rpfc

So he's stupid? Because he hasn't decided yet? Or are you implying he is not stupid because he has? Cloke and Boak - both in the stupid column... I know there are players who have already 'signed'* somewhere else during the season, but the inference that that be applied to all who delay talks is pretty 'simple' - especially in the today's landscape. *Contracts are essentially just a signal of intent, they are meaningless until the actual contract is signed at the end of the season.

I once had similar reservations and the breach of individual rights is an obvious one and one that led to the Bosman ruling in International Soccer. But we are already there with the draft - it is an instrument that infringes a persons right to choose their employer... Essentially, the employer is the AFL and the contracts that a player signs is with the competition. This should allow the trading of that contract without the need for the player to agree. Now, that is a jump from what we currently have but keep in mind the scenario where we trade Frawley last year or mid-season does not mean that he has to sign a new contract with the team we trade him to - if he wishes to not sign a new contract and become a FA at the end of that season - he can choose to do that. That is how it is run in the US. Just yesterday - two of the best pitchers in the MLB were traded months before they are to enjoy FA. As for the 'teenagers don't have the right of veto because they are apart of equalisation' argument - I largely reject it because if trading players against their will is a 'breach of individual rights' so is the draft concept. The Hogan deal would be fine as he had another 15 months on his contract - the extension rules only apply in that calendar year. Players like McDonald would get closer to 'market value' because more teams are 'in his ear' and he is more likely to get what 'the market' is willing to pay if 'the market' has been able to propose a contract to him. A moratorium on contracts being signed won't stop speculation, but it would calm the constant back-and-forth between the media and players on their decision to leave it until October. Essentially, if you and your club can't decide before April/May, you can't sort it out until the end of the season. This is something FOR the players really. This is a balance between what clubs want, what players want, and what the AFL wants (an equalised league). I would envision what is called a 'train-on squad' that can balloon out to 10 to 15 for about 4 or 5 spots (or however many spots are yet to be filled) and that the list is then finalised approx. mid-season. Players in that squad are given contract for that period and paid enough to allow them to do it full time, but also have the right to sign anywhere else while not officially on a clubs list. This would replace the rookie list and would mitigate the situation we had this year when all our tall forwards went missing. I understand the desire to do it this way but FA is also supposed to be a way for lowly clubs to get (an, yes, overpay) talent from clubs above them. To take something from the teams getting these FAs is something that I think will hurt the system in a few years time when players become more professional, see their opportunities with more clarity, and ask for their market value in a league that wants to have an even shot a the flag for 3 quarters of the league. This is all very new to the AFL and AFL fans but I would remind people that a US sports construct we have made our own that didn't start at all well is the National Draft; NRL fans still look at it like a confused blue heeler but I think we can all agree that it is something that helps the league as a whole and spreads the talent around the clubs? Remember, it started with players selected who didn't agree to come to those clubs (see: Darren Jarman to the Dees - sigh...) and with some clubs treating it like a foreign and malignant artefact (Fremantle giving away Lucas, Lloyd, etc)...

Yes, but your version would have give pick 18 yet, if we recruited the same player we would be forced to give Pick 3.

The effect FA has had on the AFL landscape means that the remedies to what people are worried about require an holistic view of the whole list management and recruitment structure. 1. Players standard contract should preclude vetoing trades, if a player wants to negotiate a 'no-trade clause' they can. But we don't allow draftees to choose where they go, why should a teenager not be given that right but when they are on the list they suddenly can choose where they go? 2. Contracts not being signed until October means that the player is more inclined to get market value for their services, there are far too many players signing well before their contract expires on far less than they are worth. Equalisation demands talent be paid market value, delaying signing has proven to have this effect in the NBA and NFL. 3. Lists not being finalised until two months into the season will give a benefit to the teams that struggle to attract talent by traditional means and allow them to sign players (and trade for in a subsequent in season trade period) that others wouldn't have a spot for. 4. The injury replacements are an extension of that, and at the heart of it - it is about giving teams more options and to use the MFC and Frawley as an example: We could trade Frawley to his club of choice (or not) and he could decide whether to still become a FA or resign at that point with his new club. OR we could let him have his FA, which he signs in October, but we could have signed a back from outside the AFL during the season as the chances of him re-signing diminish. I mention the injury replacements here as players who have left through means like this tend to end their season early through injury... The answer to these issues are not simply contained within the FA policies, they require a structural change to how players move and how lists are formed.

You can argue the merits of his NFL idea of the top 4 being restricted from involvement in FA but you cannot argue that he is not right about the AFL being half pregnant in its FA model. There is much they have taken from other equalised sports that has merit as an equalisation measure as well as a way for players to have more freedom - but there is much they have left on the table that would make FA a more worthwhile experience for clubs down the bottom that the league wants to see up the top. The FA-related Mechanisms to install immediately; 1. Players cannot veto trades. 2. Contracts cannot be signed until the October they expire. 3. Lists are not finalised until two months into the season. 4. Injury replacement players can come from outside the AFL. At the moment the AFLPA has got what it wants without giving much at all - the AFL needs to make sure it doesn't relent on more freedoms without thinking about what effect it will have. Frankly, the AFL has been making up this stuff as they go and it has been embarrassing to watch these people free jazz their way to policy.

