PDA

View Full Version : Free Agency



bricon
5th March 2003, 10:39 AM
In this article http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/footy/common/story_page/0,8033,6077733%255E20322,00.html from today?s Herald-Sun, Rob Kerr from the AFLPA has indicated that some form of free agency is back on the agenda for the next round of negotiations between the Players Association and the AFL.

penga
5th March 2003, 05:30 PM
amen to the idea of free agency, this imo is the way to go... i know a lot of people will disagree with me here but i think the afl should be closer to the nfl system, as compared to the one we have now... the club gets way too much bargaining power in this current arrangement. for instance at the end of this season if we had an nfl-style trading type arrangement we could pick up acker for nothing as he has come OUT OF CONTRACT WITH THE CLUB, therefore this would mean he could go anywhere he likes. brisbane would have to sign him and then trade him to get anything for him rather than us giving up a couple of players and draft picks or whatever. i may have the current system confused but it is very confusing and the idea of having a 6 (or whatever it is) day trading period is a joke, there should be a lot more time for trades to be done... anyways, this is my opinion

robbieando
5th March 2003, 06:37 PM
I agree with Penga, the current set up is wrong and also unlawful. Freedom of trade issues are involved here and many player managers would love to challenge the AFL in court over this issue. The trade period should stay as is and only involve players still under contract and should go for a week. Free Agency should then start a week after the trade period and run for 6 weeks until the draft. I don't like the idea of giving up players and draft picks for an out of contract player like we had to this year for Nick Davis.

Charlie
5th March 2003, 06:38 PM
Originally posted by penga
amen to the idea of free agency, this imo is the way to go... i know a lot of people will disagree with me here but i think the afl should be closer to the nfl system, as compared to the one we have now... the club gets way too much bargaining power in this current arrangement. for instance at the end of this season if we had an nfl-style trading type arrangement we could pick up acker for nothing as he has come OUT OF CONTRACT WITH THE CLUB, therefore this would mean he could go anywhere he likes. brisbane would have to sign him and then trade him to get anything for him rather than us giving up a couple of players and draft picks or whatever. i may have the current system confused but it is very confusing and the idea of having a 6 (or whatever it is) day trading period is a joke, there should be a lot more time for trades to be done... anyways, this is my opinion

Nothing personal Penga... but this post is kinda silly. Of course we'd be able to pick up Acker. But so could everybody else. And come to think of, they could all pick up Tadhg or Goodes when they come out of contract too.

The salary cap and draft MUST NOT be tarnished. AT ALL. They're what saves the competition from being like the EPL. 3 contenders and 13 pretenders? No thanks. I'd like to stick to the thought of Sydney being competitive again in 2-3 years, rather than potentially being ravaged if our youngsters blossom.

The players have it pretty damn good if you ask me. Poor players aren't getting enough money. Well.... Damn! Ask 19.9million Aussies if they'd prefer Alastair Lynch's relatively moderate salary in footy terms (about $180,000) to their own. I know what the answer will generally be.

Trading period longer??? How stressful you want to make it? I think it should be 48 hours. Clubs then decide how much negotiating they want to do in that time. If they can't come to a deal in THAT sort of time frame, tough. But it makes it less uncomfortable for players and their families. Rich or not, I imagine having your career bartered over would be a very difficult time. Having the program going round-the-clock would be better for players.

Charlie

robbieando
5th March 2003, 06:52 PM
Charlie the problem is the AFL has to act now because its only a matter of time before the AFL is taken to court on freedom of trade. In effect I rather have everything stay as is and introduce a free agency instead of going to court and the AFL having to change everthing because trust me if it gets to court they WILL lose

Charlie
5th March 2003, 07:02 PM
Yeah. I know it would lose.

The AFL also has a choice. They don't necessarily HAVE to run the season, now do they? Sure. Bad for the game and all that. Having a competition with only 4 teams rich enough to win is worse.

