Free Agency is a disaster for the competition and needs a huge rethink

Remove this Banner Ad

For the Cameron's and Dangerfield's it's fine, given good service to an interstate club and returning to their roots to start family, get back to friends. For the Zac Williams scenarios it is purely to cash in. This is why the compensation pick needs to come off the club receiving the player. Whether they lose draft points and have picks moved back but forcing a trade in that situation would not result in a better outcome. Throwing suitcases of $$ to lure 25-26 year olds is a bad look and the system is forcing it to happen.
 
The central argument for those who are pro free agency seems to be - build a successful club and then you can feast on GWS and Gold Coast as well.
 
Orange Agent said:
For the Cameron's and Dangerfield's it's fine, given good service to an interstate club and returning to their roots to start family, get back to friends. For the Zac Williams scenarios it is purely to cash in. This is why the compensation pick needs to come off the club receiving the player. Whether they lose draft points and have picks moved back but forcing a trade in that situation would not result in a better outcome. Throwing suitcases of $$ to lure 25-26 year olds is a bad look and the system is forcing it to happen.
Click to expand...

I am not sure how it would work but you are right that there needs to be some penalty to the club taking the free agent.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

I think there’ll be adjustments made simply because the AFL have always stuck by the mantra of an even competition.

91-2000 it was basically a 15/16 club comp and we had 6 clubs win flags.

2001 - 2010 it was a 16 club comp and 7 clubs won flags.

2011 - 2020 it’s basically an 18 club comp and 6 clubs will win flags. Which is not the trend they’ll want.

Think it can be argued that both Richmond and Geelong have extended their windows with free agency.

People argue that they’re just well run and that’s true, but it’s not really a counter argument. It’s all relative and you’ll always have clubs that are well run and poorly run. Being well run just means taking advantage within the rules as much as possible. The rules can be changed. The AFL have always wanted evenness and think that’ll continue.
 
The Giants need to dig there heals in and put the pressure back on the club luring Cameron in to get them something of use..

For the giants a 2 picks in the first round does not help them at all win a flag in 2020.. They are effectively strengthening a rival whilst significantly weaking themselves. The Giants need to say to the Cats, we want a top 10 ruckman in the comp... Put it back on the Cats to find that player and trade to make it work.. If they want Cameron, make them do the hard work or say to Jeremy you will be traded to a Melbourne club but it will be a free market and we take the best deal.

Perhaps the Crows might accept 2 top 10 picks for Riley OBrien, or Saints for Rowan Marshal.. But either way make the Cats do the hard work in negotiating the trade.
 
Bunk Moreland said:
I think there’ll be adjustments made simply because the AFL have always stuck by the mantra of an even competition.

91-2000 it was basically a 15/16 club comp and we had 6 clubs win flags.

2001 - 2010 it was a 16 club comp and 7 clubs won flags.

2011 - 2020 it’s basically an 18 club comp and 6 clubs will win flags. Which is not the trend they’ll want.

Think it can be argued that both Richmond and Geelong have extended their windows with free agency.

People argue that they’re just well run and that’s true, but it’s not really a counter argument. It’s all relative and you’ll always have clubs that are well run and poorly run. Being well run just means taking advantage within the rules as much as possible. The rules can be changed. The AFL have always wanted evenness and think that’ll continue.
Click to expand...
With all due respect to Dahlhaus, Scott Selwood, Rivers and Sam Blease, they're not exactly the type of players that can extend a flag window.
 
Bunk Moreland said:
I think there’ll be adjustments made simply because the AFL have always stuck by the mantra of an even competition.

91-2000 it was basically a 15/16 club comp and we had 6 clubs win flags.

2001 - 2010 it was a 16 club comp and 7 clubs won flags.

2011 - 2020 it’s basically an 18 club comp and 6 clubs will win flags. Which is not the trend they’ll want.

Think it can be argued that both Richmond and Geelong have extended their windows with free agency.

People argue that they’re just well run and that’s true, but it’s not really a counter argument. It’s all relative and you’ll always have clubs that are well run and poorly run. Being well run just means taking advantage within the rules as much as possible. The rules can be changed. The AFL have always wanted evenness and think that’ll continue.
Click to expand...
What's the ideal state then? The clubs who win a premiership are banned from winning one for the next 9 years?
 
