The Trade Period

[GVGjr]

As many will know over the years I've had a huge interest in the draft and trade periods.
The good clubs primary focus was to get the balance right in a never ending search for ways to improve their playing list. This was done after after they had completed an honest assessment of their strengths and weaknesses and they then mapped out a plan for the future.

I suspect the AFL sees both the trade and draft periods as a way of dominating the news stories and have tinkered with the process that had been in place for a number of years to either:
1) Draw it out a lot longer than it needs to be
2) Make it more in line with the hugely popular American professional sports
3) Try and create a buzz that culminates with a rushed final hour or two of the trade period.

I wouldn't even put it past the AFL to encourage teams to defer some of the more critical the trades to the last day to help create that feeding frenzy.

All this might sound like a decent approach for a business competing against sporting competitions with world wide appeal.

The problem for someone like me now is that the trade period has become a lot more than addressing gaps within the playing list of clubs its become more about acquiring points for father son selections or dumping money off the salary cap by trading good footballers for bugger all compensation. That doesn't sit well with me, it just doesn't.

This goes against what I believe to be the essence of the trading period. Contracts are being broken by so many players who are in the infancy of their career's, good draft picks are being traded to acquire later picks to top up draft points for father son or NGA picks. That just isn't right.

There is something fundamentally wrong that we aren't looking to trade Marcus Adams for the best draft pick we can get because it could work against us in our efforts to acquire Rhylee West.
It's wrong that a deal for Jack Scrimshaw can be completed for a basic upgrade in the draft order that might just be a few picks difference and it's especially wrong that Tom Scully can be offloaded for next to nothing because a club has salary cap issues.

How I would fix it:

Father son and NGA will cost each club their natural 2nd round pick moving to the 3rd and 4th picks etc if there is more than one.

This will stop this nonsense of trading draft picks for draft points. It won't be perfect but it's consistent.

If a player who isn't a Free agent etc wants to break a contract and go home then his club can trade with the clubs in that state to acquire the best deal for them. If a player requests for a contract to be broken they automatically lose the right to veto some clubs and the contract that is in place can not be reworked ie upgraded.

Players know the score, they receive an unprecedented amount of education that the the industry they are entering means you can end up playing anywhere. This will also stop players breaking contracts because another club back home can offer them a better deal.

Lift contracts for 1st round picks to a minimum of 3 years

This will give clubs a better chance of settling the player into their environment. Players are being chatted by other clubs before they have completed their first year so no wonder they are developing homesickness in almost epidemic proportions.


We simply have to get back to the trade period meaning something more than a Flight Centre departure lounge

Rant over

[Bulldog Joe]

Really good post GVGjr.

I like the contract being a given and not able to be upgraded because you move. Obviously that would not stop movement where a promise for a higher next contract is guaranteed by the incoming club for the moving player.

Not sure on the second round for father/son/NGA players as that is a massive free kick on really good talent, but it would be simple to outlaw pure pick trading or add something that traded picks do not attract the discount that the natural pick gave for those players.

[Happy Days]

Interesting post GVG - I'd change a couple of things though

Instead of reducing the price on NGAs and FS players to a natural second, I'd remove priority access - no priority inside the top 10 for FS and none inside the 1st round for NGAs. The NGA selections are designed to provide pathways for otherwise marginalised players, but the guys like Heeney, Mills, Blakey, Thomas and so on aren't going to be lost to football forever without them. Keep the access open for later in the draft but there's no need for the protections on top-end talent. FS restriction is lesser because it's a cool intricacy of the game. I agree that the points system is undoubtedly flawed but it's better than a player like Hawkins or Tom Mitchell going as late as pick 40. I like BJ's suggestion of banning point trades better as an option too.

