5 minutes ago, DeeSpencer said:

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

May it explode in their face

19 minutes ago, DeeSpencer said:

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. 

 

I think we're not far off a similar position to it DS.

Whilst I'm not completely against the idea of Free Agency, it's the secrecy about it, special herbs and spices and the cultural differences between here and the USA which makes it all problematic IMO.

The whole banning the Preliminary Finalists from the previous year from signing free agents was/is just one of several options that the nleague could look at to even the competition out. Personally I'd be more in favor of the club getting the free agent paying the draft pick points the make up the compensation pick the club losing the player gets. Gives us a more even/no such thing as a free meal type set up.

24 minutes ago, DeeSpencer said:

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. 

this does not change the fact that high quality players will want to go to top clubs. I take your point that if the entire structure of contracts and FA change things may be different but that won't happen.  We are likely to have FA in a similar form in the AFL in the near-mid term. and there is no doubt that it favours the top teams and makes it very difficult for a lower team to win the flag.

2 hours ago, DeeSpencer said:

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.

Yeah that might be the case, but it doesn't solve the problem that in 2013 our players recieved at best an average of 5% less than Hawthorn players.

And that this year,  Adelaide players recieved at best 5% less than Brisbane players.

It also sets up weird situations: pay less while your rising, pay extra for 1-2 years, but it doesnt spread out over 4-5 years. And contracts arent 1 year.

Off the top of my head this how we've fared under free agency:

Players lost - Frawley, Sylvia, Moloney, Rivers

Players gained - Tomlinson, Byrnes

Compensation - Pick 3 (1st round) for Frawley, Pick 23 (2nd round) for Sylvia, Pick 48 (3rd round) for both Moloney and Rivers (We diluted this compon by stupidly bring in Byrnes the same year) 

So even though we've lost some decent players we've probably drawn even by being compensated fairly well, pick 3 for Frawley being the best example. 

The whole system for for evening up the competition is not working. The AFL has to be more important than the individual or the competition will end up like the EPL. Imagine the new norm for the MFC is that we finish bottom four every year , early draft picks seemingly nice. Petracca , Oliver, Gawn depart  for more money, prestige etc. We will never see a flag . What can be done , how about clubs are are made to keep their first round pick ....... cannot trade. No trading future picks. Players wanting to get out of their contract perhaps need to go into a pool, allowing bottom clubs to have access to better players. Perhaps we can go back to the ten year rule. Mind you there is no easy solution.

5 hours ago, MadAsHell said:

I think we're not far off a similar position to it DS.

Whilst I'm not completely against the idea of Free Agency, it's the secrecy about it, special herbs and spices and the cultural differences between here and the USA which makes it all problematic IMO.

The whole banning the Preliminary Finalists from the previous year from signing free agents was/is just one of several options that the nleague could look at to even the competition out. Personally I'd be more in favor of the club getting the free agent paying the draft pick points the make up the compensation pick the club losing the player gets. Gives us a more even/no such thing as a free meal type set up.

but the current compensation pick is set deliberately below the realistic trade value. the realistic trade value in points value is what should be paid by receiving club.   even the afl has said it is not meant to be a full compensation.   

secondly the current compensation pick is not necessarily even a specific pick because it can depend on the ladder position of the giving club (e.g. next pick after current first pick etc).

no, it has to be based on a real value as in tradeable value. how this is determined is not so easy.......and by who?   the current non publicised herbs and spices is too open to manipulation. a tradeable value would have to pass the pub test.

33 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

but the current compensation pick is set deliberately below the realistic trade value. the realistic trade value in points value is what should be paid by receiving club.   even the afl has said it is not meant to be a full compensation.   

secondly the current compensation pick is not necessarily even a specific pick because it can depend on the ladder position of the giving club (e.g. next pick after current first pick etc).

no, it has to be based on a real value as in tradeable value. how this is determined is not so easy.......and by who?   the current non publicised herbs and spices is too open to manipulation. a tradeable value would have to pass the pub test.

Not necessarily. The best case in point being us receiving Pick 3 for Frawley. And beside that point, the main thing is that the club doing the pillaging is finally having to give something outside of just cap space. 

It's not perfect, but it's a start.

35 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

but the current compensation pick is set deliberately below the realistic trade value. the realistic trade value in points value is what should be paid by receiving club.   even the afl has said it is not meant to be a full compensation.   

secondly the current compensation pick is not necessarily even a specific pick because it can depend on the ladder position of the giving club (e.g. next pick after current first pick etc).

no, it has to be based on a real value as in tradeable value. how this is determined is not so easy.......and by who?   the current non publicised herbs and spices is too open to manipulation. a tradeable value would have to pass the pub test.

Any kind of compensation or trade value isn’t true free agency though. You’re subjecting players movement to outside forces.