Bunk Moreland said:
I think there’ll be adjustments made simply because the AFL have always stuck by the mantra of an even competition.

91-2000 it was basically a 15/16 club comp and we had 6 clubs win flags.

2001 - 2010 it was a 16 club comp and 7 clubs won flags.

2011 - 2020 it’s basically an 18 club comp and 6 clubs will win flags. Which is not the trend they’ll want.

Think it can be argued that both Richmond and Geelong have extended their windows with free agency.

People argue that they’re just well run and that’s true, but it’s not really a counter argument. It’s all relative and you’ll always have clubs that are well run and poorly run. Being well run just means taking advantage within the rules as much as possible. The rules can be changed. The AFL have always wanted evenness and think that’ll continue.
Click to expand...

This year bar one or 2 clubs was fairly even. Weren't too many games in each round you'd be guaranteed to pick a winner
 
It’s probably been said 100 times but I’ll reiterate, Hawthorn has lost the most FA’s since inception and gained 2 the most successful FA acquisition was James Frawley the other is never to spoken of ever again.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
fred cook said:
The league is more equal than ever,

Yeah right if the Tigers win the flag this year two sides (Hawks) have one 6 flags between them in 10 years that is not equal
Click to expand...


Equalisiation is not, or at least should not be, in place to ensure that a different team every year wins the competition. It is there to ensure that every team, within reason and short of moving them all to equal population and distance areas of the nation, has roughly the same CHANCE to succeed. The teams who suck - they get help at the draft table. They get help with the loaded fixture. If management is good, they can't necessarily MAKE their 22 on the field play well but they can enhance the chances of that happening.

Now for the sake of this example, yes I acknowledge that the circumstances are different now, but hear me out.

In 2005 the Kangaroos finished 5th, Geelong 6th. In 2006 both missed the finals.
In round 5, 2007, the Roos beat the Cats - at Kardinia Park. 4 months later we met them in a qualifying final and beat them by 18 goals.

Now that Roos team, while not a powerhouse or a rich club (neither were Geelong), still had some residue from the great 1990s era, was in a position where they had been around the finals mix, and seemingly as well positioned as what Geelong were to actually build on that.

What has happened since?

One club has consistently looked outside the box to try and build. Granted we didn't have to do much for the 4 years after that 'sliding doors' moment but we have found ways around losing Gary Ablett, we found a way around losing our long serving two-time premiership coach, we have recruited intelligently rather than hopefully. As one hole has appeared it gets filled. Rather than going all out to fix our obvious weakness in the ruck, we've patched that hole with a couple of stop-gaps in Stanley and Smith, used Blicavs at times (sometimes that has worked, sometimes it hasn't) and drafted in a few others to try and develop, knowing that it is a position that you can 'get by' by having someone that's adequate rather than a superstar.
We've looked to mature draftees like Menegola, Kelly, Stewart. Even Tom Ruggles did an adequate enough job for a while. Clubs have this outlook seemingly with older players of 'well if we can't get 10-12 years out of them, its not worth it.' Well I reckon any club in the competition would willingly take Tom Stewart for the next 2-3 years even if that's all they could get. We only got two years from Kelly but look what we still have in the kit bag after trading him?

We have had the opportunity to move players on that are going to get in the way of developing others. But when we know they play a role we can't fill otherwise, we keep them. That's why Harry Taylor is still playing. He offers something none of our other defenders do. Whereas a Jimmy Bartel when he retired - his role wasn't that specific and could be adequately filled by others, so we told him that was it. The one blue we made there was Steve Johnson. We didn't have anyone to fill his spot.

Now what has prevented North Melbourne from making similar moves in the interim? Is there a rule or regulation that has prevented them from accessing the same things we have? Not at all. There's nothing to stop them from having done the same in the last 14 years. They have had the same opportunities as us to manage things a certain way, they haven't.

That's not the fault of the league or its rules.
 
