It's free agency or it's equalisation, i can't see how you can have both

sure financially you can support struggling clubs but there is no lure for good players, the second a senior player at a low side like james Frawley comes out of contract he will leave to go to a premiership contender or chase big money, all this ensures is that the strong clubs stay strong and the weak clubs stay weak

i am a big fan of Delisted free agency, trading without permission and financial equalisation, but free agency the way it is doesn't work, following US guidelines to closely, in NFL and NBA there are alot more superstars to go around.

we have lost 3 senior players who were all leaders and or in our best 22, it's dissapointing that if you added Rivers, Beamer and Sylvia back into our side we'd be much better, Sylvia and Rivers would give us the forward targets we are missing and 3 more senior bodies to provide support for the younger bodies.

The AFL scheme places restrictions on players initial entry into the competition by requiring them to enter via the draft. This means players have absolutely no choice where they may start their careers - both geographically and with respect to the relative quality (on field and off field) of the club. I suspect the threat of restraint of trade legal action which would blow the system wide open was enough for the AFL to accede to the players request for some freedom of movement. Until free agency came in the clubs effectively had control over players - including whether to delist them against the players' wishes. Whether the scheme in place now is as fair as it could be is a separate question, but I think having free agency redresses an employee/employer imbalance and, overall, is better for the competition than the alternative, which would see players going to court to seek their release.

Free agency was inevitable and the AFL had to implement something or risk significant player action. Players want the ability to cntrol their careers and maximise their income and who can blame them. FA is the vehicle for that to occur. The AFL introduced a restricted version that requires players to stay for a significnat time to be eligible to use free agency. This was to protect us and the doggies etc. Unfiortunately it just minimises the damage. Over time we will see a trend of players leaving clubs with limited resources and little success to clubs with an abundance of resources and who provide oportunity to win a flag or at least play finals before they retire. There will be moves the other way for different reasns but over the next 10 years I think the trend will be more away from smaller clubs to the bigger ones. The market will ensure this happens, we just cant offer the exposure, support, the money (we still only pay 95% if the cap) and the success that the Collingwoods can. The club can be as smart as we like and try to maximise the benfits of free agency but ultimately we are fightng against market forces while others are swimming with them.

This does not mean we cant have success it is just that much harder to acheive.

The majority of our free agents have left the club and Chip will buck the trend if he stays.

If you believe in the premiership window theory, players may leave the bigger clubs if that window has appeared to close. Goddard and dal Santo have done so and while St Kilda is not one of the bigger clubs, I could see good players leaving relatively recent Premiers Geelong, Sydney and Hawthorn in the next couple of years if those clubs start to slide. Similarly, clubs such as Carlton, Essendon and Richmond might find an exodus soon if they don't get to the top before the inevitable backward slide begins (which I think is happening to Carlton already).

It still seems to me that most years, a club from the bottom half rises up and into the 8. Ken Hinkley and Port Adelaide should be our model.

We need better luck with injuries of course, but if we get that, we will start to improve. And who knows how far that momentum will carry us?

With momentum comes serendipity - good things will just hapen. And make us a place to be for the better players rather than a place to avoid.

Let's face it we just hate free agency (which is a player's association vehicle) because we are on the bones of our arse.

Back to Port. After losing some players to other clubs, they have signed long term deals with a bunch of players, any of which we'd love to have.

The bottom line for mine is there simply is not enough talent in this sport to support free agency. If a struggling club loses a quality player they will inevitably be replaced by bottom end talent that simply cannot make the grade. In the NBA you may not be able to replace superstars but there is so much elite talent playing the game that you can bring in good role players to fill roster spots. You cannot do this with the Australian Rules talent pool.

Free agency was inevitable and the AFL had to implement something or risk significant player action. Players want the ability to cntrol their careers and maximise their income and who can blame them. FA is the vehicle for that to occur. The AFL introduced a restricted version that requires players to stay for a significnat time to be eligible to use free agency. This was to protect us and the doggies etc. Unfiortunately it just minimises the damage. Over time we will see a trend of players leaving clubs with limited resources and little success to clubs with an abundance of resources and who provide oportunity to win a flag or at least play finals before they retire. There will be moves the other way for different reasns but over the next 10 years I think the trend will be more away from smaller clubs to the bigger ones. The market will ensure this happens, we just cant offer the exposure, support, the money (we still only pay 95% if the cap) and the success that the Collingwoods can. The club can be as smart as we like and try to maximise the benfits of free agency but ultimately we are fightng against market forces while others are swimming with them.

This does not mean we cant have success it is just that much harder to acheive.

The majority of our free agents have left the club and Chip will buck the trend if he stays.

See, this is the line I can't stand. It is used in an argument to push a line of thinking and not consider any other alternatives.

It's inevitable, well no it was not. There was an argument that it would be difficult to hold current agreements like the cap and drafting rules in place but it doesn't follow from that that FA was inevitable.

See, this is the line I can't stand. It is used in an argument to push a line of thinking and not consider any other alternatives.

