Strategy Changes made to Free Agency

[fallout11]

First off I'm a cats supporter so my team has benefited greatly from free agency. The last thing I want the AFL to turn into an EPL style where by only a select few teams ever win the flag which free agency if left alone, IMO will turn the AFL into an EPL mess.

So, what changes can we make? I have thought for a few years now that any team who finish either top 4 H%W or Preliminary final cannot receive a free agent who would be in their top 10 paid players, they can still receive a player but would b more a top up and/or speculative pick.

That could be changed to those who finish top 2 H%A and/or Grandfinalists...

Thoughts my bigfooty compatriots?

 

[Jase Cutler]

The dominance or 'the old guard' of the big EPL clubs is not due to free agency, as implied in your post.

The dominance is due to billionaire owners spending $200m plus each transfer window - in some cases (PSG, Manchester City) they're backed by a whole country -- Qatar & Abu Dhabi respectively.

Whether players are free-agents or under contract makes no difference where they move, as is evident in the EPL and Spain. A big player can be 2 yrs into a 5 yr contract, and all that needs to occur for a mutually agreed transfer is a compensated large transfer fee (and the player submitting a transfer request)

 

[mike123]

It's unneeded change.

We have a salary cap in place, so the comparison the EPL is honestly quite laughable. The top teams are at the top becuase they can buy the best players and pay them the highest wages.

 

[00Stinger]

So free agents will not in fact be free to move where they please?

 

[fallout11]

It's unneeded change.

We have a salary cap in place, so the comparison the EPL is honestly quite laughable. The top teams are at the top becuase they can buy the best players and pay them the highest wages.

Yet free agency right now is mitigating the affects of the cap, it's not about wages and who pays more but where the better players choose to go 2 (lynch for example will be taking a pay cut at rich)...what I'm proposing is that teams at the top cannot receive any FA (or RFA) who would be top 10 paid players at their desired club.

Changes must be made and will be made, lets hope it comes sooner rather than later..

 

[fallout11]

So free agents will not in fact be free to move where they please?

Simply put no.

 

[Hundred_Thousand_Tigers]

I’ve never seen so many calls for widespread rule changes in direct response to a single team’s success

We’ve got bloody 20m goal squares coming in next year because of our success FFS

 

[Engimal v3]

Don't quote me on this, but I read somewhere that ~50% of all non-delisted Free Agents have joined a team in a worse ladder position than the team that they left.

Can anyone back that up?

 

[mike123]

Yet free agency right now is mitigating the affects of the cap, it's not about wages and who pays more but where the better players choose to go 2 (lynch for example will be taking a pay cut at rich)...what I'm proposing is that teams at the top cannot receive any FA (or RFA) who would be top 10 paid players at their desired club.

Changes must be made and will be made, lets hope it comes sooner rather than later..

What you're proposing is a s**t idea. The equalising already comes from the that the bottom teams get better picks than the top teams for losing players.

 

[Kwality]

So free agents will not in fact be free to move where they please?

Good luck with the PA, protagonists need to remember why free agency, its to compensate for the draft, allowing players to choose where they play.
The AFL introduced compensation to put its oar in (control freaks), & muddy the waters to try & use free agency as an equalisation measure. They learned nothing from players at Geelong & the Hawks taking $unders. For the better players it is more often
not about the money, its about a premiership (g'day Tom).
Its not going to fixed at any cost to the players & that cost is not just more money.

 

[00Stinger]

I’ve never seen so many calls for widespread rule changes in direct response to a single team’s success

We’ve got bloody 20m goal squares coming in next year because of our success FFS

The rule changes have nothing to do with Richmonds success. In fact there have been NO rule changes in response to Richmonds success.

Only really Brisbanes dynasty in the early 2000's brought about rule changes to stop their success

 

[Hundred_Thousand_Tigers]

The rule changes have nothing to do with Richmonds success. In fact there have been NO rule changes in response to Richmonds success.

Only really Brisbanes dynasty in the early 2000's brought about rule changes to stop their success

This very thread is a direct response to Richmond successfully fitting in Tom Lynch lol.

 

[fallout11]

What you're proposing is a s**t idea. The equalising already comes from the that the bottom teams get better picks than the top teams for losing players.

The draft is simply a lottery, pick 1 and u hav an x% of tht player playing 200 games, pick 10 v%, pick 20, etc...Very few pick 1's hav actually been the best player from that draft. Plus 18 year olds take time to develop, FA's don't and 18 year olds are always a speculative pick, again, FA's aren't...

I'm not saying middle rung teams can't get the FA's...

