Unfettered Free Agency

[Rob]

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

Yet our current system hasn't stopped 1 already going bankrupt and another 3 that would have disappeared but for league intervention.

 

[Wally Carter]

Yet our current system hasn't stopped 1 already going bankrupt and another 3 that would have disappeared but for league intervention.

Surely that is a good thing?

In an Unfettered Free Agency situation there would have been no governing body to help those clubs out.

 

[Rob]

Surely that is a good thing?

Doesn't matter - my point was that clubs are just as likely to overspend in the current football environment.

In an Unfettered Free Agency situation there would have been no governing body to help those clubs out.

Eh? The AFL wouldn't exist?

Although I would acknowledge that it would be harder to convince the clubs that a perennial million dollar plus handout to certain clubs would be a good thing when those clubs are going around buying players.

 

[Wally Carter]

Eh? The AFL wouldn't exist?

That is exactly my point.

Although I would acknowledge that it would be harder to convince the clubs that a perennial million dollar plus handout to certain clubs would be a good thing when those clubs are going around buying players.

.........and the poor stay poor ad infinitum.

Thank god for the current system.

 

[Crow-mo]

Thank god for the current system.

a broke club would say that

 

[Crow-mo]

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.



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 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.



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).



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



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



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?



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



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.



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



Deflection.



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.



Yep.



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



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.



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.



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.

what utter tripe. what's more you spent half an hour of your life, proving you have no reply to any of my points. anyone talking about emotional investments in a discussion about the economics of it all, obviously is flailing or is that failing

though I enjoyed you trying to disguise a lack of substance with meaningless rhetoric like "corporatist/fascist".

 

[SaintsSeptember]

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

If everyone had herpes it wouldn't make it good.
And I hardly think that Andersons comments were an indication of "panic"

 

[DeanoT]

If everyone had herpes it wouldn't make it good.

Cute analogy, not.

The real comparison is to say that other professional sporting organisations find a way to balance the needs of the competition, the needs of the players, while operating within the law.

The AFL considers the needs of the competition, and that's where it stops.

Bookmark this thread and come back to it in 3 years (max), and see what happens.

And I hardly think that Andersons comments were an indication of "panic"

The first thing he mentioned at the closure of trade week was how successful the week had been, based upon the sheer number of (inconsequential) trades which occurred.

A clear indication from the AFL that it was concerned about the Luke Ball situation being a catalyst for free agency, and he was right.

 

[SweetLeftFoot]

what utter tripe. what's more you spent half an hour of your life, proving you have no reply to any of my points. anyone talking about emotional investments in a discussion about the economics of it all, obviously is flailing or is that failing

though I enjoyed you trying to disguise a lack of substance with meaningless rhetoric like "corporatist/fascist".

LOL. That you resorted to the 'haha you wasted your time' argument shows you have lost.

A few final blows while you lay prone and bleeding on the canvas.

The emotional investment argument is key. It is sport. If it was only purely economics, North would be on the Gold Coast, Melbourne and Hawthorn would have merged and so would Fitzroy and Footscray. But it doesn't work that way.

And anyway, I think you'll find even in the 'dry' business world, companies spend billions collectively each year on marketing and research and focus groups to try and find out why customers make decisions they do. People have very strong emotional investments in some brands, products, services and these can be very difficult to break. For footy clubs, its much stronger.

As regards meaningless use of the terms socialist and fascist as regards FC Barca and Real, the fact that you question them shows just how ignorant you are of the mechanics of European football.

Real were the fascist side and still operate along a corporatist model with government backing their loans to invest in players.

Barca operate on a socialist/community based system.

 

[Bollox]

More evidence FA just isnt necessary. When u make changes there must be a need and there simply isnt that need.

Luke Ball asked and got where he wanted. The odd isolated case isnt easy but thats ok.

There's been no genuine NEED to introduce FA demonstrated so why do it.

Not surprisingly u hear the player managers advocating it every chance they get..Connors even had a whinge despite his client Ball getting to the pies. Probably coz he knew there's little reason to introduce it into the AFL and the Ball situation shows its even less now. Huge bonus for his business if it comes in so i guess he'd like the idea wouldnt he.

Cant remember Judd having much of a problem sitting back deciding where he wanted to go...then getting there no probs.

Extraordinarily weak arguments for it with no obvious advantages for the GAME and the FAN. Great for lining the pockets of some tho.

