Just reading today's Age i see...Player Managers are meeting today to seek clarification over free agency ruling. Could be a very important day. Good Managers who know all the rules and loopholes will thrive, those that don't will perish.

I expect our CEO and legal people to know this environment backwards. Free Agency will make some clubs and break others, regardless of their past standings.

To be a fly on the wall...

Interesting to note from the Age article...A player who has been on a list for 8 years but who is NOT in the top 25% earnings of the list is actually UNRESTRICTED to go on the free agency transfer list if they desire.

That opens the door wide open.

Free agency will be a bitter sweet pill to swallow in my opinion.

It will allow players who are unhappy to get to the club of there choice which is great for them, nobody should be forced to work a job they dont enjoy.

Some clubs will lose players, but they will get compensated for it, yeah i know, but also it will allow clubs like us to recruit the next "mitch Clark" and take the next step.

Lets just hope we use it well, and are successful enough to avoid any major hickups

Deledio saying he wants to play finals ect is the big one, players who have not played finals often for the majority of the careers will wont to and who can blame them...... we need to offer this

Free agency will be a bitter sweet pill to swallow in my opinion.

It will allow players who are unhappy to get to the club of there choice which is great for them, nobody should be forced to work a job they dont enjoy.

Some clubs will lose players, but they will get compensated for it, yeah i know, but also it will allow clubs like us to recruit the next "mitch Clark" and take the next step.

Lets just hope we use it well, and are successful enough to avoid any major hickups

Deledio saying he wants to play finals ect is the big one, players who have not played finals often for the majority of the careers will wont to and who can blame them...... we need to offer this

It is the 10 year rule from '72 revamped. I thought all 8 year players could be matched by their original clubs offer. It reads that this is not the case.

We must start our climb this year...

Edited January 30, 201213 yr by why you little

Our survival depends on us becoming and remaining a club that players want to play for. Free agency can either make or break us.

It is the 10 year rule from '72 revamped. I thought all 8 year players could be matched by their original clubs offer. It reads that this is not the case.

We must start our climb this year...

Hopefully the players also feel a cultural change under Neeld, they will realise that the MFC is more serious imo, when combined with on field success it should be a good formula to convince players (in their own opinion) that we are close to gaining the ultimate prize

Yes. It is ultimately in the players hands right now. The club has reacted in the right way. The players have also got to lift each other. Demand better efforts. I hope they all saw that Tennis match last night!

Our survival depends on us becoming and remaining a club that players want to play for. Free agency can either make or break us.

That it will. This is now the most important off field topic in the AFL.

Edited January 30, 201213 yr by why you little

It is the 10 year rule from '72 revamped. I thought all 8 year players could be matched by their original clubs offer. It reads that this is not the case.

We must start our climb this year...

Yes Wyl , in a some ways it just reintroduces the rules we had before the Draft started up . Except of course no clearance fees and the like . Teams that are regularly playing finals are going to be a huge attraction and teams that aren't playing finals are quite vulnerable . All the more reason that we need to start winning more than we lose .

Also , there's always a way to fit a free agent into your salary cap . Bottom clubs are often paying "overs" to mediocre or average players where as successful clubs rarely have to do this . I've heard also that some Geelong players could earn a decent amount more elsewhere but why would they want to leave ? ( unless of course it's an offer too good to refuse ) ( Ablett )

Some players will move for success even if the money isn't much better . As an example Luke Ball could have got the same amount of money at another club other than at Collingwood . He got what he wanted .

If we play finals this year we might be in a position of strength to bring 1 or 2 free agents in and on the flip side we may be vulnerable in a few years time if we are near the bottom of the ladder .

Cheers

Edited January 30, 201213 yr by Macca

Just reading today's Age i see...Player Managers are meeting today to seek clarification over free agency ruling. Could be a very important day. Good Managers who know all the rules and loopholes will thrive, those that don't will perish.

I expect our CEO and legal people to know this environment backwards. Free Agency will make some clubs and break others, regardless of their past standings.

To be a fly on the wall...