Its why there should just be restricted free agency and unrestricted free agency. The Giants will match and force a trade for a restricted free agent in Cameron. They won’t match and force a trade for someone like Aiden Corr who they accept will move on and save them salary cap space. 
 

If your best players are always restricted free agents (at least until they’ve given 8-10 years of service) there won’t be any concern about losing them for anything but a fair trade. Everyone will adjust 

 

5 minutes ago, MadAsHell said:

Not necessarily. The best case in point being us receiving Pick 3 for Frawley. And beside that point, the main thing is that the club doing the pillaging is finally having to give something outside of just cap space. 

It's not perfect, but it's a start.

just picking the frawley case is cherry picking. it is the exception 

and i did say the club doing the pillaging should have to pay the realistic trade value....e.g. in jezza's situation 2 first round picks as was the case for kelly and dangermouse.

4 minutes ago, DeeSpencer said:

Any kind of compensation or trade value isn’t true free agency though. You’re subjecting players movement to outside forces.

Its why there should just be restricted free agency and unrestricted free agency. The Giants will match and force a trade for a restricted free agent in Cameron. They won’t match and force a trade for someone like Aiden Corr who they accept will move on and save them salary cap space. 
 

If your best players are always restricted free agents (at least until they’ve given 8-10 years of service) there won’t be any concern about losing them for anything but a fair trade. Everyone will adjust 

 

that (matching) won't be true for all restricted free agents who are big fish where the club currently with the player cannot match the offer....e.g. buddy. so this leaves the receiving club who may get a top player paying no player or pick penalty at all, and the afl offering a compo pick which is really paid by all the clubs dropping down the draft list

the receiving club is not paying any price (players/picks) and in most cases the relinquishing club is being short changed with a compo pick. Furthermore if the receiving club is a top club equalisation just gets further skewed in favor of top clubs. 

Let's just all agree that if you want the system changed then the only way will be for us to win a flag and then have a top talent from another team want to come to us under free agency. Move will be blocked and free agency will be changed very shortly after that as you can't have a lessor team stay at the top for too long...

9 hours ago, daisycutter said:

that (matching) won't be true for all restricted free agents who are big fish where the club currently with the player cannot match the offer....e.g. buddy. so this leaves the receiving club who may get a top player paying no player or pick penalty at all, and the afl offering a compo pick which is really paid by all the clubs dropping down the draft list

the receiving club is not paying any price (players/picks) and in most cases the relinquishing club is being short changed with a compo pick. Furthermore if the receiving club is a top club equalisation just gets further skewed in favor of top clubs. 

Nice tongue twister. I struggled just reading it without even trying to say it out loud.

Wasn't sure where do put this.

The Age has an article with SOS whinging about his departure from the Blues last year and how badly it was handled. How the club recruited badly and pushed its salary cap.

Could he have just hinted that they are worth being investigated?

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/amateur-to-be-honest-silvagni-lashes-out-at-the-blues-20201021-p5671d.html

"our list wasn't in a good state and neither was our salary cap"

 

11 hours ago, daisycutter said:

just picking the frawley case is cherry picking. it is the exception 

and i did say the club doing the pillaging should have to pay the realistic trade value....e.g. in jezza's situation 2 first round picks as was the case for kelly and dangermouse.

Maybe you're right, though pending what happens this off-season we may end up seeing Adelaide end up with Pick 2 for Crouch.

Getting clubs to pay realistic trade value would be ideal, but if we can't get there, then having them at least pay the compensation value is better then what the current situation is, surely you'd have to agree with that?

And if it's a case of a restricted free agent, then clubs should certainly match bids more often in an attempt to get a realistic trade through. For that reason I don't begrudge Essendon for matching the Daniher bid this year. Though they're still idiots for not entertaining the trade request last year when they would have got so much more!

3 minutes ago, MadAsHell said:

Maybe you're right, though pending what happens this off-season we may end up seeing Adelaide end up with Pick 2 for Crouch.

Getting clubs to pay realistic trade value would be ideal, but if we can't get there, then having them at least pay the compensation value is better then what the current situation is, surely you'd have to agree with that?

And if it's a case of a restricted free agent, then clubs should certainly match bids more often in an attempt to get a realistic trade through. For that reason I don't begrudge Essendon for matching the Daniher bid this year. Though they're still idiots for not entertaining the trade request last year when they would have got so much more!

sure, getting receiving club to pay the equivalent compo pick is better than now.....i just think in most cases (top players) it would still be too cheap

definitely match bids as a strategy.......but not always possible

daniher situation last year was not a fa situation. but in his case you are right that they won't get as good an offer this year

23 minutes ago, Moonshadow said:

Wasn't sure where do put this.

The Age has an article with SOS whinging about his departure from the Blues last year and how badly it was handled. How the club recruited badly and pushed its salary cap.

