Strategy Changes made to Free Agency

[Andrew Birch]

My crack at proposed changes. The vibe is:

• equalisation for all bands (currently there is no equalisation for bands 2 and 4)
• less extreme equalisation
• top 9 picks are sacred
• the team that gets the player gives something up, but this is less than what the compo to the former team is, and there is no equalisation in this addition.

My proposed approach:

• Band X (the AFL loves X - this would be for the top 10 paid players in the comp)
  • old clubs gets a pick after 1-9, depending on finishing position
  • new clubs the points equivalent of 18 (this would be taken from their next pick, or they could use earlier picks if they wished)
• Band 1 (same as current band 1, without the top 10ish paid players)
  • old club gets pick after pick 10-18, depending on finishing position
  • new club loses the points equivalent of pick 27, which is mid second-round
• Band 2
  • old club gets a compo pick after 19-27
  • new club loses 36
• Band 3
  • old club gets 28-36
  • new club loses 45
• Band 4
  • old club gets 37-45
  • new club loses 54
• Band 5
  • old club gets 46-54
  • new club loses 63

Examples of how this could work.

Tom Lynch, Band 1

• Gold Coast are offered pick 11 as compo
• Gold Coast can accept this or match the offer and force a trade
• If they accepted the offer, then Richmond would lose the equivalent of pick 27.

Scott Lycett, assuming band 2 and west coast finish second

• West Coast are offered pick 28 as compo
• West coast can accept or match the bid and force a trade
• If WC accept then port would lose the equivalent of pick 36

Jordan Roughead, assuming band 4

• Bulldogs are offered pick 40 as compo
• dogs can match etc
• If Dogs accept compo then west coast would lose equivalent of pick 54

The exact picks for compo and reverse-compo may be slightly off, but i feel that this is a better system.

Yours is a very good system.

 

[Suma Magic]

Yours is a very good system.

Haha thanks.

IMO it's definitely better. May have some kinks I haven't thought through.

 

[mezaire]

My ideas...
Players worth to calculate compensation based simply on the average players best 4 B&F finishes. This works out what the player is worth to the club losing them, nothing to do with what they are being offered which excludes Vickery style tampering.
Players available for FA after 7 years service and a discount applied as a player gets older.
First 8 picks sacred then formula would be:
Average finish = pick
Band 1 - Under 3 = pick 9
Band 2 - 4-7 = pick 19
Band 3 - 8-12 = pick 37
Band 4 - Over 12 = pick 53

Discount applied to compensation pick for older players
10 seasons = 20%
11 seasons = 30%
12 seasons = 40%

The team receiving the player then gives up 25% in points off their first pick (before FA picks applied), after age discount applied.

Examples,
Gaff is Band 1 goes to North.
WC get pick 9, North move down from pick 10 to pick 17

Malceski
Band 2 (guessing) goes to GC
Sydney gets pick 19 less %40 in points so pick 35ish
GC looses 200 points off it's first pick

Just some thoughts, like the simplicity and clarity

 

[Kwality]

I think it was Leigh Matthews recently who said Free agency and a draft is like mixing water with oil. The AFLPA have far too much power.

The AFL agreed to free agency then it added compensation, just another example of unintended consequences seeking to add more levers to their equalisation thought bubble SNAFU.
Why blame the PA?

 

[Suns of Anarchy]

The AFL agreed to free agency then it added compensation, just another example of unintended consequences seeking to add more levers to their equalisation thought bubble SNAFU.
Why blame the PA?

The PA heavily lobbied for it at a time when the AFL were attempting to establish 2 new teams in traditionally non AFL states. There were numerous clubs warning the AFL against it at that time.

There are also plenty of stories online about the AFL being concerned with the players going to court over this issue, and the affect this action could have on the draft etc The AFL caved in. I'm not blaming the PA, I'm blaming the AFL.

 

[West World]

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

Richmond caused the problem of congestion in the AFL?

Wow thats a new one.

 

[West World]

I like this suggestion, however the compensation pick is often out of wack with the true market value of the players i.e Frawley v Buddy. If you are to calculate “some reasonable percentage thereof” it would be absolutely subjective and open to widespread critisism.

Personally I think the destination club should simply give up their next pick immediately after the compo pick (in Lynch’s case probably 18). In that way it is transparent and straight forward. It would also still attractive for clubs top clubs to chase FA’s as they are paying under market rates. But at least it’s not completely undermining other equalisation attempts like the current system does.

It would also enhance equalisation by providing an advantage to bottom teams to build through the draft and FA’s (ie Carlton would have only paid a 2nd rounder for Lynch and kept their 1st to take to the draft).

As Nick Riewoldt said on 360 the current system is the anthesis of other equalisation attempts.

Almost there.

The team getting the fa lose a pick and that pick goes to the team losing the player.

So in the Lynch case Richmond lose say 18 and the Suns get compo pick 3/4 plus Richmonds pick 18.

At least then the Suns g weer t a chance to rebuild and Richmond dont get two bites at the cherry.

 

[Turbocat]

There are always to faces to the coin of FA... the player gets to choose ..and the club has to be able to afford.

After being drafted to a club with no choice.. a player should have some sort of control over their destiny ...but if the AFL want to slow the rate of leakage.. from bottom to top .. then they should introducing something that will affect cap. A FA loading is one option... could Richmond afford Lynch is they had to add 150% of his wage to their cap..meanwhile bottom side might have a loading of 50-75%. If both a bottom side and a top side had 1M free in their cap ... a Lynch might have to agree to go to Richmond for 600 or so.. or he could choose Carlton .. and they could afford to offer him 1.3M ...

If Richmond can convince him to take less good luck to them.. but those sort of dollars are a lot.. Maybe he the chooses an Ess as a team on the rise in the middle etc.

Others options are to have a FA cap.. as much as their is scare mongering about the outcome atm... but there is nothing to stop a team loading up year after year after year... some sort of a FA cap would at least stop them all going to one club.

The comp is something that needs work as well.. the receiving team has to pay a higher cost.

 

[cdcanman]

My only problem with FA rules as they stand is compensation, and the only solution that will ever be fair is to scrap it all together. Why should you be compensated for not providing an environment that your players want to remain in?

I have read, both on BF and in the media recently, that some have concerns about FA favouring successful clubs. It certainly can, and why shouldn't it? Why shouldn't players be able to chase success in their limited careers? But it can and does also favour less successful teams. Good players, even star players do leave successful teams when faced with big money offers. Salary caps do become tight with teams at the top and this can be exploited by creative and ballsy recruiting teams (NM this year a good example). I haven't heard any solutions put forward so far that would address the issue appropriately. I've heard extreme suggestions such as banning top 4 sides or even top 8 sides from participating in FA. Why should clubs be penalized for being successful?

If you still see this as a problem one solution that would go a long way to making it more difficult for top sides to recruit the very best FA's while not making it completely impossible, would be to prevent clubs from manipulating, restructuring or renegotiating contracts to create cap space. I propose that once a contract is signed, then the exact year to year financial terms of that contract are locked and can not be altered. So no more players taking less to recruit a top FA. No more teams renegotiating a bunch of contracts to use available cap space this year, in order to create more cap space next year when they plan to chase a FA. Once a contract is signed, that is it, it can't be manipulated.