Free agency = death to smaller clubs

[LostDoggy]

Surprised there hasn't been more comment about free agency as it will have disastrous consequences if it was ever brought in for our club. The salary cap is great but it only goes so far and big clubs are fantastic at opening up "business opportunities" for their players because of their extra clout. I would hate to see the day when we were like one of the poorer teams in the EPL and Collingwood, Carlton and Essendon were continually buying premeirships. Imagine if we lost a Cooney or a Griffen to Collingwood and received nothing in return.

[GVGjr]

Would it really be the death knell? I think the AFL has demonstrated that they want and even competition and give that the salary cap would remain it is vastly less likely to be rorted.

The big difference between the AFL and EPL is the salary cap.

[Sockeye Salmon]

Would it really be the death knell? I think the AFL has demonstrated that they want and even competition and give that the salary cap would remain it is vastly less likely to be rorted.

The big difference between the AFL and EPL is the salary cap.

Absolutely it would be our death knell.

The salary cap is a joke. I personally know of two instances where it has been broken.

The Ben Holland court case really points out the failings. The AFL can't hope to monitor the players investments and they can gloss them up all they like, the guts of it is they're getting sweet deals as a top-up of their contracts.

At least half the clubs will be doing it and those of us that don't have the supporters with deep pockets will lose.




Sockeye's Hate List

Andrew Demetriou and his hand puppet Anderson
Kevin Bartlett and his idiot mates
Paul Roos
AFLPA

[hujsh]

Sockeye's Hate List

Andrew Demetriou and his hand puppet Anderson
Kevin Bartlett and his idiot mates
Paul Roos
AFLPA

First three i get easily but not so much the players association.

[mjp]

Surprised there hasn't been more comment about free agency as it will have disastrous consequences if it was ever brought in for our club. The salary cap is great but it only goes so far and big clubs are fantastic at opening up "business opportunities" for their players because of their extra clout. I would hate to see the day when we were like one of the poorer teams in the EPL and Collingwood, Carlton and Essendon were continually buying premeirships. Imagine if we lost a Cooney or a Griffen to Collingwood and received nothing in return.

EPL is a very bad example. Look to the NFL for examples of how free agency - in concert with a hard salary cap - can work effectively and give everyone a chance.

The players are going to win this one - the clubs should reach an agreement on a form of restricted free agency and they should do it NOW.

[GVGjr]

EPL is a very bad example. Look to the NFL for examples of how free agency - in concert with a hard salary cap - can work effectively and give everyone a chance.

The players are going to win this one - the clubs should reach an agreement on a form of restricted free agency and they should do it NOW.

mjp, how do you see this impacting the traditionally weaker clubs which seems to be the particular concern for supporters of clubs like ours?

[LostDoggy]

First three i get easily but not so much the players association.

??? Its pretty obvious.
They are pushing for free agency amongst other things.

[mjp]

mjp, how do you see this impacting the traditionally weaker clubs which seems to be the particular concern for supporters of clubs like ours?


I don't really see an impact to be honest.

I guess it would enable players to move to the club of their choice more easily, but unless another club values one of our players more highly than we did, in the NFL scenario:

1/.We have the option to 'tender an offer' which is trade dependent (eg. First round draft pick etc. They have 5 or 6 levels of 'tender' that can be used, including unprotected.)
2/.Match the offer of the other team. No issue there, though some NFL clubs have been adding ridiculous contract clauses such as 'Will not play any games in the state of Minnesota' to a Vikings player that the lawyers are having fun with.
3/.Receive compensation if they elect not to match.

For example, if Adam Cooney was out of contract, we could tender him an offer that had compensation of 2 x first round draft picks. If the Crows (for example) made a counter offer, our position would be either match the new offer (assuming it was better), or accept the compensation from Adelaide. If Adam insisted on going, we would receive the 2 x first round picks regardless. How would this be worse than today? Everyone would know what is going on, the club would have to be more open with its members (no, we didn't make the offer, yes we did etc) and the players would get SOME say in where they go.

