Unfettered Free Agency

[Pessimistic]

There were six other poor clubs who were nowhere near it.

All I'm saying is dont expext free agency to deliver collingwood a flag. The last attempt created North and Hawthorn powehouses which kept the best collinwood team for years from winning one

 

[Deefolt]

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.

Lets of course leave out that most of the EPL teams are quite severely in the red, the only ones not i would assume would be liverpool. Chealsea will lead that way again after abromovic is gona as well

 

[Byron_Clanger]

lol i doubt west coast would be one of the big four if that were to happen, we would have to pay a $hit load to get Victorians to come play here

 

[Crow-mo]

Lets of course leave out that most of the EPL teams are quite severely in the red, the only ones not i would assume would be liverpool.

good call, not only are most EPL clubs not in the red, Liverpool however is one that is in trouble because Gilette & Hicks can't afford to run the club.

 

[Perry Pie]

Free agency (where all player and clubs are free to contract as they see fit) would not be a disaster providing a salary cap was maintained. The draft could still work as a system could be developed - for example where drafted players are given a standard 5 year "rookie" contract. During that 5 years the club & player can re-nogotiate an extension and enhancement if they want - its up to all involved.
In fact, free agency may help some players stay in the game because they can go where they want to work, rather than be subject to some sort of glorified serfdom where players are "owned".

In the AFL it is posible to have a salary cap because there is no leakage to another league (same in American Football, less so in baseball). The advantage of a salary cap is that it prevents just 2 or 3 teams from perpetual dominance and stops the worst excesses in club spending as seen other competitions around the world.

 

[Bollox]

Simple. The current arrangements are unlawful.

What a load of bollox...dont read what others type and parrot it as tho its true. Just because people interpret something as unlawful under restraint of trade doesnt actually make it so. You need to prove its unlawful for it to actually be unlawful and to date noone has and no ruling has been made. Just conveniently saying it is doesnt make it so. So currently it is NOT "unlawful" is it...u simply INTERPRET it as such because it suits what u think and is convenient.

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.

No it doesnt PREVENT you at all...it is simply structured in a way that isnt aimed with that as a priority..the priority is the COMPETITION not the wishlists of the individuals that are part of a club. It is designed to be a competiton between clubs, not a competition for individual pay packets and wishlists of the players themselves.

Not surprisingly a professional sportsman's ultimate dream is usually their ultimate paypacket..nothing wrong with that but under the current system that is still the natural reward for natural ability and performance...and makes it easier to go wherever u like and earn more as a result...such as Chris Judd discovered. He sat down and clinically decided where he wanted to go and got there...UNDER THE CURRENT RULES so dont exaggerate the issue or pretend the guys are PREVENTED from going where they like...its a simple matter of clubs paying a premium for sole destination rights...as well as being a system designed to compensate the clubs for losing talent whilst being able to offload lack of talent...i.e designed to be the CLUB'S CHOICE, coz afterall the comp is setup as a comp between CLUBS.

Luke Ball asked to go to Collingwood but unfortunately Collingwood simply didnt want to pay the premium for sole right to him. They must have been happy for him to head for the draft coz they didnt want to pay that simple premium. The aints certainly didnt ask for the workld either. Their choice and Luke Ball obviously overestimated how much Collingwood wanted him. They obviously didnt want him enough so no point pretending he was PREVENTED. If the system PREVENTED him he couldnt have nominated his club of choice in the first place. He and they negotiated and made their decisions and are freen to operate under yet another way he can go to his club of choice.

ALL trades dont need to go through...and there's no need to start bushfires and exaggerate problems whenever they dont.

So its actually total bullshit to say that u are PREVENTED from going to your club of choice...any reason the advocates of FA feel a need to exaggerate ? Right now it is simply a matter of paying a premium to guarantee the destination. The ability of the individual directly assists this and i like it that way....the better u are the more freedom u have because more clubs want you and will pay that premium to have you. Nothing bizarre there...just doesnt reward mediocrity thats all.



The sport relies upon monies generated as a COMPETITION between CLUBS...the individual is rewarded well dependent upon performance but the main sources of revenue are not generated by the individual...its as a group. There is no urgency for landscape change ...nor even a need to invent issues and pretend they cannot be fixed by tweaking the current system.

