Free Agency

[montasaurus 0]

This morning on SEN, eddy was on discussing the issue of free agency.

He made the point that collingwood would most likely benifit from such a change. however he was very strong in saying that this is a bad idea, it will hurt the weaker clubs and as a lover of football he does not want it to happen. He also cited likely salary cap breaches as a result of the changes.

I wonder if there is a hidden adjenda here or if he is truely a lover of football and concerned for the "weaker" clubs?

I think this one falls under the old, if it aint broke why fix it. Melbourne could well be one to suffer in coming years with a strong developing young list that could be targeted under such rules.

So for Now Go Eddy!

[Gorgoroth 12,950]

I do genuinely think Eddie loves football and would want the best for all clubs, the filth first and foremost of course, but a competition where it ends up with half the clubs folding pretty much due to they can not compete kills the competition and you end up with a premier league style where only a few clubs can compete for the actual cup, the difference being no relegation means there is nothing for the other clubs to fight for (i.e. survival)

[deanox 9,914]

free agency will mean the salary cap is hard to police (currently exceptions like a chris judd bid off are very rare, and as such there probably are not many cases of clubs cheating the cap to 'buy' a player, probably more likely to cheat the cap to retain players, which imo is the lesser of two evils).

free agency will result in a premier league type farce where clubs buy whoever they want. maybe not to the same extent, but i hope our game never gets like that.

[H_T 3,043]

free agency will mean the salary cap is hard to police (currently exceptions like a chris judd bid off are very rare, and as such there probably are not many cases of clubs cheating the cap to 'buy' a player, probably more likely to cheat the cap to retain players, which imo is the lesser of two evils).

free agency will result in a premier league type farce where clubs buy whoever they want. maybe not to the same extent, but i hope our game never gets like that.

I'm not up to speed with this Free Agency movement. Just wondering if someone could help, or if someone can explain the changes to the system if implemented.

You say the salary cap will be hard to police. From my vague view on the topic, what is the use of having a salary cap then, once FA is introduced?

Why is there such a push for it to come in straight after the league becomes 18 clubs? I'm not against change, because sometimes change is for the good. However, when weighing up that our club Melbournefc, decided to to take short term pain (ie just look at how we've drafted) for long term gain, taking into account our financial position. Are we in a inferior position at this point in time with respect to free agency?

Will free agency favour the stronger financial clubs in terms of player movement come 2012-13?

Why the need for free agency? Why the push for it when the AFL National Competition landscape is expanding? Why can't they negotiate for inclusion 5 years after the 18th team has entered the comp? Ie 2018 as a starting point.

IMO, there seems to be alot of uncertainty with not only West Sydney, but the AFLPA's push for better player movement through Free Agency.

[deanox 9,914]

I'm not up to speed with this Free Agency movement. Just wondering if someone could help, or if someone can explain the changes to the system if implemented.

You say the salary cap will be hard to police. From my vague view on the topic, what is the use of having a salary cap then, once FA is introduced?

Why is there such a push for it to come in straight after the league becomes 18 clubs? I'm not against change, because sometimes change is for the good. However, when weighing up that our club Melbournefc, decided to to take short term pain (ie just look at how we've drafted) for long term gain, taking into account our financial position. Are we in a inferior position at this point in time with respect to free agency?

Will free agency favour the stronger financial clubs in terms of player movement come 2012-13?

Why the need for free agency? Why the push for it when the AFL National Competition landscape is expanding? Why can't they negotiate for inclusion 5 years after the 18th team has entered the comp? Ie 2018 as a starting point.

