http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/we-were-told-free-agency-and-equalisation-would-help-the-strugglers-think-again/story-fnp04d70-1227079574288?sv=f7f19a64e0722858521ae62ec898d2e#.VC9yfWkceiM.mailto

As Roos said biggest anti equalisation policy to be implemented .... Very concerning to hear from the players association saying that the players should not

be responsible for the equalisation of the comp... Well last time I checked it was players who kicked the ball, marked & scored etc... They must remember that we have 18 teams in this so called comp & someone has to finish last & only 22 players can be premiers each year!

  On 04/10/2014 at 04:15, Hogan2014 said:

As Roos said biggest anti equalisation policy to be implemented .... Very concerning to hear from the players association saying that the players should not

be responsible for the equalisation of the comp... Well last time I checked it was players who kicked the ball, marked & scored etc... They must remember that we have 18 teams in this so called comp & someone has to finish last & only 22 players can be premiers each year!

One of the arguments for free agency was that it would give players starved of opportunity a chance to develop their careers. It was supposed to help blokes who spent half their time in the VFL get to a club that would give them a regular game. All it has done has been to give players the opportunity to exploit the development programs of the weaker clubs en route to a crack at a premiership with an established club - which blocks the path of the VFL players the rule was supposed to help!!

Something has to happen to make it harder for senior players at bottom clubs to get to top clubs.

The list is getting longer...

Tippett - mid range club to premiers

Goddard- bottom club to potential finalist

Thomas - Slipping top 8 club to supposed finalist

Del Santo- bottom club to potential finalist

Frawley - bottom club to premier

Higgins- low/middle club to top 4 club

Waite- middle club to top 4 club

Waite and Higgins when carrying injuries have played a few VFL games. The rest have been walk up start AFL players

The opportunity to be part of a premiership side is not only what players cherish from a playing perspective - but its also the key to more $$$. Matt Spangher - premiership player - can all of a sudden claim a bit of coin on the speakers circuit!

Traditionally trade unions have stood for equal opportunity for all workers, The AFLPA has held out for rules which allow the fortunate few to build more successful careers than their slightly less gifted cronies

  On 04/10/2014 at 13:04, hoopla said:

One of the arguments for free agency was that it would give players starved of opportunity a chance to develop their careers. It was supposed to help blokes who spent half their time in the VFL get to a club that would give them a regular game. All it has done has been to give players the opportunity to exploit the development programs of the weaker clubs en route to a crack at a premiership with an established club - which blocks the path of the VFL players the rule was supposed to help!!

Something has to happen to make it harder for senior players at bottom clubs to get to top clubs

Traditionally trade unions have stood for equal opportunity for all workers, The AFLPA has held out for rules which allow the fortunate few to build more successful careers than their slightly less gifted cronies

As a past union delegate, and having been involved in two Enterprise Bargaining agreements in coal mines, I must say im surprised at the apparant softness of the AFL, in relation to the free agency farce.

In every agreement, there is an "intent" behind every clause. You simply cant put enough words into a document that covers every contingency.

Most agreements allow a modification of said agreement, once it is realised that the wording of the document is actually working in a different direction to what was intended.

If it was actually put, by the players assocciation, that it was "intended" to facilitate the movement of fringe players from one club to another, it should be a very easy fix for the AFL. That is, at the next periodic review (again, standard practice), both parties should simply agree to scrap it, or modify it to allow the intent, to rule the clause. From experience, a commissioner will pay close attention to "intent", over actual wording.

The players are weilding FAR too much power here, and if left unchecked, will certainly turn the comp into an Australian version of the EPL.

A effing joke.

