Article by Pete Ryan about free agency rules and whether they're working:
https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/free-agency-rules-not-clubs-have-failed-cameron-20201107-p56cdk.html
. He seems to think that Jeremy Cameron is hard done by because he isn't guaranteed a smooth transition to Geelong. However, to me, his argument is weakened because he doesn't explain why this is so wrong. The matching option for free agency bids was exactly how the system was intended to work. In fact it's the first time it's ever even been exercised (although the Crows threat of matching Geelong's bid for Dangerfield a few years back prompted the Cats to trade). He also says that the free agency rules have become outdated - but, again, he doesn't say why. What has changed? Why were they appropriate but are no longer? I am confused and even less persuaded. Lastly he says that free agency is not one of the AFL's equalisation measures. On what basis does he say this? It seems patently untrue to me. Undoing the equalising effect of tying compensation to a club's ladder position seems a retrograde step at first blush to me. I'm all in favour of maximising equalisation.
In sum, I agree the free agency rules have problems but I find the criticisms and solutions put forward in this article really unconvincing. Disappointing because I normally think Peter Ryan is thoughtful and worth listening to.
Bookmarks