If I may play second devils advocate here... Y'all are drawing some major conclusions from some pretty limited data sets (yes, I'm a budding statistician, sue me).

In any situation where the standard deviation is relatively large compared to the mean, and the sample size is small, you'll regularly see data points a LONG way from the mean. At the moment, the number of free agent moves (not including delistings which aren't really the same thing) is less than 20. That's a tiny sample size. With the exception of Melbourne, the trend of movement from "big teams" to "small teams" or vice versa is basically non-existent. We are the only club exhibiting an enormous variance from the mean.

Usually what will happen in such a case is called "regression to the mean". As more data points are added, everything tends to move closer to the mean. Melbourne's free agency fortunes will likely follow the same path.

(Incidentally, you can see this data trend commonly occur in another area of footy - player performance. You know when a kid comes out and plays an absolute blinder on debut, but then seems to get worse until he's an average player? David Warner is an excellent example. The reverse can also be true - Kade Simpson I believe it was played THREE whole games without getting a touch. That's a LONG way from the mean and a highly unlikely event, but it happened even though he's a skilled player, and eventually he regressed to the mean as you'd expect and he's a perfectly good footballer).

In short, there's probably nothing wrong with free agency, we've just been unlucky so far (brought on largely by our own incompetence, I'd suspect).

Mate, you're a lot more budding than statistician at the moment. In fact, if you tried to publish that stuff as a statistician, you might actually be sued.

"First, assume that all 18 teams begin from an equal position"

"Then, assume that each iteration of a cycle will have no impact on subsequent iterations"

"For balance, assume that any pattern apparent now will automatically dissipate over time"

"Finally, ignore all nuance, evidence and confounding factors outside the scope of your original sweeping generalisation"

While not a statisician, it is possible you're an economist.

The AFL cannot really remind the players that without the AFL - they players wouldn't be in a position to get paid.

The AFL can't really do this, because without the game of AFL - the AFL brand wouldn't be able to line their pockets.

The real loser here is the actual game of AFL, the former sport that we all loved - now an entertainment spectacle.

I think it is like a lot things in the modern world, probably needs to be stripped back and taken back to it's infancy -

but that is impossible when people make money out of AFL in it's current state. Business has compromised the game, I only watch football for MFC - regardless of how poor we sometimes can be.

Anyway, here's the basic facts about Free Agency.

1. Because a club which gains a free agent does not have to give up any draft picks or list price, free agency is by far the most desirable way to acquire new players. Even to the point of it being worth paying extra just to gain that list bonus.

2. Players, when considering their free agency options, will give consideration to non-salary factors such as 'anticipated success' and the resources available to the football department. This means that an already successful club with extensive resources will pay less salary cap space to acquire free agents.

3. Retaining players costs the same, or more, than acquiring them from other clubs. Whenever a player becomes available through free agency, the current club must outbid the best rival bid from all other interested clubs.

4. Every time this bidding occurs, the adjustment for success and for football department resources is included. So even a club which does not lose a single player can take a significant hit to their salary cap space because of the efforts to retain players.

5. This cycle continuously repeats, accelerating as the impact of relative advantage/disadvantage compounds. Over time, minor disadvantage becomes major disadvantage, and finally, total dysfunction.

I'd estimate that for Free Agency to entirely break the balance of the AFL competition would require a net loss from 'weak' clubs to 'strong' clubs of about one player per club every four years. That would create an entrenched 10% difference in available 'best 22' talent.

At this point, almost every Free Agent movement has been to a club which was either in the top 8 that year or credibly looking at pushing into the top 8 in the next year.

Similarly, almost every free agent move has been to a club with considerable wealth and football department resources.

No doubt the Top Clubs love Free Agency...

We just have to employ better people...and draft mean and hard.

Because i doubt Free Agency is going anywhere...there may be small tweaks, but it is set

1 or 2 good recruits could change the perception of this club

Frawley another 186 player gone...How many remain now?

If I may play second devils advocate here... Y'all are drawing some major conclusions from some pretty limited data sets (yes, I'm a budding statistician, sue me).

In any situation where the standard deviation is relatively large compared to the mean, and the sample size is small, you'll regularly see data points a LONG way from the mean. At the moment, the number of free agent moves (not including delistings which aren't really the same thing) is less than 20. That's a tiny sample size. With the exception of Melbourne, the trend of movement from "big teams" to "small teams" or vice versa is basically non-existent. We are the only club exhibiting an enormous variance from the mean.

