Give Clubs Back Control

[Procrastinator35]

In days of yore, kids had to play for the club they were zoned to regardless of who they barracked for, or where they really wanted to play....It was still considered a privilege back then to earn your living as a professional footballer & not a right!

With the high professionalism now demanded at AFL level comes the same rights/privileges commensurate with other professions at the same level...The higher the wage/earning capacity, the more rights & privileges will be claimed by those recipients, as they get greater representation & awareness of how far they can extend their claims from a legal perspective & what the grounds are for such.

The higher earning capacity of players means that they are now able to be lawyer-ed-up!

The notion of a comp regulated by equalization is incommensurate with the current Free-Agency market....Ultimately the battle-ground is one of ideology....A communistic regulatory ideal on behalf of the AFL, versus a capitalistic laissez-faire desire, on the part of the players!

For mine, Free Agency is a blight on the competition's character & soul in pursuit of the almighty $$$$....Only greed wins in the end....Ultimately it only benefits the elite of the competition at the expense of the guys in the squad they play for.

 

[Turbocat]

Reading Damien Hardwicks article on AFL.com about the current trade period got me agreeing that players have too much say in where they go before they are eligible for free agency.

I agree with his sentiment that it makes harder for clubs to rebuild when 18 and 19yr olds, who haven't even finished their initial 2year contract, demand a trade to their preferred club. In my opinion, this makes trading difficult for their current employer who, most often than not, get far less value.

Clubs need more control. If a player isn't eligible for free agency, they should be prepared to play for any club. Why shouldn't GWS have been able to trade Tom Boyd to another club if they were willing to offer up more than the dogs? Why weren't Brisbane allowed to ship Polec to Adelaide when they could have offered more than Port (which only offered a second rounder)?

Kids sign up to play AFL, They should be prepared to play wherever and for whoever. Not I'll only play for whom I want to play for and when.

Do you believe you live in AFL land where they create the rules. There are some rules they get agreement to have but if the AFL tried to be to infringing on players rights..it would end up in court. Try to get agreement for this type of control for clubs , you can kiss good by to SCaps for starters.

 

[Mitchell Madness]

The issue is that free agency is based on time spent at a club, not in the system

You change it to time in the system, and then trading becomes less of an issue

 

[Turbocat]

In days of yore, kids had to play for the club they were zoned to regardless of who they barracked for, or where they really wanted to play....It was still considered a privilege back then to earn your living as a professional footballer & not a right!

With the high professionalism now demanded at AFL level comes the same rights/privileges commensurate with other professions at the same level...The higher the wage/earning capacity, the more rights & privileges will be claimed by those recipients, as they get greater representation & awareness of how far they can extend their claims from a legal perspective & what the grounds are for such.

The higher earning capacity of players means that they are now able to be lawyer-ed-up!

The notion of a comp regulated by equalization is incommensurate with the current Free-Agency market....Ultimately the battle-ground is one of ideology....A communistic regulatory ideal on behalf of the AFL, versus a capitalistic laissez-faire desire, on the part of the players!

For mine, Free Agency is a blight on the competition's character & soul in pursuit of the almighty $$$$....Only greed wins in the end....Ultimately it only benefits the elite of the competition at the expense of the guys in the squad they play for.

Nicely worded , not sure I followed it but it sure sounds good

 

[Procrastinator35]

Nicely worded , not sure I followed it but it sure sounds good

Cheers....If you can't be accurate, then at least be eloquent.

 

[DaVillaBlues]

Find it interesting that Collingwood have yet to snag a big name player since FA started (and were gazumped at the last minute for Mitch Clark)

They don't seem to be seriously in the running for Dangerfield either, you'd have to assume Buckley and his autocratic style coaching is a factor ..

 

[Fatcat08]

Eh, I don't agree with this. Players can be seriously messed with by that proposal. What I would suggest instead is extending the rookie contracts to three years with a fourth as a club option to ensure that the drafting and developing actually gets some use of the player. Obviously the rookie pay rates need to scale up appropriately in those two extra years, probably with the use of incentives as well (B&F finishes, games played, etc).