The main issue is that the AFL hasnt put in a true free agency in the sense that it is restricting the players that become free agents. The only time when it has become close to proper free agency is when Gold Coast and Greater Western Sydney came in and they could negotiate with all out of contract players with enormous cap space and we saw players like Davis, Scully, Ablett, Ward move for the reason that should drive free agency, money. The AFL is only allowing players of a certain tenure to become free agents and these players by virtue of their age are (a) not necessarily going to be desirable to rebuilding clubs and (b) are possibly going to be motivated by team success rather than money. A genuine free agency, as an example, would see next year Dylan Shiel and Adam Treloar, two wantaway Giants, be on the market as restricted free agents. That is what would be happening in the NFL. In this scenario, the likelihood is that, for example, St Kilda could offer a 4 year $4 million deal to Treloar and Melbourne could offer something similar for Shiel. GWS probably could only afford one and they are forced into a decision. That is how it should work. The other issue is that is there really enough money to warrant free agency. In the NFL, routinely a good player from a Super Bowl winning team may be on $4 million in his free agent year, have a good season and then be offered a 5 year $40 million contract to sign with a lowly team. The Super Bowl winning team, under cap pressure, can't compete, can theoretically only offer $6 million a year, and the player moves for $10 million more over the life of the contract. Is an extra $600,000 over 4 years or 5 years really enough to drive a player to make a money-driven move in AFL.

  On 04/10/2014 at 13:26, faultydet said:

The players are weilding FAR too much power here, and if left unchecked, will certainly turn the comp into an Australian version of the EPL.

A effing joke.

As far as I'm aware the AFL has a salary cap, the EPL does not. The two cannot be compared in this case.

Hawthorn got Frawley because they are smart with the salary cap. It may end up biting them in the 4th and 5th years, who knows.

What I do know that that if I was an AFL player and couldn't move clubs I would be taking it the federal court as a restraint of trade, and I know who would win that case.

  On 04/10/2014 at 04:15, Hogan2014 said:

As Roos said biggest anti equalisation policy to be implemented .... Very concerning to hear from the players association saying that the players should not

be responsible for the equalisation of the comp... Well last time I checked it was players who kicked the ball, marked & scored etc... They must remember that we have 18 teams in this so called comp & someone has to finish last & only 22 players can be premiers each year!

It's irresponsible of the AFLPA not to be interested in the equalisation of the competition. If 5% of elite players get to go to premiership-winning teams because of free agency, at least 50% of players will never be able to win a flag as a result. Not looking out for the bottom clubs means you're not looking out for a tremendous subsection of players who play for those clubs.

  On 04/10/2014 at 14:25, Chook said:

It's irresponsible of the AFLPA not to be interested in the equalisation of the competition. If 5% of elite players get to go to premiership-winning teams because of free agency, at least 50% of players will never be able to win a flag as a result. Not looking out for the bottom clubs means your not looking out for a tremendous subsection of players who play for those clubs.

in addition - if they dont look after those players/clubs, in the long term the clubs will die off. If they cant sell hope (which is what all footy clubs sell) then they wont have clubs for their players to earn money at!

  On 04/10/2014 at 14:47, biggestred said:

in addition - if they dont look after those players/clubs, in the long term the clubs will die off. If they cant sell hope (which is what all footy clubs sell) then they wont have clubs for their players to earn money at!

Both excellent points. Also worth mentioning that free agency has introduced inflated individual contracts, which actually pushes the median salary of all players down. For example, players in Sydney are worse off because of free agency. A player like Buddy Franklin commanded a ridiculously inflated salary to scare off the Hawks from keeping him, so everyone else in that team took a pay cut.

The AFLPA are being hopelessly short sighted here. FA benefits a very small minority of elite players, and is actually bad overall for players and the league itself (for reasons of de-equalisation amongst others, but hurting smaller clubs to the point of killing off teams, memberships and their supporters will be the death of the competition). If teams like St Kilda and us continue to lose their best players for top 8 teams, it's hard to see supporters staying with the sport much longer. If N. Jones leaves next year for example, I'd probably just about give up.

Not that I think he will...

Is the AFLPA there as a body to represent all players?

With comments like that it starts to sound more like a player management firm for the elite players only. Are the rest of its constituents so dim as to not realize that unless they are top players, their "free movement" policy has destined them to never win a premiership.