 

[Perry Pie]

More evidence FA just isnt necessary. When u make changes there must be a need and there simply isnt that need.

Luke Ball asked and got where he wanted. The odd isolated case isnt easy but thats ok.

There's been no genuine NEED to introduce FA demonstrated so why do it.

Not surprisingly u hear the player managers advocating it every chance they get..Connors even had a whinge despite his client Ball getting to the pies. Probably coz he knew there's little reason to introduce it into the AFL and the Ball situation shows its even less now. Huge bonus for his business if it comes in so i guess he'd like the idea wouldnt he.

Cant remember Judd having much of a problem sitting back deciding where he wanted to go...then getting there no probs.

Extraordinarily weak arguments for it with no obvious advantages for the GAME and the FAN. Great for lining the pockets of some tho.

I disagree. As an employee I have the right to go and take what limited skills I have and work for anyone who will pay me an acceptable wage. The employer effectively has the same right to employ or not to employ. We can both enter into long term contracts if we want and pay is determined by mutual agreement. If I do not like where I work now, or I think my interest is best served working elsewhere I can get another job - simple providing I adhere of any contracts. Footballers are in essence simply working on fixed term contracts.

The problem with current arrangements is that a player (and its not just the star players) can be prevented from taking a job of choice - it happens. It is simply wrong.

Key in determening pay is what the employer can afford - that is where the salary cap comes in - free agency with a salary cap will be fine.

In terms of young players and the draft - that should be seen as a form of apprentership - where players learn the craft for a specified time (say 5 years), perhaps even with fixed salaries with a bonus for each game played? The player becomes a free agent at about 23 and can make any choice he wants then. I just dont see a problem with this other than clubs will need to treat players better.

 

[H2F]

Can someone tell me what negatives there are in free agency, because I honestly can't find any?

 

[DeanoT]

Can someone tell me what negatives there are in free agency, because I honestly can't find any?

There are none, as long as the integrity of the salary cap is maintained (some might replace maintained with established). It could easily be argued that there are many benefits of free agency to clubs, not just players.

For example, a club at the bottom of the ladder which can't afford to lose 18 games a year (let's say this team is Sydney). Also assume (like current day Richmond), there are lots of inexpensive juniors on the list who you can't justify paying the 92% of the salary cap on. The best way to top up your list and immediately increase your wins, etc would be to poach fringe players from top clubs who can't get the money they deserve. Players like Wojcinksi, Stokes, Byrnes from the Cats come to mind.

The weaker team improves its list, a strong team loses its depth, thereby evening up the gap between the bottom and top teams. Under the current system, a bottom placed team with no experienced players has to hope it drafts well, and if it doesn't has to go through the same rebuilding process 5 years later.

Free agency will help clubs a lot more than some would like to think.

 

[Pure_Ownage]

Can someone tell me what negatives there are in free agency, because I honestly can't find any?

Plenty...when the awesomeness of our competition lies in it's evenness, to even risk losing that so Connors is happy, is a ridiculous risk and a joke. Thus frankly, and no personal offence intended, but your question doesn't even deserve an answer. That said I'll give you part of an answer.....which is that for the young draftees, no interstate clubs will be prepared to draft them, which will reduce their chances of getting onto a list. Most predictable drafts ever they will be.

 

[DeanoT]

Plenty...when the awesomeness of our competition lies in it's evenness

Our competition would be even more even with free agency. See example in my post above.

to even risk losing that so Connors is happy, is a ridiculous risk and a joke. Thus frankly, and no personal offence intended, but your question doesn't even deserve an answer.

Such uninformed arrogance.

That said I'll give you part of an answer.....which is that for the young draftees, no interstate clubs will be prepared to draft them, which will reduce their chances of getting onto a list. Most predictable drafts ever they will be.

Absolute tripe.

So what will interstate clubs do ? Not draft anyone ? Try to convert local NRL kids to kick an Aussie Rules footy ? Draft only the best kids from the local leagues. Idiocy. How will young kids chances of being drafted be affected - the total number of kids drafted is not going to reduce.

Take a look at Shane Mumford. A country kid, got his chance at the only country football club in the AFL, Geelong. They gave him his chance, and he got a great $$ offer to go to Sydney. Geelong couldn't match it due to salary cap pressures, so off he went. The $$ available under the salary cap will ensure players move around.

Geelong loses ruck depth, Sydney improves its ruck stocks, and the gap between the two clubs marginally closes.

