Unfettered Free Agency

[mdc]

Bollox, you're taking the piss, surely.

If I want to go work for BHP, I can go apply. BHP do not have to offer anything to my current employer for me to do so. I can ask for a 2,3 or 17 year contract if I wish. It's up to BHP to reject it. Collingwood have accepted Ball's request for a 3 year deal at 500/500/200 or whatever it is. In the real world, Luke Ball would now be working for Collingwood.

The rest of your post is on equally flimsy ground. Contract length, money, etc is all really at the clubs' prerogative. If no-one had offered McPhee 3 years, he wouldn't have gotten 3 years, no matter how much he wanted it. That's called a free market.

The fundamental flaw in yours and other anti-FA arguments is that you view players as assets; a POV which would be nonsensical in any other industry.

 

[Bollox]

What's funny these days is that everyone still dreams about getting to play footy at the very top level...to be good enough is one thing but to actually make it and be picked up by one of only 16 clubs in the country is a huge thing.

You even get offered guaranteed money if you're good enough. You break your leg you get paid...u stay injured for 3 yrs you get paid.

Its a pretty good deal really. You fulfill your dream and get paid pretty well for it...guaranteed money.

I'd have a hard time though convincing my employer to keep paying me for no work.

Maybe there's a trade off...how about giving the clubs the ability to just cut a player for no reason and not pay them ...coz they dont want them anymore for any reason they like including long term injury. Think the players would go for that ?

Even when u get to the pinnacle there's always people who want for more...or think there's more honour in a dollar than playing the game.

Dont change something that aint broken...simply ask your club why they didnt want the player enough to pay the going price.

 

[mdc]

What's funny these days is that everyone still dreams about getting to play footy at the very top level...to be good enough is one thing but to actually make it and be picked up by one of only 16 clubs in the country is a huge thing.

You even get offered guaranteed money if you're good enough. You break you leg you get paid...u stay injured for 3 yrs you get paid.

Its a pretty good deal really. You fulfill your dream and get paid pretty well for it...guaranteed money.

I'd have a hard time convincing my employer to keep paying me for no work.

More nonsense.

Firstly, the process of rehabbing often involves more "work" than actually training/playing.

Secondly, if you got injured on the job rendering you incapable of working, you would receive disability compo (roughly equal to 2/3rds salary in the short term iirc). And companies where injuries are commonplace would certainly have insurance, as do AFL clubs.

Thirdly, no company in the real world can sack you when you're on a contract without pay any more than an AFL club can.

I sense a lot of bitterness at the money AFL players make, but not a lot of sense. Just because it's a dream to play AFL, doesn't give the clubs the right to exploit it ruthlessly.

 

[jihg]

To those who say the salary cap will stop rich clubs don't be naive enough to not believe that the next thing on the AFLPA agenda will be increasing the salary caps or removing them altogether because they restrict the earning potential of their members.

Also back in the 70's there was a form of free agency and if I recall correctly in North Melbourne's first premiership in 1975 4 players were purchased under this giving rise to claims they brought their first premiership under those rules also don't think the rule lasted long.

 

[Bollox]

Bollox, you're taking the piss, surely.

If I want to go work for BHP, I can go apply. BHP do not have to offer anything to my current employer for me to do so. I can ask for a 2,3 or 17 year contract if I wish. It's up to BHP to reject it. Collingwood have accepted Ball's request for a 3 year deal at 500/500/200 or whatever it is. In the real world, Luke Ball would now be working for Collingwood.
The rest of your post is on equally flimsy ground. Contract length, money, etc is all really at the clubs' prerogative. If no-one had offered McPhee 3 years, he wouldn't have gotten 3 years, no matter how much he wanted it. That's called a free market.

The fundamental flaw in yours and other anti-FA arguments is that you view players as assets; a POV which would be nonsensical in any other industry.

When u advocate change u need to present arguments for it.

It aint a Nelson Mandela freedom conferance. There is only one AFL and its the pinnacle of the sport...you dont like the way they do things then go play something else...just dont sign the contract.

The players all decided they wanted to be a part of this competition the way it is...they decided they wanted to be well paid under the system the way it is...afterall they signed and accepted the security this system gives them...they enjoy the perks that come with the contracts...they enjoy the fact they can even disappoint or be injured yet still get paid the same.

Its an entertainment business pure and simple...the AFL calls the shots and if you want something else then you are quite welcome to excercise your "basic human freedom" to go play in another competition.