Players under rookie contracts should be held to them; your suggestion re: players braking contracts is a good one, and I'd extend rookie contracts to 3 years with a team option for a 4th. The last of my tolerance for players leaving clubs for "personal reasons" vanished as soon as I heard Jack Scrimshaw say that his "personal reason" for wanting to play for Hawthorn was barracking for them as a kid. If the players want the American system so much then give it to them

[hujsh]

With Bulldog Joe. Not being able to specify a club so you can be help over a barrel makes sense, longer contracts for draftees so than can get settled makes sense but the father sons for set picks is what gave Geelong such a big leg up. The current system isn't perfect and can use some refinement but I believe it's fairer than what we had.


Interesting post GVG - I'd change a couple of things though

Instead of reducing the price on NGAs and FS players to a natural second, I'd remove priority access - no priority inside the top 10 for FS and none inside the 1st round for NGAs. The NGA selections are designed to provide pathways for otherwise marginalised players, but the guys like Heeney, Mills, Blakey, Thomas and so on aren't going to be lost to football forever without them. Keep the access open for later in the draft but there's no need for the protections on top-end talent. FS restriction is lesser because it's a cool intricacy of the game. I agree that the points system is undoubtedly flawed but it's better than a player like Hawkins or Tom Mitchell going as late as pick 40. I like BJ's suggestion of banning point trades better as an option too.


I like this suggestion but I'd still like the ability for cubs to take F/S in the top 10. If West were looking at being top 10 it'd hurt to see him running around in Essendon colours.

[GVGjr]

With Bulldog Joe. Not being able to specify a club so you can be help over a barrel makes sense, longer contracts for draftees so than can get settled makes sense but the father sons for set picks is what gave Geelong such a big leg up. The current system isn't perfect and can use some refinement but I believe it's fairer than what we had.

I just don't like the fact that cubs are trading draft picks for draft points as it just goes against the value of what is supposed to happen
I also hate all these contracts being broken under the guise of wanting to go home but in turn limiting the club that selected just one club to deal with

I don't believe for one second think things are better now they were before.
The AFL realised that the trade period was a snore fest and now it's become an accounting game
It's a contrived outcome by the AFL that blackmails clubs to break contracts and to create news.

Plough on trade radio now is challenging the points structure.

[hujsh]

I just don't like the fact that cubs are trading draft picks for draft points as it just goes against the value of what is supposed to happen
I also hate all these contracts being broken under the guise of wanting to go home but in turn limiting the club that selected just one club to deal with

I don't believe for one second think things are better now they were before.
The AFL realised that the trade period was a snore fest and now it's become an accounting game
It's a contrived outcome by the AFL that blackmails clubs to break contracts and to create news.

Plough on trade radio now is challenging the points structure.

100% agree on the bolded.

Perhaps it's just a difference of values re the bidding system. I'd rather clubs pay an appropriate/fair price for what they're receiving. I'm not for some clubs overpaying to continue the family tradition while others get top talent for peanuts. If there's a big of draft point maneuvering as a consequence of that then I can live with it.

I think there's a middle ground somewhere though that might deal with both issues. Happy Days made a good suggestion (even if I don't 100% agree with every aspect)

[divvydan]

Guys like Heeney and Mills probably would've gone into rugby had the academies not existed or if there wasn't an easy way to stay in Sydney. Part of that is the fact that the NRL doesn't have a draft and you can bring players through at their local club, which ensures that the players get to stay in their home environment.

[Dancin' Douggy]

I would make another adjustment.
When a club lands a free agent, they lose their next pick immediately after the compensation pick is determined, so the rest of the picks down the line don't keep sliding further and further back, punishing teams that have got no benefit from the move(s).
This effects clubs abilities to bid on FS and academy picks. as more and more teams load up with free agents, you see the value of the picks you initially had, lose more and more currency as the trade week drags on.

So, for example.
This year the Tigers land Lynch.
The compensation pick is pick 3.
Richmond lose their next pick in the draft after pick 3.

They essentially get Lynch for pick 18.

This goes for all free agents.
Each team lose their next pick after compensation is decided.

that sound fair?