IMO, there seems to be alot of uncertainty with not only West Sydney, but the AFLPA's push for better player movement through Free Agency.

the players argue for free agency, because they feel they should be allowed to work for whoever they want to - they shouldn't have to travel, they should be allowed to pick the best offer etc, like any other worker. i understand that but disagree because football is not like any other profession. the players forget that even though they are professional, the clubs are not. the clubs are run by paying members and a volunteering board of directors.

im not worried about which teams it will favour in the short term with regards to drafting position etc. i am more concerned about the overall affect on the league. why should you be allowed to buy players and thus buy a premiership? it wasn't a problem when players got 10 pounds for a match, but now we are talking obscene millions of dollars it makes a difference.

whats the point of the salary cap? the afl would argue that the salary cap prevents free agency from taking over the market (ie everyone is still on a level playing field, can only pay a total of so much), however everyone knows that the salary cap means not much atm with certain clubs flauting the rules as it suits them. this will only be worse if those same clubs also are allowed to chase whoever they want, without having to trade draft picks for them, or pay them above their value to ensure they slip through the preseason draft.

ie could you imagine if FA was introduced before judd left WCE? carlton could offer him the same deal they did (salary plus visy bonus). he could say yes. afl signs off because it 'is in the cap' WCE get nothing. carlton keep the players and draft picks they traded. the next year they buy warnock again. at this point they realise they need a forward to replace fev. they have the option of throwing money at whoever they want to buy that last missing piece in their puzzle.

what i am saying is that FA will destroy the fabric of the competition we know, and ensure that not many clubs ever win a flag again (just like premier league).

[jnrmac 20,060]

The issue is about workplace choice. Just like we all have. Sure they sign a contract but when that contract is up is it right that the club can 'sell' the player to whoever it wants?

Chris Johnson is a case in point. He was out of contract and wouldn't agree to a 2 year deal when Carltank offered a 3 yr deal. Because we had 'nurtured' him so to speak does he owe us any favours? Is it any different from any of us being trained at a company and leaving for a better opportunity? Scott Thompson the same.

While it works in corporate life I doubt it can work in the AFL. The problem as I see it is that weaker clubs will get smashed because their good players will simply trade up. Look at the useless sport in the UK called the English Premier league where only 4 teams (!!!) have won since 1992

Season Winner

1992–93 Manchester United

1993–94 Manchester United

1994–95 Blackburn Rovers

1995–96 Manchester United

1996–97 Manchester United

1997–98 Arsenal

1998–99 Manchester United

1999–00 Manchester United

2000–01 Manchester United

2001–02 Arsenal

2002–03 Manchester United

2003–04 Arsenal

2004–05 Chelsea

2005–06 Chelsea

2006–07 Manchester United

2007–08 Manchester United

2008–09 Manchester United

Do we want the EPL? Clearly no. Free agency no salary cap etc all ensure the most uneven and uneconomic competition in the world (At least for the other teams!).

At least in our comp teams have a reasonable chance of playing in a GF and even winning (9 teams of won since 1992).

Immediate Priority

1. Fix the Draw

2. Fix the Stadium Deals

The we might have an 'even' competition.

Forget Free Agency

[Flying Cloud 152]

I don't know how it works in Europe but while they have free agency in the US they have one major draw back, players are contracted but can be sacked any time. At any time during the contract the club can end the contract and the player has nothing. I am sure the AFLPA wouldn't want this.

[H_T 3,043]

Thanks deanox. What we don't want is something like this - as you say - to "destroy the fabric of the competition as we know".

the players argue for free agency, because they feel they should be allowed to work for whoever they want to - they shouldn't have to travel, they should be allowed to pick the best offer etc, like any other worker.

On a lighter note. Can you imagine the push for 'FA' among the Richmond players at the moment. Perhaps the likes of AFLPA CEO Brendan Gale and Joel Bowden are looking after the interests of those players at Richmond, who are trying to kick down the door.....

[CarnTheDees 52]

The concept of free-agency is perfectly fine. For those whinging about "its not fair that a club has nurtured a player then he walks away for free", if the club really wanted to retain the player then they would have re-signed them. Remember this is only for players who are out of contract, and they are out of contract because they either want to leave the club or the club doesn't want them anymore (on the terms that the player is asking for).