You dont like it or want for something different then u can exercise your freedom and walk away or seek out any club u like...nobody is forcing anyone to join the AFL are they ? .u can be paid at a lot of clubs. Or is this simply about getting paid maximum instead of the club of your choice ?

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.

I think we all have a pretty good understanding about it champ...u dont need to pretend its some form of secret knowledge or stroke ya wad by repeating it.

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.

More junk by blowhard panicky freedom fighting advocate number 4512. You'd swear he thinks the players are being ripped off or playing in a gulag type labour camp.

Dont bother bullshitting and pretending something WILL happen when it isnt inevitable in the slightest. The AFL has a hundred options open to it...and it still hasnt even offered up these up and the players thru their union can compromise on anything that suits everyone at anytime.

Dont need blowhards bullshitting and exaggerating to us...trying to sponsor ignorance and pretend there's a revolution needed to somehow overthrow the evil Stalinist regime that threatens the rights of so many.

 

[SweetLeftFoot]

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

We shall see.

Having read your post I see that your entire argument is based on the kind of cod free market purist ideology that died as a credible argument once and for all abot 18 months ago when the Premier League Of Banks struck some trouble.

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

So the league having set itself up in a certain way doesn't have to take any responsibility for the results of its actions? Interesting.

poor management.

Poor management within the parameters of the economic constraints they have to operate within. The Premier League did not start off as a level playing field where all teams started off with the same money and the same options, thus allowing a 'perfect world' type economic rationalist theoretical analysis to operate with any credibility.

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.

Ummmmmmmmmmmmm. The only reason they chased the dollars was because the very nature of the FA system meant that to be succesful you HAD to chase the dollars to buy the players to get more dollars to get more TV money to chase more dollars to get better players to get more TV money etc etc.

Its sporting casino capitalism and it always, always ends up in a boom (Champions League semi final) and a bust (where Leeds are now).

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

Celtic are hardly a model of financial magnificence. The point remains though. The unfettered free market has ruined Rangers, and will ruin Celtic too.

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.

Indeed. This is good for the sport of football in Scotland how exactly?

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

Scots are just a few years ahead of the English. As I said - the Premier League lost Cristiano and Xavi Alonso and couldn't attract Benzema or Kaka. Seems the English aren't the big boys any more.

The free market Premier League lost out to a corporatist/fascist Real Mardid model and a socialist Barca model.

Doesn't do your argument much does it?

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.

Yep, again proving my point that unfettered FA is ultimately detrimental to the game as a whole.

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.

So obviously those powerhouses of 100 years ago like Preston North End and Notts County would be dominating now? I see here your own argument ties you up in knots.

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

Even though the transfer system is they key ingredient in their demise?

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

Deflection.

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.

Der. And having attained that position, now that the product they own is losing value - IE the best players in the world aren't in it any more - they will reduce their offer to screen it and the clubs/league will have no choice but to accept as Sky has killed its competition. And with lower revenue, many clubs, even those 'well managed', are going to struggle or most likely face massice crisis. Because of the inflationary effect of FA.

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

Yep.

its very different for SKY.

Yep, because Sky has a level of political influence far and above what Setanta had. Not a level playing field. No invisible hand effect.

what focus of popularity shift? you made that up.

Voting with their feet.

Where does the best player in the world ply his trade now? Spain.

An English club offered Kaka £250k a week and he went to Spain for less. Because he preferred Spain. Same with Benzema. Same with others.

The eyes on screens take a lag but the damage is done. Premier League had the best players and best games. Doesn't any more.

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

They all have RESTRICTED free agency, nothing like what happens in soccer. The various mechanisms have been descruibed above.

so apart from that your post was right about nothing.

nice work

Cheers.

The problem is that you are applying the kind of thinking a bloke called Adam Smith, who I suspect you may have read, and whose birthplace I can actually see from where I'm posting, promulgated.

See, if we were talking about flogging goods in a small contained economy - a village perhaps - then the invisible hand would work its magic.

Even taking it up a few steps, say we were flogging shoes in an economy the size of Australia, or even Europe or the US, I'd agree with you. You maximise your opportunities and bad management of an enterprise would, and should, equal failure.

