1 hour ago, Lord Travis said:

Correct, that was a key reason for it's creation. It was also intended to aid lower clubs to lure players without costing picks etc. 

All reasons aside, Free Agency has been the worst thing to happen to the game in my lifetime, and changes need to be made to stop players being able to go to top clubs. The reigning premiers (who are favourites to go back to back) have just had a club captain and All Australian standard key forward nominate them. They get stronger. The competition, and therefore the game, is worse off. It needs to change.

My thinking is a tariff system where a top four club is slugged an extra fee into their salary cap. A premium over the wage they are offering Lynch of something like 10 or 15%. If they are giving Lynch 800 a year for 4 years then then 80 to 120 gets taken off their wage cap. This makes it harder for the top clubs to get a free agent.

You could also offer a tariff the other way for the bottom clubs so if a Carlton pays 1.2 mill a year for a Lynch as a free agent they might get a 10 or 15% discount meaning only 1.08 mill is put under their salary cap. It might help even it all out a bit.

It's clearly wrong at the moment.

 

32 minutes ago, RalphiusMaximus said:

I think the last decade or so has shown us that it's not top draft picks that make a club successful.  Melbourne tried that trick and fell flat on their face.  Carlton has had more no. 1 picks than any other side including the two expansions, and look at the good it's done them.  Our own example shows that the back-end needs to be properly run before things come together on-field.  Rather than worrying about the loss of talented but unfulfilled players, GCS need to get their act together off-field.  That is where the AFL can really help them out, just as they did with us.  None of this Priority Pick rubbish that both GC and Carlton are asking for. 

I agree with this in principle but Clarry, Brayshaw, and Petracca, three guys that are vital to the engin room of our team are all top 5 picks. You definitely need to get your house in order first, we are proof of that, but there’s no doubt for tangible improvement you also need access to top and then (most importantly) the ability to develop them properly. 

We had all the picks in the world for a long time but catastrophically bad development (and poor recruiting) mixed with messy club management. 

Devils advocate but the Tigs were an ongoing gag until midway through last season. A “big” club but had had zero success for a long time until it all clicked for them last season. 

In saying that free agency does seem favour the big or “winning” clubs over the strugglers. @A F you mentioned potentially only Frawley winning a flag but the issue for mine is it artificially keeps the winning clubs up the pointy end while delays the struggling clubs ability to rise as they lose an older player for a draft pick whilst the winning club keeps draft selection.

Lastly this was a discussion on radio recently and one of the other key “benefits” spouted by the PA at the time was for the fringe best 22 players not getting a game, they would be free to move to other clubs and get a game, doesn’t feel like that has panned out at all, big fish or no fish. 

Bob Murphysaid on 360 last night that the dogs were a basket case and he saw that Buddy, the biggest name in free agency was going to a team winning flags in the swans and thought that it was not right. nick Reiwoldt then pointed out that two years later the Dogs beat the Buddy led Swans in the GF...

Its not all that simple.

Yes the AFL stated that it was for players to move clubs easier and help the bottom teams out, but if you watch any sort of US sport with free agency you know this is not the case.

8 hours ago, Moonshadow said:

Clearly we disagree.

2 games ago we were looking at missing out on finals. Needed to beat top 8 team/s where we hadn't in the previous 21 weeks.

After 12 years, that's called falling in.

No thats called winning your way in

11 hours ago, Lord Travis said:

I like this rule too. Free Agency was introduced as an equalisation method so that lower placed clubs could attain players without the ned to trade. In reality, the lower placed clubs have just become feeders for the top clubs. Who would want to go to a team like Carlton and play in a team getting belted by 100 points every week when you can just go the Richmond/Hawthorn and get a premiership with minimal struggle. The best way to fix it is to put a rule in place where top 4 or top 8 teams are not allowed to sign free agents, but can lose them. This would stop the endless cycle of top teams being propped up, and mean if players want to leave their club then they'll have to move to a club where they earn the big bucks they're (usually) demanding.

Free agency was introduced to allow players with tenure to be able to move to their club of choice without impediment. It had nothing to do with equalisation.

10 hours ago, Deecisive said:

yes free agency favours the top clubs, it also penalises everyone else, as the suns will get another early draft pick as compensation which pushes our first pick even higher, then add in all of the other free agent compensations we continue to get pushed higher in the draft pecking order. The bottom clubs get a junior when then need more seasoned players, like the ones they are losing. So not a fan of the current solution. players are finding it too easy to break contracts, and even ordinary players can get offered ridiculous sums of money to play with north, saints, etc.. I hope lynch going to Richmond starts a few of their players thinking about how much they are getting paid and want to move to equal out the competition.

Our first pick is going to the Crows so the further back it is the funnier it gets.