I think this is a fairly measured step between giving the clubs some resemblance of control back and allowing players to move clubs especially for high draft picks in particular. Given the draft is still the main source of building a club there needs to be a bit more security for clubs when they draft players. I particularly like the 4th year option, which gives clubs a bit of bargaining power if the player still wants to leave after year 3.

 

[dlanod]

Now someone just needs to send it to Mr CEO and AFLPA.

 

[Carl]

I don't know what the problem is. Very few players change clubs compared to other leagues around the world. If players want to move because they have sick family members, don't like the club or prefer to live where they grew up then it's their choice. You have no contract, then you should be free to leave and go where you like. Getting fair compensation is the real problem.

 

[Damon_3388]

Do you believe you live in AFL land where they create the rules. There are some rules they get agreement to have but if the AFL tried to be to infringing on players rights..it would end up in court. Try to get agreement for this type of control for clubs , you can kiss good by to SCaps for starters.

Yes, it is a "restraint of trade" or whatever wanky term people want to place on it, but the company in this situation (the AFL) IMO is well within their right to dictate how its branches (the 18 clubs) operate and trade. If you want to work for the biggest company in the footy industry (AFL) in one of their top branches (one of the 18 AFL clubs), there are certain terms under which you can do that, and being switched to a different branch (different club) if the original branch sees it as beneficial to them should be a part of that. Don't like it? You always have the opportunity to earn a crust in the same industry at a lesser company (playing footy outside of the AFL). Sure, the salary and prestige won't be as good, but your "principles" and "freedom to trade" are more important to you than money and fame anyway, aren't they, oh poor downtrodden "restricted" player?

 

[Damon_3388]

Find it interesting that Collingwood have yet to snag a big name player since FA started (and were gazumped at the last minute for Mitch Clark)

They don't seem to be seriously in the running for Dangerfield either, you'd have to assume Buckley and his autocratic style coaching is a factor ..

Not sure why it's any more "interesting" than any other club TBH.

It may simply be that the Pies, given their good draft record over the past decade, might just simply prefer to continue to build through the draft rather than pay overs to bring a player in from elsewhere.

 

[dlanod]

Yes, it is a "restraint of trade" or whatever wanky term people want to place on it, but the company in this situation (the AFL) IMO is well within their right to dictate how its branches (the 18 clubs) operate and trade. If you want to work for the biggest company in the footy industry (AFL) in one of their top branches (one of the 18 AFL clubs), there are certain terms under which you can do that, and being switched to a different branch (different club) if the original branch sees it as beneficial to them should be a part of that. Don't like it? You always have the opportunity to earn a crust in the same industry at a lesser company (playing footy outside of the AFL). Sure, the salary and prestige won't be as good, but your "principles" and "freedom to trade" are more important to you than money and fame anyway, aren't they, oh poor downtrodden "restricted" player?

It depends how the legal community see the situation. Your view that the AFL is a company and clubs are just branches is one approach. The argument the players would make would be that the clubs are individual companies. It's a pretty fundamental difference and trying to make claims on the basis of one interpretation is disingenuous to the alternate POVs.

 

[Cleric]

The AFL has all list managers value the FAs that decide to change clubs by what picks they would value him at.
The AFL creates compo picks to that same value and gives them to the club that he leaves.
The AFL then takes picks from the team receiving the player from the next years draft.
Say player x goes to Melbourne from Geelong.
The list managers value him on average to be worth pick 20. The AFL gives Geelong pick 20 and the following year takes from Melbourne the closest pick they have to pick 20.
Thats about as good as you can get it.

 

[telsor]

It depends how the legal community see the situation. Your view that the AFL is a company and clubs are just branches is one approach. The argument the players would make would be that the clubs are individual companies. It's a pretty fundamental difference and trying to make claims on the basis of one interpretation is disingenuous to the alternate POVs.

Pretty sure players contracts all acknowledge that they work for the AFL. This came in back when clubs were at risk of going broke (e.g. St Kilda paying off it's debts at a few cents in the dollar) and players being afraid they wouldn't get paid if the club went to the wall. The AFL (probably VFL back then) guaranteed their pay with the tradeoff being that, officially, they work for the league.

Players aren't 'restrained', because they can work for whatever league they want...but if they want to play in the AFL, then they abide by certain contract conditions which are put in place for the benefit of the competition.