Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'rfa'.
Found 2 results
I was very worried about this - the first test of the Restricted aspect of the Free Agency package brought in three years ago. Eventually, a team would have a player that wishes to leave for a contract that they would be happy to meet: Patrick Dangerfield $4.8m over 6 years. If this were the NBA, the Crows would have 'met' those terms and Danger Mouse would still be a Crow for another 6 years. That is how their RFA works. The AFL's version has meant that the club has to trade that player or risk losing him for nothing in the draft - essentially the same as an OOC player like Howe will face if he is adamant to leave the Dees. So RFA in the AFL is meaningless. An avenue for a club to keep a star player on the players terms - the reason why the NBA has it - is mitigated. The players have to forfeit some power in the new landscape or we will continue to have a lopsided competition. They don't even have to forfeit this - I would fight to take away their Trade Veto - that would make the game a great deal fairer. But the players should be careful no to ruin the game they profit from...