The introductory of free agency was completely bungled. What they should have done;

- Increase rookie contracts to a 2+1+1 with yearly club options on players from year 2 to year 4

- Reduce the salary cap floor

- Players become restricted free agents after their 4 year rookie contract

- Players become unrestricted free agents after 6 years in the system (not necessarily with the one club)

- Clubs own players contracts and have the ability to trade contracted players without their consent

- Harder policing of the salary cap and 3rd party payments - I've seen it suggested Tom Lynch's sister has been recruited by the Tigers AFLW side and been nicely remunerated for it

- Consideration could have been given to "franchise tags"

Too much was given to the AFLPA and now the AFL will be pushing [censored] uphill to try and give any power back to the clubs. Possibly with a large salary cap increase at the next negotiations the players might be willing to give something back.

 

9 hours ago, A F said:

I can only think of one player that has left via free agency that has then gone on to win a flag: James Frawley. Invariably, it goes the other way (Deledio). 

Besides, Riewoldt AND Lynch may well change their game style. I doubt Lynch would want to play in a team that merely bombs the ball long and expects him to bring the ball to ground. I know that's an oversimplification, but I think Lynch's arrival may well upset the fine balance they have in their forward half.

If I recall correctly Deledio was traded and not FA.  Still even with trading players, the top teams seem to have more currency.  My memory fails me as to how Bergoin and McAvoy were viewed at the time, but they were probably the other two big player movements that kept a strong Hawthorn in the hunt...possibly others as well, but they are the ones that stick out.  Granted they were trades and I forget what was received in return, but it does all feed into the problem with the power imballance between weak and strong teams.

...of course now that the MFC is embarking on an era of strength, I'm in no hurry for them to fix it, ass long as we can actually out manouver the other top teams like Richmond, Collingwood, West Coast etc.

I look fwd to the near future when top players want to come to Melbourne for no penalty 

I have had a few goes at ideas to improve free agency. Today's is Top 4 sides must pay 1.5 times the AFL valuation of free agents in draft picks to the side losing the player. Sides 8-5 must pay the AFL valuation in draft picks. Bottom 8 sides pay nothing, the AFL compensate the side losing the player.

There must be a cost for top sides and not $. This does not hinder any player going to any club. It puts a realistic cost on the player movement. Would Richmond give up 2 top ten picks to GC for Lynch? How would they get them? They would have to trade out some players. Would top clubs still target the best players of lowly clubs if the had to pay? 

Make it real AFL make the top clubs pay, and that includes Melbourne. I am sick of free agency destroying all attempts at equalisation. 

Edited September 5, 20186 yr by ManDee
Typo

10 hours ago, Moonshadow said:

Clearly we disagree.

2 games ago we were looking at missing out on finals. Needed to beat top 8 team/s where we hadn't in the previous 21 weeks.

After 12 years, that's called falling in.

We were within a few kicks of finishing in 4th place and had the third best %.  We beat the second placed team on their home turf and then smashed a team in form and on a roll - That's not falling in.

Or alternately, two or three weeks out everyone from Collingwood down was at risk of not making finals (like Port didn't), so I guess most of the finalists just fell in.

West Coast last year are probably a decient example of a team that fell into finals.

It is pretty simple to fix this, every player that goes as a free agent gets a points allocation like the Academy and Father son picks, this is assigned by the AFL, example Tom Lynch I reckon pick 5 is his value what ever the value of that pick is the club getting the player must give up.  If Lynch goes to Richmond and assuming they have Pick 18ish it will cost them First and second round pick.

The club he is leaving still gets the band pick which in Gold Coast that will be a first round pick after the first pick.

 

Not much of a fan of free agency, seems to favour the top sides. But as it stands we have to live with it, be on the front foot and try not to be on the wrong side of future player movement.

It is now an ongoing process within the system so no use complaining about it. It is what it is .

I’m sure we would have several people charged with future strategic positioning within our list management and recruiting staff. They probably have a few sleepless nights with  probably more to come.

For instance recruiting players from interstate, particularly SA and WA carries additional risk.

However when you look at our young player retention over the past few years it’s apparent that we are doing ok and are no longer the soft target we once were.

Bigger problem for AFL is to stop the exodus of players to the stronger clubs ( of which we are now hopefully one) from north of the Murray. 

We may not be in the worst place for all of this now.

54 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

I look fwd to the near future when top players want to come to Melbourne for no penalty 

Guaranteed they change it this off season and we lose a draft pick haha mfcss haha

2 hours ago, Cards13 said:

Guaranteed they change it this off season and we lose a draft pick haha mfcss haha

not at all unlikely and remember the recipient club needs a lot of salary cap space. I suspect the top clubs are very good at keeping the salaries paid to their bottom 30 players well under control on the basis that they are given a chance to be in a successful club.

The simple lesson from all this is that GCS should have traded Lynch last year. They would have got a player and a very good draft pick.

That's the lesson we need to appreciate re Hogan albeit he is a restricted free agent. ( The compo will be paltry under the free agency system.)

This is a blight on the competition and Gil of Le Grand Bouffant should get off his lazy acre and fix it. And so says Chook.

