A Very Restricted 'Restricted Free Agency'

[rpfc 27,692]

I was very worried about this - the first test of the Restricted aspect of the Free Agency package brought in three years ago.

Eventually, a team would have a player that wishes to leave for a contract that they would be happy to meet:

Patrick Dangerfield $4.8m over 6 years.

If this were the NBA, the Crows would have 'met' those terms and Danger Mouse would still be a Crow for another 6 years.

That is how their RFA works.

The AFL's version has meant that the club has to trade that player or risk losing him for nothing in the draft - essentially the same as an OOC player like Howe will face if he is adamant to leave the Dees.

So RFA in the AFL is meaningless. An avenue for a club to keep a star player on the players terms - the reason why the NBA has it - is mitigated.

The players have to forfeit some power in the new landscape or we will continue to have a lopsided competition. They don't even have to forfeit this - I would fight to take away their Trade Veto - that would make the game a great deal fairer.

But the players should be careful no to ruin the game they profit from...

[rpfc 27,692]

Perhaps this should be on the general board...

[daisycutter 28,728]

I was very worried about this - the first test of the Restricted aspect of the Free Agency package brought in three years ago.

Eventually, a team would have a player that wishes to leave for a contract that they would be happy to meet:

Patrick Dangerfield $4.8m over 6 years.

If this were the NBA, the Crows would have 'met' those terms and Danger Mouse would still be a Crow for another 6 years.

That is how their RFA works.

The AFL's version has meant that the club has to trade that player or risk losing him for nothing in the draft - essentially the same as an OOC player like Howe will face if he is adamant to leave the Dees.

So RFA in the AFL is meaningless. An avenue for a club to keep a star player on the players terms - the reason why the NBA has it - is mitigated.

The players have to forfeit some power in the new landscape or we will continue to have a lopsided competition. They don't even have to forfeit this - I would fight to take away their Trade Veto - that would make the game a great deal fairer.

But the players should be careful no to ruin the game they profit from...

are you sure the crows can't dig their heels in and insist danger accept the matching offer?

if he refuses then he sits out for 12 months

have you seen the rules or are you going on what's been reported (or not said)?

otherwise, i agree

i guess you also need to compare it to what would happen if no fa and ooc

i.e. trade, else go into nd/psd......which is what seems to be happening anyway

[rpfc 27,692]

are you sure the crows can't dig their heels in and insist danger accept the matching offer?

if he refuses then he sits out for 12 months

have you seen the rules or are you going on what's been reported (or not said)?

otherwise, i agree

i guess you also need to compare it to what would happen if no fa and ooc

i.e. trade, else go into nd/psd......which is what seems to be happening anyway

No digging in of the heels:

Restricted free agents have the right to move to a club of their choice, subject to the current club’s right of first refusal over their services. That is, if the current club can ‘match’ the offer from a suitor club, the player must stay or enter the draft.

http://www.afl.com.au/afl-hq/the-afl-explained/free-agency

So the player can stay on those demands or leave through the draft.

Or be traded like any OOC player.

[daisycutter 28,728]

Restricted free agents have the right to move to a club of their choice, subject to the current club’s right of first refusal over their services. That is, if the current club can ‘match’ the offer from a suitor club, the player must stay or enter the draft.

http://www.afl.com.a...ned/free-agency

that seems pretty definitive

[Bombay Airconditioning 6,024]

It says free agency will remain until the end of 2016, then what? A review?

Compensation is based on a formula determined by the AFL. The Hawks were rightly shafted when Buddy left, regardless if their compensation pick came directly after their 1st pick.

I'm a fan of the first 18 picks bring untainted. No more priority picks and 1st round compensation.

So if Danger goes to Geelong, Crows get an extra first rounder and Geelong keep theirs. Yet Collingwood get Treloar and loose their first round pick and possibly a first or second round pick from next year.

I do like the trading of future picks, there's a sense of unknown there and it can be a risk.

Scrap RFA and make clubs trade current picks, because in reality the Crows should get Geelongs first pick this year and next. That would be fair.

I don't mind the URA.

I'm sick of the Freeman/Boyd/McCarthy situation, with the incoming pay rise should be the player movement without consent. Sick of people citing family reasons, they can move back after their career is over.