But a football competition where people have emotional investments is different. It is especially different when the body running the game is a non-profit organisation whose raison d'etre is to husband the game, not just maximise profits at every opportunity.

Given this landscape, unfettered FA is actively detrimental to the game, actively detrimental to the best interests of the game and to the interests of those running it.

 

[daics cousin]

how would the future really look if their was no salary cap, no draft and the cheque book dominated our sport?

I think it would be something like this:

Six or seven victorian clubs could not compete and would most likely drop down to the vfl.

Brisbane, gold coast, sydney and west sydney would become extinct.

Port adelaide as an afl entity would become extinct.


West coast and adelaide would become chelsea and man u, collingwood would become everton, essendon would become west ham, carlton, fremantle and possibly hawthorn would become bromich west albion, middlesborough and sunderland.

The game would lose millions of supporters and the competition would become a joke.

collingwood,carlton, essendon would dominate the competition.simple as that !
Most players in the afl would strive to play for either of those three clubs !

 

[Rob]

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.

Let's see, if every single one of your examples consistitutes a club 'going under' (which it doesn't, given they're all still playing), then that still leaves over 95% of professional soccer clubs in Europe still going.

Which well and truly falls under the definition of 'most clubs', you cretin.

Lies eh.

 

[daics cousin]

I believe most people have not got the full grasp of FREE AGENCY.

If it were introduced,it would come in with stringent measures.
For example .I believe it would allow 1 player from every club to move to their desired destination.However a club cannot rape another clubs players but a player who has been at his present club say for 8 years does have say where he ends up.Simialr to the luke BALL scenario.

Let's say free agency was active now Luke ball wants to play for collingwood!
A deal must be done between stkilda and collingwood to allow ball to move across,not like the way things were handled by Lyon.Making ridiculous
demands to suit his club.Pick 25-30 plus a player was more than fair.Free Agency would give a player a say on here he ends up.
Remember Luke BALL for example honoured his contract ,played for his previouis club for 8 years,therefore honoured his agreement with his previous club so therefore he should have the right the move to a club of his CHOICE to better his career and move to a more condusive enviroment to better his career,not be forced out in the cold,and then is forced to follow AFL guidelines in the hope of getting to his desired club,only to be left at the mercy of all clubs and 90% of the time end up where he doesn't want to be .
Hence the player doesn't fulfuill his potential and the club doesn't benefit from getting the best out of that player.In the end it becomes a lose- lose situation for both parties no one wins.

 

[Perry Pie]

We shall see.

.......................

Given this landscape, unfettered FA is actively detrimental to the game, actively detrimental to the best interests of the game and to the interests of those running it.

UNFETTERED FA is detremental to the FANS (dont care about those running the game so much and some of those would be very happy with FA as there is always money to be made by chaos). The result will be domination by a few clubs with very limited opportunities for creativity and breakthrough for other teams. Would ultimately lead to club ownership with all the risks associated with that (Leeds, Chelsea, Toyota F1, Setanta and so on).

Membership based clubs are the right model for the sport.

FA can easily be fettered by salary cap rules imposed on the clubs plus an appropriate system of contact enforcement.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

A free agency could be controlled to a point by tweaking the veterin's rules.
An older player can be assured of a longer career with better pay if they stay with their original club, since that club can pay them a substantial amount outside the salary cap. The rules for the veterins list could be adjusted if it seemed that too many players were jumping ship for money.

The trouble with nominating a time period like 8 years, is that some players will have put in seven years of good service while others who have developed more slowly may have only put in a few, so IMO a games played basis would be better.

I am not if favour of FA, It will only benefit a minority of the players, to the detriment of others, and to the game in general.

 

[Wally Carter]

I believe most people have not got the full grasp of FREE AGENCY.

No, you just don't understand the meaning of the word "unfettered".

 

[Wally Carter]

collingwood,carlton, essendon would dominate the competition.simple as that !
Most players in the afl would strive to play for either of those three clubs !

West Coast and Adelaide would dominate the competition along with Collingwood. Essendon would be mid ladder and Carlton would be minnows(if they survived at all).

 

[Slattery_20]

No, you just don't understand the meaning of the word "unfettered".

Without goat's cheese?