[strebla]

My theory on f/s acquisitions has long been if the father played 100 games then you have to use a first round pick 150 games 2nd round 200 a third round with 250 plus being a free hit. It won fix all the problems but is at least fair and equitable

[Twodogs]

My theory on f/s acquisitions has long been if the father played 100 games then you have to use a first round pick 150 games 2nd round 200 a third round with 250 plus being a free hit. It won fix all the problems but is at least fair and equitable


Yeah I like that.

I hate the points system for F/S with a passion. if you want to destroy all the romanticism in footy (and footy is 99% romance) then it's a really good way to achieve it.

[Doc26]

I would make another adjustment.
When a club lands a free agent, they lose their next pick immediately after the compensation pick is determined, so the rest of the picks down the line don't keep sliding further and further back, punishing teams that have got no benefit from the move(s).
This effects clubs abilities to bid on FS and academy picks. as more and more teams load up with free agents, you see the value of the picks you initially had, lose more and more currency as the trade week drags on.

So, for example.
This year the Tigers land Lynch.
The compensation pick is pick 3.
Richmond lose their next pick in the draft after pick 3.

They essentially get Lynch for pick 18.

This goes for all free agents.
Each team lose their next pick after compensation is decided.

that sound fair?

Would get messy now that Clubs are trading away their future picks.

[Dancin' Douggy]

You know what I really think?
Ditch free agency altogether because players just act as if they're free agents anyway.
Contracts don't mean anything at all.

[ledge]

You know what I really think?
Ditch free agency altogether because players just act as if they're free agents anyway.
Contracts don't mean anything at all.

Contracts do mean something , two things 1 you can make the club or player stick to it.
2 it allows a club to bargain or a player to get more money if both agree to break it. Contracts can only be broken if both agree to it.

[SonofScray]

Great post.

The system is out of kilter, but can be balanced out by scrapping the compo pick, scrapping the points system and giving clubs the power to trade with their preferred option. You could argue for FA to start earlier if players rebuked the idea they can get shipped anywhere.

[mjp]

I keep reading people saying to 'Scrap the compensation pick...'.

Ummm - how is it 'FREE' agency if the club to where the player is moving has to give up a pick?

I don't have an issue with the compensation picks - just with the fact that the formula for determining what they are seems to be a complete mystery!

[Twodogs]

I keep reading people saying to 'Scrap the compensation pick...'.

Ummm - how is it 'FREE' agency if the club to where the player is moving has to give up a pick?

I don't have an issue with the compensation picks - just with the fact that the formula for determining what they are seems to be a complete mystery!

It's because the player is free to move to the club of his choice but you're right the club he nominates has to be free to be able to take him has to I guess.

But getting rid of the compensation doesn't mean that the receiving club has to give anything up. It just means the club losing the player doesn't get anything in return except the list spot and cap relief and the ability to take a FA of their own to replace him. It's silly that clubs are second guessing what compensation pick they will get from the AFL before deciding whether the compensation they get from other clubs in a trade is going to be any better. Just get rid of the compo pick the AFL are handing out then we don't have to worry about what formula they are using.

[hujsh]

It's because the player is free to move to the club of his choice but you're right the club he nominates has to be free to be able to take him has to I guess.

But getting rid of the compensation doesn't mean that the receiving club has to give anything up. It just means the club losing the player doesn't get anything in return except the list spot and cap relief and the ability to take a FA of their own to replace him. It's silly that clubs are second guessing what compensation pick they will get from the AFL before deciding whether the compensation they get from other clubs in a trade is going to be any better. Just get rid of the compo pick the AFL are handing out then we don't have to worry about what formula they are using.

It's also silly that clubs are avoiding signing free agents to make sure their compensation is not affected. Collingwood should have been able to just sign Roughead.

[SonofScray]

It's also silly that clubs are avoiding signing free agents to make sure their compensation is not affected. Collingwood should have been able to just sign Roughead.