In an even comp perhaps 4 teams win the comp in 5 or 6 years. In this compromised system, maybe only 2. That's a lot of players never seeing that cup glory for the sake of free player movement

  On 04/10/2014 at 20:46, Munga said:

Is the AFLPA there as a body to represent all players?

With comments like that it starts to sound more like a player management firm for the elite players only. Are the rest of its constituents so dim as to not realize that unless they are top players, their "free movement" policy has destined them to never win a premiership.

In an even comp perhaps 4 teams win the comp in 5 or 6 years. In this compromised system, maybe only 2. That's a lot of players never seeing that cup glory for the sake of free player movement

One of the things that worries me is that if the APLPA argue that the qualifying period of service should fall to help "lesser" players - which is what they have touted recently - we'll get to my greatest fear about free agency - eroding club loyalty completely!!

Either they have to limit the ability of players to go to the top 4 teams - or perhaps tax the total contract amounts the Top 4 teams pay free agents in the year of transfer and include the tax in the TPP. This would be consistent with the equalisation policies of a competition keen to avoid litigation for restraint of trade

  On 04/10/2014 at 14:23, ucanchoose said:

As far as I'm aware the AFL has a salary cap, the EPL does not. The two cannot be compared in this case.

Hawthorn got Frawley because they are smart with the salary cap. It may end up biting them in the 4th and 5th years, who knows.

What I do know that that if I was an AFL player and couldn't move clubs I would be taking it the federal court as a restraint of trade, and I know who would win that case.

But is it really restraint of trade when a player can still ply their trade but just can't jump ship in a way that is not in the best interests of the competition and therefore not in the best interest of the public?

If Jones goes at the end of next year I go too

Because [censored] it

Greatest restriction on lower clubs is the dollars they can offer, matching only top clubs, where finals Fòotball and successful team are rewards. ( as per goodoil above). The AFL cap of $10 mill per club is restrictive to lower clubs as 90-95% must be paid each season. Surely our list is not commercially the same value as The premiers.

If a rolling 5 year cap was introduced, where Clubs had to spend their 50 million over 5 years, then this could possibly allow greater response from lower clubs. Our current list is probably worth 6 million compared to the Hawks, until this anomaly is rectifies by both the AFL and Lower clubs, this turmoil will continue.

  On 04/10/2014 at 21:27, Melbman2 said:

But is it really restraint of trade when a player can still ply their trade but just can't jump ship in a way that is not in the best interests of the competition and therefore not in the best interest of the public?

This restraint of trade stuff is such a furphy.

The United States is the most litigious country the world, however there are a multitude of restrictions placed on the free agency system in the big 4 sports.

I went on trade radio and was rebutted by the list manager as my ideas were a restraint of free trade.

My call was disconnected before I could mention the above point

  On 04/10/2014 at 14:23, ucanchoose said:

As far as I'm aware the AFL has a salary cap, the EPL does not. The two cannot be compared in this case.

Hawthorn got Frawley because they are smart with the salary cap. It may end up biting them in the 4th and 5th years, who knows.

What I do know that that if I was an AFL player and couldn't move clubs I would be taking it the federal court as a restraint of trade, and I know who would win that case.

I wonder if that is right. After all the AFL is not an open market - I can't get a group of people together and demand to compete like I could if the AF was a normal business. And could I run a the sex discrimination case if some of my players were female? The AFL clearly is able to make its own rules so maybe it can about players too. Legal experts?

  On 04/10/2014 at 21:27, Melbman2 said:

But is it really restraint of trade when a player can still ply their trade but just can't jump ship in a way that is not in the best interests of the competition and therefore not in the best interest of the public?

Agree.

The AFL is but one football competition in the country. It has rules and aims. One aim was to have an even competition. Players sign AFL contracts agreeing to be bound by AFL rules. You don't like the rules, then don't sign and go play in another competition, simple.

The AFL has cow towed to the players and the big clubs. FA is not even doing what it was intended to do. Next year they are thinking of scrapping the compensation, wonderful. We breed them, when ripe they are stolen and we get nothing. What genius thought of that?

Now they are trying to get 6 year qualification for FA.