I think everyone knows where I sit on this - I believe the players should have more say in where they play from about 100games or so onwards - or about 7 years of commitment to a club. They can be drafted by anyone, which is a significant thing to have to deal with - and anyone who knows a 17yo who has been stuck in a share house on the other side of the country will agree with me - and if they ever want to go home they have to sit through that ridiculous trade week concept.

Yes, I want and expect the original club to be compensated for the player who they have lost - but I want the rules to be clear and everyone to know what they are getting themselves in for.

Back to our club, in the Cooney example we either pay fair market price - and the salary cap dictates this too an extent - or we get fair market compensation. Likewise, if we wanted to entice Werribee boy Will Sullivan home from Perth, we make the offer and compensate West Coast for him...

As for operating outside the salary cap, well sure. But if Holland successfully sues Casey and he is held personally liable - which he may very well be - a lot of the directors will start treating this a bit more professionally...but what do you expect when multi-million dollar businesses are being run by people who are not paid and therefore involved because it is a hobby rather than a job.

I am sure a form of RFA will come in - I am 100% certain of this. I believe that if the AFLPA and the clubs get together and resolve this now before some of the more militant players/managers start getting too amped up about it, a reasonable resolution can be found.

[Go_Dogs]

I don't really see an impact to be honest.

I guess it would enable players to move to the club of their choice more easily, but unless another club values one of our players more highly than we did, in the NFL scenario:

1/.We have the option to 'tender an offer' which is trade dependent (eg. First round draft pick etc. They have 5 or 6 levels of 'tender' that can be used, including unprotected.)
2/.Match the offer of the other team. No issue there, though some NFL clubs have been adding ridiculous contract clauses such as 'Will not play any games in the state of Minnesota' to a Vikings player that the lawyers are having fun with.
3/.Receive compensation if they elect not to match.

For example, if Adam Cooney was out of contract, we could tender him an offer that had compensation of 2 x first round draft picks. If the Crows (for example) made a counter offer, our position would be either match the new offer (assuming it was better), or accept the compensation from Adelaide. If Adam insisted on going, we would receive the 2 x first round picks regardless. How would this be worse than today? Everyone would know what is going on, the club would have to be more open with its members (no, we didn't make the offer, yes we did etc) and the players would get SOME say in where they go.

I think everyone knows where I sit on this - I believe the players should have more say in where they play from about 100games or so onwards - or about 7 years of commitment to a club. They can be drafted by anyone, which is a significant thing to have to deal with - and anyone who knows a 17yo who has been stuck in a share house on the other side of the country will agree with me - and if they ever want to go home they have to sit through that ridiculous trade week concept.

Yes, I want and expect the original club to be compensated for the player who they have lost - but I want the rules to be clear and everyone to know what they are getting themselves in for.

Back to our club, in the Cooney example we either pay fair market price - and the salary cap dictates this too an extent - or we get fair market compensation. Likewise, if we wanted to entice Werribee boy Will Sullivan home from Perth, we make the offer and compensate West Coast for him...

As for operating outside the salary cap, well sure. But if Holland successfully sues Casey and he is held personally liable - which he may very well be - a lot of the directors will start treating this a bit more professionally...but what do you expect when multi-million dollar businesses are being run by people who are not paid and therefore involved because it is a hobby rather than a job.

I am sure a form of RFA will come in - I am 100% certain of this. I believe that if the AFLPA and the clubs get together and resolve this now before some of the more militant players/managers start getting too amped up about it, a reasonable resolution can be found.

Yep, it's a good system. I've played a lot of Madden in my time and from what I can gather from that, it's a pretty fair system and allows both the clubs and players every opportunity to continue their alliance, or if they chose not to, get fair compensation.


Interesting discussion.

[hujsh]

??? Its pretty obvious.
They are pushing for free agency amongst other things.

Ok. I'm not too familiar with the AFLPA. Don't really listen to them.