Hmmn, lookout for Carltoon

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ykY8_Ttogjk

& the Essendon Zeros

http://en.wikipedia....ero_N712Z_1.jpg

Edited January 30, 201213 yr by dee-luded

Yes Wyl , in a some ways it just reintroduces the rules we had before the Draft started up . Except of course no clearance fees and the like . Teams that are regularly playing finals are going to be a huge attraction and teams that aren't playing finals are quite vulnerable . All the more reason that we need to start winning more than we lose .

Also , there's always a way to fit a free agent into your salary cap . Bottom clubs are often paying "overs" to mediocre players where as successful clubs rarely have to do this .

Players will move for success even if the money isn't much better . As an example Luke Ball could have got the same amount of money at another club other than at Collingwood . He got what he wanted .

If we play finals this year we might be in a position of strength to bring 1 or 2 free agents in and on the flip side we would be vulnerable in a few years time if we were near the bottom of the ladder .

Cheers

Yep. Spot on. This rule will change the rebuild philosophy in a big way. The long slow rebuild will not cut this.

If there is a fair bit of movement due to free agency ( lets say 7 - 10 players move clubs at seasons end ) then this could inadvertantly open the door for younger out of contract players ( who aren't free agents ) to test their luck in the marketplace .

A sort of "Jump on the bandwagon" or "flavour of the month" type mentality . Clubs could well be forced to do a deal otherwise lose that player in one of the drafts .

We've seen this happen before occasionally but it could become more widespread .

As an example player A ( A 22yo out of contract gun midfielder ) wants out of a club for whatever reason . He threatens to put a high price on his head in the National Draft or pre-season draft unless his club does a deal with the club of his choice . Said Club either gets nothing or does a deal .

He may not be viewed as a mercenary or such like because of all the "Free agents" that are moving or have already moved . He gets "lost in the mix" so to speak .

I may be totally wrong on this one if the AFL have "tied" (non free agent ) players to Clubs even if they're out of contract .

It's my understanding that if you're out of contract you can find a way to move clubs regardless of whether you are a free agent or not .

Cheers

Edited January 30, 201213 yr by Macca

I'm not really expecting many (any?) free agency moves initially but after a couple of years it will start to be seen as the norm. I was also surprised by the players outside of the top 25% being unrestricted free agents as initially I thought it was only restricted free agency and was restricted to the top 25% of earners. Ultimately I can see this forcing more clubs into trade situations which is a good thing as clubs are too reluctant to engage in trades where both sides really win - it is usually only players for draft picks rather than player A for player B.

The clubs will still need to work within the salary cap and this is where the AFL needs to strictly enforce this (including no 3rd party deals). The AFLPA and player managers can argue this is restricting their capacity to earn however the facts are there are already many industries/professions which preclude you from working/obtaining a wage or salary outisde of your contracted employment.

At the end of the day I don't think it will have a massive effect on our game other than to make it easier for a Luke Ball to get to his club of choice without all the stuffing around - this also takes it out of St. Kilda's (in this situations) hands as they can't stop him from leaving and will still be compensated somewhat should he go. The reason I see it having minimal effect though is that most players will want to ensure that their original club is not dudded, such as in the Judd situation where he obviously had a preference to go to Carlton but wanted to ensure the Eagles weren't shafted. It just gives the player greater leverage in the negotiations.

Suffice to say it will be very interesting to see how this all plays out and hopefully we don't see players only wanting to go to the big 6 or 7 clubs to the detriment of the clubs like us, North, Dogs, Saints etc.

I'm not really expecting many (any?) free agency moves initially but after a couple of years it will start to be seen as the norm. I was also surprised by the players outside of the top 25% being unrestricted free agents as initially I thought it was only restricted free agency and was restricted to the top 25% of earners. Ultimately I can see this forcing more clubs into trade situations which is a good thing as clubs are too reluctant to engage in trades where both sides really win - it is usually only players for draft picks rather than player A for player B.

The clubs will still need to work within the salary cap and this is where the AFL needs to strictly enforce this (including no 3rd party deals). The AFLPA and player managers can argue this is restricting their capacity to earn however the facts are there are already many industries/professions which preclude you from working/obtaining a wage or salary outisde of your contracted employment.

