On 02/04/2014 at 20:40, DemonAndrew said:

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.

Absolutely spot on. It is the only way.

  On 03/04/2014 at 00:23, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

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.

But botch a group of players like we have and we are really in trouble. Take Vince, Cross, Miche, Byrnes and Tyson out of the team on the weekend are we are even worse. Not to mention Dawes and Clark if they ever play will be handy.

We are in trouble at the moment. Frawley leaving would be a blow. But we have to keep fighting and hoping things will turn around and when they do we can benefit from free agency. Making crazy rules like the above would just be a way to further hurt teams. Plus imagine how well GWS and Gold Coast will be under that system. At the moment the league is relying on some of those guys leaving due to salary cap pressure.

  On 03/04/2014 at 01:07, KingDingAling said:

Absolutely spot on. It is the only way.

What your talking about is player trades not free agency. Free agency is about the players being able to move if they want to and having the ability to maximise income by movn to a club who will pay them more.

The clubs have always been able to trade players where they can both reach an agreement. The players only have limited input in those decisions. Bernie Vince is a classic example, he never wanted to leave Adelaide. At the end iof the day he needed to agree becasue he has a contract with the Crows but it was obvious to him they did not want him so it made no sense to stay.

FA is a different beast and you cant have FA where players have no say because then its the players that are the free agents.

OK, this may be a dumb question, but does the AFL have a revenue sharing system and a salary cap and floor? Yes I am new to the game. The NHL has a revenue sharing system where top money making teams give a percentage of their revenues to the weaker clubs so that they can compete for free agents and help re-sign there own pending free agents to keep a competitive balance.

And what is with this players not being able to be traded? Has it always been this way?

  On 02/04/2014 at 13:06, why you little said:

As soon as $cully was poached by the AFL the rules changed.

We just have to get smarter. There is no alternative.

exactly what kingy referred to,the bryce gibbs factor also.

if they want to go let em go.

or sign them before it becomes and issue.

poor list management doesnt help,and player managers know exactly how to exploit this.

Third party deals are a big issue fr the AFL with FA (see Franklin and Judd etc). TPD's are also subject to restraint in trade considerations and have the capacity to compromise the draft. Clubs like Collingwood have enormous capacity here that they would love to be able to use outside the salary cap and I recon thi9s will become and issue together with the FA in years to come.

  On 03/04/2014 at 01:10, the master said:

But botch a group of players like we have and we are really in trouble. Take Vince, Cross, Miche, Byrnes and Tyson out of the team on the weekend are we are even worse. Not to mention Dawes and Clark if they ever play will be handy.

We are in trouble at the moment. Frawley leaving would be a blow. But we have to keep fighting and hoping things will turn around and when they do we can benefit from free agency. Making crazy rules like the above would just be a way to further hurt teams. Plus imagine how well GWS and Gold Coast will be under that system. At the moment the league is relying on some of those guys leaving due to salary cap pressure.

If you waste your picks and don't develop players properly you will always be in trouble. The real issue going forward is to prevent poor clubs becoming feeder clubs. Rules to promote loyalty should be introduced for new draftees.

  On 03/04/2014 at 00:48, Machsy said:

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.

Not sure I agree with you. Players have no choice where they go in the initial draft (except father-sons) and clubs can determine whether to renew a contract or delist a player. If you mean A-grade players have too much power I might agree, but that might be for about 50 players in the whole competition. The rest don't seem to have much power at all.

  On 03/04/2014 at 01:32, Fat Tony said:

If you waste your picks and don't develop players properly you will always be in trouble. The real issue going forward is to prevent poor clubs becoming feeder clubs. Rules to promote loyalty should be introduced for new draftees.

But by promoting loyalty you are punishing clubs who don't want to be loyal. It's not a solution.

  On 03/04/2014 at 01:37, the master said:

But by promoting loyalty you are punishing clubs who don't want to be loyal. It's not a solution.

Clubs aren't forced to offer players new contracts and discards should get a discounted weighting too. The only way the clubs suffer is that it disincentivises trades like the Woewodin deal. I say this would be a good thing.

  On 03/04/2014 at 01:25, Bedraggled Dee said:

What your talking about is player trades not free agency. Free agency is about the players being able to move if they want to and having the ability to maximise income by movn to a club who will pay them more.

The clubs have always been able to trade players where they can both reach an agreement. The players only have limited input in those decisions. Bernie Vince is a classic example, he never wanted to leave Adelaide. At the end iof the day he needed to agree becasue he has a contract with the Crows but it was obvious to him they did not want him so it made no sense to stay.

FA is a different beast and you cant have FA where players have no say because then its the players that are the free agents.

?

That's the whole point.

FA has given the players an absolute say when they are out of contract.

The players now have too much decision-making power and the ledger needs to be evened up.

That's why trading needs to be changed so that players can't be moved against their will.

Otherwise the good teams will stay good, the bad teams will flounder and die, and the competition will fall apart.

Didn't think it was that complicated.

  On 03/04/2014 at 01:25, Bedraggled Dee said:

What your talking about is player trades not free agency. Free agency is about the players being able to move if they want to and having the ability to maximise income by movn to a club who will pay them more.

The clubs have always been able to trade players where they can both reach an agreement. The players only have limited input in those decisions. Bernie Vince is a classic example, he never wanted to leave Adelaide. At the end iof the day he needed to agree becasue he has a contract with the Crows but it was obvious to him they did not want him so it made no sense to stay.

FA is a different beast and you cant have FA where players have no say because then its the players that are the free agents.

Many do this already with trades, FA was supposed to be about players not in the top tier needing to move clubs for better opportunity or so the spin was when it was being sold.