Funny u dont see many excercising that basic human freedom...perfectly happy to sign the contracts because they want to play in THIS competition. Well u can if you;re good enough...and you can go to another club if they want you enough.

Hellishly free and simple comp the guys have these days...good security...good money. I guess its no surprise all that compromise and progress in player rights and remuneration would only lead to a desire for more.

 

[DeanoT]

When u advocate change u need to present arguments for it.

Simple. The current arrangements are unlawful. That sufficient for you ? The AFL knows it is getting away with murder at the moment, and will concede on this issue in future.

It aint a Nelson Mandela freedom conferance. There is only one AFL and its the pinnacle of the sport...you dont like the way they do things then go play something else...just dont sign the contract.

And there are 16 clubs you can play for. Current arrangements prevent you from playing for your club of choice, even if this club agrees to employ you. Only in professional sports is this allowed to happen.

The players all decided they wanted to be a part of this competition the way it is...they decided they wanted to be well paid under the system the way it is...afterall they signed and accepted the security this system gives them...they enjoy the perks that come with the contracts...they enjoy the fact they can even disappoint or be injured yet still get paid the same.

Most players are not as well paid as everyone thinks. The elite 6 players or so chew up a substantial amount of the salary cap. Fringe players, junior players, etc get paid very little compared to the commitment required, risk of permananent injury. The average career is 4-6 years, and don't earn Judd-like salaries.

Its an entertainment business pure and simple...the AFL calls the shots and if you want something else then you are quite welcome to excercise your "basic human freedom" to go play in another competition.

Absolute rubbish. Entertainment or not, you still have to operate within the law. AFL knows its current arrangements can not last, and will negotiate with the AFLPA in regard to introducing free agency during the next round of negotiations.

Funny u dont see many excercising that basic human freedom...perfectly happy to sign the contracts because they want to play in THIS competition. Well u can if you;re good enough...and you can go to another club if they want you enough.

That is the point, you can go to another club, but not the one of your choice. Restraint of trade every day of the week.

Do you have any other pointless and irrelevant arguments you wish to make on the matter ?

 

[SweetLeftFoot]

Armageddon paranoia board.

It's funny how most other sporting competitions around the world operate under a completely free market yet still don't have most of their teams going under. Yet if you brought it in here, somehow all these teams would fold.

I'm not suggesting it would be a good thing, but it would be nowhere near as bad as some of you say.

Lies.

In British football, Leeds United went from playing in a Champion's League semi final to effective bankruptcy within a few years and dropped savegely down three divisions. For an example, imagine Carlton playing not just the VFL, but the FDFL or similar within three/fours years of their early 00's financial issues.

Southampton went from secure Premier League status to semi bankrupt strugglers. Portsmouth are rooted. Hull City are bankrupt and in dire straits.

In Scotland, Rangers, one of the biggest clubs in Europe are effectively bankrupt and will see a fire sale of their players in Januray dictated by the bank. When Setanta went under, it slashed huge amounts of revenue from smaller clubs and sees them all struggling for survival.

In England, the unfettered free agency system has led to the ruin of the game as a 'sport'. It is content now. There have been two results of this. One is that the only way a club can compete is to have the backing of a fabulously wealth individual or to load the club with debt.

So now we have the spectacle where Chelsea are run by a gangster who literally made his money in Russia by stealing state assets and pushing tens of millions into desperate life shortening poverty. Then you have the example of Liverpool/Man U where rich individual borrow huge amounts at high rates then load this onto the club. I don't have the exact figure to hand, but I'm confident the Glazers pay more just to service their loan on Man U than the entire salary caps of all AFL teams combined.

There is the other model of the likes of FC Barcelona - the fan owned and run
team - but that operates in a different political and cultural mileiu to ours.

English football is also now basically beholden to Murdoch. AS Scottish football was holed below the waterline when Setanta went under, now if Sky reduced its money, clubs would fall over within weeks.

And as the locus of football popularity moves to La Liga - witness the inability of English clubs to compete with Real and Barca in the transfer market of late - so the value of those rights is declining. Thus leaving the club perislously exposed.

The major world sports that are successful and stable are NFL and NBA. Which have drafts, salary caps and restricted free agency. Like ours.

So apart from all that, you were almost right. Not.

 

[mdc]

The major world sports that are successful and stable are NFL and NBA. Which have drafts, salary caps and restricted free agency. Like ours.

Right, except for the restricted free agency part!

 

[Wally Carter]

Whoa, Lefty, that's one of the finest pwnings I have ever seen on the main board.

Kudos.

 

[SweetLeftFoot]

Unfettered free agency would lead to private ownership.