The Final Word said:
Free hit, am I missing something? Traded for a first rounder wasn't he?
Click to expand...
My bad; they traded a first rounder for Charlie, which they got from Port Adelaide in exchange for the Priority Pick + Pearce Hanley.

Could be a bit wrong on the details.
 
Last edited:

(Log in to remove this ad.)

PrinceCharles said:
What's the ideal state then? The clubs who win a premiership are banned from winning one for the next 9 years?
Click to expand...


:rolleyes:

It's just what the numbers say. Last decade 7/16 clubs won flags (44%). This decade it's 6/18 (33%). They're not numbers they'd like and you might well say free agency has contributed to it. Reckon it'll come under review.

There's not an ideal number but I don't think it's a trend they'll like.
 
Bunk Moreland said:
:rolleyes:

It's just what the numbers say. Last decade 7/16 clubs won flags (44%). This decade it's 6/18 (33%). They're not numbers they'd like and you might well say free agency has contributed to it. Reckon it'll come under review.

There's not an ideal number but I don't think it's a trend they'll like.
Click to expand...
I see the introduction of GC and GWS as the biggest impact. 6-7 in my opinion is incredibly healthy, you'd be hard pressed to find that big of a spread in many other professional competitions.
 
ItsAllAboutMe said:
The Giants need to dig there heals in and put the pressure back on the club luring Cameron in to get them something of use..

For the giants a 2 picks in the first round does not help them at all win a flag in 2020.. They are effectively strengthening a rival whilst significantly weaking themselves. The Giants need to say to the Cats, we want a top 10 ruckman in the comp... Put it back on the Cats to find that player and trade to make it work.. If they want Cameron, make them do the hard work or say to Jeremy you will be traded to a Melbourne club but it will be a free market and we take the best deal.

Perhaps the Crows might accept 2 top 10 picks for Riley OBrien, or Saints for Rowan Marshal.. But either way make the Cats do the hard work in negotiating the trade.
Click to expand...

The AFL trade environment is a funny one. It's probably a product of the game still really not having it's head around proper player movement. The approach seems to be that when a player wants to move, the club should basically just let it happen. There's not really an attitude that there should be a truly even 'trade', as in both sides should get something of equal worth that addresses their needs.

For example if Cameron was to become a trade, well it might be "he's one of the best-performed key forwards in the game, that gives him a very high value, we want that value for him - or something commensurate in another area of the ground" - as in your example, a top ruckman. Not a draft pick or two.
 
Bunk Moreland said:
:rolleyes:

It's just what the numbers say. Last decade 7/16 clubs won flags (44%). This decade it's 6/18 (33%). They're not numbers they'd like and you might well say free agency has contributed to it. Reckon it'll come under review.

There's not an ideal number but I don't think it's a trend they'll like.
Click to expand...

What is it that the AFL would really like?

Every club winning flags evenly?

No.

It is for every fan of every club to believe at the start of every season that they CAN win the flags.

The onus is on the clubs themselves to make that happen.

Yes I’m biased because I follow a club that has been in and around the mix literally for 17 seasons.

But I’m proud of that. I’m proud that we refuse to follow the trend of thinking we can’t win. Sydney have been the same and even allowing for how poor they were this year, you can bet your last dollar they will be looking to make finals again next season.

The willingness of clubs to trade current potential for future success that may not happen is hurting a lot of them
 
PhatBoy said:
What is it that the AFL would really like?

Every club winning flags evenly?

No.

It is for every fan of every club to believe at the start of every season that they CAN win the flags.

The onus is on the clubs themselves to make that happen.

Yes I’m biased because I follow a club that has been in and around the mix literally for 17 seasons.

But I’m proud of that. I’m proud that we refuse to follow the trend of thinking we can’t win. Sydney have been the same and even allowing for how poor they were this year, you can bet your last dollar they will be looking to make finals again next season.

The willingness of clubs to trade current potential for future success that may not happen is hurting a lot of them
Click to expand...

Again, the "well run club" thing is a facile argument in this area. It's relative. There'll always be clubs that are well run and poorly run. In 20 years' time Geelong might be a busted-arse joint and Adelaide might be the most well-run and professional club. It doesn't matter who it is because it's a relative scale, one club will always be doing better than another.