Ball, Judd, Gunstan, Caddy and a bunch of Brissy players last season to name a few had little trouble moving to the club they wanted for the money they wanted within the existing trade system.

  On 03/04/2014 at 01:36, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

Not sure I agree with you. Players have no choice where they go in the initial draft (except father-sons) and clubs can determine whether to renew a contract or delist a player. If you mean A-grade players have too much power I might agree, but that might be for about 50 players in the whole competition. The rest don't seem to have much power at all.

I see that you're correct in a way.

Maybe the rules need to be changed re: RFAs?

Remove it altogether and make them wait 10 years before becoming eligible (if they are in top 10 salaries).

And FCS change the rules so Frawley is recognised as RFA, as he should be.

It's certainly a bizarre inconsistency that front loading a contract (viz Frawley) counts for salary cap purposes but not for determining whether a player is a restricted or unrestricted free agent. You'd think if it's considered an appropriate accounting tool for one purpose it should likewise be for the other.

  On 03/04/2014 at 00:56, the master said:

Melbourne risk becoming the Oakland Raiders of the AFL.

God help us if that happens.

Free agency turned Sylvia into Vince...

  On 03/04/2014 at 01:25, WCstripes said:

OK, this may be a dumb question, but does the AFL have a revenue sharing system and a salary cap and floor? Yes I am new to the game. The NHL has a revenue sharing system where top money making teams give a percentage of their revenues to the weaker clubs so that they can compete for free agents and help re-sign there own pending free agents to keep a competitive balance.

And what is with this players not being able to be traded? Has it always been this way?

The revenue sharing is new to the AFL but the TV money is where the real money is and that has always been shared equally amongst clubs (with the AFL keeping a bit for rainy day/expansion areas/CEO pay reasons. The only non-TV revenue that is shared is the league beverage sponsor agreement. It's quite a bit but that is it. Clubs keep their own gate and share of other match day revenues unless they have an agreement to share (rare and only between the big clubs).

There is a salary floor - it is 95% of the approx. $10m cap.

Our culture sees a contract as between a person and their employer, not as a commodity to be bartered. That is why contracts are thrown out when a trade happens - the player will agree new terms with the new club.

I agree that this will need to be altered and the players will baulk a great deal at this.

But a more advanced FA/Trade/Drafting process will help the equalisation of the AFL.

If a consequence of free agency is moving on players that are not quite a %100 committed then perhaps it is not a bad thing. Frawley has wafted along for a few seasons now.

Arm twisting good players with big bucks to change clubs I believe can be counter productive in many cases. Look at Scully, Judd, Tippett, Clark and Franklin for example. None of these so far have delivered the value expected of them. Ablett has had great success at GC but he is a bona fida champion leading boys hence he can command awe and respect.

  On 03/04/2014 at 03:22, america de cali said:

If a consequence of free agency is moving on players that are not quite a %100 committed then perhaps it is not a bad thing. Frawley has wafted along for a few seasons now.

Arm twisting good players with big bucks to change clubs I believe can be counter productive in many cases. Look at Scully, Judd, Tippett, Clark and Franklin for example. None of these so far have delivered the value expected of them. Ablett has had great success at GC but he is a bona fida champion leading boys hence he can command awe and respect.

And because we have new contracts when players are traded - lower end teams end up paying more for the same player.

If Rockliff, for example, has 3 years left on his contract and the Lions traded him - he should have to keep those terms for the next three years.

This will also help with stopping players signing 'mates' contracts that are under market value - another obstacle to equalisation.

  On 03/04/2014 at 03:22, america de cali said:

If a consequence of free agency is moving on players that are not quite a %100 committed then perhaps it is not a bad thing. Frawley has wafted along for a few seasons now.

Arm twisting good players with big bucks to change clubs I believe can be counter productive in many cases. Look at Scully, Judd, Tippett, Clark and Franklin for example. None of these so far have delivered the value expected of them. Ablett has had great success at GC but he is a bona fida champion leading boys hence he can command awe and respect.

Bit harsh on Judd. He's delivered everything and more. That Carlton hasn't thrived under him is due to inherent weaknesses in the rest of the club. Similar to Ablett, really.

Thx Redleg, The revenue sharing for the NHL is based on all incomes, ie, ticket sales, concession, parking, merchandise and advertisement and so on. I wonder if this or a similar version could help out weaker teams compete for players.

Very different in terms of sporting culture, players here must honor their contract even if they are traded, players can get a no trade clause in their contract. Getting traded is just part of the job.

  On 03/04/2014 at 05:29, WCstripes said:

Thx Redleg, The revenue sharing for the NHL is based on all incomes, ie, ticket sales, concession, parking, merchandise and advertisement and so on. I wonder if this or a similar version could help out weaker teams compete for players.

Very different in terms of sporting culture, players here must honor their contract even if they are traded, players can get a no trade clause in their contract. Getting traded is just part of the job.

Our CEO has put forward the very revenue sharing idea that you have mentioned.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2014-02-26/share-the-wealth-jackson

Whether it gets up is another matter...

  On 02/04/2014 at 11:56, rjay said:

Have to agree with him on this one. The AFL are so hell bent on following US sport and this is one of many moves that just doesn't suit.

Trading future draft picks which has been floated recently is another disaster waiting to happen.

It will be interesting to see what the equalisation model is when it's presented.

What, he didn't talk sense when he stuck his head out after 3 games and said Neeld should be sacked.

As for free agency, didn't the poorer clubs vote for it as well? If they did, they deserve what they asked for.

No matter what the rules are it seems Melbourne always get shafted

David king is one of the few in the media that tells it like it is without sychophantic tendancies