Opinion Free agency
- Thread starter Danny88
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Early days we are seeing it benefit the successful sides with a bit of coin. So, I tend to agree with those who see it as a de-equalising factor. For GWS I see it as a positive though, if we keep our talent together. We should keep heading up the ladder, so eventually you will see FAs looking to join us in 2-3 years.
I don't like it personally and don't think it does anything for equalisation.
For the moment we don't have any players affected by it but that time will come and we will be raped by greedy player managers just like everybody else.
When we become strong it will probably help us as we should become a destination club but it's after that when we slide down that we will all really hate it.
It's in now so we have to begrudgingly accept it, can't see it going away with the players and player managers always threatening to challenge the draft via restraint of trade.
For the moment we don't have any players affected by it but that time will come and we will be raped by greedy player managers just like everybody else.
When we become strong it will probably help us as we should become a destination club but it's after that when we slide down that we will all really hate it.
It's in now so we have to begrudgingly accept it, can't see it going away with the players and player managers always threatening to challenge the draft via restraint of trade.
Personally I think that it's going to mean that the top teams will just keep getting stronger and never bottom out. Goes against everything the AFL wants in equalisation.
Not a massive issue for us giants yet, however my other team freo are feeling the pain. Can't buy a free agent no matter how much they pay. They all want to go to hawks or Geelong every year. So doesn't even matter if you are top 4 if you are not in Victoria
I also feel loyalty is now a thing of the past with FA. Players realise that they have 2 years left of their career and havnt won a flag, so they see who are favourites for the flag the following year and ask to go there. Does that really mean as much to win a flag that way. Who knows
Not a massive issue for us giants yet, however my other team freo are feeling the pain. Can't buy a free agent no matter how much they pay. They all want to go to hawks or Geelong every year. So doesn't even matter if you are top 4 if you are not in Victoria
I also feel loyalty is now a thing of the past with FA. Players realise that they have 2 years left of their career and havnt won a flag, so they see who are favourites for the flag the following year and ask to go there. Does that really mean as much to win a flag that way. Who knows
I support free agency but only if we move to a system where clubs can trade players without needing the players permission, so no more players saying I want to go home but you can only trade me to the team X. If players want free agency they need to give up the power to be traded to the team of there choice .
- Apr 12, 2012
- 46,157
- 41,953
- AFL Club
- GWS
Def think thats a good idea. But i think we have bucklies of the pa allowing it to happen.
- Thread starter
- #8
Can u further explain how this would work?
With the so-called home sick guys they would be able to nominate the state they wanted to return to but would have no say in what club they would end up at.
But really at the moment thing are to in fav of players and there just needs to be a rebalancing of that.
I just don't want it to get to the ridiculous stage it did in he baseball this year though. Watching a game and half way through the sixth innings they pull a guy from the outfield. He'd just been traded. No idea where he was going but he couldn't even finish the game, let alone the season, with the club. Nope, he was gorne. Pack ya bags son. Halfway through an INNINGS!!!!!
Can you imagine the CEO or COO calling the coach just before three quarter time and saying "activate the sub, Bloggs is off to Collingwood."
Can you imagine the CEO or COO calling the coach just before three quarter time and saying "activate the sub, Bloggs is off to Collingwood."
Mullayo
Team Captain
- Nov 3, 2013
- 435
- 117
- AFL Club
- GWS
- Other Teams
- Bolton, Jax Jaguars, OKC Thunder
I agree with CaptainM
I don't get all this homesickness crap. They sound like a bunch of mummy's boys babies.
I think they really just want to go to Melbourne to be bigshots and get AFL groupie chicks.
Because Sydney and mostly Brisbane are more NRL/Rugby and Cricket.
Proper pro sports like NBA, NFL don't care much about that. You earn plenty of money.
I don't get all this homesickness crap. They sound like a bunch of mummy's boys babies.
I think they really just want to go to Melbourne to be bigshots and get AFL groupie chicks.
Because Sydney and mostly Brisbane are more NRL/Rugby and Cricket.