That is where things like waivers can come in handy. An aspect of list management in us sports that assists in managing cap space/delisting etc. can't happen in the current environment due to players getting too big a say in where they go.

[Topdog]

I keep reading people saying to 'Scrap the compensation pick...'.

Ummm - how is it 'FREE' agency if the club to where the player is moving has to give up a pick?

I don't have an issue with the compensation picks - just with the fact that the formula for determining what they are seems to be a complete mystery!

No, just scrap the compensation pick full stop. The club that lost the player gets nothing.

[Flamethrower]

The biggest problem with the current system is that the players have virtually all the power, and the clubs have none.

To even the playing field I would:

- Only a player that has attained free agency status and is out of contract has the right to nominate which club they want to play for.

- Any other player that wants to change clubs before they are a free agent, regardless whether they are still contracted or not, is allowed a minimal no trade clause - ie they can nominate a set number of clubs that they don't want to go to (up to 6). Their club is then free to trade them to ANY of the other 12 clubs in a deal that suits the club best.

- Scrap father son and academy nominations - if we want Rhylee West then draft him at 7, hope he is still around at 27 or trade up in the draft on draft night. Otherwise he spends his 1st 6 seasons elsewhere, and can "come home" once he is a free agent.

- Scrap free agency compensation - the club has had 6 years to re-sign a player long term. If they want out, the compensation is extra salary cap space.

[Dancin' Douggy]

I think it's laughable that pretty much every football observer/ commentator has said we will struggle to fill the hole in defence left by Adams and the small forward/part time mid role left by Dalhaus.

Thus rating our trade period poorly.

Dalhaus averaged 8 goals a year over the last 3 years, and kicked only 2 last year.
Adams averaged 9 games a year over the last 3 years and played only 6 last year.

Don't they do ANY research???

We have done well in my opinion to move both of them on, and even better that they both made the decision for us.

[chef]

No, just scrap the compensation pick full stop. The club that lost the player gets nothing.

Yep. It's the obvious way to fix the issue of inconsistent compo rewards.

Swings and roundabouts.

[FrediKanoute]

The biggest problem with the current system is that the players have virtually all the power, and the clubs have none.

To even the playing field I would:

- Only a player that has attained free agency status and is out of contract has the right to nominate which club they want to play for.

- Any other player that wants to change clubs before they are a free agent, regardless whether they are still contracted or not, is allowed a minimal no trade clause - ie they can nominate a set number of clubs that they don't want to go to (up to 6). Their club is then free to trade them to ANY of the other 12 clubs in a deal that suits the club best.

- Scrap father son and academy nominations - if we want Rhylee West then draft him at 7, hope he is still around at 27 or trade up in the draft on draft night. Otherwise he spends his 1st 6 seasons elsewhere, and can "come home" once he is a free agent.

- Scrap free agency compensation - the club has had 6 years to re-sign a player long term. If they want out, the compensation is extra salary cap space.

Agree aside from father sons. There has to be a little bit of room for sentimentality in the game and the father sons concept is it. Yes it disproportionately affects newer sides, but over time that will even out.

[Webby]

Weird that I just caught a glimpse of Roughie in a Collingwood jumper... and felt somewhat heartbroken..!

Right outcome for all, but still quite hurtful!

Hopefully will see him amongst the past players & officials someday..

[mjp]

Yep. It's the obvious way to fix the issue of inconsistent compo rewards.

Swings and roundabouts.

Yep.

So...where exactly are the swings for a club like ours?

Swings and roundabouts are great if you are Hawthorn and it is nothing but incoming players...it isn't so good if you are a middle of the pack side (or worse) who are always on the downside of a transaction. If you want this approach then the team that holds a players free agency 'rights' so to speak has to be given the opportunity to either pay more $ or offer additional years than any other club to enable them to compete...

We had people on this board complaining about the lack of compensation for Dahl. Imagine if we got NOTHING at all when he left?

