On 20/10/2020 at 01:22, Cranky Franky said:

Completely disagree. There is no such thing as unrestricted right to pick your employer in the AFL. The draft & salary cap are there to try & make a more level playing field.

Free agency has helped Hawks, Cats & Tigers to top up their lists.

Makes good sense to bar preliminary finalists from free agency.

Ma

 

No it doesn’t, it’s an arbitrary barrier. Melbourne of 2018 shouldn’t have had restrictions the same as Richmond. It has to be the same system for everyone.
 

Without free agency coming in there would’ve been a court case at some stage and the players would’ve won.

Trading for Uncontracted players just doesn’t make any sense. How can you have trade value without a contract?

Hawthorn lost Buddy but got Frawley. Net losers. Cats got Danger for cheap but so far that’s about it. Richmond have been the biggest winners getting Lynch for free but they’ve also got draft picks for players leaving. Allow their mid tier players to leave for free too and they would’ve lost a bunch of them. 

  On 20/10/2020 at 01:30, DeeSpencer said:

Then it would be taxed agency, not free agency 

I'm not sure I agree. Players are still free to move if they can find a club that wants them. The club that wants them has a penalty imposed. The concept of the player getting to the club of their choice without requiring a trade to be done still survives. 

  On 20/10/2020 at 01:48, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

I'm not sure I agree. Players are still free to move if they can find a club that wants them. The club that wants them has a penalty imposed. The concept of the player getting to the club of their choice without requiring a trade to be done still survives. 

It makes them 25% more expensive to move tho. Which limits their choices. If your boss said you’re going to cost 25% more and you won’t get the money then a lot of people would be fired or quit! 

If you gave them a cap discount for staying they’d at least get the extra cash. That’s worth considering. But I don’t think we have a problem with too many players leaving, we have a problem with the design of the system.

  On 20/10/2020 at 01:52, DeeSpencer said:

It makes them 25% more expensive to move tho. Which limits their choices. If your boss said you’re going to cost 25% more and you won’t get the money then a lot of people would be fired or quit! 

If you gave them a cap discount for staying they’d at least get the extra cash. That’s worth considering. But I don’t think we have a problem with too many players leaving, we have a problem with the design of the system.

I've been in favour of this idea for some time. The longer a player stays at a club, the more the club gets to discount that player's salary from cap calculations. 

 

  On 20/10/2020 at 01:21, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

I don't understand why the AFLPA would want this. How does it help the players, given around 60-70% of them would be in the 12-14 teams that won't be regularly finishing in the top 4?

AFLPA only represents the Dangerfields of the League. No surprise he is President. The journeymen barely get a look in other than clubs having to pay 95% of the cap. Rookies have set pay structure so nothing to do there. Look how former players like Robbie Muir are treated to see the focus of the PA. It is just reflecting the fact it is a celebrity based league these days.

  On 19/10/2020 at 21:48, MadAsHell said:

Was always going to happen and no shock that we're (the competition) in this situation.

It was never going to work for two main reasons. One because we're not the USA. Here not many players will move to poor clubs for a pay day, they'd rather play in a successful team as long as they get a reasonable paycheck. And two in the USA in sports like the NBA the players salaries are known, so anyone and I mean anyone can tell if there's dodgy deals going on. Also means you can tell if your or any club can realistically afford a certain free agent.

Fact is the cats out of the bag now and there's no getting rid of free agency. I think the best we could hope for would be options such as 1) All Preliminary Finalists are banned from signing free agents for that off season 2) Any club that signs a free agent has to pay the compensation pick the the club through points from the father/son draft index which obviously effects their picks for the upcoming draft. Or 3) All players salaries are made public. Puts greater emphasis on the clubs and players so the public know when dodgy deals are getting done.

 

  On 20/10/2020 at 00:52, whatwhatsaywhat said:

the only way that free agency will work is if players have no control over trades

so pies should be able to ship treloar to gc17, if they so choose to do so, as long as the monetary value of his contract is honoured

the issue is that players can 'block' trades (a la howe to gw$ a few years back) unlike in the nba, nfl, mlb, etc., or any other sporting organisation that has a free agency clause after a set period of times (be it 5, 6, or 7 years either at the one club or across the course of a career)

 

These things need to come into play to even the field. Also, they need to remove the "salary cap floor".

At the moment, all clubs must pay a minimum of about 97% of the cap. That means we, and the other poor performing clubs, are overpaying average players and dont actually have free cash to bring in FAs when they become available.

If the floor was reduced to 80%, the successful clubs would be at the limit while the unsuccessful clubs will actually be able to lure FAs with cash.