The players' free agency doesn't mean squat if they can't play... now does it? No play, no pay. Sorry Mr Kerr, but we can't afford to pay players for nothing, can we?

robbieando
5th March 2003, 07:10 PM
Charlie this issue has nothing to do with paying a player it has something to do with players who ARE out of contract not allowed to go where they want for nothing. Free agency won't mean a contracted player will leave for nothing but it will mean a player who doesn't won't to stay can go wherever they want.

Charlie playing hardball with the AFLPA won't help matters, remember the courts will change the entire system if they go to court and that will lead to a 3 team comp. Introduce free agency now without changing anything else will mean we keep the system we have now in tack.

Charlie
5th March 2003, 07:29 PM
How do you propose to do that Robbie?? Your idea won't save the AFL, it will simply make it worse!!!!!!!!

If the AFL backs down on the draft system, the players will be even more bold in attacking the salary cap. Why share $6m when Essendon can afford to pay it's list $10m? Adelaide can offer me an extra quarter mil, who cares if the nightlife consists of cramped hotel spas?

What is being proposed will be the death of AFL if it happens. Remember, the reason that AFL socialism was brought in in the first place was that capitalism endangers the sport. In the mid-80's when the current system was installed, only Essendon, Carlton and Hawthorn were financially secure. South had already moved North. Bulldogs and Fitzroy were in big trouble; I vaguely remember Richmond were considering a move to Perth.

When it's more about winning than money for some clubs, money loses its value. Unless you don't have enough. By my count, AT LEAST 7 clubs, and probably 12, couldn't afford to be competitve.

The Canterbury Bulldogs would have won last year if they'd appealed the decision to strip its points. But they didn't, they sacrificed a premiership because they knew that challenging it in court would be bad for the NRL.

If the players go through with their latest stand-over tactic... stuff them all... I'll stick to watching the local comp. I'll have no pity when, 10 years from now, 450 players have lost their jobs... and the AFLPA says "we just don't understand how it happened. This is a disgrace. The AFL has ruined this competition."

Unionism... pah.

Charlie

robbieando
5th March 2003, 08:03 PM
Charlie your got me wrong.

Introducing Free agency won't mean, we get rid of the salary cap or do away with the draft. I will mean that a player out of contract can't be traded by his club. The current system stays in place except free agency will come in meaning players out of contract can change club to whoever they like.

desredandwhite
5th March 2003, 08:21 PM
I like the current system - the club is protected above all else. If free agency is introduced, you can pretty much count on a handful of rich clubs dominating forever.

Charlie
5th March 2003, 08:23 PM
I know exactly what you mean Rob, and it's a dangerous precedent.

Next, rookies will claim the same right. Why should a 25 year be a free agent but not a 17 year old??? The draft will be challenged and found to be restraint of trade. What the hell is the point if the rich clubs can simply buy them in 2 years anyway?

And that establishes a beautiful precedent for scrapping the salary cap.

Essendon, Collingwood and Adelaide will rule the comp.

Rob, if you want this to happen, you are blind to what it means.

robbieando
5th March 2003, 08:30 PM
Charlie waht I'm trying to say is the AFL should try and make an agreement with the AFLPA to say if we give you free agency you can't take us to court on the other issues. If you think free agency will lead to all hell braking loose I think you look at the NFL, which since introducing free agency, has introduced a salary cap which is policed better than the AFL does it, and continues to have a strong draft system. And you can't tell me that its the same clubs winning the superbowl each now can you?

Getting rid of the draft and the salary cap would be worse than introducing free agency.

Charlie
5th March 2003, 08:52 PM
NFL and America are a totally different situation to AFL here in Australia.

-No competition! Nearly each NFL city has only one team, those that have two have millions of people.

-There isn't any other similar sporting codes. NFL doesn't need to compete with league, union and soccer at anywhere near the same level that AFL teams do.