Jonathon Brown has had ample chances to return to Vic, with big $$ to return home and he stays there because he wants to stay loyal to the Lions.

Players will do what is in their self-interests, either to stay loyal to the club that gave them the chance to play AFL, or to maximise their earnings because they can't get what they want at their existing club, and they won't care which club it is that gives them what they want.

Not every champion player will take a huge pay cut to play for Collingwood, Essendon, West Coast, Adelaide.

The idea that kids won't want to play in NSW and QLD is unmitigated rubbish.

 

[Pure_Ownage]

Our competition would be even more even with free agency. See example in my post above.



Such uninformed arrogance.



Absolute tripe.

So what will interstate clubs do ? Not draft anyone ? Try to convert local NRL kids to kick an Aussie Rules footy ? Draft only the best kids from the local leagues. Idiocy. How will young kids chances of being drafted be affected - the total number of kids drafted is not going to reduce.

Take a look at Shane Mumford. A country kid, got his chance at the only country football club in the AFL, Geelong. They gave him his chance, and he got a great $$ offer to go to Sydney. Geelong couldn't match it due to salary cap pressures, so off he went. The $$ available under the salary cap will ensure players move around.

Geelong loses ruck depth, Sydney improves its ruck stocks, and the gap between the two clubs marginally closes.

Jonathon Brown has had ample chances to return to Vic, with big $$ to return home and he stays there because he wants to stay loyal to the Lions.

Players will do what is in their self-interests, either to stay loyal to the club that gave them the chance to play AFL, or to maximise their earnings because they can't get what they want at their existing club, and they won't care which club it is that gives them what they want.

Not every champion player will take a huge pay cut to play for Collingwood, Essendon, West Coast, Adelaide.

The idea that kids won't want to play in NSW and QLD is unmitigated rubbish.

Mumford came as a rookie and thus Geelong gave up little to get him (unlike ND picks) so your example is poor.

Of course they won't not draft anyone. They'll just draft kids from their own state, as west coast is doing. Which is fine for some, but if you're the kid from adelaide or brisbane or wherever left, and there's only melb clubs with picks (vice versa) to think that it won't decrease your chances of getting drafted is ludicrous.

What encourages clubs to get interstate players is the knowledge that if that player goes, they will get something of worth in return. Under FA, they get well, FA, in return. So of course it won't be as bad as a club never ever drafting an interstate player, but to think clubs won't draft many many less interstate players than usual is just silly.

As I said, prepare for the most boring drafts ever.

P.S. I never said kids don't want to play in NSW or QLD...I suggest reading my posts before you comment next time.

 

[DeanoT]

Mumford came as a rookie and thus Geelong gave up little to get him (unlike ND picks) so your example is poor.

Of course they won't not draft anyone. They'll just draft kids from their own state, as west coast is doing. Which is fine for some, but if you're the kid from adelaide or brisbane or wherever left, and there's only melb clubs with picks (vice versa) to think that it won't decrease your chances of getting drafted is ludicrous.

What encourages clubs to get interstate players is the knowledge that if that player goes, they will get something of worth in return. Under FA, they get well, FA, in return. So of course it won't be as bad as a club never ever drafting an interstate player, but to think clubs won't draft many many less interstate players than usual is just silly.

As I said, prepare for the most boring drafts ever.

P.S. I never said kids don't want to play in NSW or QLD...I suggest reading my posts before you comment next time.

I read your posts fine, but it is clear that any implications arising from only drating local kids is amplified in NSW or QLD. WA and SA have a good talent pool to draft from already.

Also, any FA model put forward is likely to have a system whereby the losing club is compensated, similar to free agency arrangements overseas, and as such, will not result in the club getting nothing in return.

 

[H2F]

Dean i luv ya...

too tired to answer and wouldn't have done it as well ...

 

[SaintsSeptember]

Can someone tell me what negatives there are in free agency, because I honestly can't find any?

From a pure business logic side, there would be reduced potential payback for a long term development player, so these sorts of players would be less likely to be drafted.
Because it would be easier, top players would possibly become more mercinary in their career paths, and because of the existing salary caps, this could have the effect at restricting the salary of the more average or developing players.
There would be potential to counteract some of these effects by tweaking the Veteran list rules. Earlier entry to the Veteran list would allow the original club to have more ability to pay a competative salary.
A player that is loyal enough to get to the veteran list may also enjoy a longer career, without having to drop their pay to a pittance.