 

[DeanoT]

What a load of bollox...dont read what others type and parrot it as tho its true. Just because people interpret something as unlawful under restraint of trade doesnt actually make it so. You need to prove its unlawful for it to actually be unlawful and to date noone has and no ruling has been made. Just conveniently saying it is doesnt make it so. So currently it is NOT "unlawful" is it...u simply INTERPRET it as such because it suits what u think and is convenient.

Garbage. The analysis has already been done, by an employment law expert. And an Australian court ruled several years ago that the NRL could NOT introduce a draft in addition to the existing salary cap as this would constitute an unreasonable restraint of trade. The AFL rules don't need to be tested in a court, a precedent has already been set.

http://epublications.bond.edu.au/slej/10/

Read it, and educate yourself. Or do you want to disagree with the analysis of a sport employment law expert do you ?

No it doesnt PREVENT you at all...it is simply structured in a way that isnt aimed with that as a priority..the priority is the COMPETITION not the wishlists of the individuals that are part of a club. It is designed to be a competiton between clubs, not a competition for individual pay packets and wishlists of the players themselves.

Not surprisingly a professional sportsman's ultimate dream is usually their ultimate paypacket..nothing wrong with that but under the current system that is still the natural reward for natural ability and performance...and makes it easier to go wherever u like and earn more as a result...such as Chris Judd discovered. He sat down and clinically decided where he wanted to go and got there...UNDER THE CURRENT RULES so dont exaggerate the issue or pretend the guys are PREVENTED from going where they like...its a simple matter of clubs paying a premium for sole destination rights...as well as being a system designed to compensate the clubs for losing talent whilst being able to offload lack of talent...i.e designed to be the CLUB'S CHOICE, coz afterall the comp is setup as a comp between CLUBS.

Luke Ball asked to go to Collingwood but unfortunately Collingwood simply didnt want to pay the premium for sole right to him. They must have been happy for him to head for the draft coz they didnt want to pay that simple premium. The aints certainly didnt ask for the workld either. Their choice and Luke Ball obviously overestimated how much Collingwood wanted him. They obviously didnt want him enough so no point pretending he was PREVENTED. If the system PREVENTED him he couldnt have nominated his club of choice in the first place. He and they negotiated and made their decisions and are freen to operate under yet another way he can go to his club of choice.

ALL trades dont need to go through...and there's no need to start bushfires and exaggerate problems whenever they dont.

So its actually total bullshit to say that u are PREVENTED from going to your club of choice...any reason the advocates of FA feel a need to exaggerate ? Right now it is simply a matter of paying a premium to guarantee the destination. The ability of the individual directly assists this and i like it that way....the better u are the more freedom u have because more clubs want you and will pay that premium to have you. Nothing bizarre there...just doesnt reward mediocrity thats all.

The sport relies upon monies generated as a COMPETITION between CLUBS...the individual is rewarded well dependent upon performance but the main sources of revenue are not generated by the individual...its as a group. There is no urgency for landscape change ...nor even a need to invent issues and pretend they cannot be fixed by tweaking the current system.

You dont like it or want for something different then u can exercise your freedom and walk away or seek out any club u like...nobody is forcing anyone to join the AFL are they ? .u can be paid at a lot of clubs. Or is this simply about getting paid maximum instead of the club of your choice ?

Simple fact, despite your ramblings, a player can not negotiate directly with his club of choice, he must enter the draft, and be subjected to its randomness. Once with an AFL club, his salary is limited by the cap. If he wants to move clubs, he is again subject to the draft, or his current club striking a deal with his preferred club. Nothing is within the players control.

If a player or AFLPA doesn't like it, they can challenge it in court, and would win every single time. See link above for precedence. Don't worry though, it will never get to court, the AFL will roll over like bitches once GC and WSYD enter the competition, after the AFLPA starts murmurings about legal action and restraint of trade. Watch this space.

I think we all have a pretty good understanding about it champ...u dont need to pretend its some form of secret knowledge or stroke ya wad by repeating it.

In fact you have no understanding of it, giving your ramblings about players being well paid to fulfil their dreams. They are paid peanuts compared to their worth.

More junk by blowhard panicky freedom fighting advocate number 4512. You'd swear he thinks the players are being ripped off or playing in a gulag type labour camp.