It's inevitable, well no it was not. There was an argument that it would be difficult to hold current agreements like the cap and drafting rules in place but it doesn't follow from that that FA was inevitable.

Maybe. But if it's a choice between having free agency and removing the salary cap, I think the former is better for small clubs than the latter.

Maybe. But if it's a choice between having free agency and removing the salary cap, I think the former is better for small clubs than the latter.

...but it's not and either and or.

I just think the best way to do it is make the clubs pay a compo, sure Hawthorn can sign James Frawley, but the AFL designates a level of Compo they have to provide us based on the player and they have to do that, rather than they get a player for free and the AFL creates an extra pick

for example, James frawley is considered worth pick 10, Hawks have to give us their first and second round picks as there first will be pick 18 or something

No, trading brought us Clark, Vince and Dawes. Only Cross came to us as a delisted free agent.

We wouldn't have been able to trade for Vince without Sylvia's FA compo though!

I honestly hate free agency. Blokes were already nominating their preferred destination during the trade period anyway and in recent memory only a couple have been unsuccessful (Ryan O'Keeffe tried to get to the Hawks for example). It's effectively the same system only the team losing the player has next to no bargaining power.

Unfortunately the Free Agency genie is out of the bottle. Now the MFC should be pushing the AFL for rule changes to the salary cap such that any new players drafted by a club, and that then remain loyal to that club, carry only a 50% weighting in the cap for their career. This would create an incentive for players to remain loyal to their clubs and would foster a culture of drafting and developing.

See, this is the line I can't stand. It is used in an argument to push a line of thinking and not consider any other alternatives.

It's inevitable, well no it was not. There was an argument that it would be difficult to hold current agreements like the cap and drafting rules in place but it doesn't follow from that that FA was inevitable.

Restraint of trade legislation in the last few decades has changed sport all over the world.

In Europe the 'Bosman ruling' basically freed up all players to move clubs after their contract was up without any reimbursement to their club. Obviously, there is no draft in European football and the same clubs win in each country every year.

The US established equalisation so well that we take these institutions for granted.

If not for US precedent there would be no draft, there would be no salary cap, and there would be no expansion to new markets (some of you would prefer the isolation but I am sorry the growth of the game has made it a fantastic spectacle).

There is nothing to fear in Free Agency if you are a well run club. I agree that the rules need to be massaged but I would open it up even more. The AFL's limited Free Agency is the failure.

They gave the player what they wanted but, as with a great number of things, the AFL didn't take the time to think through the hidden and obscure consequences.

I can go into greater detail later but the introduction of more trading (and FA signing) periods, an ability to trade a players against their will, more transparency with salaries across the AFL, extended rookie contracts at the pointy end of the draft, restrictions on the max salary a club can give, the ability of a club to give more money and years to 'their' free agents, and guaranteed and non-guaranteed money in contracts will all - to varying degrees - help make Free Agency work to equalise the game more and allow teams to get better or worse quicker.

America is not evil.

Surely you jest.

As with most things, the AFL has looked to US sports to implement a concept (FA in this instance) but only gone half way. I'm not an expert on US sports, FA etc but rom my experience the in the US club's have the ability to "Franchise" tag players so that they are not susceptible to FA.

As with most things, the AFL has looked to US sports to implement a concept (FA in this instance) but only gone half way. I'm not an expert on US sports, FA etc but rom my experience the in the US club's have the ability to "Franchise" tag players so that they are not susceptible to FA.

There is the ability in both the NFL and NBA to offer more money and more years to your own players.

The NFL has a 'Franchise Tag' that is an agreed sum that a player can be kept for another year (on high money by the way). Info here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franchise_tag

The NBA has max contracts set out in the CBA with max years (so no Buddy 9 year deals...) and the team that holds their 'Bird' rights (the team they were drafted by invariably) can offer more money and more years than other teams.

This doesn't mean players don't leave teams - it means they don't leave teams for money reasons.

"It's free agency of equalisation".

Free agency. Melbourne needs to start performing and when it does it'll be able to reap the benefits of free agency. Until then we're just filling up the numbers and will always be on welfare.

See, this is the line I can't stand. It is used in an argument to push a line of thinking and not consider any other alternatives.

It's inevitable, well no it was not. There was an argument that it would be difficult to hold current agreements like the cap and drafting rules in place but it doesn't follow from that that FA was inevitable.

You might not like it but its true

If the AFL did not agree to some form of FA players would have taken legal acton for restraint of trade though the AFLPA and won and ultimately we would be exposed to a free market that would have compromised the draft.

For clubs like Melbourne this would have been a disaster.

I dont agree with rpfc that a freeer FA would be better. This assumes the all clubs can compete and I dont think that is the case. You only need to look at the value of our sponsors compared to collingwoods to see the vast gap between us and them. We cant acheive equality because we dont have the membership and cant grow the membership because we dont have success and without the membership we dont get the exposure to generate enough income. This cycle can be broken and we can turn the club around. We need to grow our revenue and JP is right the only way to do that is throught the core business, ie winning football matches but we have to acheive this in an environment where there is not enough high end talent to go around and where our resources and revenue is less than the competition.