Smart drafting and good player development should be a net positive - if players you have spent a tonne of resources on decide to leave after a league mandated period of time and there is a 'free' agency concept (players can move to another club without cost or impact) then a form of compensation MUST be in place.

[Topdog]

Why? It isn't in place in many leagues across the world and works just fine. With the salary cap in place there will always be some form of equalization. Less than 10 players leave by free agency a year i don't understand the fuss

[FrediKanoute]

Yep.

So...where exactly are the swings for a club like ours?

Swings and roundabouts are great if you are Hawthorn and it is nothing but incoming players...it isn't so good if you are a middle of the pack side (or worse) who are always on the downside of a transaction. If you want this approach then the team that holds a players free agency 'rights' so to speak has to be given the opportunity to either pay more $ or offer additional years than any other club to enable them to compete...

We had people on this board complaining about the lack of compensation for Dahl. Imagine if we got NOTHING at all when he left?

Smart drafting and good player development should be a net positive - if players you have spent a tonne of resources on decide to leave after a league mandated period of time and there is a 'free' agency concept (players can move to another club without cost or impact) then a form of compensation MUST be in place.

What we would have done is gotten to his penultimate year and said. here is a new contract. Are you going to sign this new/improved offer? If the answer is no then we would have traded him like Port traded Chad. This is what currently happens in World Soccer. Good players who are in demand don't get to the point that they can walk to another club in their prime. They are sold or they re-sign.

[jeemak]

I don’t think anyone can talk about equalisation credibly in this discussion when almost always free agents and high profile trades seem to benefit clubs well and truly on the right side of the fixture and exposure inequities within the game.

[Grantysghost]

My understanding of free agency is that the player is free of a contract and can move without restriction.

[Remi Moses]

I don’t think anyone can talk about equalisation credibly in this discussion when almost always free agents and high profile trades seem to benefit clubs well and truly on the right side of the fixture and exposure inequities within the game.

Spot on . Not sure the world game is an example we should be throwing up
The AFL parades a fair and even comp, but free agency is making the strong stronger

[Topdog]

Spot on . Not sure the world game is an example we should be throwing up
The AFL parades a fair and even comp, but free agency is making the strong stronger

Why not? We have a salary cap and a draft which does ensure that there is some level of evenness in the competition that soccer doesn't have.

We are 2 years away from our premiership win that was done with no free agent signings, why is it suddenly a big deal? The team with the most big free agent signings is Geelong, they gave a horribly uneven list

[chef]

Yep.

So...where exactly are the swings for a club like ours?

Swings and roundabouts are great if you are Hawthorn and it is nothing but incoming players...it isn't so good if you are a middle of the pack side (or worse) who are always on the downside of a transaction. If you want this approach then the team that holds a players free agency 'rights' so to speak has to be given the opportunity to either pay more $ or offer additional years than any other club to enable them to compete...

We had people on this board complaining about the lack of compensation for Dahl. Imagine if we got NOTHING at all when he left?

Smart drafting and good player development should be a net positive - if players you have spent a tonne of resources on decide to leave after a league mandated period of time and there is a 'free' agency concept (players can move to another club without cost or impact) then a form of compensation MUST be in place.

Obviously being a lower on the food change club we arent going to see as many swings come to our club, but really nothing is going to change that compo picks or not. Its just our lot.

I'd just rather a black and white FA system thats fair on everybody. Like other codes have.

[mjp]

Obviously being a lower on the food change club we arent going to see as many swings come to our club, but really nothing is going to change that compo picks or not. Its just our lot.

I'd just rather a black and white FA system thats fair on everybody. Like other codes have.

So simply reveal the compensation method in the same way the NFL does...if it works for them, it will work for us.

[jeemak]

Why not? We have a salary cap and a draft which does ensure that there is some level of evenness in the competition that soccer doesn't have.

