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

That's called "Smith's Law" i think

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 one gets a vote, it's a commission decision.

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.

Judd was a considerable investment for Carlton. He was brought in to lead them to premierships. Currently it does not look like it will happen in his twilight years. It is debateable whether Carlton are any better now than when they first recruited him. Hence I would call his tenure a failure.

"Finally Kingy Makes Sense".

He always made sense. Most just wouldn't listen.

"Finally Kingy Makes Sense".

He always made sense. Most just wouldn't listen.

King gets it wrong as often as many of the others in his industry. He famously gave Geelong no chance of beating Collingwood in the 2011 grand final and sneeringly laughed off the Cats' chances. I've watched him in the past on the now defunct AFL Insider programme and was generally unimpressed to the point where I, like many others given the show's been axed, simply turned off. The fact that he's right this time doesn't mean a great deal and certainly not that he's worth listening to as far as I'm concerned.

I haven't really done much deep thinking on free agency however, does anyone think it could it work with some sort of mini salary cap component? For example, the higher a team finishes on the ladder, the smaller the amount they are capped on spending on free agent players each season?

ie. Hawthorn can spend no more than $250K next free agency period assuming they win the flag, and it cascades down the ladder until perhaps the bottom four are uncapped.

Third party deals may make this system pointless though.

But AD assured us that, to protect the integrity of the game, third party deals are banned (other than those made with director-manufactured paper bags, which are only available at one club).

Concept might be alright, but it needs fine tuning. System open to manipulation by players/managers and clubs ( Refer Tippet/Franklin) in conjunction to the national draft which provides for only a limited short term initial contract. Put together its a beautiful set up for stronger local and interstate clubs to simply be predators and pick off the top liners , both younger and older who are coming out of contract. Clearly they have a competitive advantage both in terms of the 'go home' factor or an enticing finals opportunity others may not.

Accordingly the current free agency arrangement makes life for weaker clubs such as ours and others, far more difficult having only the $ card to play and a limited $ card at that against clubs with the stronger balance sheet or interstate clubs with AFL backing.

Maybe the initial contract term might be the point to start with an extension to 3 -4 years.

Of course such action would cause additional risks if you keep drafting duds as you may have to keep them on the list longer but it would make it more difficult for the predator clubs who are in the main (excluding pick trading) initially out of the top end of the National Draft.

Seems like the system is only partially fair at the moment.

Judd was a considerable investment for Carlton. He was brought in to lead them to premierships. Currently it does not look like it will happen in his twilight years. It is debateable whether Carlton are any better now than when they first recruited him. Hence I would call his tenure a failure.

On this I agree - except it's Carlton's failure, not Judd's. He's played outstandingly for Carlton until the last year or so when age has finally caught up with him.