 

Another option would be if the penalty mechanic was tied to contract value. Any club interested can lodge a formal offer for any FA via the AFL. If the FA chooses to ignore the higher offers and take lesser pay, then the club gives up picks/points as part of the process. This way if you overpay you get them for free, but if you are underpaying as part of a "destination club" scenario, then you pay picks.

 

  On 20/10/2020 at 02:27, Clintosaurus said:

AFLPA only represents the Dangerfields of the League. No surprise he is President. The journeymen barely get a look in other than clubs having to pay 95% of the cap. Rookies have set pay structure so nothing to do there. Look how former players like Robbie Muir are treated to see the focus of the PA. It is just reflecting the fact it is a celebrity based league these days.

Absolutley. The AFLPA should be pushing for larger lists, more professional footballers at reserves level, better than average wages for rookies and lower ranked players who put their lives on hold but may only have short careers.

I have no idea why the rest of the players keep voting for EBAs that disadvantage them.

I dont know why the player managers arent pushing their clients to get a better spread too: if the lowest wage increases, the managers arent as reliant on having a couple of big fish for their pay day.

  On 20/10/2020 at 02:30, deanox said:

 

 

These things need to come into play to even the field. Also, they need to remove the "salary cap floor".

At the moment, all clubs must pay a minimum of about 97% of the cap. That means we, and the other poor performing clubs, are overpaying average players and dont actually have free cash to bring in FAs when they become available.

If the floor was reduced to 80%, the successful clubs would be at the limit while the unsuccessful clubs will actually be able to lure FAs with cash.

 

 

This I agree with, a team that finishes18th shouldn't be required to pay the same minimum as a team that wins to premiership.  You should be able to pay say 80%, bank that money for future years and as your list develops you have excess salary cap to get a high profiled free agent.  I think you are bale to bank for the following year if you spend under the cap now.

Clubs that can manage their salary caps are the ones that will win out with FA, timing front or back loading contracts, I will guarantee that Cameron's contract will be massively back ended so the Cats can retire off Hawkins in a year or so and his money goes to Cameron.

Outside Buddy, there wouldn't be to many top line free agents that leave successful clubs, Cameron knows GWS are heading downwards he is jumping ship to a club that may have 2 years left in their premiership window

  On 20/10/2020 at 00:29, DeeSpencer said:

The choice to pick your employer is almost a human right, the AFL did very well to get the restrictions they have in place. Top 4 bans and stuff like that are nonsense. Would never happen.

 

There's several fields where you get to pick the broader field of what you want to do, but not necessarily the venue. I work in such an industry myself where you can potentially go your entire working career getting moved across the state every few years.

 

One could argue then that the handsome pay-packet players get forms part of the compensation of not having as much control over their movement of work location.

  On 20/10/2020 at 02:27, Clintosaurus said:

AFLPA only represents the Dangerfields of the League. No surprise he is President. The journeymen barely get a look in other than clubs having to pay 95% of the cap. Rookies have set pay structure so nothing to do there. Look how former players like Robbie Muir are treated to see the focus of the PA. It is just reflecting the fact it is a celebrity based league these days.

Reflecting a celebrity based world sadly.   

But I dont get where the idea that free agency has led to an uneven competition.  Its about even with other international leagues, possibly more so. What are the actual stats on this other than the rhetoric?  We dont have the same teams on top for decades and decades like epl.  Afl teams that manage to stay at the top because they have great players with long careers and recruit well.  The hawks made 7 gf in a row in the 80s. It can happen. 

Sydney should be the poster child to benefit for free agency and after a decade of success on the back of a good long term trade they're now back to the pack.   This year, port drafted well and got up the ladder, same for brisbane who were awful but picked up Neale (a plus for free agency). Seems like swings and roundabouts than a 'disaster' imho. 

  On 20/10/2020 at 02:30, deanox said:

 

 

These things need to come into play to even the field. Also, they need to remove the "salary cap floor".

At the moment, all clubs must pay a minimum of about 97% of the cap. That means we, and the other poor performing clubs, are overpaying average players and dont actually have free cash to bring in FAs when they become available.

If the floor was reduced to 80%, the successful clubs would be at the limit while the unsuccessful clubs will actually be able to lure FAs with cash.

 

Another option would be if the penalty mechanic was tied to contract value. Any club interested can lodge a formal offer for any FA via the AFL. If the FA chooses to ignore the higher offers and take lesser pay, then the club gives up picks/points as part of the process. This way if you overpay you get them for free, but if you are underpaying as part of a "destination club" scenario, then you pay picks.

 

I think the reason why all clubs are required to pay 97% (or whatever the figure is) of the salary cap is so that players who are drafted to a poor team have the same reward opportunity as players drafted to a good team. In other words, why should a player who has no choice as to which team he plays for get paid less because he plays for the bottom team on the ladder than a player who just happens to be lucky enough to have been drafted to a top four team?  