We are 2 years away from our premiership win that was done with no free agent signings, why is it suddenly a big deal? The team with the most big free agent signings is Geelong, they gave a horribly uneven list

What soccer does have is a balanced draw, rather than a fixture contrived to maximise revenue...….which funnily enough, seems to ensure the teams players want to be traded to or move to under free agency get the most exposure and the benefits that come with that.

I'm not entirely convinced that free agency will have a net benefit or otherwise to the clubs that seem to attract the marquee free agents, aside from the buzz or exposure it creates around that club and the subsequent commercial outcomes. The results on-field have been limited.

With trading on the other hand, clubs have lost control over who they can deal with in practical terms and players hold the whip hand nominating clubs that benefit from the inequities within the fixture. This is the case with both elite and high quality players - with the latter being the players most likely to fill needs for teams around the mark or moving up the ladder.

So we find ourselves in a position where salary cap and draft equalisation applies to all (with exception to free agency that sees teams secure players without paying for them, and other clubs being pushed back in the draft order for some reason), and inequities within the fixture benefit the same clubs perennially, with these clubs coincidentally being on the right side of player movement post season.

None of it makes sense, and until the clubs have more recourse to deal with clubs more freely when releasing players or exposure is distributed more evenly, it never will.

[chef]

So simply reveal the compensation method in the same way the NFL does...if it works for them, it will work for us.

Sadly the AFL is never going to be transparent

[Remi Moses]

Why not? We have a salary cap and a draft which does ensure that there is some level of evenness in the competition that soccer doesn't have.

We are 2 years away from our premiership win that was done with no free agent signings, why is it suddenly a big deal? The team with the most big free agent signings is Geelong, they gave a horribly uneven list

Not sure how a system that allows a player leave a basket case to head to a team that won 18 games is good system

[Topdog]

Not sure how a system that allows a player leave a basket case to head to a team that won 18 games is good system

Why should a player be punished and forced to stay at the basketcase for the entirety of his career

[chef]

Not sure how a system that allows a player leave a basket case to head to a team that won 18 games is good system

I guess thats 'free' agency.

And that was happening before too.

[Remi Moses]

Why should a player be punished and forced to stay at the basketcase for the entirety of his career

So a player goes from a bottom placed team to a team that won 18 games and the narrative is how even our comp is ?
Actually not saying he should spend the entirety of his career there , but when you have Top players continually going to top teams you can’t spruik how even our game is .

[Topdog]

So a player goes from a bottom placed team to a team that won 18 games and the narrative is how even our comp is ?
Actually not saying he should spend the entirety of his career there , but when you have Top players continually going to top teams you can’t spruik how even our game is .

Why not? The competition and it's evenness isn't about so called top players, it is about TEAMS.

The league has had a different winner in each of the last 4 seasons, 3 of those did not make the 8 the year before winning the premiership. That is a sign of a healthy league.

Also can we please not use anything to do with gold coast as an example of anything that works or does not work. They are an absolute shambles of a club and seemingly have been since their introduction.

[Topdog]

Also whilst technically allowed to go under free agency Gold Coast traded him and a 2019 3rd round pick for pick 3, Anthony Miles, Corey Ellis and a 2019 3rd round pick.

[Mofra]

So a player goes from a bottom placed team to a team that won 18 games and the narrative is how even our comp is ?
Actually not saying he should spend the entirety of his career there , but when you have Top players continually going to top teams you can’t spruik how even our game is .
It works other ways too. Griffen and Deledio in successive years left struggling teams to go to the top four fancies GWS. We all know what happened next.

[Greystache]

Why not? The competition and it's evenness isn't about so called top players, it is about TEAMS.

The league has had a different winner in each of the last 4 seasons, 3 of those did not make the 8 the year before winning the premiership. That is a sign of a healthy league.

Also can we please not use anything to do with gold coast as an example of anything that works or does not work. They are an absolute shambles of a club and seemingly have been since their introduction.

They didn't?