[praha 10,575]

Sick of people citing family reasons, they can move back after their career is over.

It pisses me off so much. Young kids who have been drafted and invested in saying, "wah wah I want to go hoooome". Unless you have serious family issues, such requests shouldn't be granted.

[Demon trucker 1,800]

The thing is danger is a ooc also, you would have to change all the rules , if are a free agent or ooc then you are both ooc, the only difference if you are a ooc or restricted is that a restricted can get a direct offer from another club and go there if your club does not match it, if they do not then your free if you force them to accept the matched offer,then you would have to force ooc players to take their clubs offer, and without a another offer then they could offer a low contract.

[dee-luded 2,958]

No digging in of the heels:

So the player can stay on those demands or leave through the draft.

Or be traded like any OOC player.

this is why I think the lower clubs, on aggregate, should have a larger salary cap, & slightly larger list, than the top 4 clubs.

[dee-luded 2,958]

It says free agency will remain until the end of 2016, then what? A review?

Compensation is based on a formula determined by the AFL. The Hawks were rightly shafted when Buddy left, regardless if their compensation pick came directly after their 1st pick.

I'm a fan of the first 18 picks bring untainted. No more priority picks and 1st round compensation.

So if Danger goes to Geelong, Crows get an extra first rounder and Geelong keep theirs. Yet Collingwood get Treloar and loose their first round pick and possibly a first or second round pick from next year.

I do like the trading of future picks, there's a sense of unknown there and it can be a risk.

Scrap RFA and make clubs trade current picks, because in reality the Crows should get Geelongs first pick this year and next. That would be fair.

I don't mind the URA.

I'm sick of the Freeman/Boyd/McCarthy situation, with the incoming pay rise should be the player movement without consent. Sick of people citing family reasons, they can move back after their career is over.

were they really shafted, or did they receive an honest value. after this season, is his value being seen now?

[deespicable me 1,445]

I'm a fan of the first 18 picks bring untainted. No more priority picks and 1st round compensation.

You must clearly be a fan of the bottom realms of the AFL Ladder as well then. You must clearly be a fan of Hawks continuing their dominance of the AFL competition and the Box Hill Hawks continuing their dominance of the VFL competition. Like it or not the lower teams need compensating or you wont get the cyclical movement up and down the ladder.

You need to give the lower teams the ability to improve their lists. They need high draft picks to not only bring in young talent but to trade to the higher clubs for ready made players.

The higher clubs already have a good list. They just need to control their cap spending, keep a good spread of ages through their list and tinker with a mix of draft and free agency.

A pick 50 has as much chance of being properly developed on a good list as a top 5 draft pick.

The lower teams need talented youngsters or well developed mid range players to improve their lists.

The main reason the top clubs want an untainted draft as you suggest, is not so much about improving their own lists as it is about holding the bottom teams exactly where they are. Down the bottom.

The public are being fed propaganda suggesting the competition has the ability to even itself out. It doesn't.

[Return to Glory 7,869]

Free agency here really came about because player agents saw an opportunity to double dip - and they have taken full advantage of a flawed system.

[Bombay Airconditioning 6,024]

You must clearly be a fan of the bottom realms of the AFL Ladder as well then. You must clearly be a fan of Hawks continuing their dominance of the AFL competition and the Box Hill Hawks continuing their dominance of the VFL competition. Like it or not the lower teams need compensating or you wont get the cyclical movement up and down the ladder.

You need to give the lower teams the ability to improve their lists. They need high draft picks to not only bring in young talent but to trade to the higher clubs for ready made players.

The higher clubs already have a good list. They just need to control their cap spending, keep a good spread of ages through their list and tinker with a mix of draft and free agency.

A pick 50 has as much chance of being properly developed on a good list as a top 5 draft pick.

The lower teams need talented youngsters or well developed mid range players to improve their lists.

The main reason the top clubs want an untainted draft as you suggest, is not so much about improving their own lists as it is about holding the bottom teams exactly where they are. Down the bottom.

The public are being fed propaganda suggesting the competition has the ability to even itself out. It doesn't.

So Geelong being a "higher" club get Danger and keep their first round pick? They remain a power, pick up a great talent(star of the comp) free of charge and still have pick 9 before the Crows even get a look in with there first pick.

Who wins there?