Proper pro sports like NBA, NFL don't care much about that. You earn plenty of money.
gee whiz giant
All Australian
Idiotic. Frosty and Tyson returned to Mel to get groupies? More thought needed when posting.
- Apr 12, 2012
- 46,157
- 41,953
- AFL Club
- GWS
Flat out wrong
You got to be kidding....
Would you agree if your employer just said we are relocating you interstate, off you go!
It's always been one sided with clubs having the power, now it's somewhat equal.
Have GWS lost any best22? You might mention Adams or Tyson, Adams had a low ball offer from GWS then looked elsewhere, Tyson had no intention until we raised it with him.
The players that will leave this year will leave for better opportunity to play, not homesickness.
Last edited:
- Apr 12, 2012
- 46,157
- 41,953
- AFL Club
- GWS
We dont get 100k plus to play football either.
it's irrelevant if players leave for homesickness or more opportunity, its more concerning that players after just 2 years of service can nominate there team of choice. If players choose to return to there homestate fair enough but they should not be able to control what team they go to.
We only trade if it suits. If the giants don't want to trade, send to the draft.
This is not just about the giants it about about making things more fair for all clubs now that free agency is in place and its actually something that was pushed by the lions after they had so many young players jump ship last year.
Or maybe we will see this model get up next time
https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/sport/a/25185731/nisbett-reveals-bid-to-alter-free-agency/
Mullayo
Team Captain
- Nov 3, 2013
- 435
- 117
- AFL Club
- GWS
- Other Teams
- Bolton, Jax Jaguars, OKC Thunder
Hmmm, more thought needed when posting a comment on the internet. Must have missed that memo.
Or do you mean more exact sameness as you needed?
It was a flippant comment and I didn't name any players.
Maybe you need more thought and manners before attacking someone and branding their post idiotic.
Sorry to intrude but I find free agency and how it relates to GWS interesting so I'll give my two cents. As others have pointed out, free agency has appeared to benefit the teams towards the top of the ladder in the last few years and not so much the lower teams. We are still very much in the infancy of our version of FA and slowly learning the dos and don'ts.
From a GWS perspective, the closest the club has come to landing a big fish from FA was Buddy this time last year. The Giants confirmed they offered Buddy $7.2 million over six years but this was trumped by Sydney's nine year offer that appears to be around the $10 million mark. This is a problem because any club can throw sanity out the window and offer something ridiculous to sway that player. This is why, in my opinion, there needs to be some restrictions placed on the team offering the contract. In Buddy's case, if we were to set the maximum years a club can offer to six then the GWS offer would have been larger than Sydney's and perhaps Buddy would be wearing the orange and charcoal these days. There really shouldn't be any reason as to why a player should need to sign a contract longer than six years so that's definitely one to look into.
Another problem is the salary cap floor being set at 95%. This means the most amount of money a club can enter an off season with is $503,500. Now obviously retirements, delistings and renegotiating contracts changes the amount a club can offer but you see what I'm getting at here. The AFL has tried to address this by allowing clubs to pay 105% of the cap if they paid 95% the year before. We've seen this in Brisbane's case this off season with reportedly $1.5 million spare in their salary cap after the retirements of Brown, McGrath etc. What's the point of doing that? That club is likely to run into cap issues the following year when they decrease from 105% to 100%. We're better off setting the floor at say 85% ($1.5 million free cap) so average players aren't being overpaid and the teams down the bottom legitimately can offer a lot more than those at the top.
Another alteration to consider is a max contract that a player can sign. There is currently no limit as to how much a club can offer one player which is probably a big reason the Suns were able to secure GAJ when they had a $9 million blank cheque. A max contract would also be dictated by the cap and could be set at something like 18% of the cap which would equate to a little over $1.8 million a year. Obviously as the cap increases, the potential salaries also increase.
Long story short, free agency can be a great thing but you have to make sure the system in place is fair to all parties and unfortunately that just isn't the case in the AFL.
Similar threads
- Sticky