-NFL teams are privately owned by NFL-mad billionaire capitalists. They think nothing of throwing $100million down the drain in pursuit of a Superbowl win, that would no doubt return that amount many times over. No membership required there to prop up rickety clubs. No rich and poor, just rich.

-The salary cap over there is somewhere round $50million... not quite as claustrophobic as our $5.6million.

robbieando
5th March 2003, 08:59 PM
Originally posted by Charlie
NFL and America are a totally different situation to AFL here in Australia.

-No competition! Nearly each NFL city has only one team, those that have two have millions of people.

-There isn't any other similar sporting codes. NFL doesn't need to compete with league, union and soccer at anywhere near the same level that AFL teams do.

-NFL teams are privately owned by NFL-mad billionaire capitalists. They think nothing of throwing $100million down the drain in pursuit of a Superbowl win, that would no doubt return that amount many times over. No membership required there to prop up rickety clubs. No rich and poor, just rich.

-The salary cap over there is somewhere round $50million... not quite as claustrophobic as our $5.6million.

Charlie what I'm trying to say is that Free agency works in the NFL along with a draft and salary cap. Why wouldn't it work in the AFL?????? Charlie you forget that unlike the AFL the NFL has no rules on how much of the salary cap can be used and each team has about 80 players to pay for. Tampa Bay won this years superbowl without any big names and so did New England the year before - the big spending teams such as the Cowboys and the Giants got no where near the superbowl.

You keep forgeting soccer, doesn't have a draft system nor a salary cap - we do and free agency won't effect the game like you think it will because the salary cap stays the same so clubs can't just throw money about like you can in the EPL. How much does free agency effect the NRL???? Not much because they still have the salary cap in effect.

Charlie
5th March 2003, 09:05 PM
YOU CONTINUALLY MISS THE POINT!!!!

If you back down on free agency, you have set a precedent!!!! The salary cap and draft were put in place for the same reasons as free agency was banned!! If we can live with free agency, then it would reasonably make sense to a judge that the cap and draft aren't needed either!!!

Come on Robbie, you've done a fair bit of studying the law. You UNDERSTAND this!!!!

robbieando
5th March 2003, 09:21 PM
Charlie I know the law and I also know that you can't get rid of the cap and the draft because of introducing free agency. As I said it works elsewhere without such legal problems. Not introducing free agency WILL cause problems because then the WHOLE system would be dragged to court and as a WHOLE would be found unlawful. In sections its OK because each is then treated differently.

The issue about free agency is that a player in the system should be allowed to change clubs if he wants when his contract is up, not as the system is now where the club decides where he go.

Charlie as I stated the system works well else where and it will work here. Freeagency won't work without the cap or the draft. Then and only then would it create the case of the EPL

Charlie
5th March 2003, 09:29 PM
I hope to God you never get to the AFL Commission. This is an incredibly short-sighted view to take.

When the players decide to try and see how much power they've got, I hope the AFL calls their bluff. Suspend a season, let them strike, and let them see how they go without their $100,000s. They'll come crawling back. Don't be held to ransom like NBA and MBL!!!

Charlie

chammond
5th March 2003, 11:05 PM
Fortunately for the AFL (and footy fans), the extremes that Robbie and Charlie describe are unlikely in the current football climate.

As the article suggests, the most likely outcome is that the AFLPA will forget about free agency if the AFL agrees to give senior players more contractual protection.

