like just another Collingwood/Ball sour grapes post to me.
- Banned
- #92
What do you do Wally?
Let's suppose your employer was shafting you, and you decided to leave. Now, instead of getting to work where you want, you go into a pool, and after the "draft" are told you have to go work in Broome. Quite happy with that, are we?
The entire way you framed this thread is laughable, as are your attempts to shut down anyone who wants to launch into a reasonable discussion of FA rather than the "CHEQUEBOOKS or NOTHING!111" bs you've set up.
Free Agency, set up correctly (i.e. with a salary cap), actually improves the equality of the competition as players are better able to realise market value and so strong clubs have to work harder to remain strong. This has been proven in myriad other sports.
Scaremongering works better when there aren't countless counter-examples to immediately debunk your theory.r
I'm aware of that, but the distinction needs to be made from discussing that person's opinion on what constitutes as "uncompetitive" and your response regarding who makes the 8 and how that relates to free agency. Completely different points.
Just quietly, this Wally guy has been more or less anti-Collingwood for the sake of it whenever possible from what I've seen. I'd just ignore it.
JeffDunne
TheBrownDog
Sorry, my bad. I shouldn't let the Chicken Little's frustrate me.
In fairness though, I had already given my opinion on the thread topic.
Wally Carter
Cancelled
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #96
I am an artist.
There are two sides to that argument.
What other industry could get you 35-40% per annum above your market value and have competing interests fighting over you?
Relocation is the trade off for naming your price and getting 150,000 per annum above your real value.
Who wouldn't go to Broome for 40% more spondooly? I'd be on the plane tonight.
This isn't a moderate discussion on free trade policy, it is a hypothetical discussion on unfettered free trade. Sharpen up your english comprehension skills or start your own thread on a limited free trade.
Wally Carter
Cancelled
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #97
No worries Jeff, I just don't want this getting too far off topic and there are a million other threads dealing with limited free agency.
- Banned
- #98
Your real market value is what the market (i.e. the teams) are prepared to pay. Sharpen up your economics skills.
Inane scaremongering is what it is.
Wally Carter
Cancelled
Is that the same "basic human right" that seems to stop players asking the clubs for 2 yr deals instead of the guaranteed security of 3,4 or even 5 yr deals that they all ask for and chase ?
Works both ways matey.
What u seem to forget is that to actually excercise that "basic human freedom" to choose your place of employment is that they must want you in the first place. In the world away from footy u dont just say "i want to work for BHP and get paid more"...they actually must want you in the first place.
Of course the alternative if you're not happy with your place of employ is to resign.
Funny u dont see many players willing to excercise that "basic human freedom" and sacrificing their income and not being a disgruntled and expensive salary cap burden.
Right now if you feel that strongly about leaving any club u can always just leave..u can tell them u want to go to collingwood for instance no problem at all.
What u need tho is for Collingwood to actually want you enough thats all..same as any new employer. In Luke Balls's case this yr obviously Collingwood didnt want him enough...didnt seem too keen on the bloke..certainly not enough to get him there. Same with Ryan Okeefe last yr...obviously noone was interested enough.
Sure tho...they'll all hope and try to snap em up if cheap or free but dont blame the AFL or the current system for that...thats purely the CLUBS trying to get something for next to nothing...and a sign they arnt keen enough on the player to pay the price. Afterall they get fresh assets to trade every yr plus a 40 man list that cant all be champions. Not exactly difficult to get a bloke if you TRULY want him. NO shortage of things to trade is there. The good ones always seem too cost a bit more too..funny that.
I think what some people must see as a basic human freedom is the impossibility of being unemployed as a player...plus the retention of longish contracts...plus being able to shaft the club at any time...plus more money ...plus the ability to just go anywhere anytime chasing a few extra bucks more u feel a tad poorly.
Similar threads
