List Mgmt. Will Free Agency turn AFL into EPL?

[witsend]

It seems the pattern for Free Agents so far is for players with a long history at under-achieving clubs will forego a small amount of potential salary to go to "Premiership Window" clubs. I suspect this will mean clubs like Geelong, Sydney, and Hawthorn will get to cherry-pick disgruntled elite players at clubs like Melbourne, Bulldogs, St. Kilda etc. Will this see the same old clubs realistically competing for flags a la the EPL where really only a handful of teams dominate the top of the table?

 

[Jhye Clark 13]

In short yes.

 

[thejester]

In short, no.

 

[FredLeDeux]

In short, NFI.

 

[SkittleCats]

Whether or not it turns the AFL into the EPL is not necessarily clear at this point given it takes more than 1 or 2 good players to make a successful team.

What i do have a problem with is this notion that elite talent that enters the FA window should remain at there current clubs out of loyalty or commitment to the team blah blah blah. Melbourne ****ed up Frawleys contract that meant he came into FA this year. Why should Frawley, who's played 134 games with Melbourne and only won 38 or so of them stay at Melbourne for the hope of something better? When he can a) get payed and b) find some success at another team. If this means the "strong" clubs get stronger then good, why should players submit themselves to mediocrity when there's the chance at doing something great elsewhere. If teams get there culture and direction right (see Port Adelaide) then players will stay and this discussion wont happen.

The reality is the AFL hasn't had to demand a higher standard from it's clubs because of very outdated trading models which shackles players to there current clubs they might not really want to stay at. This then perpetuates a belief that the team is on the right track because a player stayed when really, the player only stayed because he couldn't move, not because he saw something at his current club that made him hopeful for its future. Players then stagnate and lose interest because off-field, nothing has changed at that club and that's where the problem really lies. With more modern tools like FA now available to teams it will make these bottom clubs get there house in order and that can only be good for the game.

In the end the bottom line for me is simple: FA allows these players to reinvigorate their careers, why should we deny them that chance?

 

[Trent Conheady]

I'm not a massive EPL fan but I think that the balance of power is always going to be more equal in AFL, as the big clubs can't stay at the top as easily as you see in the EPL such as man united, Chelsea, Liverpool, etc.

Ten years ago what free agents would have wanted to go to Geelong, we were skint and were not much different to what the western bulldogs were.
You could also put hawthorn in the same boat when they were close to merging with melbourne all of those years ago

The point I am illustrating here is that teams cannot dominate for as long in the AFL in comparison to the EPL, and it is far harder to stay on top of the ladder. In the nba the san antonio spurs who have been amazing for the last 15 years haven't recruited many players via free agency, so this notion that free agency will make the rich richer and the poor poorer has some substance, but I think people are overreacting just a touch

 

[Stig_90]

In short, more like the NBA. The EPL has no salary cap.

 

[Catatonic Shock]

In short, .

 

[jim boy]

No, a well run club will always rise, look at Port Adelaide who only two years ago were derided as a basket case. Free Agency didn't kill them off.

 

[catempire]

I definitely foresee a situation where there's only a handful of clubs that are always a realistic chance at the flag year after year and the rest need a lot of luck and good management.

I worry about how teams like St Kilda and Melbourne will ever get out of this mess.

 

[Pivo]

There are elements of Free Agency that I think needs to be tinkered with but at the start of a player's career, as a 17 or 18 year old, he doesn't 't get a say in where he goes to play Aussie Rules.

As such, the fact they have an ability to control their careers later on isn't something I have a big issue with.

But clubs, especially clubs at the top of the ladder under the current FA rules, might need to be smarter (more ruthless??) about how they handle their players if they feel a player is going to exercise his FA status.

We're starting to see it a bit with discussions about Dangerfield.

Does Adelaide hold onto Dangerfield for next year and risk losing him for (possibly) less than he is worth if he decides to exercise his Free Agency or does the club strike preemptively to try and maximise their return?

Hawthorn would have gotten more for Franklin if they traded him than they got via FA compensation.

To the wider issue, the EPL (as far as I know) doesn't operate under a salary cap the way the AFL clubs do. That cap does, I think, help stymie multiple, big name Free Agent acquisitions in one year.

As does the fact the clubs must operate with a minimum number of 38/maximum of 40 senior listed players meaning clubs can't shed lots of players to make space inside the cap for Free Agents.

 

[fronkalicious]

Like the NBA? Yes, unfortunately. Kevin love was just traded from Minnesota with a year to run on his deal out of fear he'd be lost without compensation.

 

[Turbocat]

NO
Not an international sport.
Not privately owned teams
Not multiple divisions

 

[Goggin Our Best]

The one thing i like about the EPL - is the relegation/ promotional rule for all divisions

And if a club is run poorly - financially - there is no bail out - like the AFL do

Theve got a rule - where any club - which goes into financial administration - then as a penalty - they get demoted down a division - and start the new season on negative 12 points

Melbourne and Richmond were lucky there was no relegation rule - otherwise they would be in about Division 10

 

[witsend]

The lack of outside opportunities and the draft system does diminish the likelihood, but I think it will make it almost impossible for the bottom Victorian teams in particular to elevate. Let's face it, if you've been shit for the past 3-4 years you've missed the bus because of GWS and GCS and COLA. still have my suspicicions that FA will allow teams like us to cherry pick frustrated elite talent to top us up.

