AFLPA new Free Agency call

[Earl Hood 5,822]

The ALFPA is asking for earlier qualification, 6 years service, not connected to any club. Just years of service. And they want an end to compensation as this is slowing down trading or encouraging clubs like MFC to not counter bid for the likes of Frawley. This apparently will even up things they say. The evidence so far is the elite are moving from good sides to good sides or from lower sides to better sides. The ALFPA claims to represent some 800 players yet FA benefits in any year, potentially the best 20 or so players in the comp. When Buddy gets million a year, that comes off the salary of a rookie and some other strugglers at the club. There is a limit called the salary cap. The AFLPA as I see it is a disgrace at least on this issue.

[biggestred 4,377]

meanwhile there are rookies getting around on bugger all......

[Machsy 2,858]

The AFLPA is run by fools.

They'll quickly turn public opinion heavily against them.

[Ted Lasso 17,135]

What a joke, keep the rich, rich

[ickey_11 145]

"There is a suspicion that clubs at the bottom of the ladder are happy to let free agents go in return for compensation draft picks to embark on a slow rebuild, providing the club doesn't view that free agent as a likely key player when it next expects to contend.

In the Frawley scenario, scrapping the rule would have given the Demons more incentive to keep him, as under current rules, replacing him with another free agent would have affected the compensation they received for losing the key defender.

Most observers considered the Demons won out in the circumstances over the long term and clubs who weren't party to the transaction were forced down the draft order."

This is wrong, Frawley was an unrestricted free agent and is only 26. The AFLPA is arguing that Melbourne could have matched Hawthorns bid to keep him and that Melbourne were willing to let him go because he would not be around when they next contend; which is wrong as Frawley would have earnt more money at Melbourne if he had stayed. The ALFPA is assuming players are moving purely for money; which is not the case.

Edited February 23, 2015 by ickey_11

[Earl Hood 5,822]

"There is a suspicion that clubs at the bottom of the ladder are happy to let free agents go in return for compensation draft picks to embark on a slow rebuild, providing the club doesn't view that free agent as a likely key player when it next expects to contend.

In the Frawley scenario, scrapping the rule would have given the Demons more incentive to keep him, as under current rules, replacing him with another free agent would have affected the compensation they received for losing the key defender.

Most observers considered the Demons won out in the circumstances over the long term and clubs who weren't party to the transaction were forced down the draft order."

This is wrong, Frawley was an unrestricted free agent and is only 26. The AFLPA is arguing that Melbourne could have matched Hawthorns bid to keep him and that Melbourne were willing to let him go because he would not be around when they next contend; which is wrong as Frawley would have earnt more money at Melbourne if he had stayed. The ALFPA is assuming players are moving purely for money; which is not the case.

At the end of the day the AFLPA is talking rubbish as we have kids like Boyd or O'Rourke walking when their contracts are up. We don't need FA as far as I can see, players are moving on if they want to at contracts end to the point in the future that FA may be redundant.

[pantaloons 2,019]

How much more power do these clowns want? The AFLPA is incredibly short-sighted. With free agency, players able to veto trades at will, and demanding trades mid-contract, there won't be much of a competition for future generations of players if their attitude is focused on taking as much as they can today.

Edited February 23, 2015 by pantaloons

[Dr. Gonzo 22,636]

"There is a suspicion that clubs at the bottom of the ladder are happy to let free agents go in return for compensation draft picks to embark on a slow rebuild, providing the club doesn't view that free agent as a likely key player when it next expects to contend.

In the Frawley scenario, scrapping the rule would have given the Demons more incentive to keep him, as under current rules, replacing him with another free agent would have affected the compensation they received for losing the key defender.

Most observers considered the Demons won out in the circumstances over the long term and clubs who weren't party to the transaction were forced down the draft order."

This is wrong, Frawley was an unrestricted free agent and is only 26. The AFLPA is arguing that Melbourne could have matched Hawthorns bid to keep him and that Melbourne were willing to let him go because he would not be around when they next contend; which is wrong as Frawley would have earnt more money at Melbourne if he had stayed. The ALFPA is assuming players are moving purely for money; which is not the case.