The last 4 premiers have been Hawthorn, Western Bulldogs, Richmond, and West Coast. Richmond was the only team not to make finals the year before they won it but had played finals the 3 previous seasons. Hawthorn were coming off back to back premierships.

[Twodogs]

They didn't?

The last 4 premiers have been Hawthorn, Western Bulldogs, Richmond, and West Coast. Richmond was the only team not to make finals the year before they won it but had played finals the 3 previous seasons. Hawthorn were coming off back to back premierships.

You're right too. I just accepted what Topdog wrote as being correct.

[Topdog]

They didn't?

The last 4 premiers have been Hawthorn, Western Bulldogs, Richmond, and West Coast. Richmond was the only team not to make finals the year before they won it but had played finals the 3 previous seasons. Hawthorn were coming off back to back premierships.

Apologies, were not top 4 the year before winning the premiership. That happened once in the previous 7 years. Wrote that quickly without double checking. My point still remains, league is healthy.

Brisbane, Freo, Carlton and the Gold Coast have been the teams that have been consistently poor in the last 3 years. Brisbane and Freo have both been active in signing players in the trade period.

[GVGjr]

There are some significant gaps between our professional footballers and those professional athletes in many other sports.
The AFL has somehow allowed our players to get the security of contracts from clubs and yet when the players wants to move for better deals it seems that many clubs are almost powerless to stop them.
In many other competitions players can be traded like a commodity often without the right of refusal and while I don't agree to that in our competition the player can't be so specific with their requests for trades.

I'm suggesting that if a contracted player requests a trade to a club then the contract that is in place needs to be honored by his new club. The player and the new club need to contribute 10% of the existing contract to the club that is losing the player. The money that the new club has to pay also comes off their salary cap.

For example the player has 1 year to go on his contract but wants to head home. He is on a $300K deal for that year.
The player then has to pay 10% of the value of his existing contract (30K) to his club to break that contract with them.
The new club also has to pay a 10% premium (30K) to buy out the contract to the club losing the player and this comes off their salary cap.

The player plays the following season for $270K and this new club has $330K coming of their salary cap. The club that has lost the contracted player receives an extra $60K they can use on their salary cap or bank it.

The level of players wanting the security of contracts but also wanting to break them to secure better deals is a lot higher than it should be and this just isn't fair and there needs to be a fairer set-up that protects the clubs who have often drafted, developed and provided security to the player.

I'd be interested in your thoughts?

[hujsh]

There are some significant gaps between our professional footballers and those professional athletes in many other sports.
The AFL has somehow allowed our players to get the security of contracts from clubs and yet when the players wants to move for better deals it seems that many clubs are almost powerless to stop them.
In many other competitions players can be traded like a commodity often without the right of refusal and while I don't agree to that in our competition the player can't be so specific with their requests for trades.

I'm suggesting that if a contracted player requests a trade to a club then the contract that is in place needs to be honored by his new club. The player and the new club need to contribute 10% of the existing contract to the club that is losing the player. The money that the new club has to pay also comes off their salary cap.

For example the player has 1 year to go on his contract but wants to head home. He is on a $300K deal for that year.
The player then has to pay 10% of the value of his existing contract (30K) to his club to break that contract with them.
The new club also has to pay a 10% premium (30K) to buy out the contract to the club losing the player and this comes off their salary cap.

The player plays the following season for $270K and this new club has $330K coming of their salary cap. The club that has lost the contracted player receives an extra $60K they can use on their salary cap or bank it.

The level of players wanting the security of contracts but also wanting to break them to secure better deals is a lot higher than it should be and this just isn't fair and there needs to be a fairer set-up that protects the clubs who have often drafted, developed and provided security to the player.

I'd be interested in your thoughts?