You might not like it but its true

If the AFL did not agree to some form of FA players would have taken legal acton for restraint of trade though the AFLPA and won and ultimately we would be exposed to a free market that would have compromised the draft.

For clubs like Melbourne this would have been a disaster.

I dont agree with rpfc that a freeer FA would be better. This assumes the all clubs can compete and I dont think that is the case. You only need to look at the value of our sponsors compared to collingwoods to see the vast gap between us and them. We cant acheive equality because we dont have the membership and cant grow the membership because we dont have success and without the membership we dont get the exposure to generate enough income. This cycle can be broken and we can turn the club around. We need to grow our revenue and JP is right the only way to do that is throught the core business, ie winning football matches but we have to acheive this in an environment where there is not enough high end talent to go around and where our resources and revenue is less than the competition.

Threat and actually carrying it out are 2 different things, you don't roll over on the ambit claim. The AFL did.

I'm rather keen on making greater use of the salary cap formula. For example, for every two years a player stays at a club, the club should get a discount of, say, 10% of that salary from its salary cap calculation, up to a maximum of, say, 50%. So, if a player signs for years 3 and 4 for $300,000 per annum, the club's salary cap is calculated using $270,000 for that player. It makes it easier for that player's club to retain the player as any other club would have to include 100% of that player's salary if he moves. It rewards a club for the development they have put into that player which the new club would otherwise benefit from without having paid for it.

I'm rather keen on making greater use of the salary cap formula. For example, for every two years a player stays at a club, the club should get a discount of, say, 10% of that salary from its salary cap calculation, up to a maximum of, say, 50%. So, if a player signs for years 3 and 4 for $300,000 per annum, the club's salary cap is calculated using $270,000 for that player. It makes it easier for that player's club to retain the player as any other club would have to include 100% of that player's salary if he moves. It rewards a club for the development they have put into that player which the new club would otherwise benefit from without having paid for it.

This is similar to my post. The key is to give the players freedom to move but they have to pay a cost for disloyalty.

What was most disappointing was that Whateley and Robbo just sat there and didn't agree nor disagree.

I've been saying it since before it came in - it's a disaster for clubs such as ours. We will be a breeding ground for the rich clubs to poach from to top up their lists.

The only way free agency can work is if players have NO SAY in their trading - effectively reducing them to commodities to exchange. That's how it works in American sports - the player doesn't really have a say in where they play unless they've been a free agent acquisition.

Instead it's a half-measure in the afl.

I absolutely hate it.

Bang on.

Clubs have to be free to trade players unwillingly to even up the ledger.

Players have far too much control now and hold clubs to ransom.

The 2 key determinants for players are now: MONEY and SUCCESS.

Playing with your mates, and playing in your hometown is a distant 3rd and 4th.

Poorer clubs end up having to pay much more to keep or acquire a decent player, and cannot trade out a valuable player that will leave getting fair value, because the player will determine his desired destinations and those select few clubs will have the upper hand in negotiations.

It all favours the currently successful clubs.

I just think the best way to do it is make the clubs pay a compo, sure Hawthorn can sign James Frawley, but the AFL designates a level of Compo they have to provide us based on the player and they have to do that, rather than they get a player for free and the AFL creates an extra pick

for example, James frawley is considered worth pick 10, Hawks have to give us their first and second round picks as there first will be pick 18 or something

Yeah, not quite...

I agree that Hawthorn should suffer an extra cost, but I don't think that's fair compensation for us.

My basic idea is that if Frawley is determined a 1st round pick, then we get an extra pick directly after our 1st rounder, and then Hawthorn forfeits their 1st rounder, that disappears into the ether.

It's probably not enough, but it does even up the ledger somewhat.

The issue at the moment is:

- Big clubs are attracting the big name free agents

- The salary cap isn't putting pressure back the other way

Biggest named free agents so far (Goddard, Dal Santo, Thomas, Betts) mainly went to middle of the ladder teams trying to buy success.

Franklin was the one that changed that but the salary cap kicked in and Carlton (Everett) and GWS (Mumford, Lamb) got bargains from it.

If Frawley does leave for monstrous money then the salary cap should squeeze the team who got him and result in players forced out. The main problem is it's a half baked free agency due to the 8-10 year rule. That means if Frawley goes we have no one (Bryce Gibbs lol) to spend the salary cap space on. It's free agency in a highly restricted market. In the NFL if you lose a good player in one position there is a big market of other guys to buy (either in that position or another). You really get a lot of choice how to spend your cap.

The one exception above all at the moment seems to be the Oakland Raiders who have got so miserable their best young and talented free agents left and they have only been able to sign old guys with only a few years left in them. Melbourne risk becoming the Oakland Raiders of the AFL.

Threat and actually carrying it out are 2 different things, you don't roll over on the ambit claim. The AFL did.

The threat has been carried out around the world indifferent comps. There would have been plenty of agents touting for business who would take on the case because the risk of losing is virtually zero. I actually think that the current FA is just delaying the inevitable. It was never an bit claim and the AFL new it.