I know many, including me love this time of year and the Dangerfield move seems to suggest the current scheme is working, so maybe if it aint broke ...

The AFL could simplify the process a lot and promote player retention and equalisation, while giving something significant to the AFLPA.

Here's a radical idea:

• Get rid of the trade completely
• All player movement is via a single draft only, using current draft order rules
• Players are unrestricted free agents at the end of any contract, they can re-sign or go in the draft
• Players drafted in R1 get minimum 4 year contract, R2 get minimum 3 year contract, R3+ get minimum 2 year contract
• Players can put an annual Contract price on their head, if <$400k then minimum 2 year contract, if 400k-800k then minimum 3 year contract, if > 800k then minimum 4 year contract (this stops players putting 1.5M x 2 years to get to the club of their choice and then discount later years)
• Minimum contract length is the maximum of the two values above, i.e. Draft Round or Contract price
• Player cannot be re-drafted by the club he has left
• No rookie list

I think I like it.

The main problem with trading is that players have a veto and the players want the opportunity to veto a deal so that they don't end up in a different state to where their life is set up.

In the US - players of all major codes live elsewhere to where they play, but that is not the case here.

Your solution doesn't really allow for them the freedom to choose where they live - which is the base requirement that they feel they deserve.

Getting them out of that mindset will fix your scenario but it will largely address the issue of the current scenario.

My changes:

- UFA after 7 years of AFL footy (on any list, it doesn't restart with a new club),

- Every contract after that the player is UFA,

- FA compensation remains for players paid a certain amount (Top 10% in AFL)

- 2 bands - one behind 1st round pick (Top 5%, 2nd behind 1st round 5-10%)

- Traded players can re-negotiate their contract or simply allow their current one to be left in place,

- Players can not veto trades,

- Player taken in top 10 are given 3 year contracts with a 1 year team option, Players in 10-30 are given 2 year contracts with a 1 year team option,

- Draft age to be lifted to 1 full year out of Year 12,

The green changes are the ones I would give to the players to get them to swallow the red. I really don't think current players care about the draft age and contracts given to draftees.

Give me two weeks in charge...

The main problem with trading is that players have a veto and the players want the opportunity to veto a deal so that they don't end up in a different state to where their life is set up.

In the US - players of all major codes live elsewhere to where they play, but that is not the case here.

Your solution doesn't really allow for them the freedom to choose where they live - which is the base requirement that they feel they deserve.

They get UFA after every contract and more favourable mandated contract lengths. The price they pay is that they have to go where they are drafted.

Unfortunately the whole free agent thing is about allowing players to move to their workplace of choice. Your proposal doesn't allow this to happen.

I think the AFL is a bit caught up between a proper free agency model and a proper draft model (like we had). Basically on any deal (except for the draft) the play has total veto power in a trade and free agency. This means that once a player is in the system they have all the power and clubs have very little, which will skew the player movement towards big/successful clubs. For instance, Frawley would previously have gone to Hawthorn but Hawthorn would have to sacrifice something (their future) to have a better chance of winning a flag.

We went from a system where both club and player had powers to STOP any trade. But now we have a system where they just (in effect) removed the club's veto power but retained the player's.

The model we should have, which the AFLPA will hate (because it's so good for them now), is where the players give up that veto right so that players can move more freely. That is the real Draft/Trade/Free Agency system that allows free movement and equity. Perhaps, in exchange, the players will become Unrestricted free agents after 7 years (ie, about 25).

I'd rather keep the older draft system, but the current system is a bit of a hybrid that has skewed the power unreasonably towards the players.

The main problem with trading is that players have a veto and the players want the opportunity to veto a deal so that they don't end up in a different state to where their life is set up.

In the US - players of all major codes live elsewhere to where they play, but that is not the case here.

Your solution doesn't really allow for them the freedom to choose where they live - which is the base requirement that they feel they deserve.

Getting them out of that mindset will fix your scenario but it will largely address the issue of the current scenario.

My changes:

- UFA after 7 years of AFL footy (on any list, it doesn't restart with a new club),

- Every contract after that the player is UFA,

- FA compensation remains for players paid a certain amount (Top 10% in AFL)

- 2 bands - one behind 1st round pick (Top 5%, 2nd behind 1st round 5-10%)

- Traded players can re-negotiate their contract or simply allow their current one to be left in place,

- Players can not veto trades,

- Player taken in top 10 are given 3 year contracts with a 1 year team option, Players in 10-30 are given 2 year contracts with a 1 year team option,

- Draft age to be lifted to 1 full year out of Year 12,

The green changes are the ones I would give to the players to get them to swallow the red. I really don't think current players care about the draft age and contracts given to draftees.

Give me two weeks in charge...

I like the idea of raising the draft age by a year if we move to a free agency system. It means that clubs have more certainty over the draft picks, hence making them more valuable in a trade. It means that clubs are more likely to get good players (ie, value) all the way until they become free agents, which makes that investment worthwhile.

Unfortunately the whole free agent thing is about allowing players to move to their workplace of choice. Your proposal doesn't allow this to happen.

I agree that's the problem. They get something decent in return though.

Look I still think some players would get to where they want Luke Ball style.

Edited October 13, 20159 yr by Fifty-5

I agree that's the problem. They get something decent in return though.

Look I still think some players would get to where they want Luke Ball style.

I agree, but unfortunately that would go against their argument for the last 10 years.

With the full Free Agency model, the advantage that it would have over the US model is that the trading only happens once a year during the trade period.

I agree, but unfortunately that would go against their argument for the last 10 years.

With the full Free Agency model, the advantage that it would have over the US model is that the trading only happens once a year during the trade period.

Maybe tie the change to their % of revenue request

It's actually very simple, and someone a while back on Demonland described much of it; but it goes along the lines of:

Free Agents are assessed a value; against a rating similar to Academy player selections and Father/Sons

Clubs acquiring free agents are required to pay the losing club these picks (based on points similar to what is happening with Academy Selections)

This doesn't restrict a player getting to a club, but it does place a value on it!!! If some clubs do not want to pay the price then they didn't really want the player as much as the player thought they did.

A consequence of this is that clubs down the bottom of the table have more bargaining power (as their draft positions equate to greater points); while successful clubs will need to trade players out to get the necessary points (adding more players to the trade pool).

Again this is not a restriction on free agency as players can still get to the club of their choice and clubs can still get the player of their choice - if they are both prepared to wear the cost (The required draft points from a club perspective or reduced salary to drop the required draft points from a players perspective)

This model could actually be rolled out to all out of contract players, but I like the idea that any players under 5 - 7 years are treated as RFA's.

Edited October 13, 20159 yr by Ungarie boy