Membershp based clubs would die.

There would be franchises owned still by state leagues but for the most part clubs would end up in the hands of private ownership.

In this scenario large memberships might actually lead to a long painful death. The clubs put under the most financial pressure first would be the first to fall into private hands. A Richard Pratt type figure could very quickly price teams reliant on members out of the market.

Common sense and the law of averages suggests the bigger the club the more likely a Pratt will exist and the more attractive a target they would be. But the larger the club the more difficult it would be to aquire them.

On this I entirely agree. And you get, as football in the UK has shown, some fairly unsavoury characters emerging.

Its rarely recalled but a huge feature of the Melbourne/Hawthorn merger was the involvement of Crown Casino.

Crown were lined up to be the key sponsor and there were going to be all kinds of merchadising etc tie-ins.

Now I'm not big fan of Crown but as it is, the place is entirely legal and nobody forces anyone to go there.

My point I suppose is that the merged entity was effectively to be an arm of the casinos marketing operation far above and beyond what a normal sponsorship does.

In the world you are describing, you could expect that x 1000

 

[jonoman89]

AFL equalisation policies have gone too far IMO. I dislike it how it takes a mini miracle for a team to win more than one flag without going through a dramatic rebuild.

From 2001-03 the Lions had a 15% bonus for their TPP, so you can't count that as showing a real cap allows dynasties. The only clubs to win multiple premierships in the 1990-2009 period under a fair cap without a major rebuild are North, Adelaide and Geelong all with 2 a piece. That's a bit rediculous IMO.

However, i would also dislike it to go back to the 70s VFL era where only three clubs had any chance of winning a flag.

There needs to be some form equalisation, of course. But i don't think it's the right thing to do to make the competition a completely level playing field. In essence, it's an artificial competition. Everyone operates on a handicap, meaning a club with every capacity to win big still has a chance to receive nothing. I don't think that's right.

My ideas:

- (1) Increase the salary cap by around 6% $7.7m to $8.1m (AFLPA would be wrapped and would obviously support it...would also enable financially successful clubs to have a higher quality list but without giving them an enormous advantage over others)

- (2) Reduce the minimum salary cap payment from 92.5% to 87%. Minimum TPP would be $7.1m, maximum $8.1m. This would create a $1m buffer between the richest and poorest clubs. Currently there is only a $600k buffer)

- (3) Enable free agency to any player who has been at the same club for 5 seasons. Compensation comes through draft picks in trade week as per usual. (introduces limited free agency and would work in tandem with rich clubs spending money to poach these players)

-----------------------

I think those three changes would not see any clubs go broke (the minimum total player payments of each club would be the same minimum $7.1m sum clubs had to pay in 2009). However, the $1m buffer (an increase of $400k) would allow the strongest club to have say one more superstar on their list compared to the poorest club.

 

[Wally Carter]

- (3) Enable free agency to any player who has been at the same club for 5 seasons. Compensation comes through draft picks. (introduces limited free agency and would work in tandem with rich clubs spendig money to poach these players)

Nobody would ever bother drafting a ruckman.

However, the $800k buffer would allow the strongest club to have say one more superstar on their list compared to the poorest club.

Which would in effect keep the poorer club poor, ad infinitum.

Why bother with a salary cap at all then?

 

[SweetLeftFoot]

Right, except for the restricted free agency part!

True, but my point is essentially they DON'T have unrestricted free agency.

What's happened in Europe now that effectively clubs with along and massively proud and succesful history like Ajax in Holland or Aberdeen in Scotland - teams that have won European trophies when money was not such a factor are effectively relegated to being feeder clubs.

There's another element too. It's boring and its tasteless. For example, I'm debating whether to go and watch Liverpool v Man City in two hours.

Liverpool have among the proudest histories of any sporting club in the world. A team associated with the dockside working class culture of that city. Now owned by two American entrepreneurs who are at each other's throats and who can't afford to build a new stadium because of their debt levels. They are literally holding the team back to line their own pockets.

Man City, another proud club that was always the 'good' side in England's second city. are owned by theocratic despots who have basically bought them to have a bit of an entree into polite English society. And the fact that they have limitless cash means that some of the fun is taken out of any win. Its hollow.

I don't want footy to become hat.

 

[mdc]

No, I agree with you entirely on the soccer model SLF; it's responsible for my abandoning league soccer altogether (even though I quite like the game)...it is, as you say, completely hollow.