What it does is it changes the way that players are thought about in terms of their value as an asset:

Currently a club will pay an up-front fee (draft pick or trade) for a player. They then pay an ongoing fee (salary) for the services of the player during their contract. But at the end of the contract, the player is still "owned" by the club (excluding players who choose to walk into pre-season draft) and hence has residual value. So when the player moves club the asset must be bought out by the new club (picks or trade).

Under free-agency, the club is essentially leasing the player from the time that they are picked up. The initial payment of a draft pick for a new player into the league is like a deposit required which then gives the club the right to rent the player's services during their first contract. Contracts can be renewed along the way but once a player moves club for the first time, the initial club no longer has any ownership and so forfeits the player with no payment received. The next and subsequent clubs then effectively leases them for free, with the only cost the ongoing salary. To make an analogy of it, it's similar to the premium that you pay for a "new" car. Once you drive it out of the showroom it depreciates substantially, and when you on-sell the car you can't get back that premium.

This impacts the value of high draft picks, essentially devaluing them quite substantially. Because even though Pick 1 gets you Jack Watts, you might only have him for the first 2 years of his career when he is likely to have least impact. Then he starts to show signs of becoming dominant but the buzzards start circling at the beginning of his 2nd year and the cash offers become immense and he walks away after year 2 with no compensation to MFC. You might end up with an unofficial cash draft, where 2nd and 3rd year players who are starting to show signs of being elite players (Cyril Rioli) and are coming out of contract will have the potential to follow the money with all the wealthiest bidders at their door.

The biggest issue is the salary cap. At the moment there is not a huge incentive to cheat the salary cap, because when you trade for a player you have to give up both money (the player's salary) and football assets such as another player or draft picks. Introducing free-agency effectively takes the trading out of the equation, so it comes purely down to money. Hence the incentive for the rich clubs to cheat the salary cap, because cash is now the only currency required to buy out of contract players, without having to give up picks.

I think that if we ever do see a form of free-agency introduced, it will be highly regulated and will include clauses to do with the age of the player and/or the number of years they have been at their current club.

[John Dee 445]

Workplace choice is a right in professional workplaces, but the analogy does not necessarily hold for professional sporting clubs. If you drive your competitor out of business or reduce them to a niche market at best, that is fine, even laudable, in a business environment ; in a sporting club, it is cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Just because a sport is professional and clubs are businesses does not mean that all things that relate to other professions and businesses should be automatically applied to them.

[old55 23,561]

I would be much more comfortable with the idea if there was some form of compensation for the club losing the player.

Ideally this would be draft picks (not cash). Some formula to calculate the value is required.

Exactly this is going to happen when GC come in and sign uncontracted players so we'll get to see how it works.

I think in that model GC is not going to give up the picks themselves but new picks are going to be "created".

It's probably impossible to fairly set the price for someone like GAJ or Judd but at least the losing club gets something.

In FA generally that would be a key decision - does the acquiring club have to give up the picks or are they "created".

I like CTD's analogy above where draft picks are like a player lease, it makes sense for the acquiring club to have to pay something to take-over the lease.

If the club has to give up the picks then it's really like an enforced trade - the player wants to go, the value is set, the price is paid.

PS. Just a note on Eddie - FA would benefit the Pies and it's great that he argues for the bigger picture on our behalf.

He also puts his money where his mouth is on QBW. Sure the Pies get a great fixture but Eddie has the game at heart.

[rpfc 28,407]

It's going to come in at some stage, so we may aswell do it with a eye to rewarding clubs that lose players.

Restricted after 5 years - salary can be matched by club and player retained.

Unrestricted after 7 years - can go anywhere, club has no power to retain.

Remember, they also have to be out-of-contract so it won't be Davey/McLean/Morton/Watts possibly leaving every year.

In the MLB, those that lose players get compensated with picks determined by a panel similar to the one set-up for the GC17 concessions.