Usually what will happen in such a case is called "regression to the mean". As more data points are added, everything tends to move closer to the mean. Melbourne's free agency fortunes will likely follow the same path.

(Incidentally, you can see this data trend commonly occur in another area of footy - player performance. You know when a kid comes out and plays an absolute blinder on debut, but then seems to get worse until he's an average player? David Warner is an excellent example. The reverse can also be true - Kade Simpson I believe it was played THREE whole games without getting a touch. That's a LONG way from the mean and a highly unlikely event, but it happened even though he's a skilled player, and eventually he regressed to the mean as you'd expect and he's a perfectly good footballer).

In short, there's probably nothing wrong with free agency, we've just been unlucky so far (brought on largely by our own incompetence, I'd suspect).

Total misunderstanding of the relevance of small number statistics to this topic. There is little data now, but there is common-sense to help predict what a particular policy will result in. Sure look at the statistical evidence once there is enough data and change or keep a policy as needed. But no need to implement every insane policy just to wait and see what the result is.

No doubt the Top Clubs love Free Agency...

We just have to employ better people...and draft mean and hard.

Because i doubt Free Agency is going anywhere...there may be small tweaks, but it is set

1 or 2 good recruits could change the perception of this club

Frawley another 186 player gone...How many remain now?

Why? So the players we develop can go on to play for the big, successful clubs.

Even if we do draft successfully, what isn't to stop the top sides targeting our players.

Nathan Jones will be high on the list for next year. Thankfully he is one of the only players on our list - who actually appears to bleed red and blue.

Shout out to young Viney.

No doubt the Top Clubs love Free Agency...

We just have to employ better people...and draft mean and hard.

Because i doubt Free Agency is going anywhere...there may be small tweaks, but it is set

1 or 2 good recruits could change the perception of this club

Frawley another 186 player gone...How many remain now?

All that developing good recruits will end up meaning is more pickings for the top clubs: they will depend less and less on developing their own talent, though no doubt they will do so, but rather let the lowly clubs take the inevitable risk that drafting is and get such talent that does come on ready for free agency.

So how this has worked:

Melbourne have to meet salary cap. Pay Frawley early to do so.
Free agency comes in.
AFL decides that because we paid Frawley in advance before FA comes in he is now a UFA.
Hawthorn lowballs him as a result. He walks for finals.

We've been screwed if we don't get pick 3 and the deal is 450k. We would have matched that.

Equalization my arse.

All that developing good recruits will end up meaning is more pickings for the top clubs: they will depend less and less on developing their own talent, though no doubt they will do so, but rather let the lowly clubs take the inevitable risk that drafting is and get such talent that does come on ready for free agency.

Point taken..Maybe for 1-2 drafts the club should just recruit experienced players to get out of the Bottom 4...which i agree will be nothing more than functioning Carcases..

So how this has worked:

Melbourne have to meet salary cap. Pay Frawley early to do so.

Free agency comes in.

AFL decides that because we paid Frawley in advance before FA comes in he is now a UFA.

Hawthorn lowballs him as a result. He walks for finals.

We've been screwed if we don't get pick 3 and the deal is 450k. We would have matched that.

Equalization my arse.

Yep and we should explore all possible legal avenues if that does happen.

I read something earlier on Big Footy about MFC should block Clarks move if we don't get pick 3, and challenge the AFL about Geelong speaking to Frawley mid year.

I've mentioned similar options on here myself, I don't know what others think, but IF we do miss out on pick 3, it would highlight issues the AFL want to sweep under the carpet.

FA is a disaster, Roos has been vocal about it in the past, was vocal about it today - which conveniently put the issue in the spot light - and if we do miss out on pick 3, I'd expect Roos to step up his criticism and really make FA a major talking point.

Yep and we should explore all possible legal avenues if that does happen.

I read something earlier on Big Footy about MFC should block Clarks move if we don't get pick 3, and challenge the AFL about Geelong speaking to Frawley mid year.

I've mentioned similar options on here myself, I don't know what others think, but IF we do miss out on pick 3, it would highlight issues the AFL want to sweep under the carpet.

FA is a disaster, Roos has been vocal about it in the past, was vocal about it today - which conveniently put the issue in the spot light - and if we do miss out on pick 3, I'd expect Roos to step up his criticism and really make FA a major talking point.