  On 19/10/2020 at 23:59, JAG001 said:

MADASHELL

You on the money with your free agency restrictions.

How the master minds in the AFL couldn't see this was necessary is unbelievable. 

They and their stooges picked out a few early examples (eg Buddy leaving a big club for a not-big club) to show that we weren't heading for an EPL situation. No-one bought it though.

 

  On 20/10/2020 at 00:52, whatwhatsaywhat said:

the only way that free agency will work is if players have no control over trades

so pies should be able to ship treloar to gc17, if they so choose to do so, as long as the monetary value of his contract is honoured

Yes, it should cut both ways. Players want to pick and choose? Let clubs pick and choose too.

 

  On 20/10/2020 at 01:30, DeeSpencer said:

Then it would be taxed agency, not free agency 

The "free" means movement, not money

The issue is significantly more complex than even a full analysis on here could properly grapple.

FA exists to give the players rights they deserve. The issue isn't FA, it's the way the league implements it.

Equalisation and movement of players are separate and largely inconsistent goals. FA is a blight on equalisation. But the league needs FA, as much as it wants equalisation. It's how FA is integrated into the league that matters.

Issues to consider include the salary cap minimum (good players at bad clubs fuel up on big contracts until their FA year hits, then walk to a stronger club to take a pay cut to taste success), the impact of bringing in players (should a club be penalised for taking a free agent and, if so, should the penalty depend on ladder position), the trigger point for when FA kicks in (is 8 years too long)?

There are a lot of issues and, true to the AFL's form, the current system is a bit too haphazard.

Free agency makes a lot of sense from a player perspective. I don't think it's unreasonable that a player should be able to force a move to an employer or their choice after 8/10 years.

The problem is that the destination club gets the player for free. I think there should be a draft point penalty in a similar way to how father-son and zone selections work. For example if Jeremy Cameron leaves as a free agent then GWS will get compensation of pick 9. Geelong should have to pay the equivalent value in draft points, in this case 1469 points. This can be taken from their current picks, and even carry over to the next season if they don't have sufficient points, as is the case this year for Fremantle. This also discourages stealing free agents off the weaker clubs as you will have to pay more compensation. This would actually be more beneficial for equalisation.

Another ridiculous rule is the requirement to pay 95% of the allowed salary cap.

It was bought in to deal with Fitzroy.

A club should be able to pay 20% of the salary cap into an AFL trust fund that it can then use to pay players at their discretion.

By paying into the trust fund it meets the Fitzroy requirement and it encourages clubs to manage cycles in their performance.

Apologies.. I just see Dr Drake and others posted similar

PS Leigh Matthews has been pushing this line for years re Brisbane... not sure he wanted to bank the money though

Edited October 20, 20204 yr by Diamond_Jim

  On 20/10/2020 at 02:52, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

I think the reason why all clubs are required to pay 97% (or whatever the figure is) of the salary cap is so that players who are drafted to a poor team have the same reward opportunity as players drafted to a good team. In other words, why should a player who has no choice as to which team he plays for get paid less because he plays for the bottom team on the ladder than a player who just happens to be lucky enough to have been drafted to a top four team?  

but if he was at the better team he would be paid less because the "Stars" will be getting more

Until recently we have not had a marquee player and we don't yet have a top ten player. Why were we paying the full cap. Players like Jones were quite likely overpaid by market standards

  On 20/10/2020 at 03:28, Diamond_Jim said:

but if he was at the better team he would be paid less because the "Stars" will be getting more

Until recently we have not had a marquee player and we don't yet have a top ten player. Why were we paying the full cap. Players like Jones were quite likely overpaid by market standards

You're a hard marker. You don't think Petracca is a top ten player based on Brownlow and Coaches' Association votes?

  On 20/10/2020 at 02:34, deanox said:

Absolutley. The AFLPA should be pushing for larger lists, more professional footballers at reserves level, better than average wages for rookies and lower ranked players who put their lives on hold but may only have short careers.

I have no idea why the rest of the players keep voting for EBAs that disadvantage them.

I dont know why the player managers arent pushing their clients to get a better spread too: if the lowest wage increases, the managers arent as reliant on having a couple of big fish for their pay day.

I agree regarding the agents - but imagine a parasite like Liam Pickering working to manage 25 mid level players.  That’s way too much work and effort. 

  On 20/10/2020 at 03:38, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

You're a hard marker. You don't think Petracca is a top ten player based on Brownlow and Coaches' Association votes?

sorry... next year maybe.. one decent year doesn't make you top ten in the league

He's probably 10-20 though

  On 20/10/2020 at 04:05, Diamond_Jim said:

sorry... next year maybe.. one decent year doesn't make you top ten in the league

He's probably 10-20 though

True that he has to do it again next year. And the year after etc etc....