The one thing I would say is that if the players want this, the AFL should push for salary transparency and TPP transparency.

Aswell as Free Agency, the MLB, NBA, NFL and NHL also have their contracts with players open to the public so that light is shone on where the money goes.

I don't think Gale will like it, but if he wants FA he can give us something in return.

[olgreydingo 51]

Its like this, if you dont like noise, dont live next to the airport. AFL is for the fans, we pay the money, we bleed tears when we loose. Some players think they are bigger than the game. If they dont like it the way it is then find another career. The MFC will be smashed in years to come if free agency comes in. With all the kids we develope, clubs will be lining up for Watts, Blease and so on, and we will never get back what we put in.

[deanox 9,914]

great call rpfc. and i think that in light of the visy deals, it should not just be payments from the footy club that are transparent. all contracts which could have some conflict of interest (including sponsorships, media appearances, outside of football work because they all have to be football club approved) must be made transparent, so we can see that player x is getting paid y by company z (which also happens to be a club sponsor) or that 15 players from club a all work for channel p but only 2 players from any other club work for channel p. if it turns out that the owner of channel p also baracks for club a then these sorts of deals need to be scrutinized.

[Einstein 1]

free agency will result in a premier league type farce where clubs buy whoever they want. maybe not to the same extent, but i hope our game never gets like that.

Look at the useless sport in the UK called the English Premier league where only 4 teams (!!!) have won since 1992

Although we often disagree with what the AFL is doing, they're not idiots.

There is a reason why they have been in close communications with the American sporting leagues over the years. They know free agency is going to come in, and they're prepared to deal with it in manner that won't turn the league into a Premier League type farce. The AFL has looked to the NFL and the NBA as a model. Neither league has become dominated by a few teams, and in the case of the NFL, the league experiences unrivalled parity and eveness. The teams that do enjoy consistent success do so, not because they pay the big dollars, but because they draft well and when they do spend, they spend wisely and make good economic decisions on their playing lists. The New England Patriots are a prime example of this. The Washington Redskins, on the other hand, have been one of the biggest spenders over the past decade and have little, if anything to show for it.

Baseball is an exception, there is no salary cap. Baseball is more similar to the Premier League than it is to other American leagues, although poorer clubs do climb up and take a swing at the championship from time to time. Meanwhile, the richer clubs such as the Yankees and Red Sox, spend up and buy the talent that sees them compete for the championship year in year out. In some cases the Yankees and Red Sox pay individual players more money than other clubs, such as the Marlins and Royals pay their entire team roster.

There will continue to be a salary cap in the AFL and it will be monitored closely. In addition to this, the AFL will demand that player contracts become public information and are fully disclosed by the clubs. The Players Association won't like this, but it will be regarded as a must by the AFL.

Further, penalties for breaking the salary cap will be severe. I would suggest that such penalites will make the penalties dished out to Carlton a few years ago look like a light slap on the wrist in comparison.

I don't know how it works in Europe but while they have free agency in the US they have one major draw back, players are contracted but can be sacked any time. At any time during the contract the club can end the contract and the player has nothing. I am sure the AFLPA wouldn't want this.

Player contracts in the NFL are not guaranteed which means players can be cut from their teams and receive no compensation.

The NBA is different, where player contracts are guaranteed. If a player is cut by a club, the club must pay out his contract, or come to some sort of agreement with him.

I think that if we ever do see a form of free-agency introduced, it will be highly regulated and will include clauses to do with the age of the player and/or the number of years they have been at their current club.

No doubt this will be the case. So long as we have a draft and maintain a strictly monitored salary cap, free agency will be fine.

There will also be conditions applied to who is eligible for free agency. As I understand it now, the AFL wants it to be 9 years of service at a particular club before a player is up for free agency. The Players Association wants it closer to 6 or 7 years. I think 7 years is about right.

Free agency is coming and the AFL is prepared to handle it without our league turning into a farce dominated by a few powerful clubs.

