http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/free-agents-for-life-afl-to-relax-player-movement-rules-20170524-gwcck3.html

The AFLPA have asked for and will get at least one of the three:

• Free agency for life - any player remains a free agent after eight years of service in the game regardless of how many years he has played at his current club;

• Portable free agency - any player can move to the club of his choice after eight years' service whether or not those years have all been at the one club;

• Four-year free agency - any player earning on or under the median AFL wage would be free to choose a new club after four years of service.

I am at a loss to see why we need new free agency rules.  Players, with rare exception (eg Gibbs) get to the club of their choice when they are out of contract.  Many move after the first few years - just ask the much abused Brisbane.  So in my mind we have complete Free Agency now. 

If (big IF) the AFL continues with compensation picks the losing club will get a pick but it does not compensate for a classy play or their development.

The BIG problem I have with this proposal is trades for those OOC players will no longer happen.  ie The receiving club gives up nothing and gets the player for FREE!!  In my view player movements should require the receiving club to 'pay' for the player ie give up picks or players

Edited May 24, 20178 yr by Lucifer's Hero

25 minutes ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

Players, with rare exception (eg Gibbs) get to the club of their choice when they are out of contract.

Gibbs wasn't out of contract.

...but surely Dill & his delusional crew wouldn't be delusional enough to go with any of these options, particularly the last 2.

Players are going to have far too much power, clubs will not be compensated.

 

I'd be ok with this as long as clubs could trade players without their consent during the non-free agency period.

 

If these go through, Brisbane and Gold Coast are going to get screwed over big time.

6 minutes ago, rjay said:

Gibbs wasn't out of contract.

...but surely Dill & his delusional crew wouldn't be delusional enough to go with any of these options, particularly the last 2.

True.  ditto McCarthy at GWS.  These further emphasise the point that OOC of players get to their club of choice.  Has any OOC player not got to their club of choice in the last 5 years?

I too am staggered that the AFL appear ready to adopt at least one of the three (possibly all three).  From what we know the AFLPA has won on its major points (% of revenue), modified FA.  Can't yet see what they have given up in return. 

The clubs get nothing back in terms of leverage over players or rights to trade players. 

Gil is soft.  Makes out he is a master deal maker/negotiator but in reality he gives in to the masses or the powerful far too often. 

If the players are going to be granted this level of freedom to pick and choose where they go, maybe it's time the clubs got the freedom to trade players without player consent and regardless of contract status.

2 hours ago, Choke said:

Players are going to have far too much power, clubs will not be compensated.

 

I'd be ok with this as long as clubs could trade players without their consent during the non-free agency period.

 

If these go through, Brisbane and Gold Coast are going to get screwed over big time.

 I agree with this.

If the players gain more control over where they go as free agents, then the clubs should get more control when they are contracted.

This is what happens in American sports and it allows for free movement between clubs.

If only marriages worked like that  

The players will win. It is fully professional now. 

Some will be loyal because they like where they are

some will move yearly for better deals

that's how it happens in the big world. 

Having a mashed-together system of the old trade process and now free agency is just a mess.

It may be time for a kind of automated trade resolution that just acknowledges every player's right to move and every club's right to get fair value back.

Trade value assigned according to old contract, new contract, and some simple performance bonus factors. Also weighted to make it easier for fringe players to move (Eg. trade value calculation begins after first $100k salary ignored)

Some weighting of trades according to club resources (e.g. each $1m extra of footy dept spending adds 5% to that club's trade prices).

A nod to the idea that loyalty and continuity still matter (salary cap relief for long-term retained players).

A simple mechanism to give a small measure of privacy-through-confusion to player salaries (a +10% to -10% random weighting)

And the missing piece - a way to convert/cash in draft picks without all those ridiculous "pick 11, 38 and 43 from club A for 22, 26 from club B and pick 7 from club C" deals.

1 hour ago, Gipsy Danger said:

If the players are going to be granted this level of freedom to pick and choose where they go, maybe it's time the clubs got the freedom to trade players without player consent and regardless of contract status.

This surely has to be the next step.  The struggling clubs (and their supporters) are the ones who will be missing out as their better players leave in search of premiership glory ASAP.  Players don't want to be a part of a rebuild / premiership challenge in 5+ years time. 

The more I think about it the more I think we're heading towards an NBA style system.  Not sure whether it would work, but that system looks like the following:
- First Round draft picks locked into 2 year contracts, with TEAM options in years 3-4 for a set salary (potentially fixes the problem that Brisbane is having with retaining players)
- Player contracts often have player or team options for their final 1-2 years
- RFA and Free Agents (we already have this) 
- The trade period is open from the off-season until mid-way through the season, allowing teams who are struggling to trade out assets for picks, and vice versa
- Players can be "waived" (their contracts are effectively paid out) meaning there is flexibility on rosters  / lists
- Players can be added onto a teams roster / list at any time (save for about 3 weeks before finals until the end of the finals) if they have space (i.e. you have to waive someone first).  Players can only be added if they have been waived by another team, or have gone undrafted (i.e. you can't go and add juniors to your list). 

I think the players have too much power at the moment, and some needs to be given back to the clubs.  Flexibly rosters could potentially help avoid our disaster of this year of not having a ruckman.  We could "waive" someone off our list (i.e. Lumumba) and add a VFL ruckman.  You're still encouraged to keep and develop talent on your roster, but ensures teams seasons aren't ruined by 1-2 injuries to key personal. 

Something to think about anyway.