Could he have just hinted that they are worth being investigated?

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/amateur-to-be-honest-silvagni-lashes-out-at-the-blues-20201021-p5671d.html

"our list wasn't in a good state and neither was our salary cap"

 

Gil thinks: "what would Andrew Demetriou do?"

He'll be all over this. With a carpet.

I think something that was suggested earlier is a good idea (though very unlikely to happen), make the top 4 teams exempt from being able to participate in free agency. If they want a player than they have to do a deal. 

Limiting it to top 4 means that there are still the fringe clubs that might just be missing that key ingredient still able to get a player with minimal fuss. 

The only thing I’d say is perhaps create a separate category called veteran FA, these are the guys that are nearing retirement and best years are behind them. They should be totally unrestricted.

But blind Freddy would’ve seen what was going to happen with Free Agency. 

32 minutes ago, Pates said:

I think something that was suggested earlier is a good idea (though very unlikely to happen), make the top 4 teams exempt from being able to participate in free agency. If they want a player than they have to do a deal. 

Limiting it to top 4 means that there are still the fringe clubs that might just be missing that key ingredient still able to get a player with minimal fuss. 

The only thing I’d say is perhaps create a separate category called veteran FA, these are the guys that are nearing retirement and best years are behind them. They should be totally unrestricted.

But blind Freddy would’ve seen what was going to happen with Free Agency. 

Interesting that GWS look likely to match the bid by Cats for Cameron and force a trade. They've enquired about Parfitt as part of a trade. If no player is involved, at least 2 of their three 1st rounders would surely be in the mix 

Gil doesn't get it

"AFL chief executive Gillon McLachlan has defended free agency and flagged the possibility of fluid fixturing next year so that the most appealing games appear in the prime broadcast slots.

With a place in this year's grand final and three first-round picks in the draft to follow, the Cats scarcely fit the profile of a club in need. But the short history of free agency has demonstrated over and over that players on the move prioritise success over money.

McLachlan said the Geelong/Cameron nexus was not an accident. "That is free agency. They've got to attract him, they've got to fit him into their cap," he said. "If you create good environments, good footy clubs, players will come to you. It's a credit to Geelong."

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/free-to-a-good-home-mclachlan-backs-cameron-move-20201021-p5679s.html

1 hour ago, Diamond_Jim said:

Gil doesn't get it

"AFL chief executive Gillon McLachlan has defended free agency and flagged the possibility of fluid fixturing next year so that the most appealing games appear in the prime broadcast slots.

With a place in this year's grand final and three first-round picks in the draft to follow, the Cats scarcely fit the profile of a club in need. But the short history of free agency has demonstrated over and over that players on the move prioritise success over money.

McLachlan said the Geelong/Cameron nexus was not an accident. "That is free agency. They've got to attract him, they've got to fit him into their cap," he said. "If you create good environments, good footy clubs, players will come to you. It's a credit to Geelong."

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/free-to-a-good-home-mclachlan-backs-cameron-move-20201021-p5679s.html

Don't disagree with creating right environments & Lions were down the bottom....but lions are in a 2 team state as are Sydney and escaping the AFL bubble is an attraction vs 10 teams  in Victoria who at the best of times only 4-6 will play finals. The fluid fixturing will be just another kick in the guts for teams not winning and its baffling as 10 teams want play finals in a 18 team comp, which will create another inequality & widen gap! 

Gil you are not running a tv/radio station based on ratings!

 

Edited October 21, 20204 yr by Demonsone

1 hour ago, Demonsone said:

The fluid fixturing will be just another kick in the guts for teams not winning and its baffling as 10 teams want play finals in a 18 team comp, which will create another inequality & widen gap! 

well you kind of know it wont do us much good

yeah I know... winning fixes everything....

 

I have a bad feeling "fluid fixturing" will mean Melbourne will be shunted all over the place the way they were re: Cairns, relegated to the backwaters of footy viewing land at all sorts of weird days and times. Plus the AFL will keep the MCG free for the BIG clubs to showcase their 'brand'.

Perhaps we could call ourselves the Melbourne Gypsies.?

Not that it would stop every move but the AFL should look at allowing a bonus fee outside the cap to be paid to players based on time served at a club with that number increasing for every year served. It might at least give players pause about moving so often 

Edited October 21, 20204 yr by Garbo

2 hours ago, Dame Gaga said:

I have a bad feeling "fluid fixturing" will mean Melbourne will be shunted all over the place the way they were re: Cairns, relegated to the backwaters of footy viewing land at all sorts of weird days and times. Plus the AFL will keep the MCG free for the BIG clubs to showcase their 'brand'.

Perhaps we could call ourselves the Melbourne Gypsies.?

yep

you've picked it in one

even in 2018 our slow start would see us ignored

2020... maybe one at best... probably bulldogs v us