[deanox 9,914]

good post Einstein. I still don't like free agency, but in the light you describe it, it isn't as bad as I thought.

I know we are past the point of loyalty in elite football, but there is something I like about following the players for 15 year careers at your club. A prospect that will diminish if FA is introduced. I follow the mfc, not the players, but it won't mean as much if we buy 22 players over 2-3 years for a flag rather than develop the kids into a great team.

Part of football is about legends and records. Legends don't swap clubs for money at every opportunity. Yes some have had multiple teams, but many of the greats have played for their one club and earnt records in that environment.

That being said i can see an argument for a player like Pav to try and chase a flag somewhere, but I wouldn't like it if it was our players running off and leaving us with nothing.

[Einstein 1]

I know we are past the point of loyalty in elite football, but there is something I like about following the players for 15 year careers at your club. A prospect that will diminish if FA is introduced. I follow the mfc, not the players, but it won't mean as much if we buy 22 players over 2-3 years for a flag rather than develop the kids into a great team.

This will still be the case, the successful teams will still grow their own. Sure, a club might 'buy' a big name, this will happen here and there, but good teams will still be built on solid drafting and development rather than just spending up and buying a Premiership.

There will be no Chelseas.

[LITTLE STINGA 1]

It is a disgrace that Gale in the head of the AFLPA. The bloke that wanted clubs like us to die just a few years ago if you wanted to know why Richmond have been a pathetic , selfish bunch of losers for 2 decades look no further than the greedy Gale. Eddie is right we will not be able to compete we are already finding it extremely tough to compete now this will just make matters worse.

[montasaurus 0]

If each club was limited to 1 free agent and tight control on salary of these players then it could work. But why change? what is currently done works and the odd J$dd case will still happen if they want it badly enough. So therefore free agency is nothing more then greed from the top 1 or 2% of players. Like they are hard up for a dollar!

[Ungarie boy 233]

Is this truly about workplace choice? Do all proffessionals have that choice? If I was a soldier in the army or a fighter pilot with the airforce, I beleive my choices to ply my trade would be severly limited. Yes I may be able to find work elsewhere - perhaps another country, or an airline (not sure how you can utilise your dog-fighting skills); but in general there are no obivoius alternatives. There are many other occupations that have restrictions such as the Police force or even Teaching (try landing where you want to for your first job, as I understand it you need to nominate zones). Another choice players have open to them is playing in other football leagues - WAFL, QAFL, Ireland, etc; but like the soldier and the fighter pilot sacrifices must be made, should they not wish to adhere to the employer's (Army, Airforce) rules.

or is this about greed????????

[Nasher 33,615]

Is this truly about workplace choice? Do all proffessionals have that choice? If I was a soldier in the army or a fighter pilot with the airforce, I beleive my choices to ply my trade would be severly limited. Yes I may be able to find work elsewhere - perhaps another country, or an airline (not sure how you can utilise your dog-fighting skills); but in general there are no obivoius alternatives. There are many other occupations that have restrictions such as the Police force or even Teaching (try landing where you want to for your first job, as I understand it you need to nominate zones). Another choice players have open to them is playing in other football leagues - WAFL, QAFL, Ireland, etc; but like the soldier and the fighter pilot sacrifices must be made, should they not wish to adhere to the employer's (Army, Airforce) rules.

or is this about greed????????

It's different though -- in the case of those, there's actually no rival employer. In the case of AFL footballers, there are rival employers -- 15 of them in fact, but players aren't allowed to just walk over to them.

[deanox 9,914]

if the afl wanted to remove the talk of free agency, the simple option is to make all players contracted to the afl, not the clubs, then have the clubs sign contracts with the afl leasing the player for the length of the term.

then there is no rival business. all players play for the afl. the afl leases them to teams based on drafts, trading etc. players are more than free to play for a different code once their contract expires. and simply, the afl just withholds the amount of the salary cap from the annual dividends to the clubs.