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.

J R is right with this one.

I can understand Free Agency. If i want to change my workplace, i can do it. So i have no problems with it.

What is WRONG at the moment is Hawthorn & Geelong have made no sacrifice to gain experienced soldiers who are ready to play from a 17th position team.

It is not balanced & to succeed it must.

Wake up Dill...

I agree with the free agency is fine set.

I think it's fantastic that players at s..t clubs get a chance to play finals footy - I was really rapt for Stan Alves and Greg Wells when they won flags after year's as long-suffering Demon service.

The Frawley case ultimately gets down to our incompetence as a footy club - if he had been paid in the top 25 per cent of our players then we would have been able to match any offers and keep him for two more years.

But our footy manager decided Frawley wasn't in our best 10 players (even though he is one of only three Dee AAs in the past 10 years) and shafted him. So good luck to Chip in his endeavours. And we are getting great compensation anyway (assuming pick 3), so what is the problem?

But where I think the AFL needs to work on is to make sure that the top clubs are heavily scrutinised with their books and things like COLA are stamped out.

I still can't believe that four years ago when we wanted David Hale and he'd agreed to come to us, the Hawks were able to outbid us and pay him around $450K a year. That was on top of paying Burgoyne $600K to go there and also later securing our own highest-paid player Cam Bruce. That was when they still had Franklin. I'd love to know which Hawk greats accepted massive pay cuts to fit them in under the salary cap. Of course, there was never any story about Hodge or Mitchell playing for peanuts out of loyalty. So how did they do it?

So ultimately I think the free-agency rule is fine, but the AFL just needs to tighten the screws on the salary cap and make sure clubs are all above board.

As Roos said biggest anti equalisation policy.... No issue with Frawley wanting to go to Haw etc ... But what was wrong with the tradie system... Both clubs would gave to give something up... Wr as now Hawks give up nothing ... We get a pick something.... Appears they can top up to pinch a another flag!

I agree with the free agency is fine set.

I think it's fantastic that players at s..t clubs get a chance to play finals footy - I was really rapt for Stan Alves and Greg Wells when they won flags after year's as long-suffering Demon service.

The Frawley case ultimately gets down to our incompetence as a footy club - if he had been paid in the top 25 per cent of our players then we would have been able to match any offers and keep him for two more years.

But our footy manager decided Frawley wasn't in our best 10 players (even though he is one of only three Dee AAs in the past 10 years) and shafted him. So good luck to Chip in his endeavours. And we are getting great compensation anyway (assuming pick 3), so what is the problem?

But where I think the AFL needs to work on is to make sure that the top clubs are heavily scrutinised with their books and things like COLA are stamped out.

I still can't believe that four years ago when we wanted David Hale and he'd agreed to come to us, the Hawks were able to outbid us and pay him around $450K a year. That was on top of paying Burgoyne $600K to go there and also later securing our own highest-paid player Cam Bruce. That was when they still had Franklin. I'd love to know which Hawk greats accepted massive pay cuts to fit them in under the salary cap. Of course, there was never any story about Hodge or Mitchell playing for peanuts out of loyalty. So how did they do it?

So ultimately I think the free-agency rule is fine, but the AFL just needs to tighten the screws on the salary cap and make sure clubs are all above board.

I agree with the free agency is fine set.

I think it's fantastic that players at s..t clubs get a chance to play finals footy - I was really rapt for Stan Alves and Greg Wells when they won flags after year's as long-suffering Demon service.

The Frawley case ultimately gets down to our incompetence as a footy club - if he had been paid in the top 25 per cent of our players then we would have been able to match any offers and keep him for two more years.

But our footy manager decided Frawley wasn't in our best 10 players (even though he is one of only three Dee AAs in the past 10 years) and shafted him. So good luck to Chip in his endeavours. And we are getting great compensation anyway (assuming pick 3), so what is the problem?

But where I think the AFL needs to work on is to make sure that the top clubs are heavily scrutinised with their books and things like COLA are stamped out.

I still can't believe that four years ago when we wanted David Hale and he'd agreed to come to us, the Hawks were able to outbid us and pay him around $450K a year. That was on top of paying Burgoyne $600K to go there and also later securing our own highest-paid player Cam Bruce. That was when they still had Franklin. I'd love to know which Hawk greats accepted massive pay cuts to fit them in under the salary cap. Of course, there was never any story about Hodge or Mitchell playing for peanuts out of loyalty. So how did they do it?

So ultimately I think the free-agency rule is fine, but the AFL just needs to tighten the screws on the salary cap and make sure clubs are all above board.

Difference is Hawks give up nothing to get him.... Bottom clubs will need to give away the farm & pay overs! What was wrong with the old system? Eg Judd nominated Carlton & deal was done... Both sides had a win win... We may get a pick 3 & play lottery in the draft wait for 3-5 yrs to develop him... Hawks get a Kpp player ready to go.. I guess that's a fair outcome!