It's about the AFL's drive for OVERALL evenness, which they've always pushed as they think it delivers the best of the sport. You talk about supporters believing they could win a flag - a big part of that is actually seeing it happen. Like it or not, the numbers suggest a trend that's going one way. Will they change it? I dunno, but I think they'll look at it.
 
Just a note on the salary cap. I expect that the clubs do not have to PAY the 95%, they have to only commit 95% of the salary cap to be potentially paid. Struggling clubs could simply put 30% of their cap to be paid out as a grand final winning bonus or something similar.

If I'm wrong correct me but I doubt I am
 
Chrispiesssss said:
The issue with the current format of agency is the 95% minimum salary and maximum of 105%.

If a club is trash and has had the ability to pay it players 80% of the salary cap rather than 95%, they would be able to pay 120% for players who actually deserve it.

I don’t think Cameron would be going to the Cats if North (could have) offered 2 mil per year for 4 years.
Click to expand...
Gees. You would have to love money and not much else. What a miserable 4 years that would be.
 
Free agency is doing exactly what the league designed it to do.

IMO, they need to take it further, and get rid of compensation draft picks, and turn the process so that contracted players are more commonly traded (provided clubs have matching cap space and list spots), and remove the illogical notion of an uncontracted player having tradeable currency (uncontracted should equal free agent, restricted or unrestricted), and bring down the unrestricted FA term to 6 seasons or 24 years old, whichever comes first.
 
hamG said:
Just a note on the salary cap. I expect that the clubs do not have to PAY the 95%, they have to only commit 95% of the salary cap to be potentially paid. Struggling clubs could simply put 30% of their cap to be paid out as a grand final winning bonus or something similar.

If I'm wrong correct me but I doubt I am
Click to expand...

If struggling clubs do that, watch more players go to clubs where they can get greater guaranteed money, and a greater shot at a flag, too.
 
It's an American model they followed. If the AFL didn't know this would happen, then it's a lie.

Free Agency began in the AFL around the same time Lebron James banged together a super team at the Miami Heat. The people at the AFL would have known this. The same thing is now happening in the AFL. Guys who are hungry for success are moving to superteams. It will only get worse.

The main problem I see is that the process in a player's mind seems to be as follows -

Number 1 goal from being drafted is success. The BEST players get drafted to bottom sides because they have the early draft picks. But the time that team is tasting success, those drafted players are in their early to mid 20's. They spend a few years trying to win a premiership. If they cannot win that premiership and those players get past 25 years of age, they know that the next shot at a premiership might not be for another 5 to 10 years. So they jump ship and head to a place they can win a premiership.

Tom Lynch and Jezza are exactly in this boat, and following this path. And the more players that succeed in this way of doing things, the more it will happen. No doubt Jezza saw Lynch leave a crumbling GC and win a premiership... he would probably be thinking he wants to do the same. GWS are on the way down. Watch the fish jump out. Teams like Richmond, Geelong, Collingwood, West Coast will snag them all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Holden Hillbilly
Free agency compo under review, and why the formula isn't public
Replies
13
Views
820
Grand Uncle Horace
Grand Uncle Horace
Bunk Moreland
Roast We've got the season wrong and it needs to change now
2 3 4
Replies
80
Views
3K
HirdsTheWord
HirdsTheWord
kreuze_missile
It’s time to abolish restricted free agency compensation
8 9 10 11 12
Replies
286
Views
10K
peetoo
peetoo
Blue and Silver
National Seconds Competition
2 3
Replies
70
Views
2K
Howard Littlejohn
Howard Littlejohn
F
Coach Sam Mitchell on his players staging for free kicks
2 3 4
Replies
77
Views
2K
Back One Out
Back One Out
Carringbush2010
An alternative to the 'National' competition
2 3 4 5
Replies
124
Views
4K
Tigerlaird
Tigerlaird
HugeJohnson
Roast We are at round 1 and THIS is the big headline from the AFL official page
2
Replies
37
Views
1K
Colonial
Colonial

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top