I get and understand that free agency was voted in by the players through the players association. But from an external stand point I pose the question. What is the point of free agency?

In the players eyes, free agency allows movement and freedom in joining their desired club of choice after serving a number of years at the club. Fair enough. However, it seems like players these days even in and out of contract hold majority of the power in determining where they actually go and who they want to be traded to. Players and their managers being at their respective club for as little as two years can just up and say 'X player has requested a trade and wants to play for X club' and more likely than not, that player lands at the club he has nominated to go to.

Which brings me back to my initial question. What is the point of free agency, when players can simply request a trade to whichever club they want to go to? To me, free agency just makes things a lot more difficult in determining compensation, holding up proceedings if a team has matched a restricted free agent offer, powerhouse clubs simply injecting top end talent and not having to give up anything for it etc.

I just don't understand the need for it when players are ending up at clubs they want to play for anyway in OR out of contract..

Its dumb it makes the strong clubs stronger

It's a mechanism for keeping the strong Clubs strong and the week Clubs week by more easily facilitating the automatic transfer of the best players in the weak Clubs to the strong Clubs without the inconvenience of having to give up anything.

It has had the added benefit of trickling down the mentality to non Free Agents so that all players now want to leave the weak Clubs and go to the strong Clubs.

Clubs that were weak before the Expansion teams and Free Agency will stay that way from now on and the Clubs that were strong before will stay that way.

Its dumb it makes the strong clubs stronger

It just angers me how players beg for more freedom, yet even if they are in contract they can treat clubs however they please to get to their desired club..

Nothing wrong with free agency, the issue is contracted players choosing where they go and clubs having to get permission in order to trade a player.

Yawn.

I think it's typical in Australia to cry when those less fortunate, through whatever means, are disadvantaged. Fair enough but most of the clubs missing out on free agency are simply undesirable for free agents because they're poorly run clubs.

The reality is that free agency makes the league more competitive, which is good for the game and fans.

Melbourne was a very good amateur football club. It dominated in the amateur era. It never made the transition to professional sports club and ultimately has struggled.

If you are run well, draft well, treat your players right and create a good working environment, you will attract players. It has nothing to do with your placement on the ladder. There is no luxury tax (going outside your cap and paying a tax on how much extra you pay) so top, big teams aren't allowed to spend outside the cap. Everyone has the same amount to spend.

If a player is prepared to accept less, that's a product of a GOOD CLUB, not an issue with free agency.

There's nothing wrong with free agency. Free agency actually puts more accountability on clubs to treat players well and create a good working environment. Sometimes players leave good clubs (Beams for example) but that's the exception. Danger wants to leave but Adelaide isn't necessarily a club crying out for success to attract members.

You can use free agency to build a strong list with good depth. You don't need to sign a Dangerfield or a Franklin to win flags.

CB is right.

Free Agenecy is a mechanism that only works if clubs own the contract in between and can trade players without their approval.

At the moment the players can veto everything then leave when they want, which hamstrings clubs.

Yawn.

I think it's typical in Australia to cry when those less fortunate, through whatever means, are disadvantaged. Fair enough but most of the clubs missing out on free agency are simply undesirable for free agents because they're poorly run clubs.

The reality is that free agency makes the league more competitive, which is good for the game and fans.

Melbourne was a very good amateur football club. It dominated in the amateur era. It never made the transition to professional sports club and ultimately has struggled.

If you are run well, draft well, treat your players right and create a good working environment, you will attract players. It has nothing to do with your placement on the ladder. There is no luxury tax (going outside your cap and paying a tax on how much extra you pay) so top, big teams aren't allowed to spend outside the cap. Everyone has the same amount to spend.

If a player is prepared to accept less, that's a product of a GOOD CLUB, not an issue with free agency.

There's nothing wrong with free agency. Free agency actually puts more accountability on clubs to treat players well and create a good working environment. Sometimes players leave good clubs (Beams for example) but that's the exception. Danger wants to leave but Adelaide isn't necessarily a club crying out for success to attract members.

You can use free agency to build a strong list with good depth. You don't need to sign a Dangerfield or a Franklin to win flags.

You're completely missing the point here praha.. This thread wasn't a cry for help because Melbourne are less fortunate. This thread was more of a frustrated query is to why players voted this in because they wanted more freedom in walking to clubs they want to, when it seems like they already have that freedom being either IN or OUT of contract.

Nothing wrong with free agency, the issue is contracted players choosing where they go and clubs having to get permission in order to trade a player.