Exactly right hopefully someone in the media points this out to them (Frawley was an UFA) though I won't hold my breath!

Meanwhile what about the fact that Frawley wouldn't have stayed no matter what we offered. If it was only about money why didn't he go to a mid table club who would've offered him more than Hawthorn? It's a joke, the AFL needs to get some balls and tell the AFLPA that to preserve some semblance if equality the FA rules need to be rolled back if anything, not expanded.

[Sir Why You Little 34,957]

Bottom line is the MFC has to become a better footy club for players to join. I agree with the above comments.

The players put on the show they will get this through, this year or next...

[whatwhat say what 19,737]

Boyd didn't even wait for his first contract to be up - he demanded out after just one year at GWS.

The only way they should be able to get this through is if the power goes to the clubs to trade as they wish; so for instance if Melbourne received an offer of pick 7 for Jeremy Howe it wouldn't have been up to the player to reject it but instead as he's contracted to the league not the individual club he simply earns the value of his contract there not here.

Players want way too much power.

[Melbman2 226]

The ALFPA has been clandestinely infiltrated by Hawthorn agents.

Seriously though, if Robbie had walked mid 80s, I wouldn't be a Dees supporter (read AFL supporter). I'd have given it away.

It will change the way I see the game to the detriment of how I have enjoyed it for many years. If things continue this way I'll lose sufficient interest to cease involvement.

It will be a matter of if the younger generation will stick around I guess.

[What 18,810]

they have already screwed the league for fans and they want to screw it more?

well done AFLPA you clowns

[Straight Sets Simon 23,113]

The best things the VFL/AFL did was bring in the salary cap and draft as this helps create an even competition which means more clubs and more players.

I don't think the AFLPA understand this.

[DistrACTION Jackson 6,576]

I am happy with free agency as long as they adjust it. The NFL have got it right with the top teams unable to participate, this needs to be implemented in the AFL ASAP. Top 4 sides should not be able to participate, or they should be limited to picking up players past a certain age e.g. 28.

I really hope the AFL grow some balls and make some decisions on this for the good of the game.

[Moonshadow 16,411]

I am happy with free agency as long as they adjust it. The NFL have got it right with the top teams unable to participate, this needs to be implemented in the AFL ASAP. Top 4 sides should not be able to participate, or they should be limited to picking up players past a certain age e.g. 28.

I really hope the AFL grow some balls and make some decisions on this for the good of the game.

Agreed. FA should be part of competition equalisation. Top 4 should not bring in FAs or be compensated for losing FAs. Bottom 4 gain compo for losing FAs. Middle bracket no compo for losing FAs.

Perhaps draft picks are in there somewhere too. Would Haw have gone for Chip if they had to give up their first 2 draft picks?

[rpfc 27,646]

Continual reform is required to any large piece of contentious legislation.

The AFLPA is always going to fight for more rights but unlike previously the AFL has to push back on a few things to make it functional in our (purportedly) equalised league.

I actually don't mind the idea that players receive FA regardless of a recent trade, so a player like Cross should be a FA after this year and not when he is 37 - that is a tad ridiculous.

But that would have to be coupled with a small concession from the players; a requirement that they will be Restricted FAs rather then UFAs. Or something like that to protect the investment of that trade.

To remove compensation or to shorten the years of FA qualification - that would have to have a nuanced compromise where the players give a lot more than they seem willing to give.

Perhaps top 4 teams would be barred from FA (as in the NFL), top 8 teams would have to lose a FA to gain one (NFL), teams would have the ability to pay more or give longer contracts than other teams (NBA), tag a player as an important player and keep them at a market accepted rate for one more year (NFL). Other initiatives like trading a player without their consent, trading during the draft, and trading future picks would also help clubs deal with this new landscape.

I think that compensation should stay but should only be for premium FAs (based on salary) and only be for the first two rounds. Top 4 clubs should have to lose a Premium FA to gain one. The AFL should tell the clubs what the threshold is for the Premium FAs so that clubs like Melbourne can target non-Premium FAs without the threat of losing the pick we would get for a Premium FA like Frawley. Compensation should be right behind the clubs pick in either round to act as a inbuilt equalisation measure.