But such a system has never been proposed for the AFL, and will never be instated. The key difference which makes any such comparison void is that AFL, like NBA and NFL, is a one-league sport, so movements between leagues aren't a threat. Therefore you can happily implement a hard cap and other restrictions without worrying about players escaping to rival leagues.

Moreover, there's no actual benefit to players from the abolition of a cap, especially in the long-term, so it just would never be on the cards here.

p.s. I also do not wish footy to become hat.

 

[jonoman89]

Nobody would ever bother drafting a ruckman.

Post has been edited Wally.

True, the 5 year gap may make it hard for clubs to see the value of drafting young KPP. But how else are we going to incorporate free agency? It's going to come one way or another, and i think 5 years is a long enough period for potential 'flight risks' to become attached to their club and city.

Which would in effect keep the poorer club poor, ad infinitum.

Why bother with a salary cap at all then?

Currently there is a possible $600k gap between the lowest and highest paying clubs. $1m would only increase this by $400k, the price of oe pretty good player. It really isn't that much of an advantage, but i think it's fair.

You need to set a firm cap otherwise we will have an EPL situation where club a pays $100m per year and the other $10m.

 

[SweetLeftFoot]

No, I agree with you entirely on the soccer model SLF; it's responsible for my abandoning league soccer altogether (even though I quite like the game)...it is, as you say, completely hollow.

But such a system has never been proposed for the AFL, and will never be instated. The key difference which makes any such comparison void is that AFL, like NBA and NFL, is a one-league sport, so movements between leagues aren't a threat. Therefore you can happily implement a hard cap and other restrictions without worrying about players escaping to rival leagues.

Moreover, there's no actual benefit to players from the abolition of a cap, especially in the long-term, so it just would never be on the cards here.

p.s. I also do not wish footy to become hat.

Indeed, but my understanding is this thread is a bit of a thought experiment of what unfettered free agency would look like.

It will never happen as you say, if only because the AFL knows it would kill the goose that lays the golden eggs.

 

[seanoff]

unfettered would be silly in the extreme, don't think anyone wants that. It would end up like the EPL. La Liga etc with a few clubs at the top end and the rest scrabbling for scraps.

Restricted FA, with players allowed limited movement after X yrs and unrestricted movement after Y years is very likely and much fairer on the people who actually provide the entertainment.


my thoughts is X = 5yrs and Y = 8 yrs. If your drafted as an 18yo, you're 26 when you become a FA.

after 5 yrs, the club has to offer you a set amount, any number below that amount, you can negotiate with whomever. after 8 yrs, you're free.

leave the salary cap alone and the draft.

 

[Crow-mo]

Couldn't agree more.

Whenever this is mentioned there's the usual blabber about privacy and 'would you like your salary published' - and that's from the AFLPA!

If you ever wanted an example of how this organisation doesn't represent it's members best interests then look no further than this issue.

Publishing salaries would ensure all footballers are better able to achieve their true market value. THat alone should be enough incentive for the AFLPA to push for it.

yup.

this was one of the single greatest sea-changes instigated by the MLB players union, back when they were trying to get out from under the paternalistic oppression of the old school owners.

what would happen is a player would come out of contract, and due to the reserve clause unable to move a new club, and would be offered 20 grand per year. he and his manager would say we want 40, and then the owner would say awww, you can't have 40, old bob, the star pitcher is only on 35 - you're not saying you deserve more than ol bob are you? and so the player would accept 25, and feel good.

that ol bob, was on 125 was neither here nor there

lets say, Luke Ball hit free agency. his manager meets half a dozen clubs, and all the clubs know he is available for 600K. mysteriously he publicly signed for 300K at collingwood - the entire market know for sure, that something is odd.

same with when any player signs for considerably below the market...

it won't take long for the public appreciation of the sophistication of the market to catch up, and it self regulates.

 

[Crow-mo]

You and others are missing my point. I am asking what would the competition be like if it was ruled by the cheque book.

I agree that the system is working and if anything, off field payments should be scrutinised more closely by the AFL.

no your point isn't worth discussing.

FA won't increase total spend, and the removal of all controls won't happen - so what is the point.

what's more all off field payments are scrutinised heavily.

 

[Crow-mo]

And I'd rather wear the restraints we have in place than end up with a farcical "competition" like the English Premier League.

and this is the problem with debates like this, how few people know what they're talking about.

the farcical EPL is the singular most popular, successful, sporting league in the world.

 

[Crow-mo]

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.

what rock are you living under? I've never heard anyone suggest there isn't actually a problem before.

the players are livid, the AFLPA are threatening unprecedented action, and the AFL itself acknowledges that something will have to be done.

but you don't think there is a problem, maybe not in your living room there isn't but elsewhere...