This really highlights the advantage of having a respected senior coach on your side. They get to push their club's agenda without too much fear of being censored by "the man."

So how this has worked:

Melbourne have to meet salary cap. Pay Frawley early to do so.

Free agency comes in.

AFL decides that because we paid Frawley in advance before FA comes in he is now a UFA.

Hawthorn lowballs him as a result. He walks for finals.

We've been screwed if we don't get pick 3 and the deal is 450k. We would have matched that.

Equalization my arse.

The whole situation is farcical. So compensation is based around the entire contract, but determining if they are restricted or unrestricted only happens with their final year? What?? Why on earth isn't it averaged out over their contract? Take the length of their last contract, divide it by years of service, then find an average salary and use that as a base.

We better pursue this, especially if the rules were introduced after we front-ended his contract.

Agreed we would have been able to bargain up his price if we were able to match a ridiculous lowball offer like $450k.

The whole situation is farcical. So compensation is based around the entire contract, but determining if they are restricted or unrestricted only happens with their final year? What?? Why on earth isn't it averaged out over their contract? Take the length of their last contract, divide it by years of service, then find an average salary and use that as a base.

We better pursue this, especially if the rules were introduced after we front-ended his contract.

Agreed we would have been able to bargain up his price if we were able to match a ridiculous lowball offer like $450k.

Yep, I agree with that 100%, if compensation isn't right, we should pursue this - and more.

Free agency doesn't work because the players have too much power in trade/free agency. NBA is probably the closest sport I can think of where there is somewhat of a salary cap and free agency works.

In the NBA - firstly, when the players are in contract, they can be traded to any team without their consent. This means that you don't get scenarios like Caddy going to Geelong for a much higher pick than they would have had to give up etc.

Secondly - teams do not get compensated so they are forced to trade star players before the deadline - the Love trade (1 year before he was out of contract) where he Minnesota received 2 no.1 picks and a future first round pick for Kevin Love (win win).

Third point - the team who has the player on the list is able to offer their free agents more money/years than those bidding on them, which provides an incentive to stay at the current club.

The AFL has haphazardly introduced these Free Agency rules without fully understanding how to go about it. It they could introduce the above changes.

I think the AFL did a great job with the delisted free agency period but see little point to the pre-season draft. Catergory B rookies is a stroke of genius.

While I am on a bit of a roll - the AFL should take over the talent pathways in the northern states and put a lot more emphasis on those programs. That would mean more talent coming from QLD and NSW and would also stop Sydney etc. from picking up the best midfielders in consecutive drafts with end of round picks (2014. and 2015).

It was only ever going to end up this way, players have far to much power and if the AFL doesn't act soon it will cause irreparable damage to the game.

Lower clubs will have to pay absolute overs for a marquis player leaving a massive void when the window to finals is starting to open and younger players or the teams free agents start negotiating new contracts

Half the issue with free agency is players don't take the highest offer. There's not a huge difference between $800,000 and $900,000, they maintain the same lifestyle and still have more than enough to create a nest egg. If you've been a good player at a bad club you've probably been paid well enough to set yourself up, you don't have to worry about your earnings so you can look at other aspects of potential moves (going home, success etc.).

I've done some pretty simple subjective analysis of this.

Rank the 17 players who have left under unrestricted or restricted free agency. Split them in to groups of "good", "average" and "little impact". Note whether they went to a more successful, equal or worse team. Note the reason for them leaving.

Good:
Franklin (2013) - equal team - $$$
Goddard (2012) - better team - success
Dal Santo (2013) - better team - success
Betts (2013) - equal team - moving to home state/ $$$
Thomas (2013) - worse team - $$$
Frawley (2014) - better team - success

The only "good" player to go to a worse team went for a significant pay rise. Also worth noting that Betts was the only player who moved back to his home state (also got a bigger contract than he would have at carlton).

Average:
White (2013) - equal team - moving to home state
Pearce (2012) - better team - success
Chaplin (2013) - better team* - success (didn't go to a better team, but sent a letter to teammates saying he didn't think port had what it took, so thought he was)
Rivers (2012) - better team - success
Higgins (2014) - better team - success/ money??

Malceski (2014) - worse team - money??

The only "average" player to go for something other than success was Matt White, who had an injury marred, so and so career at Richmond.