Trading of soon-to-be FAs is normal practice for clubs in the US and we should be able to do that too - the player should not lose that opportunity to be FA as I said before but shouldn't be able to nix the trade as they can now. Greasing those wheels should involve a later trade time when the players are back for Pre Season training - the draft being a perfect time for that - couple that with the ability to trade picks during the draft night and clubs would be able to better prepare themselves for the year and the decisions of the next 12 months.

[rjay 24,054]

Continual reform is required to any large piece of contentious legislation.

The AFLPA is always going to fight for more rights but unlike previously the AFL has to push back on a few things to make it functional in our (purportedly) equalised league.

I actually don't mind the idea that players receive FA regardless of a recent trade, so a player like Cross should be a FA after this year and not when he is 37 - that is a tad ridiculous.

But that would have to be coupled with a small concession from the players; a requirement that they will be Restricted FAs rather then UFAs. Or something like that to protect the investment of that trade.

To remove compensation or to shorten the years of FA qualification - that would have to have a nuanced compromise where the players give a lot more than they seem willing to give.

Perhaps top 4 teams would be barred from FA (as in the NFL), top 8 teams would have to lose a FA to gain one (NFL), teams would have the ability to pay more or give longer contracts than other teams (NBA), tag a player as an important player and keep them at a market accepted rate for one more year (NFL). Other initiatives like trading a player without their consent, trading during the draft, and trading future picks would also help clubs deal with this new landscape.

I think that compensation should stay but should only be for premium FAs (based on salary) and only be for the first two rounds. Top 4 clubs should have to lose a Premium FA to gain one. The AFL should tell the clubs what the threshold is for the Premium FAs so that clubs like Melbourne can target non-Premium FAs without the threat of losing the pick we would get for a Premium FA like Frawley. Compensation should be right behind the clubs pick in either round to act as a inbuilt equalisation measure.

Trading of soon-to-be FAs is normal practice for clubs in the US and we should be able to do that too - the player should not lose that opportunity to be FA as I said before but shouldn't be able to nix the trade as they can now. Greasing those wheels should involve a later trade time when the players are back for Pre Season training - the draft being a perfect time for that - couple that with the ability to trade picks during the draft night and clubs would be able to better prepare themselves for the year and the decisions of the next 12 months.

Agree with most of this 'rpfc' and was waiting to see your post, you spell out the issues well.

I'm still not convinced about the trading of picks though, it just doesn't sit well with me. I could see poorly managed clubs doing some real damage and I shudder at the thought of where we would have been under the Schwab regime. Maybe this colours my view.

[rpfc 27,646]

Agree with most of this 'rpfc' and was waiting to see your post, you spell out the issues well.

I'm still not convinced about the trading of picks though, it just doesn't sit well with me. I could see poorly managed clubs doing some real damage and I shudder at the thought of where we would have been under the Schwab regime. Maybe this colours my view.

I can understand that - in the NBA a Cleveland GM was so awful with his trading of picks that they brought in the rule that teams cannot trade consecutive 1st round picks. For example, because we traded Pick 2 at the end of 2013, we could not have traded Pick 2 at the end of 2014. A rule like that could be looked at.

As a side note - Schwab would not worry me in this instance as much as Roos would - he would be trading away the next 5 years of picks if he could (not that I wouldn't like to see it happen).

And there's the rub - for well-run clubs, they can help you get back and going, for poorly run clubs, they will set you back.

[Redleg 38,065]

"There is a suspicion that clubs at the bottom of the ladder are happy to let free agents go in return for compensation draft picks to embark on a slow rebuild, providing the club doesn't view that free agent as a likely key player when it next expects to contend.

In the Frawley scenario, scrapping the rule would have given the Demons more incentive to keep him, as under current rules, replacing him with another free agent would have affected the compensation they received for losing the key defender.

Most observers considered the Demons won out in the circumstances over the long term and clubs who weren't party to the transaction were forced down the draft order."

