A bit of alarmist nonsense being perpetuated on this thread.

Yes, the AFL has to be smart when negotiating a form of free agency with the Players Association. But the fear that the league will degenerate into a Premier League style farce, is without basis. Dont fret people, it wont happen. The AFL wont let it happen.

People in the industry eg Bailey and Malthouse - and Mark Stevens - have made public statements recently that free trade is not alarmist nonsense but a real threat.

I hope you are right - that the AFL won't let it happen. But it hasn't rejected free agency yet - and I wouldn't get complacent

Free Agency CAN work because unlike the premier leauge, we have a salary cap, so its not like Collingwood can buy all these uncontracted players because they wiould still need to fit them in the cap. As long as there is a cap the integrity and eveness of the comp shouldnt be compromised.

In the Age yesterday Caro pointed out the emergence of third party payments - like Visy's payment to the country's leading voice on the environment - Dr. Christopher Judd - is weakening the ability of the salary cap to negate the effect of free agency on the evenness of the competition.There are of course other reasons why the salary cap alone will not prevent the strong clubs from entrenching themselves at the top - like the simple desire of players to get to a successful club regardless of immediate salary

The AFLPA are somehow using the Luke Ball saga to push for free agency after 7 years. The fact is that Ball got to his preferred destination - just as McPhee and Burgoyne have done under the existing regime. Yes - it was hard for Ball - but it should be hard. The easier it is for players to prosper without committing themselves to their existing club- the more we breakdown our "tribal affinities" through player movement -the weaker our competition will become.

The players are doing very nicely thankyou under the current scheme. This is one time when I'm well and truly barracking for Adrian Anderson as he continues to resist.

Knowing that Collingwood will benefit from free agency in the short -term - it must be a major long-term problem if Malthouse (and McGuire) have decided to speak against it. I reckon it is ..........

Edited December 8, 200915 yr by hoopla

Knowing that Collingwood will benefit from free agency in the short -term - it must be a major long-term problem if Malthouse (and McGuire) have decided to speak against it. I reckon it is ..........

I think you're right.

If the AFL becomes dominated by a few teams, even if Collingwood is one of them, interest in the game will wane. Severely.

Supporters will drop like flies, especially those of bottom-feeding clubs who know they have no chance of winning anything.

God knows how so many supporters in the EPL manage to maintain their interest in also-ran clubs...

The game itself would suffer.

Free Agency is possible, but a restricted format is needed so that it is possible but still difficult and that is the only way it will work.

Otherwise the game of AFL will go the way of the NRL...

Wilson said FA was inevitable in the next AFLPA agreement which comes into force in 2012, right after the GWS draft concessions.

It seems the battlelines are drawn on:

- AFL want 10 years service

- AFLPA want 7 years service

- AFL want the current club to have the final bid to match the acquiring club's offer

- ALFPA, I'm not sure of their position on this

- AFL want the acquiring club to give draft pick compensation a la trade

- AFLPA want new picks created for compensation a la GC and GWS (or perhaps no compensation at all)

- AFL want to tighten up payments outside the salary cap

- AFLPA say this is not a problem because the gap between 100% TPP and 92.5% TPP is bigger than these payments

Whatever happens as Hoopla points out, it's bad for clubs like MFC - quite frankly this current cycle is a last chance to win a flag and vault out of the "struggling clubs grouping" - it's now or never.

Why is there such a rush regarding FA, particularly straight after the GWS concessions ?

I agree with the last few posts, and whilst usually I couldn't give a continental what the AFLPA push, this one has me concerned. Anything regarding Mfc's future has me concerned really.

Sure, Malthouse is talking sense. I doubt though he would have said it if he was not at the end of his career.I'm sure Eddie would not agree.

One thing though, the best defence against this sort of change is to become a major force ourselves. The club is taking big strides to do this, and in my view there are a number of other things we can do to become dominant in the AFL, on and off the field. Strength is ultimately the only defence against this. We have many advantages, far more than North, Richmond, the Dogs or even Hawthorn. Board continuity would certainly help this, but there are many other areas we can attack as well.

unfortunately the AFLPA realistically looks after one thing only, and that is making the most money, and best conditions for its players.

there is only so much legitimate money around (salary cap), and even though the salary cap increases, the clubs dont seem to have any extra money to spend (ie a lot of clubs seem to be struggling).

if free agency comes in, we will see 5-10 'visy' deals each year not just the occasional one. clubs wont ask for massive amounts of cash for major sponsorhips, they will ask companies to put a star on their payrole as a marketing officer. maybe a young melbourne player interested in a post footy career in IT gets a nice gig with Kaspersky? i am sure they will find lots of ways around it.

If free agency comes into play, players will need to agree not to accept money from outside sources unless its signed off by the afl. and for the afl to sign it off it will have to be media related, or non-sponsor related marketing.

unfortunately there is will be no other way to control the market. the salary cap will not work.

But for it to be worthwhile for the company giving token positions to players, said company must receive some sort of free marketing in return or else they would not agree to it.

In this case it would be blatantly obvious an underhanded deal had been made.

Whether the AFL would decided to police it or not is another matter.

free marketing can come in many ways.

if we wanted to pay a player 100K less to fit them in the cap we could always knock 100k off a sponsorship deal they were already offering. the numbers are not great enough to attract suspicion, not when sponsorships are 7 figure sums.

similarly, if the company is owned/operating by a club supporter ie visy and prat, the club doesnt care about the exposure as it is happy to write it off on tax as sponsorship and consider it a donation.

the rich will get their players, trust me. nothing good can come from it, except for the players pay packets. we might be better off watching the vfl.

FA is inevitable and it will not be the disaster that some envision.

The Salary Cap will see to that.

The NYY and the Dodgers get the best players because they are allowed to pay an infinite amount.

The AFL has the cap, and the draft will only become more of an entity of equality as the best kids become marquee players as soon as they get to clubs as they do in the NBA and the NFL.

And if we cannot keep a 25 year old Tom Scully who has played in a few flags in number 31, then what are we doing?