AFL, change the name of the draft to the "6 Year Draft".

Shannyn Byrnes is a quality player?

  On 04/10/2014 at 14:23, ucanchoose said:

As far as I'm aware the AFL has a salary cap, the EPL does not. The two cannot be compared in this case.

Hawthorn got Frawley because they are smart with the salary cap. It may end up biting them in the 4th and 5th years, who knows.

What I do know that that if I was an AFL player and couldn't move clubs I would be taking it the federal court as a restraint of trade, and I know who would win that case.

I would argue that case, the player has options to play in the VFL, SANFL or many other competitions so it can't be restraint of trade at all. I know we have been sold this argument but it is not really true. If a player choses to play in the AFL then they abide by the conditions of that competition.

I find it baffling that that AFLPA are going to push at some stage for the qualification to be reduced to 6 years. Do they seriously not see the damage they are doing to the game?

8 years at least demands good service to the club and time in the "golden years" of 24+. Chip and Buddy are actually good examples of that, I know a lot of people are bitter towards Frawley but the truth is I don't have too much of a problem with him going. That he's going to the team that just won the premiership is a bit of a sting that they can just snap a player up like that, but in terms of him and what he's done at Melbourne I think he's been a good player and served us well in some shocking years. Likewise with Buddy, he was a key component to the Hawks rise and eventually becoming a powerhouse. He gave the Hawks fans A LOT of good memories and as much as the compo was totally under his worth, the Hawks showed that they could cover him.

If the AFLPA succeed in getting 6 year free agency that gets players the opportunity to explore their options at 24 if they are drafting at 18. Right when their coming into their own as a player, after the original club spends time and effort in developing them. If anything the age should be lifted so it does go to what they said it was intended for, getting players who aren't getting a go to their club of choice with no hassle.

If the AFLPA want to go down this path, them forced trading will be opposing force. I don't want to see our game go down the road.

3 teams have won the last 8 of 10 premierships. These three teams have all picked up great players in free agency and are odds on to be top 4 again next year with one of the three more likely than the rest of the comp to win again next year. Given that three clubs have 9 of the last 10 championships in the EPL I would say we already have the EPL like farce competition we all feared.

Free Agency is not the only reason we have this situation as it has been a slow degradation of the two lone bastions of equalisation in the AFL "competition". The salary cap and the draft. The AFL is already heinously inequitable when it comes to fixturing, blockbusters, match revenue, access to profitable time slots, football department spending, facilities and ability to have access to and affect decisions by chief AFL officials, but all these issues aside player movement is being degraded by 5 key factors:

1. The erosion of player loyalty and media acceptance of the most traitorous behaviour by players.

2. The ability of players to choose their destination in trades and FA. This has ruined the desired impact of the salary cap as low clubs who should be able to offer more lucrative contracts often don't even get to have a discussion with highly desired players. Also it has effected the draft as the system was meant to mean that the lowest finishing clubs either gain the best youngster with their draft pick or have the best pick to offer in a trade. Given that players don't field offers from the entire comp it means lower clubs can't use the low draft pick to bid on the best players, also it means clubs don't get the best available deal for the player, particularly if the player chooses a top team. This plays out in the Clark example where if the MFC could trade him to any club it could field offers from clubs like St Kilda and WB who can offer far better picks than his chosen club the cats where the demons are greatly limited in what deal they can strike due to the cats relatively low picks and advantage given melbourne can't meaningfully threaten not to deal with the cats. At the very least Melbourne could drive up Clarksville value by fielding other offers and force the cats to give up something of real value making it a more even competition, not just for the dees but for everyone, however this isn't an option as players choose their destination!

3. Draft picks ain't what they use to be. The increase in player movement has made high draft picks far less valuable. Given that if you have a player from ages 18-25 you are far less likely to see their best football especially given that the clubs receiving them usually are already vulnerable. Clubs are better off waiting and gaining players in their 25-29 yo prime via free agency or the aforementioned rigged trade system. This is why with both pick 1&2 on the trade table this year neither team will receive a tier 1 player as a trade.

