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...