Exemptions for marquee men a must, says agent

[The Coon Dog]

JON PIERIK - The Age - March 14, 2010

Leading player agent Ricky Nixon says the AFL's superstars deserve a pay rise and has called for the introduction of a designated "marquee" player who can be remunerated outside the salary cap.

Nixon has already conveyed his thoughts to the AFL Players' Association, which is gathering feedback from its executive and delegates before talks with the AFL over a new collective bargaining agreement.

"I think this time around, the [agreement] has got to reward the superstars of the game better. I know it's something the AFLPA will be looking at," Nixon said. "Let's face it. We go to watch the Abletts and Riewoldts every week. We don't go to watch the bloke that is playing in the Sandringham reserves, do we?

Article in full... (http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/exemptions-for-marquee-men-a-must-says-agent-20100313-q560.html)

[FrediKanoute]

Another step along the path of player greed. Who is going to pay for the marquee men?

A serious problem as I see it is how do you determine who a marquee player is on your team. Yes Reidvolt is a stand out, but I'm sure a guy like Hayes, maybe Goddard would be a little bit miffed that they would be getting less than him.

In our side, who would you consider marquee? Cooney? Lake? Grifffin? Gilbee? Johnno? Aka? Bazza? Marquee works in Soccer because you have a largely developing competition and its a means of attracting big name players from overseas to play locally. This helps build the brand in Australia without having the potential rampant runaway spending that you have in Europe. It doesn't apply to AFL which is the top profesional league in the world.

[Rocco Jones]

"I think this time around, the [agreement] has got to reward the superstars of the game better. I know it's something the AFLPA will be looking at," Nixon said. "Let's face it. We go to watch the Abletts and Riewoldts every week. We don't go to watch the bloke that is playing in the Sandringham reserves, do we?


Don't the Abletts and Riewoldts already get paid about 20 times more than those playing VFL reserves (1st year players/rookies)?

[ledge]

And then of course you have got players managers saying their player should be the marquee one.

[hujsh]

He doesn't believe they need a pay rise, he just want one of his own. Therefore his opinion is worthless.

[comrade]

I'm fine with marquee payments being exempt from salary cap expenditure, IF player agent commission on said payments are also exempt. Nixon wouldn't push the barrow if that was the case. :D

[chef]

And then of course you have got players managers saying their player should be the marquee one.

So they can get more money out of the players contracts. God these guys have turned into real wankers:mad:

[LostDoggy]

Not these guys - just Nixon. He should be banned from all AFL players by the league!

[Sockeye Salmon]

I love his logic - "this will allow Geelong to keep Gary Ablett" - and almost certainly cause them to lose Joel Selwood when someone else offers up 'marquee player - write your own cheque' in front of him.

[comrade]

I love his logic - "this will allow Geelong to keep Gary Ablett" - and almost certainly cause them to lose Joel Selwood when someone else offers up 'marquee player - write your own cheque' in front of him.

He clarified on SEN this morning that marquee status can only be attributed to a player already on the list, avoiding the scenario you’ve outlined.

[Topdog]

He clarified on SEN this morning that marquee status can only be attributed to a player already on the list, avoiding the scenario you’ve outlined.

But it doesn't get rid of it. Carlton and the likes will find ways around it within 1 week.

[chef]

He clarified on SEN this morning that marquee status can only be attributed to a player already on the list, avoiding the scenario you’ve outlined.

They can just back end a contract(readjust the terms once the player is signed) to get around this.

[mjp]

In the NFL, each team has one Franchise Player designation they can use. The money paid is still included in the cap, and is calculated as the 'average' of the top 5 players at their position across the league.

The players don't like it - not because they have to stay where they are, but because they can't access a signing bonus. Clubs hate it because they have to dedicate a LOT of cap room to a single player (signing bonuses enable them to spread the money over the terms of the contract)...so it is set up to encourage them to deal. What tends to happen is the franchise designation is applied, the player refuses to report to the team BUT a long term deal soon follows...everyone gets what they want.

In the Nixon idea, it is basically giving individual clubs/players the ability to completely bankrupt the game outside the normal rules of the competition. This is bad. I don't disagree that clubs should be able to use a franchise designation (ideally, we franchise Cooney - then sign him, the next year we franchise Griffen - then sign him, etc etc...long term cap and contract management) but it should not be outside the cap.

To me free agency is fine - but the clubs have to be given tools to use to keep players. To me, these tools should be simple - meet the financial terms offered to the player by the team trying to get him. Any club losing a player in this way is compensated by draft picks on a sliding scale of the offer. Lose Chris Judd? Get two first round picks. Lose Wayde Skipper? Get a 7th rounder. This shouldn't be that hard.

[Sockeye Salmon]

To me free agency is fine - but the clubs have to be given tools to use to keep players. To me, these tools should be simple - meet the financial terms offered to the player by the team trying to get him. Any club losing a player in this way is compensated by draft picks on a sliding scale of the offer. Lose Chris Judd? Get two first round picks. Lose Wayde Skipper? Get a 7th rounder. This shouldn't be that hard.

You and I will never agree on this - ever.

The problem with compensation is that it is hard, incredibly hard.

