AFL to allow free agency for players

[mr_cellotape]

And anyway, substitute in Jason Cloke (or another currently uncontracted player) for Sam Fisher if you like. The crux of my point is the same - where does Collingwood find that extra $180K inside their Salary Cap?

I'd hope that there'd be a minimum contract level (say, whatever the minimum rookie contracts are). That would be the maximum that could be paid over the salary cap and could only apply if a player sustains a season ending injury. The injured player would not be allowed to play again for the rest of the season, to prevent teams abusing the system.

It's effectively allowed now.

Per your example, I don't have a problem with that because he's not gunna be lining up against Richmond in the AFL.

 

[FrediKanoute]

Isn't the soccer loan system between leagues? As in, Spanish league can loan a player to the English league? I don't know, I don't follow the sport. But I can't imagine that teams would be allowed to loan players within their own competition.

The point is that teams should be able to sign _uncontracted_ players midseason to cover for injuries (or even not to cover for injuries; if they have a spare roster spot, they should be allowed to fill it, without needed to rely on a draft).

You can loan players within the same league.....for instance in 2006/7 Wayne Routledge went from Spurs to Fulham on loan for the season. Both teams play in the Premier League. Often what happens with loan deals is an agreement that the player can't play against the club that holds his contract.

 

[mr_cellotape]

You can loan players within the same league.....for instance in 2006/7 Wayne Routledge went from Spurs to Fulham on loan for the season. Both teams play in the Premier League. Often what happens with loan deals is an agreement that the player can't play against the club that holds his contract.

Insanity. What's the incentive to loan the player? Just money?

 

[Tas]

Free agency does not equal mid season moves or unrewarded moves for contracted players. Free agency is for players out of contract.

Big names this year - St Nick, Pav, Judd. (Judd would be restricted ie if WCE matched the offer he'd be forced to stay.)

After 8 years at a club, these players coming off contract could test the market but if their club has any sense they'd be paying close to market value anyway. If the player is content they'll probably stay for lesser money anyway.

So lets get away from the sky is falling stuff and deal with what it is. Lets face it uncontracted players have no duty to be loyal to their club because the club certainly won't show them any mercy. (See Troy Makepeace)

What has Makepeace got to do with it? His contract expired and he was not offered a new contract. Free agency wouldn't help him because nobody else was interested in him, we de-listed him just after trade week when nobody was interested in him, it allowed him to try and get a spot in the ND and the PSD but nobody wanted him.

He, like a lot of average players on our list got more opportunity to play than they would have anywhere else. If he wanted to retain his spot he should gee I don't know, perhaps not let small forwards like robbo, etc to kick 7 goals on him. As soon as we got better smaller defenders he was living on borrowed time.

 

[JeffDunne]

One thing I'd like the AFL to consider if we're going to bring in free agency is to make AFL player's salaries public.

 

[FrediKanoute]

Insanity. What's the incentive to loan the player? Just money?

In the case of the Wayne Routledge loan, Spurs have a great right winger in Aaron Lennon, so Routledge was going to be forced to sit on the pine for a while. Then they did a deal with Fulham whereby they took one of their "troublesome playuers" off their hands and sent Wayne the other way. It was win-win - Fulham got a good young up and coming player, Spurs had Fulham pay their young player to get quality game and development time he wouldn't have gotten had he spent the season at Spurs and Wayne got to play footy rather than sit on the bench.

Its not a bad example and coudl work with "fringe player". Lets take say Cam Faulkner at the dogs. Can't break into the line-up for one reason or another, but would probably get a gig at say Richmond/Melbourne etc. One of their players goes down injured, the Doggies loan them Cam. he gts a chance to show what he can do, the doggeis get some Sal Cap relief b/c his wages aren't being paid by them and everyone's a winner.

Everything is strange at first!

 

[FriscoHawk]

I like the way the NFL deal with players leaving. If you lose a player to free agency - the team that picks that player up must forfeit a draft pick that is roughly equal to the player that has left. IE a star goes= club gets a first round pick from the club that gets the player. Not so good a player= lower draft pick. Really makes teams think about it if they are going to pick up another teams player. It is basically to compensate the team who put all the time and effort into developing a player so they don't lose them for nothing. In the MLB they have sandwich picks i believe - which is between rounds, not the same as the comp picks but it also softens the blow.