This has happened about twice but I have to agree with wyl - if we were close to being 10 and 7 we were even closer to being 0 and 17.

I guess when lifting someone by the throat - balance is important...

He might be a good 'bridge' forward while we await Salem and JKH to be able to play more. I don't think we have got to 'critical mass experienced players' yet so I am open to this. Get some talented kids, surround them with professionals, try and get/keep some stars - that's my list management philosophy in a sentence.

We are 4 and 13 with a percentage of 73. It represents an 100% increase in wins and a 40% increase in percentage. And it is still a terrible season. So say the thousands of supporters that didn't return as members in 2014.

Do you really think that finishing 16th reverses the threat of the above? When are posters going to realise that while our form has improved - the MFC has had another terrible season. Where we finish in the morbid milieu down the bottom is far less relevant to how we perform against the Hawks, in Perth, and against NM - and over and above those games - who we attract to the club in October.

It's a saying. Range Rover had a stink because he decided to take 'are you going to stop beating your wife' axiom literally. Do you want to go down that road? PS. Not a real road.

What a wall of text. Dappa Dan circa 5 years ago would be proud... And it is frustrating to read that player X is worth $500k and Y is worth $300k, because posters are not making a real effort to know what players are actually worth, what we have to pay them (to reach the cap floor), and the fact that our issue is getting good players - not overpaying them.

What?

lol Do you think the game was equal back then? We were just the ones with our feet on the neck of (most of) the rest of the competition...

Oh, we have no problem with the opinion. It's the need to dance on graves that's hard to stomach. Just my opinion. Sorry if I've disappointed or...

Well done to a bloke who had the gall to want to play for our football club. And the AFL changed the rules at the last second on Compensation - it wasn't Shannon's fault (lol at the inference that it was his fault). We were thinking we would get Band 4 for Moloney and Band 3 for Rivers and with the AFL determining a team would get one pick for every net player lost of the total value lost - we were using Band 5 Byrnes to bump up the compensation to one pick of Band 2. So we thought:Rivers and Moloney for Byrnes and Pick 20 instead of Rivers and Moloney for Pick 30 and Pick 50. We were trying to game the system and the AFL changed the rules half way through.

Except for the fact that in the AFL players can veto trades... And most of the big clubs sell their player in January but if they have already signed a contract elsewhere - they are off on a Bosman - the club gets nothing or incredibly little if the club that signed that player is nice enough to throw them something to take the player a few months earlier...

YES! You are my poster of the week, jnrmac.

The above is utterly ridiculous to the fabric of contract based employment in an equalised sport. The NRL allows this but announces it publically, so the AFLPA's solution is just as stupid but without the ethical detergent of telling the truth... Some of you would say "this happens anyway, rp, the deals are done way in advance!" and while you are correct that the 'deals' may be done - the contract is not. To have a player sign a contract months before his previous one is to expire leads us down the road of European football where a player is allowed to sign with anyone up to 6 months before their contract is up. The AFLPA say it is because of 'security' but why should they have the security of TWO current contracts. Fulfil your contract and sign another in the month it expires. Also, clubs should not have the added liability of having these deals set in concrete 8 months before the player is theirs - why should the risk go entirely to the club in this instance? The AFL has to step in to protect the security of the game. No contracts ratified until October 1. No players re-signed by clubs during the season. Players have the security of their contract. They don't need the security of their next one while they are yet to fulfil their last one.

Those turning their nose up at $700k know this - the cap will be $10m in 2015 and at least $12m in the last year of the this mooted 5 year contract. The cap is increasing by $400k/$500k on average. Did you know that? The TV rights in 2016 will probably send that number higher. Worry about getting and keeping good players, not what they are paid - just missing the point.

Wrap it up...

The compensation is also to be ratified by a select panel that can change it so it is the behest of AFL House what we get really. I see the Frawley compo as a neat way the AFL is going to give us the PP we need without actually giving us a PP. I think Frawley will be Band 1 if he goes.

Yeah, I think that those 4 are not only good enough to form a very good forward line for a few years at least - only one of them is going to cost heaven and earth to keep around. The other three are role players (but very effective role players).

The bands for FA compensation are a form of equalisation; when a lower team on the ladder loses a player three of the bands will give them a better pick. Band 1: The pick after that teams 1st Rd pick. Band 2: The pick after the 1st round. Band 3: The pick after that teams 2nd Rd pick. Band 4: The pick after the 2nd round. Band 5: The pick after that teams 3rd Rd pick This is why Franklin was Pick 19 with Band 1 and Sylvia Pick 24 with Band 3.

We are losers. The alternative is reality. Beating the Lions and GWS leaves us 6 and 16. Yay... Beat the Hawks, and/or WCE, and/or NM and you have my attention - beat the Lions and GWS and you have no ground gained and no pride restored.