Judd and Skipper are at the extremes, they're the easy ones. At the end of this year we will lose Harbrow to GC. What's he worth?

He's off the rookie list, never finished in our top 10 in our B & F but we all know how important he is to us.

We will probably get about pick 60 for him.

[The Coon Dog]

You and I will never agree on this - ever.

The problem with compensation is that it is hard, incredibly hard.

Judd and Skipper are at the extremes, they're the easy ones. At the end of this year we will lose Harbrow to GC. What's he worth?

He's off the rookie list, never finished in our top 10 in our B & F but we all know how important he is to us.

We will probably get about pick 60 for him.

Oops!

Western Bulldogs - 2009 B & F

1. Matthew Boyd - 154
2. Daniel Cross - 145
3. Dale Morris - 133
4. Brad Johnson - 131
5. Brian Lake - 125
6. Jarrod Harbrow - 123
7. Adam Cooney - 110
8. Shaun Higgins - 96
9. Ryan Hargrave - 93
10. Jason Akermanis - 86

[mjp]

You and I will never agree on this - ever.

The problem with compensation is that it is hard, incredibly hard.

Judd and Skipper are at the extremes, they're the easy ones. At the end of this year we will lose Harbrow to GC. What's he worth?

We will probably get about pick 60 for him.

No - set the compensation rates. We tender a salary of 300K - that is a second round pick. We offer 250K, that is a third rounder...we offer 500K, that is 2 x 1st rounders.

The AFL has the salary info, all they have to do is use it. We say we are placing a 2nd round tender on Harbrow, the other team has to match it and give us that pick.

[FrediKanoute]

I agree, it has to be based on salary banding to a large extent since this is the "cost"/"value" of a player. If Harbrow is on $150k p/a this year and his contract is up and we offer $400k p/a for 3 years, then that puts him into a set bracket of player. To me that is simple and more importantly its objective.

Yes it would mean that clubs may inflate a players salary knowing that he will leave anyway just to get more/better picks, but at the end of the day clubs should be compensated since they have done the development to get the player where he is today.

As for marquee players.....well I personally think it will destroy a key part of football....the comradery and mateship of the team, because you are effectively singling out an individual player and saying, you are sooooooo much better than your peers when in reailty there are very few players who are in this category. In any one time you would have maybe 3 or 4 across the whole competition who would fall into this category.

I also think that players and player managers are biting the very hand that feeds......be careful

[mjp]

I also think that players and player managers are biting the very hand that feeds......be careful

Agree. There needs to be a carrot and a stick here...the players have to give something to get something - what are they giving up?

[Sockeye Salmon]

No - set the compensation rates. We tender a salary of 300K - that is a second round pick. We offer 250K, that is a third rounder...we offer 500K, that is 2 x 1st rounders.

The AFL has the salary info, all they have to do is use it. We say we are placing a 2nd round tender on Harbrow, the other team has to match it and give us that pick.

Does that include the special deal from the presidents business or the generous supporter?

There is no way this can be done without it turning into a scam.

[Sockeye Salmon]

Oops!

Western Bulldogs - 2009 B & F

1. Matthew Boyd - 154
2. Daniel Cross - 145
3. Dale Morris - 133
4. Brad Johnson - 131
5. Brian Lake - 125
6. Jarrod Harbrow - 123
7. Adam Cooney - 110
8. Shaun Higgins - 96
9. Ryan Hargrave - 93
10. Jason Akermanis - 86

Shut up, Barry. You're not helping.

[LostDoggy]

Shut up, Barry. You're not helping.

Maybe not...but it's funny though:D

[LostDoggy]

You and I will never agree on this - ever.

The problem with compensation is that it is hard, incredibly hard.

Judd and Skipper are at the extremes, they're the easy ones. At the end of this year we will lose Harbrow to GC. What's he worth?

He's off the rookie list, never finished in our top 10 in our B & F but we all know how important he is to us.

We will probably get about pick 60 for him.

And, worse than hard, systematised compensation is ARTIFICIAL. The 'free' market threw up all kinds of permutations like Aker and Baz heading our way for second and third round picks. The free market meant that Andrew Lovett went to the Saints for pick 14, Luke Ball was only worth pick 30, while McLean went for a mid-first rounder. A compensation system would have found those real world numbers 'weird', and no way it would have come up with that result.

Ironically, the compensation system will attempt to be logical and systematic but will end up being a false logic because it will not be able to quantify such ephemeral, yet very real, factors like form, team dynamics, player baggage, differing relative value of a player to different teams etc. How does a 'system' pick up the fact that Lethal and Aker didn't get along so would go for under market value? How would it pick up the fact that Lyon was so desperate to fill a speed gap in his midfield that he was willing to pay WAY over-the-odds for a spineless layabout with a restraining order hanging over his head that no one else was willing to go near? How does it value a player who is valued differently by different clubs depending on how much they want/like/need him?

A compensation system shouldn't protect bad dealers like Lyon from himself, nor penalise great dealers like Rocket. It will end up destroying the competitive advantage of savvy traders like ourselves, which is one of the ways we can even up the disparity between the haves and have-nots.