This is wrong, Frawley was an unrestricted free agent and is only 26. The AFLPA is arguing that Melbourne could have matched Hawthorns bid to keep him and that Melbourne were willing to let him go because he would not be around when they next contend; which is wrong as Frawley would have earnt more money at Melbourne if he had stayed. The ALFPA is assuming players are moving purely for money; which is not the case.

I don't believe we would have paid him as much as the Hawks are. In this instance we have probably done well out of it, as we were low on the ladder.

[Redleg 38,065]

they have already screwed the league for fans and they want to screw it more?

well done AFLPA you clowns

I actually don't think this factor can be underestimated.

Fans get invested in their players and the fact that players will effectively not give a stuff about their club, will ultimately affect membership numbers,attendances and interest in the game.

[old dee 22,999]

I actually don't think this factor can be underestimated.Fans get invested in their players and the fact that players will effectively not give a stuff about their club, will ultimately affect membership numbers,attendances and interest in the game.

That is me to a T redleg.

Every year the Amos looks better to me.

[Demon trucker 1,779]

I think they should get rid of the draft, bring back under 19 and under 16s every club has a academy, every player should be a free agent at the end of every contract, top 8 can't get a a free agent unless they lose one. The NRL don't have a draft, and they have had more different premiers over the last 10 years then the AFL, also there should be a cap on anyone player, say one player can only get a maximum 8% of a teams salary cap.

[Lucifers Hero 37,330]

BUMP.

I despair!

AFL may lower FA elibility to 5 or 6 years to 'fringe players' (ie not 'stars'). http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-flags-prospect-of-a-lessrestrictive-free-agency-system-20150520-gh5t69.html

- Definition of fringe: # of games, salary position in the team

- Receiving club gets the player for free.

- Giving club gets zip in return! Effectively, development of that player is worth nothing!

Players currently can virtually go to club of choice be they in or out of contract but at least a trade needs to occur, so I'm not a fan of the proposal.

Feeling pessimistic atmo but the proposal just looks like a recipe for more pillage of lower clubs IMO.

Edited May 20, 2015 by Lucifer's Hero

[daisycutter 28,694]

BUMP.

I despair!

AFL may lower FA elibility to 5 or 6 years to 'fringe players' (ie not 'stars'). http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-flags-prospect-of-a-lessrestrictive-free-agency-system-20150520-gh5t69.html

- Definition of fringe: # of games, salary position in the team

- Receiving club gets the player for free.

- Giving club gets zip in return! Effectively, development of that player is worth nothing!

Players currently can virtually go to club of choice be they in or out of contract but at least a trade needs to occur, so I'm not a fan of the proposal.

Feeling pessimistic atmo but the proposal just looks like a recipe for more pillage of lower clubs IMO.

actually it could work quite well against the top sides who have a lot more depth and potentially more frustrated, lower-paid, reasonable players

[poita 3,710]

The NRL don't have a draft, and they have had more different premiers over the last 10 years then the AFL, also there should be a cap on anyone player, say one player can only get a maximum 8% of a teams salary cap.

Possibly slightly off topic, but I'm curious about the NRL's equalisation measures as it is clearly a far more even competition than the AFL. After 7 rounds of the AFL season there are already six games between top and bottom, and a number of sides already seem to be well out of the finals race. After 10 rounds of the NRL there are just four games between top and bottom, and any team can beat any other team on its day.

As not angry anymore stated, the NRL has had clearly more different premiers (7 v 5) and grand finalists (11 v 8) than the AFL in the past decade, despite having less teams in the competition. Clearly the absence of the draft, free agency compensation and trades is not causing problems of equalisation for them. Maybe the salary cap on its own is sufficient, or is there something else at work?

It also seems to me that the Holden Cup competition requires NRL clubs to do more to identify and nurture young players, rather than the AFL system which effectively outsources responsibility to the TAC Cup and other competitions. Whilst under 20s can still be signed by other clubs, the original club would still be in the box seat in most cases. So would we be better to get rid of the VFL alliances and reserves teams, and run (say) an under 21s comp along the lines of the Holden Cup? Hence the AFL clubs could take more responsibility for the development of young players.

Edited May 20, 2015 by poita