 

[Crow-mo]

I am an artist.

ah yes, those economically and financially attuned artists!

What other industry could get you 35-40% per annum above your market value and have competing interests fighting over you?

exhibit A.

this is not what happens to footy players, their earning ability is significantly hampered, and they earn considerably below market value.

 

[Wally Carter]

no your point isn't worth discussing.

It's my thread, I set the parameters.

Take your clown act somewhere else.

 

[Crow-mo]

Lies.

except its not. the biggest problem with your rant, is how little of it is actually true - or at best, withholds critical information.

in your examples, its not the league or league set up that has anything to do with the issues you've cited.

poor management.

what's more, unfettered FA has been around a lot longer than these recent examples you cite.

the biggest issue, the most successful and popular league in the world has is the crazy relegation system that doesn't allow for continuity of economic planning.

In British football, Leeds United went from playing in a Champion's League semi final to effective bankruptcy within a few years and dropped savegely down three divisions. For an example, imagine Carlton playing not just the VFL, but the FDFL or similar within three/fours years of their early 00's financial issues.

that was down the mismanagement of ridsdale and co. and their particular financial wizardry of leasing players, not buying them.

Southampton went from secure Premier League status to semi bankrupt strugglers. Portsmouth are rooted. Hull City are bankrupt and in dire straits.

you left out Bradford.

but other than hysterical raving, what's your point. FA has nothing to do with the situations of these clubs, other than they spent more than they had, chasing the TV dollars available in the top flight.

In Scotland, Rangers, one of the biggest clubs in Europe are effectively bankrupt and will see a fire sale of their players in Januray dictated by the bank. When Setanta went under, it slashed huge amounts of revenue from smaller clubs and sees them all struggling for survival.

speaking of economic mismanagement, c'mon down David Murray. Celtic are doing fine are they not?

Rangers have been badly managed for years, relying on the benevolence of the banks to keep extending them loans. when Rangers go under Lloyds will be the new owner.

Typical Scots, like to spend like they are one of the big boys but aren't.

In England, the unfettered free agency system has led to the ruin of the game as a 'sport'. It is content now. There have been two results of this. One is that the only way a club can compete is to have the backing of a fabulously wealth individual or to load the club with debt.

speaking of lies, misunderstanding, and unsubstantiated rhetoric.

this just isn't true, and you've presented no evidence of this. its well known outside of Scotland that TV money, parachute payments, relegation and short term boom and bust economic planning has encouraged tin pot chairman to pretend they are big clubs.

using your own example, in what world are Southhampton, Portsmouth, Hull etc premier league clubs? nor is middlesborough amongst others. these are tiny clubs with ideas above their station, relying on the TV monies that come their way to fund the transfers that will keep them in the top flight.

this is poor management from small clubs, nothing to do with the transfer system.

So now we have the spectacle where Chelsea are run by a gangster who literally made his money in Russia by stealing state assets and pushing tens of millions into desperate life shortening poverty. Then you have the example of Liverpool/Man U where rich individual borrow huge amounts at high rates then load this onto the club. I don't have the exact figure to hand, but I'm confident the Glazers pay more just to service their loan on Man U than the entire salary caps of all AFL teams combined.

I'm sure the last part is true - the TPP to AFL players is very low.

English football is also now basically beholden to Murdoch. AS Scottish football was holed below the waterline when Setanta went under, now if Sky reduced its money, clubs would fall over within weeks.

but SKY put setanta out of business. it wasn't an act of god. it wasn't random, SKY is making a fortune out of its support of the EPL - you only to see the lengths they go to to protect that position.

Setanta's deal is just like the failed ITV digital sponsorship of the championship in England - shortsighted, overpriced, and unsustainable.

its very different for SKY.

And as the locus of football popularity moves to La Liga - witness the inability of English clubs to compete with Real and Barca in the transfer market of late - so the value of those rights is declining. Thus leaving the club perislously exposed.

what focus of popularity shift? you made that up.

the champions league results of the last few years just shows the dominance of the english clubs.

also I see Real are 3 points above Seville at the moment.

The major world sports that are successful and stable are NFL and NBA. Which have drafts, salary caps and restricted free agency. Like ours.

So apart from all that, you were almost right. Not.

you left out MLB and they *ALL* have FA.

so apart from that your post was right about nothing.

nice work

 

[Crow-mo]

It's my thread, I set the parameters.

awww how cute.