4. Players are taking less lucrative contracts for success. Now that has happened with members of a team taking cuts to stay together (which ultimately negatively effects the salary cap mechanism) I think most footy fans are ok with this. But players are now moving clubs for less money to play in successful teams it is hurting those teams that happened to have the bad luck to be unsuccessful in this era more than ever before and has effectively made the equalisation effect of the salary cap non existent.

5. Finally free agency. Not only can top clubs now have the advantage of a rigged trade system ( one where clubs cannot even threaten to send a player to the draft due to the Luke Ball saga!) but they can grab the best players from any club in their prime for nothing. Mfc has lost one required player to a top 4 team every year that this system has existed and has gained discarded players who were likely to be delisted anyway and devalued draft picks in return. Not only does this make the teams that gain these players stronger making it near impossible for teams like melbourne to beat them given they had most likely lost to them in the year proceeding already but the loss of these players hurts melbourne more than most other clubs due to its already relatively small number of high quality players.

Needless to say 3 clubs 8 premierships ten years likely to become 3 clubs 9 premierships 11 years. A competition where only 3-5 clubs can win every year while the other 13 get worse is no competition at all. If Nathan Jones leaves MFC next year, or Dangefield goes to the swans, cats or hawks or any of the other bull@&$) scenarios likely to play out under this rigged system then I, someone who has loved AFL all my life and is a 26 year member of the demons will be turning my back on the sport.

I thought Australia was about the fair go, obviously not.

  On 05/10/2014 at 02:03, deejammin said:

3 teams have won the last 8 of 10 premierships. These three teams have all picked up great players in free agency and are odds on to be top 4 again next year with one of the three more likely than the rest of the comp to win again next year. Given that three clubs have 9 of the last 10 championships in the EPL I would say we already have the EPL like farce competition we all feared.

Free Agency is not the only reason we have this situation as it has been a slow degradation of the two lone bastions of equalisation in the AFL "competition". The salary cap and the draft. The AFL is already heinously inequitable when it comes to fixturing, blockbusters, match revenue, access to profitable time slots, football department spending, facilities and ability to have access to and affect decisions by chief AFL officials, but all these issues aside player movement is being degraded by 5 key factors:

1. The erosion of player loyalty and media acceptance of the most traitorous behaviour by players.

2. The ability of players to choose their destination in trades and FA. This has ruined the desired impact of the salary cap as low clubs who should be able to offer more lucrative contracts often don't even get to have a discussion with highly desired players. Also it has effected the draft as the system was meant to mean that the lowest finishing clubs either gain the best youngster with their draft pick or have the best pick to offer in a trade. Given that players don't field offers from the entire comp it means lower clubs can't use the low draft pick to bid on the best players, also it means clubs don't get the best available deal for the player, particularly if the player chooses a top team. This plays out in the Clark example where if the MFC could trade him to any club it could field offers from clubs like St Kilda and WB who can offer far better picks than his chosen club the cats where the demons are greatly limited in what deal they can strike due to the cats relatively low picks and advantage given melbourne can't meaningfully threaten not to deal with the cats. At the very least Melbourne could drive up Clarksville value by fielding other offers and force the cats to give up something of real value making it a more even competition, not just for the dees but for everyone, however this isn't an option as players choose their destination!

3. Draft picks ain't what they use to be. The increase in player movement has made high draft picks far less valuable. Given that if you have a player from ages 18-25 you are far less likely to see their best football especially given that the clubs receiving them usually are already vulnerable. Clubs are better off waiting and gaining players in their 25-29 yo prime via free agency or the aforementioned rigged trade system. This is why with both pick 1&2 on the trade table this year neither team will receive a tier 1 player as a trade.

4. Players are taking less lucrative contracts for success. Now that has happened with members of a team taking cuts to stay together (which ultimately negatively effects the salary cap mechanism) I think most footy fans are ok with this. But players are now moving clubs for less money to play in successful teams it is hurting those teams that happened to have the bad luck to be unsuccessful in this era more than ever before and has effectively made the equalisation effect of the salary cap non existent.