I suspect that the majority of players would be terrified of the extended meat market that free agency would bring about.

penga
5th March 2003, 11:06 PM
Charlie, i usually agree with most of your posts but i don't think you know the NFL system well enough to comment on their shortfalls because you are quite ill informed...

they have:

- salary cap, therefore the richest club does not rule... in the superbowl coverage this year the commentator said how succesful the NFL's salary cap had been as the same team hadn't won it in about 10 years. their cap is at 56 million as you need at least 39 players who can be on the field. ie offense, defense and special teams. then there is the reserves for each position, and there are many! and there is so much more money involved in the nfl so therefore they can pay there players a hell of a lot more, ie a $180,000 contract for lynch would be worth about $1.8 million in the nfl as the market is as you say so much larger as there is no other similar code in the states with the exception of maybe soccer but that is SO remote... except that quite nfl kickers will be ex soccer players (kickers not punters, kicker for field goal, punter for obviously punt)

- they have a draft, much the same as ours... which means the bottom team can rebuild with good draft selections

- free agency, clubs can not bargain with an uncontracted player. as soon as a player comes out of contract it doesn't mean that they will be snapped up imediately, the club that they are with can renegotiate first and if no deal is struck they then become a free agent... with the whole aker thing, i realise that the other 15 clubs could pick him up, but it wouldnt mean that we would give up draft picks for him. and the team with the best position with their cap could afford him, therefore - swans

- trading period, say that ball, doyle and goodes all get dislocated knees first round and we have NO ruck option, how stupid is that to waste the rest of the year without any ruckmen!!! in the nfl, im not sure which round the trade deadline finishes but we could trade for at least one ruck option during the regular season, therefore we could put goodes, ball and doyle on the "injured roster" so that their salaries are not included under the cap and we could afford to either sign a free agent ruckman or trade. therefore in my opinion we should increase the length of the trading/signing period.

i hope this gives more clarity to my previous post...

penga
5th March 2003, 11:16 PM
if u want a quick run down on the logistics of the nfl, hire or buy madden 2003... im absolutely addicted to this game, you can play it in about three or four different ways (and thats just in the franchise mode)... i update madden every 2nd year, so i now have 99, 01, 03... HIGHLY recomended!

robbieando
6th March 2003, 08:26 AM
It all relates to the issue of weather a club can demand draft picks and/or player for a player who is out of contract. This is a restrant of trade because an out of contract player has no option of choosing a club he wants.

This has been in Europe found to be illegal and as such we now have the Bosman ruling which means a club no longer owns the players rights when his contract is up, meaning a player can leave to whoever he feels is the better club/deal without transfers being involved.

Trust me if this goes to court the AFL are ****ed, if they introduce free agency their liabity is less and is unlikely to be effected.

Charlie I understand your problems with free agency but you have to remember that if the AFL doesn't introduce it they could be forced by the courts to change the entire system which would be worse for football. Free Agency works well in all sports that have a draft and a salary cap. The MLB and NBA have different systems in place and if you look closely to the NFL you will see it makes the league much closer and has stopped club buying Superbowl wins

Mike_B
6th March 2003, 11:35 AM
Originally posted by penga
...in the superbowl coverage this year the commentator said how succesful the NFL's salary cap had been as the same team hadn't won it in about 10 years.

Except for Denver winning it two years in a row in the mid-late '90's IIRC :D

penga
6th March 2003, 01:27 PM
Originally posted by Mike_B
Except for Denver winning it two years in a row in the mid-late '90's IIRC :D
yeah, true that :) well the commentator mustve made a comment after that that i forgot, but u get the point

robbieando
6th March 2003, 01:47 PM
The thing is the NFL since introducing the salary cap, draft and free agency has become a very even comp. Teams from small markets like Green Bay, Denver, Tampa Bay, St Louis, Baltimore, Boston have won the Superbowl while teams from New York and Los Angleas are no where to be seen. I proves free agency work if the right system is in place.

chammond
7th March 2003, 11:57 AM
It all relates to the issue of weather a club can demand draft picks and/or player for a player who is out of contract. This is a restrant of trade because an out of contract player has no option of choosing a club he wants.

I don't understand this bit.

How can an AFL club demand draft picks and/or player for a player who is out of contract?