Dont bother bullshitting and pretending something WILL happen when it isnt inevitable in the slightest. The AFL has a hundred options open to it...and it still hasnt even offered up these up and the players thru their union can compromise on anything that suits everyone at anytime.

Dont need blowhards bullshitting and exaggerating to us...trying to sponsor ignorance and pretend there's a revolution needed to somehow overthrow the evil Stalinist regime that threatens the rights of so many.

When you start calling AFL entertainment, implying that players are "entertainers" and don't have equivalent employment rights to you or I, you have zero credibility in this matter at all chump.

See if you can deny this. The AFL is the only professional sporting league in the world that I can think of that has a draft, a salary cap, and no free agency whatsoever.

That isn't scaremongering, that is a fact. And you think the AFL isn't panicking. You have rocks in your head.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

Garbage. The analysis has already been done, by an employment law expert. And an Australian court ruled several years ago that the NRL could NOT introduce a draft in addition to the existing salary cap as this would constitute an unreasonable restraint of trade. The AFL rules don't need to be tested in a court, a precedent has already been set.

http://epublications.bond.edu.au/cgi...9&context=slej

Read it, and educate yourself. Or do you want to disagree with the analysis of a sport employment law expert do you ?

Your link didn't work for me, but from your understanding would a club have to support the player in a legal challenge.

For example.

Player wanted to move to club X.
Went in draft and was drafted by club Y.
Club Y subsequently offers player employment. Player has the chance to accept or reject this offer.
Unless club X offers player employment ( going against the AFL) how can player mount a legal challenge.

 

[DeanoT]

Your link didn't work for me, but from your understanding would a club have to support the player in a legal challenge.

For example.

Player wanted to move to club X.
Went in draft and was drafted by club Y.
Club Y subsequently offers player employment. Player has the chance to accept or reject this offer.
Unless club X offers player employment ( going against the AFL) how can player mount a legal challenge.

Have fixed the link error in my post above. Try it now. Open the link, then click the download button and you should have it.

No need for any club to get involved (in fact a club would be insane to do so). Would simply be a matter of an individual player (very expensive exercise for a player to take on the AFL single-handedly), or the AFLPA making a claim of restraint of trade against the AFL in court. A similar scenario is outlined in the link above about an NRL player taking on the NRL in the 1990's.

The AFL won't want a legal challenge, as the conclusion is obvious. It is much more likely to sit down with the AFLPA and negotiate a palatable form of FA, likely after the establishment of the two new teams.

 

[Jade]

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.

Most other sporting competitions don't have nearly a dozen teams competing in the same market - the AFL does.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

Most other sporting competitions don't have nearly a dozen teams competing in the same market - the AFL does.

Which again is a negative of the competition. There seems to be more negative things with our comp now than positives which is a concern.

But crowd numbers and money is up, but I guess you can get kids to watch anything these days.

 

[Bollox]

See if you can deny this. The AFL is the only professional sporting league in the world that I can think of that has a draft, a salary cap, and no free agency whatsoever.

That isn't scaremongering, that is a fact. And you think the AFL isn't panicking. You have rocks in your head.

ya gotta laugh.

the only
"that i can think of"
that is a fact

Yes Yes we know...u arnt quite sure about anything u say...but its a fact of course

...and yeah, despite your inane meaningless rant the AFL isnt "panicking " in the slightest matey.

Got no reason to whatsoever.

Why the hell would they be "panicking" ? lol...dont confuse them with an emotional blowhard like yourself.

Top shelf comedy. Hope u meant it that way.

 

[DeanoT]

ya gotta laugh.

the only
"that i can think of"
that is a fact

Yes Yes we know...u arnt quite sure about anything u say...but its a fact of course

...and yeah, despite your inane meaningless rant the AFL isnt "panicking " in the slightest matey.

Got no reason to whatsoever.

Why the hell would they be "panicking" ? lol...dont confuse them with an emotional blowhard like yourself.

Top shelf comedy. Hope u meant it that way.

Try answering the question. What other professional league in the world has a salary cap, a draft, and no free agency whatsoever ?

Don't worry about semantics, just answer the question.