5. Finally free agency. Not only can top clubs now have the advantage of a rigged trade system ( one where clubs cannot even threaten to send a player to the draft due to the Luke Ball saga!) but they can grab the best players from any club in their prime for nothing. Mfc has lost one required player to a top 4 team every year that this system has existed and has gained discarded players who were likely to be delisted anyway and devalued draft picks in return. Not only does this make the teams that gain these players stronger making it near impossible for teams like melbourne to beat them given they had most likely lost to them in the year proceeding already but the loss of these players hurts melbourne more than most other clubs due to its already relatively small number of high quality players.

Needless to say 3 clubs 8 premierships ten years likely to become 3 clubs 9 premierships 11 years. A competition where only 3-5 clubs can win every year while the other 13 get worse is no competition at all. If Nathan Jones leaves MFC next year, or Dangefield goes to the swans, cats or hawks or any of the other bull@&$) scenarios likely to play out under this rigged system then I, someone who has loved AFL all my life and is a 26 year member of the demons will be turning my back on the sport.

I thought Australia was about the fair go, obviously not.

Very passionate Deejamin - and unfortunately very true.

Demetriou came to the top job via the AFLPA - and he came to the free trade table well and truly indoctrinated with their philosophies. Can/will McLachlan make his mark by simply saying NO to their push for even free-er trade.

  On 05/10/2014 at 04:29, hoopla said:

Very passionate Deejamin - and unfortunately very true.

Demetriou came to the top job via the AFLPA - and he came to the free trade table well and truly indoctrinated with their philosophies. Can/will McLachlan make his mark by simply saying NO to their push for even free-er trade.

Depends what Eddie Everywhere says!!!

  On 04/10/2014 at 22:47, Redleg said:

Agree.

The AFL is but one football competition in the country. It has rules and aims. One aim was to have an even competition. Players sign AFL contracts agreeing to be bound by AFL rules. You don't like the rules, then don't sign and go play in another competition, simple.

The AFL has cow towed to the players and the big clubs. FA is not even doing what it was intended to do. Next year they are thinking of scrapping the compensation, wonderful. We breed them, when ripe they are stolen and we get nothing. What genius thought of that?

Now they are trying to get 6 year qualification for FA.

AFL, change the name of the draft to the "6 Year Draft".

Exactly, Red.

This is an entirely appropriate answer to the bollocks about 'restraint of trade'. If players want to maximise their incomes they can do so by signing up to the AFL and being bound by the conditions of their contracts.

But if Chip's second gear performances this year are any indication, what we're getting is in effect a 7 year period, reducing soon to 5.

  On 05/10/2014 at 00:11, Pates said:

I find it baffling that that AFLPA are going to push at some stage for the qualification to be reduced to 6 years. Do they seriously not see the damage they are doing to the game?

8 years at least demands good service to the club and time in the "golden years" of 24+. Chip and Buddy are actually good examples of that, I know a lot of people are bitter towards Frawley but the truth is I don't have too much of a problem with him going. That he's going to the team that just won the premiership is a bit of a sting that they can just snap a player up like that, but in terms of him and what he's done at Melbourne I think he's been a good player and served us well in some shocking years. Likewise with Buddy, he was a key component to the Hawks rise and eventually becoming a powerhouse. He gave the Hawks fans A LOT of good memories and as much as the compo was totally under his worth, the Hawks showed that they could cover him.

If the AFLPA succeed in getting 6 year free agency that gets players the opportunity to explore their options at 24 if they are drafting at 18. Right when their coming into their own as a player, after the original club spends time and effort in developing them. If anything the age should be lifted so it does go to what they said it was intended for, getting players who aren't getting a go to their club of choice with no hassle.

If the AFLPA want to go down this path, them forced trading will be opposing force. I don't want to see our game go down the road.

As far as I can tell some good players are exercising their options at 20 or 21, e.g. Gunston. Players out of contract are walking if they want and ask. Why do we need FA at all these days.