My first reaction is that it's a good idea. My next reaction is that it gives more incentive for clubs to use free agency and/or to wait until players are in the last year of their contract making it harder for clubs to find a trade for players. If this happens it's going to be even harder to get proper compensation for losing a player (unless free agency is used and the compo is not taken away in which case it tends to work out OKish most of the time)

[Bulldog Joe]

....
I'm suggesting that if a contracted player requests a trade to a club then the contract that is in place needs to be honored by his new club. The player and the new club need to contribute 10% of the existing contract to the club that is losing the player. The money that the new club has to pay also comes off their salary cap.

For example the player has 1 year to go on his contract but wants to head home. He is on a $300K deal for that year.
The player then has to pay 10% of the value of his existing contract (30K) to his club to break that contract with them.
The new club also has to pay a 10% premium (30K) to buy out the contract to the club losing the player and this comes off their salary cap.

The player plays the following season for $270K and this new club has $330K coming of their salary cap. The club that has lost the contracted player receives an extra $60K they can use on their salary cap or bank it.

The level of players wanting the security of contracts but also wanting to break them to secure better deals is a lot higher than it should be and this just isn't fair and there needs to be a fairer set-up that protects the clubs who have often drafted, developed and provided security to the player.

I'd be interested in your thoughts?

I really like your thoughts on this.

The player leaving does not get an advantage for breaking his contract and the club that has encouraged him contributes salary cap relief to the club losing the player.

I don`t imagine Hawthorn would have obtained Wingard under that arrangement. It does not stop uncontracted players moving, but there probably needs to be some sort of transparent arrangement for those moves when players are yet to be eligible for free agency.

At the moment we are getting to almost a default free agency for everyone.

[GVGjr]

I really like your thoughts on this.

The player leaving does not get an advantage for breaking his contract and the club that has encouraged him contributes salary cap relief to the club losing the player.

I don`t imagine Hawthorn would have obtained Wingard under that arrangement. It does not stop uncontracted players moving, but there probably needs to be some sort of transparent arrangement for those moves when players are yet to be eligible for free agency.

At the moment we are getting to almost a default free agency for everyone.

Hopefully it stops players leaving with 2 years to go on a deal because another club has just offered them overs.
This whole homesick issue the players and their managers are playing ironically tends to be backed by a superior deal. At least in this case the player takes a bit of a hit for breaking a contract and so does the club poaching the player.

I wonder if the % I've suggested is sufficient? Perhaps 10% for the player and 15% for the club might be a better position

[Bulldog Joe]

Hopefully it stops players leaving with 2 years to go on a deal because another club has just offered them overs.
This whole homesick issue the players and their managers are playing ironically tends to be backed by a superior deal. At least in this case the player takes a bit of a hit for breaking a contract and so does the club poaching the player.

I wonder if the % I've suggested is sufficient? Perhaps 10% for the player and 15% for the club might be a better position

I think it is sufficient if the player simply is kept on the original contract, but the club losing a player gets a 20% salary cap relief paid by the club poaching the player for the remainder of the contract.

[Hotdog60]

I also think that if a contracted player wants to break that contract to go to their home state they forfeit the right to nominate a club and the club with the player can negotiate the best deal from all the clubs in that state.

[Go_Dogs]

Would this make it harder for smaller clubs like ours to attract players? Take Wingard as an example. Both us and Hawthorn can only offer him the same pay for year one, how do we compete with that? We can't offer him more money or a longer deal until that initial contract expires. So potentially, you get a one year rental and/or continually miss out by virtue of not being able to trump a "bigger" clubs offer financially.

[GVGjr]

Would this make it harder for smaller clubs like ours to attract players? Take Wingard as an example. Both us and Hawthorn can only offer him the same pay for year one, how do we compete with that? We can't offer him more money or a longer deal until that initial contract expires. So potentially, you get a one year rental and/or continually miss out by virtue of not being able to trump a "bigger" clubs offer financially.

You can offer them any deal you like but that deal doesn't start until the existing contract has been completed.

I suspect it will stop the flood levels we are now seeing of contracted players looking to leaver earlier.