At the end of the day I don't think it will have a massive effect on our game other than to make it easier for a Luke Ball to get to his club of choice without all the stuffing around - this also takes it out of St. Kilda's (in this situations) hands as they can't stop him from leaving and will still be compensated somewhat should he go. The reason I see it having minimal effect though is that most players will want to ensure that their original club is not dudded, such as in the Judd situation where he obviously had a preference to go to Carlton but wanted to ensure the Eagles weren't shafted. It just gives the player greater leverage in the negotiations.

Suffice to say it will be very interesting to see how this all plays out and hopefully we don't see players only wanting to go to the big 6 or 7 clubs to the detriment of the clubs like us, North, Dogs, Saints etc.

Good thoughts.

I am not worried about FA.

People are only worried about losing their best players, and they won't be available until they are 26 and you can match the salary, or 28, when they can do what they like.

As for the outside 25%ers - it is for the Dunns and Bates of this world to have a last shot at the AFL after being a fringe player for nearly a decade.

This is a very diluted form of FA and we will still have issues with players (those who don't qualify for FA) 'doing a Ball' and petulantly threatening to pick up their sherrin and go home if they don't get to their preferred club but I think clubs will move past these hollow threats and just pick the best available as this is now a professional business in which the players have won their 'FA' and they can lump the rest of it.

Our survival depends on us becoming and remaining a club that players want to play for. Free agency can either make or break us.

...or do you mean that we can make or break free agency, or at least get it to work FOR US?

........

This is a very diluted form of FA and we will still have issues with players (those who don't qualify for FA) 'doing a Ball' and petulantly threatening to pick up their sherrin and go home if they don't get to their preferred club but I think clubs will move past these hollow threats and just pick the best available as this is now a professional business in which the players have won their 'FA' and they can lump the rest of it.

In the Ball situation......maybe more protection for players who are shafted by their coaches and who want to move on to greater opportunity?

...or do you mean that we can make or break free agency, or at least get it to work FOR US?

A well run smart club WILL get stronger under FA. No doubt about that. Look at EPL.

We have to be really shrewd in the next 5 years. We can be strong but are not right now compared to the top clubs. Trengove signing early was a good start...

In the Ball situation......maybe more protection for players who are shafted by their coaches and who want to move on to greater opportunity?

Maybe if you are 26+, and definitely if you are 28+.

I was merely saying that a 24 year old 'Ball' in the future will still have the same problem and I think the footy world will be less sympathetic to that 24 year old to play any petulant games, the way Ball did.

I'm not really expecting many (any?) free agency moves initially but after a couple of years it will start to be seen as the norm. I was also surprised by the players outside of the top 25% being unrestricted free agents as initially I thought it was only restricted free agency and was restricted to the top 25% of earners. Ultimately I can see this forcing more clubs into trade situations which is a good thing as clubs are too reluctant to engage in trades where both sides really win - it is usually only players for draft picks rather than player A for player B.

The clubs will still need to work within the salary cap and this is where the AFL needs to strictly enforce this (including no 3rd party deals). The AFLPA and player managers can argue this is restricting their capacity to earn however the facts are there are already many industries/professions which preclude you from working/obtaining a wage or salary outisde of your contracted employment.

At the end of the day I don't think it will have a massive effect on our game other than to make it easier for a Luke Ball to get to his club of choice without all the stuffing around - this also takes it out of St. Kilda's (in this situations) hands as they can't stop him from leaving and will still be compensated somewhat should he go. The reason I see it having minimal effect though is that most players will want to ensure that their original club is not dudded, such as in the Judd situation where he obviously had a preference to go to Carlton but wanted to ensure the Eagles weren't shafted. It just gives the player greater leverage in the negotiations.

Suffice to say it will be very interesting to see how this all plays out and hopefully we don't see players only wanting to go to the big 6 or 7 clubs to the detriment of the clubs like us, North, Dogs, Saints etc.

Nicely said. The key will be to keep your players happy and in turn make your club a desirable destination.