 

[GUMBLETRON]

The fix is simple: the point value of the compensation pick (or some reasonable percentage thereof) is deducted from the receiving team's draft stocks. Teams are thus forced into a decision between present or future success without compromising a free agent's ability to accept any offered contract.

 

[Bestbird]

It's unneeded change.

We have a salary cap in place, so the comparison the EPL is honestly quite laughable. The top teams are at the top becuase they can buy the best players and pay them the highest wages.

Mind you, the salary cap is not quite equal as players will play for less at a more succesfull club due to the lure of a premiership (or bigger club with a higher profile).

 

[fallout11]

This very thread is a direct response to Richmond successfully fitting in Tom Lynch lol.

It's the straw that broke camels back...

Just the straw mate so need to try to turn this into a Richmond thing...

 

[Mitchell54]

Its not a problem. Players go to less successful clubs as well.

Tom Lynch has really caused a scene hasn't he. He just wants to get out of a sh**hole of a club.

 

[fallout11]

Its not a problem. Players go to less successful clubs as well.

Tom Lynch has really caused a scene hasn't he. He just wants to get out of a sh**hole of a club.

Players do go 2 other clubs but not of a higher calibre which makes a large difference believe it or not...

As I said, lynch is merely the straw that broke the camels back...I'm looking more at the camel's back rather than the straw...

 

[Bunk Moreland]

I don’t mind it as it is. You go too far one way it gets too contrived. Why should any one club have a right to be good? My clubs been shithouse for over a decade. So have Melbourne, now they made finals because they got their s**t together on and off the field.

We have a salary cap. We have the draft. All that stuff was compromised during the expansion years and it’s just back to normal. We’ve had two clubs win the last two flags after not winning one for decades. Things are going well.

Player movement is a fact of life, people just need to stop being so precious about it.

People need to get over the big alarm when a top player moves clubs. Its only one player and there’s no sport where a single player matter less.

Sydney got Tippett and Buddy which was meant to ruin the competition. No flag for them.

Ablett went to Gold Coast. No flag for them. Ablett went back to Geelong - happy to bet they won’t win a flag.

Dangerfield went to Geelong. No flag.

Gold Coast are ******* terrible purely because they’ve made terrible appointments on and off field since they were started. Their list management and trading attitude has been poor, they recruited very poorly early on, getting no leaders into the club. They got McKenna, then ditched him, then brought in Eade, who was an absolutely horrid appointment.

Brisbane were just as bad but oh look, they get a bit of leadership on and off the field... players have stopped leaving, now they might even get a star like Neale!

Leave it alone I think. Stop wetting your pants every time a big player moves clubs.

 

[Hundred_Thousand_Tigers]

It's the straw that broke camels back...

Just the straw mate so need to try to turn this into a Richmond thing...

Why wasn’t Gary Ablett the straw?

Richmond is always the straw because Richmond.

Tom Lynch should be free to go wherever he likes without the whole footy world imploding.

It’s his choice - he’s a free agent.

 

[Bostonian]

It's unneeded change.

We have a salary cap in place, so the comparison the EPL is honestly quite laughable. The top teams are at the top becuase they can buy the best players and pay them the highest wages.

Well that's a load of crap right there. That's why FA is rooted.

If Richmond get Lynch they won't be paying him the highest wages he could get in a truly open market.

 

[mike123]

Mind you, the salary cap is not quite equal as players will play for less at a more succesfull club due to the lure of a premiership (or bigger club with a higher profile).

Its not perfect but it works.

 

[Mitchell54]

Players do go 2 other clubs but not of a higher calibre which makes a large difference believe it or not...

As I said, lynch is merely the straw that broke the camels back...I'm looking more at the camel's back rather than the straw...

Can you provide a list of those that went to teams higher on the ladder which would provide as proof for your point.

 

[fallout11]

Why wasn’t Gary Ablett the straw?

Richmond is always the straw because Richmond.

Tom Lynch should be free to go wherever he likes without the whole footy world imploding.

It’s his choice - he’s a free agent.

34 year old compared to a player entering his prime...chalk and cheese cob!

In terms of this being a Richmond thing, that is truly laughable mate! I'm not blaming Richmond for anything and applauding them for being able to do this. This is an AFL problem...not a ego trip for tiger supporters..

 

[mike123]

The draft is simply a lottery, pick 1 and u hav an x% of tht player playing 200 games, pick 10 v%, pick 20, etc...Very few pick 1's hav actually been the best player from that draft. Plus 18 year olds take time to develop, FA's don't and 18 year olds are always a speculative pick, again, FA's aren't...

I'm not saying middle rung teams can't get the FA's...

I don't care about what you're not saying.