 

[Tas]

I like the way the NFL deal with players leaving. If you lose a player to free agency - the team that picks that player up must forfeit a draft pick that is roughly equal to the player that has left. IE a star goes= club gets a first round pick from the club that gets the player. Not so good a player= lower draft pick. Really makes teams think about it if they are going to pick up another teams player. It is basically to compensate the team who put all the time and effort into developing a player so they don't lose them for nothing. In the MLB they have sandwich picks i believe - which is between rounds, not the same as the comp picks but it also softens the blow.

That is the big issue with free agency, clubs who invest in youth and get pillaged need to get market value for the players that up and leave. If you have put 4-6 years into a player a crappy draft pick isn't going to really cut the mustard.

It will give incentive to clubs to trade their picks for established players and to try and poach promising players from other clubs.

Say this rule goes in. Swans offer Franklin $1m to go to the Swans. Hawks bust their arse to keep him happy. Swans offer Roughead $1m to go to the Swans. Again, you are screwed, your salary cap is being wasted trying to keep players you develop at the club and you are going to be haemorrhaging players because your salary cap is getting eaten up trying to hold onto your players.

Collingwood can poach one player, Essendon another, before you know it, you have too few players to form a team that can challenge for a flag. So you get draft picks as compensation, that is another 4 years you have to invest in a KPP, assuming that pick is any good and assuming the player works out. You then become a development club constantly supplying players to clubs who can throw money around at your club and because you are stuck down there you will continue to be a victim of player piracy. It creates a vicious cycle of a victim.

It is how the soccer is in EPL, the crappy clubs develop good players and they just get poached to one of the few top teams, they just can't hold onto enough quality players to make any real move up the ladder.

A Salary cap will stop a club from pillaging all your players, it wont stop a number of clubs pillaging your better players because you can't match the money a number of clubs are offering your better players and nobody is going to leave a team with a shot at a flag to go down to a crappy team getting arse-raped of all their talented players.

 

[MuzzHawk]

imo free agency is a good system.

free agency is only for players out of contract. restricted free agency will ensure players do on average a minimum tenure at a club. the salary cap will ensure some sort of equilibrium between clubs (provided all clubs have the same cap).

as it is only for players out of contract, while clubs will sometimes get ripped off, the majority of the time i dont see how. they have the opportunity to re-sign the player up until the contract expires. if they feel they want the player, they should re-sign him before his contract expires.

if the player wants to test the waters as such, he should be allowed to. think about the people that play. it is their livelihood. while some might say they already get paid alot, they should be entitled to leave for more if someone is willing to pay it.

eg if i worked for kpmg and was getting 100k and pwc offered me the same job but 60k more a year, i would most likely take it, as would most people here in the same circumstances.

clubs who manage their players well, good culture, environment, list management, shouldnt have problems overall.

 

[DaSawx]

free agency is only for players out of contract. restricted free agency will ensure players do on average a minimum tenure at a club. the salary cap will ensure some sort of equilibrium between clubs

yep. Too many people forget this part. If a big name player did happen to switch clubs for big money they wouldn't have a great deal left for anyone else when paying their 40+ other players

as it is only for players out of contract, while clubs will sometimes get ripped off, the majority of the time i dont see how. they have the opportunity to re-sign the player up until the contract expires. if they feel they want the player, they should re-sign him before his contract expires.

People also seem to think once free-agency comes loyalty will just get thrown out the window, players will still stay at clubs for less than their worth because they like the place and don't want to be seen as money grabbers.

John Brown and Jeff White still could have taken Collingwoods money but decided to stay because they liked their environments.

if the player wants to test the waters as such, he should be allowed to. think about the people that play. it is their livelihood. while some might say they already get paid alot, they should be entitled to leave for more if someone is willing to pay it.

like any job you should be able to choose where you work if your contract is up, but still should be restrictions for younger players imo, like the NFL

eg if i worked for kpmg and was getting 100k and pwc offered me the same job but 60k more a year, i would most likely take it, as would most people here in the same circumstances.

some people might, some people might not, depends if they like their situation, i don't think it will change too much.

clubs who manage their players well, good culture, environment, list management, shouldnt have problems overall.

exactly right

 

[loki04]

The retention of salary caps plus full disclosure of all club expenses will stop a Chelsea/Man U type of league domination.

With that caveat in place, I'm all for player free agency. After all, these guys should have rights equal to any other employee within society.

no it wouldn't you could build a very very good team full of very good players but only a couple stars to keep under the cap but have no week points in your line up.