Was a top 5 player this season that for sure, but now he has to become our Martin/Dangerfield.

  On 20/10/2020 at 01:29, DeeSpencer said:

No the initial contracts should be expanded to up to 4 years. Draftees should do their time just like Uni students, apprentices, young doctors or people joining the army.

But once you’ve done your service to the league you should have the right to play where you want to play. 
 

The key is proper restricted free agency that make it so clubs can match, trade or let guys go. 

well if that happened we'd have the EPL within 5 years with the same teams on top each year. and I would no longer support footy

Can just imagine Jack Watts suing the AFL for human rights breaches as he had to play for MFC against his will and even debut on Queens Bday   ?

 

  On 20/10/2020 at 02:52, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

I think the reason why all clubs are required to pay 97% (or whatever the figure is) of the salary cap is so that players who are drafted to a poor team have the same reward opportunity as players drafted to a good team. In other words, why should a player who has no choice as to which team he plays for get paid less because he plays for the bottom team on the ladder than a player who just happens to be lucky enough to have been drafted to a top four team?  

In 2019 the cap was $13 million and the floor was $12.35 million. That means no club has more than 650k free in their cap any year.

Your scenario wont happen. There are minimum wages so players who are drafted wont earn anything less. But 3-7 year journeymen and 10 year B+ players wont be overpaid. (There is a reason we could afford to pay Tomlinson).

And what you've described in no ways limits what they could earn. If the club doesnt offer then enough, they use FA to move and get paid more. In fact it will mean mid tier players are more likely to get that 10% if they've earnt it, because it wont be tied up in a 3 year contract elsewhere.

 

The real arguement is that if there is no floor, clubs will pay under the cap because they are poor, and then the players aren't getting the financial share they are entitled to under the EBA. But that's easy to fix too:

All clubs get a dividend from the AFL approximately equal to the salary cap. So instead of paying that to the clubs who thenpay the salaries, the AFL can pay the players direct. Any money that is left over in all 18 salary caps at the end of the year is combined into a pool. It is then split equally across all 700 players.

So if the cap is $13 mil, and 9 clubs pay 100% and 9 clubs pay 85% there will be $17.5 mil left. Every player gets a neat $24k bonus to make up their collective share.

  On 20/10/2020 at 02:42, MadAsHell said:

There's several fields where you get to pick the broader field of what you want to do, but not necessarily the venue. I work in such an industry myself where you can potentially go your entire working career getting moved across the state every few years.

 

One could argue then that the handsome pay-packet players get forms part of the compensation of not having as much control over their movement of work location.

But the work doesn't move (apart from this year) and whilst players may sign a centralised contract they represent one club at a time. If clubs were to routinely relocate based on where their revenue or where the work was then players would have to follow, but that's not what happens.

The draft, salary cap and list spots divide the available positions. If clubs want to allocate a chunk of the cap to a guy who's served a long period I'm fine with that. Just design a system where the club losing a player can use the cap space they've found themselves with to fill the vacancy. 

  On 20/10/2020 at 04:43, DubDee said:

well if that happened we'd have the EPL within 5 years with the same teams on top each year. and I would no longer support footy

No it wouldn't. Rugby League has no draft and guys can sign a contract mid season for some silly reason and the well run teams are consistently good, whilst the poorly run teams struggle. Yes it's easier to be a wealthier club but there's plenty of movement in the ladder.

Gold Coast lost Lynch, but boosted their midfield with Brandon Ellis and Hugh Greenwood. It took them a year and they had to a pay a small draft pick for Greenwood. If there's a whole bunch of players available every year then clubs can go and fill holes immediately. 

The biggest concern is the Northern states sides but Brisbane and the Suns have been able to attract a lot of players since they became competent clubs. Sydney never struggles to recruit. GWS have never had to trade in players before, but at some stage they might stop complaining and work out that anonymity and the perhaps best city in the world to be young, attractive and have a good income is a decent selling point.

  On 20/10/2020 at 02:54, Mazer Rackham said:

The "free" means movement, not money

My point was you aren't free to move if you have a special tax applied on that movement. 

  On 20/10/2020 at 05:15, deanox said:

In 2019 the cap was $13 million and the floor was $12.35 million. That means no club has more than 650k free in their cap any year.

 

Isn't there still the rule that you can pay 95% for 2 years and then pay 105% for a year? Salary banking.

Plus front loading contracts. If you load on all your long term deals over a period of time you'll then create space.

I believe Carlton have done both of the above and hence have opened up room for potentially 3 high paid spots.