Search the Community

I was very worried about this - the first test of the Restricted aspect of the Free Agency package brought in three years ago. Eventually, a team would have a player that wishes to leave for a contract that they would be happy to meet: Patrick Dangerfield $4.8m over 6 years. If this were the NBA, the Crows would have 'met' those terms and Danger Mouse would still be a Crow for another 6 years. That is how their RFA works. The AFL's version has meant that the club has to trade that player or risk losing him for nothing in the draft - essentially the same as an OOC player like Howe will face if he is adamant to leave the Dees. So RFA in the AFL is meaningless. An avenue for a club to keep a star player on the players terms - the reason why the NBA has it - is mitigated. The players have to forfeit some power in the new landscape or we will continue to have a lopsided competition. They don't even have to forfeit this - I would fight to take away their Trade Veto - that would make the game a great deal fairer. But the players should be careful no to ruin the game they profit from...

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2015-01-16/trading-against-players-will The AFL website is letting their 'journalists' have an opinion on things - this time it is whether players should be traded against their will ie. clubs can trade their contract at their will. This will lead to nothing of course, but it is a huge plank in a more even competition. I know there are a few who agree with Michael Whiting in the link above but I have to say that I have not heard a compelling argument that is congruous with the draft that we have come to be very comfortable with. Jennifer Phelan brings out the populism with 'the players have too much power' but it isn't really that - it's the ability for teams to improve themselves using the only real commodities in footy - the players.

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.

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.

Oh, boy, this is going to be a monster - I have put together a list of things that I would install as AFL chief that would make the game a more even, balanced, and enjoyable spectacle and I haven't changed one on field rule - who knew you could make change off field that affects the onfield... Instead of making it all TL:DR (Too Long; Didn't Read for Old Dee) I have cut them up into some sub headings so it will be easier for people to quote and massage and ridicule and explore what they wish:

Just reading this article on the AFL website. If his agent has made overtures to every other club, I suspect that signs are not terribly good for Beamer. Surely if he has real value the clubs should be making offers to him? To me this sounds a lot like they are not getting any bites and are willing to take pretty much any offer they get.

Well one of the better things to come out of FA is this: If you are delisted by your club and another club shows interest - you can immediately sign there. No compensation is involved so it doesn't go against the players lost through the other FA or what I will call Veteran FA. The latest to be thrown up: Brisbane: Stiller and Sheldon. Any love? Stiller might be an option across half back.

Good chance to see who we might get from Geelong for Gysberts, as well as FA option Byrnes. So far impressed by Stringer and Hogan. Byrnes has that element of class we could desperately use. Speight looks alright but it's hard to tell with Geelong on fire. Watching this game makes me depressed because I think the Geelong VFL would smash the Dees seniors by 10 goals.