Little impact:
Waite (2014) - better team - success

Gwilt (2014) - better team - opportunity
Young (2012) - worse team - opportunity
Sylvia (2013) - better team - success
Moloney (2012) - equal - wanted out.
lynch (2012) - better team - success/ opportunity (?)
ellis (2013) - worse team - opportunity/ home state
byrnes (2012) - worse team - opportunity
knights (2012) - equal team - opportunity/ home state
murphy (2012) - worse team - opportunity

These are the people free agency was designed to help, with the majority of them leaving for opportunity. Unfortunately, most of them didn't/ haven't had much of an impact at their new club. Still can't believe we took Byrnes as an unrestricted free agent.

As another poster noted, it's a small data set, But breaking it down as I have, there are some pretty clear trends evolving in each group of player, will be interesting to see what this looks like after this year trade period.

Good and average players typically leave for success or $$$.
1/9 good/ average players went to a worse team, there was a significant pay rise involved as well.
The players going to the worse teams all came from a premiership winning club and with the exception of Thomas, were not regular AFL level players.

Players are now running this comp. Just look at what happened at the Crows and GC.

Any rule that let's muscled up morons make critical decisions and bring clubs to their knees, is a bad rule.

Players can never be bigger than the clubs themselves. Somehow, this has now happened.

Stinks, stinks and stinks!!

A major flaw with FA is that the receiving team does not ‘pay’ anything. Consider:

• Would Hawthorn, Geelong etc take Frawley if they had to give up their 1^st round pick?
• What would Sydney have needed for Buddy: Their 1^st & 2^nd and a raft of players!! Two 1^st round picks maybe? Unlikely he would have got there!
• What pick(s) would Carlton, Ess, North have to use for Thomas, Goddard, Del Santo?

They get their player and keep their precious picks!!! The player is a ‘free’ to the receiving team. If clubs had to pay they would think twice about taking an FA. The AFL could still decide the ‘value’ of a player and the receiving club gives that pick(s) to the losing club.

Then the AFL can drop compo picks which disadvantage all clubs after the compo. The FA can still go to club of choice it just means receiving club has to pay losing club, just like a trade.

Free Agency should mean a player is free to move but it should not mean he is free to the receiving club. If a club want a player let them pay with picks.

Free Agency should mean a player is free to move but it should not mean he is free to the receiving club.

Perfectly put.

It was meant to be made for players at 30 years old player to help them move after they have been forced out of there club.

To make it work they need to raise the amount of years you have been at your club to able to become a free agent.

The problem is after 8 season player come into there prime and that's when they have the power to move to any club so of course the top clubs will get the picking list of the best players.

No wonder its a shiite boring 'competition' now. So 2 clubs have won 6 of the last 8 flags.

Well done AFL. Rules on the run have killed this comp over the past 12 years but the past 3 is the nail in the coffin of the weaker clubs.

You would've hated the 50's! One club won 5 out of 6 flags.

The 80's - 2 clubs won 6 of 7 flags.

Players are now running this comp.

Too a certain degree. It is more the middleman and managers, lawyers and other sucking hangers on who want their cut that promote it and crap on about a players "inalienable rights to work where they choose to work".

Give us a break. A professional (overpaid) sports-star should not expect the normal working arrangements to apply to them.

This is because their customers (ie us the supporters) are not afforded the same luxury of choice.

Do we all decide to dump melbourne and support the Hawks next year because

they have the greatest chance of winning a premiership? Hell no. There is something called allegiance and loyalty which makes the great game what it is.

Why expect the supporters to be loyal but not the players? If the supporters are not loyal and only backed the latest winning horse then the competition would die.

Obviously freedom to move should not be banned, but excessive free agency as it is now turns the supporters and ultimately the competition, on its head.

Well at least one journo sees the obvious:

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/we-were-told-free-agency-and-equalisation-would-help-the-strugglers-think-again/story-fnp04d70-1227079574288

though 'huge overs' for Frawley makes the assumption that a high pick = an established good player which we all know is nonsense.

The best players( like Chip) can hardly kick a football.

Yet they want more and more from us as supporters/clubs.

They ned a good look at reality.

The tattoo industry may suffer but I am contemptuous of the bogans demanding big bucks now.

They can GAGF.

As for long term injuries etc don't play then.

Useless after 35?

Join the real world.