 

[Moggy]

Biggest difference is salary cap, IMO, so that's a no from me.

Also, up until recently, there were no restrictions on how much a club could spend on transfers. Things are changing a little in that regard, but the rich clubs (and we are talking revenues many, many times the biggest AFL clubs) will always dominate.

 

[cynical]

Free Agency will probably kill the game for a lot of fans.

Instead of having a competition where teams have a 2-4 year run at flags teams will have 4-6 year run at flags. The same goes in reverse for teams at the bottom.

What that essentially means is that middle age players and older will look to jump ship because they know that a team takes longer to rebuild. Free Agents will be able to leave 1 year before they are free agents because the club will want to get something for them.

The teams with the best young core (and not too far from a flag) will get all the best free agents

Eg Port has the best youth so it'll get the players it needs and they will probably stay near the top for 4-5 years or until a new teams youth overtakes them.

This will make each season more boring and predictable and increase the gap between top and bottom sides. As the top sides get all the best free agents from the bottom and middle teams.

The bottom sides will only be able to jump up to flag mode if they have a strong enough young core that stay loyal, cos if they get to an age around free agency and they don't look like pushing up the ladder then all the top talent will jump ship.

 

[bulletproof]

The lower clubs have been very slow on the uptake on how they can use free agency. They need to be more creative in the salary cap. I mean in market value, Melbourne playing list would be worth around 50% less than Hawthorn's. They should be blowing them out of the water when a free agent comes available. Money will turn heads if the offer is high enough. Sure people want team success but there will always be the player who wants financial security.

It beggars belief how badly some clubs are run.

Look at Ablett.

 

[cynical]

The lower clubs have been very slow on the uptake on how they can use free agency. They need to be more creative in the salary cap. I mean in market value, Melbourne playing list would be worth around 50% less than Hawthorn's. They should be blowing them out of the water when a free agent comes available. Money will turn heads if the offer is high enough. Sure people want team success but there will always be the player who wants financial security.

It beggars belief how badly some clubs are run.

Look at Ablett.

the problem with lower clubs is that there is a hidden "shit club premium" that they have to pay all their players to keep them from leaving

eg a good club might pay one player $200k, a shit club probably has to pay the same player $300k and a free agent would get $350-$400k from the right club

so while Melbourne should have a heap of money, in reality they don't

they can't make the kind of offers Sydney or GC/GWS can make

by having a high minimum salary cap and making it easier for players to change clubs the AFL have made the "shit club premium" way higher than it should be

 

[troys8]

the problem with lower clubs is that there is a hidden "shit club premium" that they have to pay all their players to keep them from leaving

eg a good club might pay one player $200k, a shit club probably has to pay the same player $300k and a free agent would get $350-$400k from the right club

so while Melbourne should have a heap of money, in reality they don't

they can't make the kind of offers Sydney or GC/GWS can make

by having a high minimum salary cap and making it easier for players to change clubs the AFL have made the "shit club premium" way higher than it should be

Yep, the problem there is that every club also has to pay about 95% of the cap (i think) so again rubbish players are getting 300k, whilst at the better teams they get less

Perhaps they should go back and let clubs pay what they want to each player, if the club only pays 80% of the cap let them.

I think the AFL stopped that as the poorer clubs couldn't even come close to spending 100% of the cap so the AFL changed the rules, gave them some extra cash so they could compete atleast financially.

However is there any point in given rubbish players at rubbish teams more money than they deserve?

I know the AFL then let clubs 'bank' their cap from one year to the next 2 or so. This year pay 95% of the cap next 105% (not sure of exact %) that at least gives rubbish clubs a greater opportunity to compete in the future..

 

[FredLeDeux]

Yep, the problem there is that every club also has to pay about 95% of the cap (i think) so again rubbish players are getting 300k, whilst at the better teams they get less

Perhaps they should go back and let clubs pay what they want to each player, if the club only pays 80% of the cap let them.

I think the AFL stopped that as the poorer clubs couldn't even come close to spending 100% of the cap so the AFL changed the rules, gave them some extra cash so they could compete atleast financially.

However is there any point in given rubbish players at rubbish teams more money than they deserve?

I know the AFL then let clubs 'bank' their cap from one year to the next 2 or so. This year pay 95% of the cap next 105% (not sure of exact %) that at least gives rubbish clubs a greater opportunity to compete in the future..

I believe the minimum spend was a requirement of the Players' Association as a trade-off for agreeing to the salary cap.

 

[Moggy]

I believe the minimum spend was a requirement of the Players' Association as a trade-off for agreeing to the salary cap.

I think that's right, but it is killing the weaker clubs who are forced to pay overs to middling players, which makes a "Buddy" deal impossible for them and puts their mediocre players in a comfort zone they haven't earned.

 

[BlakeyNoFlakey]

I don't think the AFL will ever be as bad as EPL, but FA in AFL will develop further than it is now. That you can count on, because the players will want more and more control. It really is a matter (IMO) of the AFL eventually having to put rules in place that will keep things at a certain level. But what the level will be is anyone's guess at the moment.

 

[you pick one]

In short WTF is EPL?

 

[Whit3y]

lets get dangerfield on a bosman