 

[Bollox]

Try answering the question. What other professional league in the world has a salary cap, a draft, and no free agency whatsoever ?

Don't worry about semantics, just answer the question.

Lordy ..the emotional rollercoaster wants answers NOW !!!!!

hmmm...well shucks i dont know. Maybe some soccer league in the congo or uraguay who knows.

You dont know either...u said so yourself...so dont ask me.

Point is...why does there need to be ?

Are u afraid of being somehow different are u ?..feel a bit left out and in a hurry to copy the mistakes others have made ?

Lemming mentality

 

[DeanoT]

Lordy ..the emotional rollercoaster wants answers NOW !!!!!

hmmm...well shucks i dont know. Maybe some soccer league in the congo or uraguay who knows.

You dont know either...u said so yourself...so dont ask me.

Point is...why does there need to be ?

Are u afraid of being somehow different are u ?..feel a bit left out and in a hurry to copy the mistakes others have made ?

Lemming mentality

Lemming mentality ? Hilarious. The lemming mentality is displayed by those such as yourself who think that free agency equals death and destruction for small AFL clubs.

The point is that there isn't a professional sporting league with such bias against player employment rights. If you read the article I provided you would know that, and have given up your moronic argument by now.

You think the AFL weren't panicking at the end of trade day when Adrian Anderson's first comments were to state that the record number of trades executed was clear evidence that free agency wasn't needed, overlooking the farcical Luke Ball situation. Yeah, it's not really on his or the AFL's mind is it

 

[Bollox]

Lemming mentality ? Hilarious. The lemming mentality is displayed by those such as yourself who think that free agency equals death and destruction for small AFL clubs.

The point is that there isn't a professional sporting league with such bias against player employment rights. If you read the article I provided you would know that, and have given up your moronic argument by now.

You think the AFL weren't panicking at the end of trade day when Adrian Anderson's first comments were to state that the record number of trades executed was clear evidence that free agency wasn't needed, overlooking the farcical Luke Ball situation. Yeah, it's not really on his or the AFL's mind is it

Sorry champ but at what stage did i say i thought free agency equals death and destruction for small AFL clubs ?..in fact i dont even think thats likely at all so why would i type it ? Actually did anyone say that ?..or did u just throw a blanket over anyone who doesnt agree with your mildly paranoid views ?

Your lemming mentality is assuming that what is done elsewhere in other totally different codes and countries will of course work here....u base so much on your own guesswork that we have something unique and that is somehow a bad thing...apparently that is a huge problem needing change to fit in with how others do things.

We have a gulag where the players are bent over and exploited do we ?...thats what u bang on about. U really think they're terribly underpaid do you ?

Even if they are a bit underpaid versus other codes why do you feel that's something bad or needing to be fixed by totally changing the system ?...it'd be a good result all round if the players just get paid more would it ? where's the benefit to the game in that ?...why would we NEED to see that ?...you dont want market forces under the current system to determine a players worth ?..or just let natural inflationary pressures let them go up like elsewhere ?....u just want them all paid more but u really havent a damn clue why its necessary to do so. Greed is a motivation for many things good but is there truly any benefit to be derived from shifting from underpaying a percentage of players to overpaying a percentage of players ?..what actual good will this bring to the sport ? Any idea matey ? I'm talking actual benefit to the end user..the member and fan.

For some reason you're all emotional about this free agency shit and think there's some incredible need for it...and NOW. To the point where u start typing your own versions of what others even think.

Plus i still have no idea whatsoever why some of you think there's some sort of "panic" anywhere...or why this even needs to be fast-tracked. No need at all.

Why do these free agency evangelists also avoid any discussion on fixing the perceived issues using the current system ?...why make sweeping changes into the realms of the unknown before first exploring the flexibility of what u already have in place ?...u just want something different do you ?..something that pretends to be more "fair" or "free" do you ?

Things will be done properly and in due time....in fact the longer u wait the better the model would become at the end. Always good to see the results of other models during bad as well as good economic times...don't u think ?...why the hurry to adopt what others do until u see the full effects of a major economic downturn ?

Surely there must be a reason for what seems an emotional NEED for free agency to come in and save the day. They cant all be just desperate for something shiny and new that wont necessarily change anything for the better in terms of the game.