I completely agree. I'm not saying there is something wrong with free agency. I am saying what is the point of it when contracted players are nominating the club of choice where they want to go to. It shouldn't happen. Being able to hamstring your club and decide where you want to go especially when your contracted AND having free agency I think shouldn't happen. It doesn't compute to me.

You're completely missing the point here praha.. This thread wasn't a cry for help because Melbourne are less fortunate. This thread was more of a frustrated query is to why players voted this in because they wanted more freedom in walking to clubs they want to, when it seems like they already have that freedom being either IN or OUT of contract.

I think the freedom for players to move that you're talking about only exists because of free agency. Clubs now appear concerned that if they don't allow a player to leave when he wishes via a trade they'll lose him anyway a little later for nothing via free agency. So clubs are more willing to facilitate a trade now than they were before free agency came into being.

I think the freedom for players to move that you're talking about only exists because of free agency. Clubs now appear concerned that if they don't allow a player to leave when he wishes via a trade they'll lose him anyway a little later for nothing via free agency. So clubs are more willing to facilitate a trade now than they were before free agency came into being.

I agree on some of these points, however there hasn't been many players that has been prematurely traded before he became a free agent. You look at the players that are requesting a trade, McCarthy, Aish, Boyd etc. The list goes on. These players have been at their respective club for 1-4 years. You need to be at your club for 10 years to be eligible for free agency. I think 'a little later' is a bit of a stretch when there is another 6+ years they need to be at the club to be eligible for free agency.

I think they should reduce the free agency period down to five year with no restricted, if you are a free agent you are just that and should be allowed to go to the club you want. If this were to come in then the trade off for the players is that they have to give up the right to veto a trade. In other words, if a player has served less than five years they can be traded anywhere at any point, if you have served your five years you get to choose. Seems fair both ways and gives the clubs some power in what their list looks like.

At the moment the players have their cake and are enjoying eating it.

I think they should reduce the free agency period down to five year with no restricted, if you are a free agent you are just that and should be allowed to go to the club you want. If this were to come in then the trade off for the players is that they have to give up the right to veto a trade. In other words, if a player has served less than five years they can be traded anywhere at any point, if you have served your five years you get to choose. Seems fair both ways and gives the clubs some power in what their list looks like.

At the moment the players have their cake and are enjoying eating it.

Agree wholeheartedly.

The reality is that free agency makes the league more competitive, which is good for the game and fans.

I'm learning about FA more and more, but can you elaborate how it has made the league more competitive in recent years?

You're completely missing the point here praha.. This thread wasn't a cry for help because Melbourne are less fortunate. This thread was more of a frustrated query is to why players voted this in because they wanted more freedom in walking to clubs they want to, when it seems like they already have that freedom being either IN or OUT of contract.

I think that you will find it was an attempt to overcome or at least comply with restraint of trade laws. How well it does that is another matter

I'm learning about FA more and more, but can you elaborate how it has made the league more competitive in recent years?

Well, it has helped us become more competitive.

Sylvia for Vince.

Frawley for Brayshaw.

Moloney for Kent.

Well, it has helped us become more competitive.

Sylvia for Vince.

Frawley for Brayshaw.

Moloney for Kent.

Although not Free Agency the Scully compo was a similar form of compo and we ended up with Hogan and Dawes. So all in all we have to learn to not get so hysterical when no. 1 picks or Free agents walk out on the Club because as you point out compo has so far improved the list. There won't be anymore pick 3's for players like Frawley that's for sure. It looks more and more like that was the AFL's way of giving us the equivalent of a Priority Pick without politically actually giving us one.

Player movement with the option of using a transparent, consistent trade arbitration system would clean up an awful lot of the mess.

Of course, at the moment it is very hard to advocate for anything centrally administered given the current governance culture of the AFL.

Basic principles -

Players should be allowed to leave a club; they are not the property of a club just because they were drafted.

Clubs losing players should get 'draft/list value' equivalent compensation to allow them to balance players lost with replacements.

Clubs gaining players must be made to pay a 'draft/list value' cost to prevent the creation of a super-incentive to recruit from other clubs rather than drafting kids.

The only really tricky part is how to set the 'cost' of a transfer. Clearly, it is insufficient to just say salary = value.

* One option is to add a premium based on the destination club's football department expenditure. Remembering that the rich-poor club gap in footy dept budgets can exceed $100k per player.