I'm not suggesting my ideas are perfect but the current system doesn't work.

Edited September 24, 2015 by Al's Demons

[Bombay Airconditioning 6,024]

I'm not a fan off the Hawks but I admire what they have achieved and hope they win it this year. No COLA, no academy players(someone mentioned Cyril was on a scholarship?, not sure how that works). Yes they recurred a priority years ago but they have recruited and developed better than the rest.

[Bombay Airconditioning 6,024]

were they really shafted, or did they receive an honest value. after this season, is his value being seen now?

I think they were. Many will disagree and that's fine. The fact they won it last year and are a big chance this year is a credit to them. Edited September 24, 2015 by Al's Demons

[Demon trucker 1,800]

The wheels will turn, Sydney have over spent on tippet and buddy

[Return to Glory 7,869]

The wheels will turn, Sydney have over spent on tippet and buddy

Not as long as they have their Academy.

[Bombay Airconditioning 6,024]

were they really shafted, or did they receive an honest value. after this season, is his value being seen now?

And without starting a riot, yes mental health issues are serious and should be treated as such, for me the jury is out on "what's happening with Buddy"(I don't need people telling me they know for a fact that.....). As we've been advised we're not aloud/going to speculate but at the time he was traded he was and still is a superstar. Like anything buyer beware. If Danger does his ACL or strikes out 3 times for illicit drugs that's bad luck for the club involved at the time.

[Bombay Airconditioning 6,024]

Not as long as they have their Academy.

Do we know how is the academy funded by AFL %wise and how much do the Swans tip in?

Why can't the academy's be 100% funded by the AFL and kids are drafted where they are taken in the draft.

[DeeSpencer 23,689]

Do we know how is the academy funded by AFL %wise and how much do the Swans tip in?

Why can't the academy's be 100% funded by the AFL and kids are drafted where they are taken in the draft.

I think they get 500k from the AFL and the rest is up to them. The swans run their costs at close to 1 mil but hired Roos on something like 400k and now O'Loughlin on decent coin to run it to give some brand recognition. They could easily just hire a young development coach or a much lesser wage and cut the costs.

GWS and Gold Coast money is just AFL money anyway so it's an even bigger con.

I would start by exempting the first round picks. Anything after than they can have access to.

[Bombay Airconditioning 6,024]

I think they get 500k from the AFL and the rest is up to them. The swans run their costs at close to 1 mil but hired Roos on something like 400k and now O'Loughlin on decent coin to run it to give some brand recognition. They could easily just hire a young development coach or a much lesser wage and cut the costs.

GWS and Gold Coast money is just AFL money anyway so it's an even bigger con.

I would start by exempting the first round picks. Anything after than they can have access to.

Cheers for that.

The AFL is worth millions, they should step in and take over all academy's with its players able to be drafted anywhere.

[Cheap Seats 3,308]

I agree with the OP - the AFLs FA policy is a big fail.

Changes need to be made to even up the barging power between clubs and players.... At the moment the players have too much control

There is no possible argument that the current system is contributing to equalisation

[Middymalt 244]

Players choose what clubs they want to play for anyway it's hardly needed

[Return to Glory 7,869]

I think they get 500k from the AFL and the rest is up to them. The swans run their costs at close to 1 mil but hired Roos on something like 400k and now O'Loughlin on decent coin to run it to give some brand recognition. They could easily just hire a young development coach or a much lesser wage and cut the costs.

GWS and Gold Coast money is just AFL money anyway so it's an even bigger con.

I would start by exempting the first round picks. Anything after than they can have access to.

Ta GRRM. So, in other words, it's still a significant advantage. You only have to look at recent drafts, including the upcoming one, to see how much these clubs have been advantaged.

[Bombay Airconditioning 6,024]

Danger age 25 154 games current star of the comp

Treloar age 22 78 games tracking as a future star of the comp

Collingwood stand to loose this years first round pick and next years first/second round.

Geelong stand to loose nothing.

Rather than the AFL use its secret formula to say Adelaide get pick x. Why don't they do the reverse and to Geelong if you want him our formula says Danger is worth 2 first round picks, or a first and second round. Do you still want him?

Adelaide would then get their first round pick that they're entitled to plus any additional picks warranted for losing a star.

Geelong don't get their cake and eat it too.