If a player is out of contract, surely the club can't make any demands?

robbieando
8th March 2003, 08:14 AM
During the trade period the player is still under contract, but by the end of October is out of contract. So yes a club can demand draft picks/players. The AFLPA would like to see players whose contract will be up after the trade period become free agents so a player can decide where he ends up.

liz
8th March 2003, 11:42 AM
Originally posted by robbieando
During the trade period the player is still under contract, but by the end of October is out of contract. So yes a club can demand draft picks/players. The AFLPA would like to see players whose contract will be up after the trade period become free agents so a player can decide where he ends up.

Except that a player has to agree to a trade. Any player who will be out of contract by the end of October can refuse to be traded to a club he doesn't want to go to. Only problem, of course, is that he then has to subject to the lottery of the draft.

Changing the rules so that these players become free agents would represent a huge shift of power towards the players, particularly those who don't need the security of a contract because they know they'll be in high demand. They can allow their contracts to expire and then shop themselves around to the highest bidder, knowing that there's nothing their current club can do to stop them joining whoever is willing to pay the most. Even if a player really wants to stay with his existing club, it still increases his negotiating power.

The counter to this, though, is that clubs are increasingly unwilling to pay even the best players more than they are worth, being willing to lose them if need be. Melbourne's approach to the Woewodin situation is an example (even though he wasn't actually out of contract).

chammond
8th March 2003, 01:00 PM
During the trade period the player is still under contract, but by the end of October is out of contract. So yes a club can demand draft picks/players.

How will this change under free agency? While the player is under contract, the clubs will take any steps necessary to manage their assets, which they are perfectly entitled to do under trade practices law.

Once the player is out of contract, the club is no longer a factor. The constraints then are all imposed by the AFL through the draft system. Free agency and the pre-season draft are incompatible, and, as Liz describes, there will be a power shift which will be determined by the marketplace. Two years ago, the shift would have been significant as it was a sellers market. Now I think the players would be a lot less enthusiastic, given the recent upheavals.

The really interesting factor would be what happens to the national draft? None of the potential draftees are contracted, and they would all probably be very interested in choosing which club they go to. I think, in the current climate, they would be much more interested in 'free agency' than the senior players.

Charlie
8th March 2003, 07:41 PM
The really interesting factor would be what happens to the national draft? None of the potential draftees are contracted, and they would all probably be very interested in choosing which club they go to. I think, in the current climate, they would be much more interested in 'free agency' than the senior players.

Exactly. Which is why free agency MUST NOT be allowed.

robbieando
8th March 2003, 07:44 PM
Each players contract end on the same date so I would expect the AFL and the AFLPA would agree for a new date which would mostly be much more early than it is now.

Lizz the power might move towards the player but if the AFL follows the lead of the NFL the club might be given the right to have a player who forfills a certain certia named a "franchise" player meaning if another club wants to sign this player they would have to give up draft picks. I would expect 2 levels of free agency - RFA AND UFA (Restricted and Unrestricted) Restricted would mean a club gets compensation if the player forfills the criteia and unrestricted for those who aren't the club gets nothing. This limits the players power.

I think people are too worried about free agency and look too easily to the English Premier League and Major League Baseball where the rich club rule. The facts are those leagues don't have any form of salary cap and thus free agency does effect results. But with the salary cap in place each club has the same amount to spend and each club therefore is on a level playing field. It doesn't cause a problem in the NFL so it should in the AFL.

chammond
8th March 2003, 09:01 PM
I think people are too worried about free agency and look too easily to the English Premier League and Major League Baseball where the rich club rule. The facts are those leagues don't have any form of salary cap and thus free agency does effect results.

I think you're starting to argue against yourself here Robbie. The fact is, nobody, including the players, likes completely unfettered "free agency".

In most sports, free agency really means 'free in some ways but not in others' - a sort of corrupted free agency. The AFL already has a 'sort of' free agency in the shape of the pre-season draft - it's my bet that if the AFLPA come up with something different, it will merely be another form of controlled free agency - definitely not open slather.