* Another modifier which might be used is the number of recent draftees at a club; committing every club to having an investment in developing new AFL talent. If you're not developing new talent then you pay an additional premium to bring it in from somewhere else. This would implicitly and gently increase free agency costs for teams which already have a large group of mature players, while also easing the costs for teams going through a draft-based rebuild. It is a direct counter to the 'feeder-club' concerns of free agency.

* Retention should be rewarded, for both player and club. Its good for the game and the fans to be able to build enduring connections and confidence. The old veterans list structure was a bit clunky and arbitrary, but an incremental salary cap bonus rewarding players for career service with a club would be a nice small incentive. Maybe for every year beyond eight that a player is with a club, 5% of their salary is exempt from salary cap. Drafted at 18, by the time you're 30/31 a quarter of your salary is a free bonus for club and player. This both encourages retention AND extends careers. Good for everyone!

In theory it's to allow a player who has been at a club for a while and doesn't like it, to go somewhere else and take his chances.

In practice it's to prevent the AFLPA suing the AFL for restraint of trade and winning. Which would destroy the AFL.

There's a lot of grey area in regards to compensation. Take West Coast for example, they get angry at pick 37 for Selwood and talk about how important he's been to the club, that he was a VC but yet he wasn't picked in the PF or GF and his salary doesn't warrant higher compensation.

I think clubs will heavily load a player's salary in the season before they become a FA, perhaps put them in a leadership position just to get their value up and get better compensation. Even tank the season maybe. A lot easier than asking for a PP and they will point at the Frawley case as a reference point to make sure they get a top 5

There's a lot of grey area in regards to compensation. Take West Coast for example, they get angry at pick 37 for Selwood and talk about how important he's been to the club, that he was a VC but yet he wasn't picked in the PF or GF and his salary doesn't warrant higher compensation.

I think clubs will heavily load a player's salary in the season before they become a FA, perhaps put them in a leadership position just to get their value up and get better compensation. Even tank the season maybe. A lot easier than asking for a PP and they will point at the Frawley case as a reference point to make sure they get a top 5

don't see how that will help

the biggest determinant for compo band is the value of the contract offered by the new club

west coast got the right compo - band 3. they understood the rules so i can't see where they are coming from. they're making a dlck of themselves

It is designed to keep the "feeder clubs" in their place and allow the "power clubs" to continue to dominate, and skim the cream of fixtures and revenue.

Of course the quaintly named 'integrity department' at AFL will 'ensure' that the integrity of the game and the equalisation of the competition is preserved (and that Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy always turn up on cue.)

don't see how that will help

the biggest determinant for compo band is the value of the contract offered by the new club

west coast got the right compo - band 3. they understood the rules so i can't see where they are coming from. they're making a dlck of themselves

Their pouting will reach across the Nullabor if in next year's finals West Coast plays Geelong (plausible) and Selwood, who they got 37(?) for, locks down Redden who they paid pick 17 for.

One of the many problems with FA is that comp picks are attached to ladder position.

It would be a lot better/fairer if comp picks were end rnd 1 (for the best players) and end rnd 2 (all other players)

This maintains the integrity of the 1st round.

Clubs have a good idea what pick they will get before/early in trade week.

It will avoid the mess Brisb have: after passing on Suckling (for free as an FA) they get a crap pick for Leuey anyway and Ess now won't trade for him. Net result: No Suckling and pick 39 or keep Leuey.

The AFL may need to bring back PP's but that is better than trying to make the FA comp picks defacto PP's

The AFL has gone from Santa to Mr Scrooge with its FA comp picks this year.

Thank God Frawley left last year!

One of the many problems with FA is that comp picks are attached to ladder position.

It would be a lot better/fairer if comp picks were end rnd 1 (for the best players) and end rnd 2 (all other players)

This maintains the integrity of the 1st round.

Clubs have a good idea what pick they will get before/early in trade week.

It will avoid the mess Brisb have: after passing on Suckling (for free as an FA) they get a crap pick for Leuey anyway and Ess now won't trade for him. Net result: No Suckling and pick 39 or keep Leuey.

The AFL may need to bring back PP's but that is better than trying to make the FA comp picks defacto PP's

The AFL has gone from Santa to Mr Scrooge with its FA comp picks this year.

Thank God Frawley left last year!

A star player leaving a club near the bottom hurts more than a star player laving a club near the top. That is just a simple fact.

The compensation tied to ladder position was a godsend to a club that needed some help - namely - us.

Fairer when it is equal?

Whatever.