6 minutes ago, Diamond_Jim said:

not at all unlikely and remember the recipient club needs a lot of salary cap space. I suspect the top clubs are very good at keeping the salaries paid to their bottom 30 players well under control on the basis that they are given a chance to be in a successful club.

The simple lesson from all this is that GCS should have traded Lynch last year. They would have got a player and a very good draft pick.

That's the lesson we need to appreciate re Hogan albeit he is a restricted free agent. ( The compo will be paltry under the free agency system.)

I suppose that’s why the recruiting and list management  team, in part ,earn their salary .

Difficult issues to deal with. Try to maximise on your draft selections long term, or minimise the damage ( get best result) in the event you don’t get the outcome you wanted.

Our blokes would have to be all over this.

16 hours ago, Wiseblood said:

Gold Coast is the AFL's problem.  It has nothing to do with equalisation.  They've been a problem since day one and have been absolute poo ever since.  You can't really blame these players for wanting out.  No culture, no facilities, no fans.

Correct.

GWS have lost a few kids too, but they're doing bloody well.

Every club goes through a cycle of losing players. Remember Rivers, Frawley, Howe... the list goes on.
The problem is GC will get pick 3 for Lynch, and will end up with another kid who has no desire to play for them and the cycle will start all over again.

The AFL have epically stuffed this club up from the start. Let them clean up the mess.

As for Lynch, better Richmond than mother effing Hawthorn!!!

2 hours ago, Jaded said:

Correct.

GWS have lost a few kids too, but they're doing bloody well.

Every club goes through a cycle of losing players. Remember Rivers, Frawley, Howe... the list goes on.
The problem is GC will get pick 3 for Lynch, and will end up with another kid who has no desire to play for them and the cycle will start all over again.

The AFL have epically stuffed this club up from the start. Let them clean up the mess.

As for Lynch, better Richmond than mother effing Hawthorn!!!

People were saying this about Brisbane 2 or 3 years ago, they've got themselves into a decent position now. The Gold Coast will be fine long term and the comp will be better for it

14 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

People were saying this about Brisbane 2 or 3 years ago, they've got themselves into a decent position now. The Gold Coast will be fine long term and the comp will be better for it

Brisbane came off 3 flags and have the old Fitzroy supporter base. Kind of different. 

Edited September 6, 20186 yr by Jaded

7 hours ago, ManDee said:

I have had a few goes at ideas to improve free agency. Today's is Top 4 sides must pay 1.5 times the AFL valuation of free agents in draft picks to the side losing the player. Sides 8-5 must pay the AFL valuation in draft picks. Bottom 8 sides pay nothing, the AFL compensate the side losing the player.

There must be a cost for top sides and not $. This does not hinder any player going to any club. It puts a realistic cost on the player movement. Would Richmond give up 2 top ten picks to GC for Lynch? How would they get them? They would have to trade out some players. Would top clubs still target the best players of lowly clubs if the had to pay? 

Make it real AFL make the top clubs pay, and that includes Melbourne. I am sick of free agency destroying all attempts at equalisation. 

Agree 100%.

What really peeves me off it that this was all totally obvious from the moment that FA was introduced, so what are we paying these glorified half wits like Dil McWhatshisface all the millions for.

18 hours ago, biggestred said:

Im pretty sure you're correct. But it was also sold as "can help equalise the comp"

 

 

18 hours ago, Dee Zephyr said:

Paul Marsh was on SEN about a month ago talking about free agency. According to him it wasn’t brought in as an equalisation measure.

https://www.sen.com.au/news/2018/07/24/free-agency-disaster-talk-an-overreaction-says-aflpa

Just another AFL HQ lie / spin

7 hours ago, jnrmac said:

I look fwd to the near future when top players want to come to Melbourne for no penalty 

Rules will be changed before we can take advantage of it -- sure as hell.

23 hours ago, Petraccattack said:

No point complaining when the Demons will no doubt land a very big free agent in the next year or two.

Anyway, Jack Riewoldt turns 30 next month so it makes sense they would get Lynch.   Can you blame him for choosing an established club when he had to spend the first half of his career at the Suns?

Similar to the way I think.
These blokes didn't grow up kicking the footy around the backyard imagining themselves playing senior AFL football infront of 15 people at Metricon and Spotless stadiums. 

7 hours ago, Jaded said:

Correct.

GWS have lost a few kids too, but they're doing bloody well.

Every club goes through a cycle of losing players. Remember Rivers, Frawley, Howe... the list goes on.
The problem is GC will get pick 3 for Lynch, and will end up with another kid who has no desire to play for them and the cycle will start all over again.

The AFL have epically stuffed this club up from the start. Let them clean up the mess.

As for Lynch, better Richmond than mother effing Hawthorn!!!

And there is the problem they need to fix first.  It's not an easy one, but they need to create a better culture that supports players long term.  As a new club they should have focused on this first, yet they seemingly focused on everything else but this and they are now paying for it, and they are paying for it harder than any other club has in the last few decades.

When they fix the culture they'll be okay... I think.