Do Free Agency rules need to be amended?

[RUNVS]

Still maintain that one of the biggest problems is the salary cap floor is too high. It means that the worst teams pay almost the same for the list as the top teams (even with the banking over years). Its too hard for them to have enough money in the cap to have enough difference to attract a player.

For example if you had the choice to go to Geelong and contend for a flag right now or go to North for an extra $100k but struggle for the next 3-4 years. Why is it a surprise where players end up?

Completely agree there. The floor should be closer to about 80% as it would mean bottom teams can build a genuine war chest to go after big named players. It is insane that 18th needs to pay their players almost as much as 1st does.

 

[TedDougChris]

Still maintain that one of the biggest problems is the salary cap floor is too high. It means that the worst teams pay almost the same for the list as the top teams (even with the banking over years). Its too hard for them to have enough money in the cap to have enough difference to attract a player.

For example if you had the choice to go to Geelong and contend for a flag right now or go to North for an extra $100k but struggle for the next 3-4 years. Why is it a surprise where players end up?

While I agree - the AFL (ignoring the players aspect for a minute) don't want a club performing poorly saying "revenue is down, let's reduce player salaries until we get a better side and we'll be ok financially", then performances drop off, more players leave and the club goes "revenue is down, let's reduce salaries until we get a better side and we'll be ok financially" - and end up in a doom loop.

 

[Holden Hillbilly]

There needs to be a 'best city in Australia and third best in the world' allowance for Adelaide.

 

[jim boy]

FA favours strong clubs - this was known when FA was introduced. The solution is for the weaker clubs to get stronger, they have to find it in themselves. Geelong did, Hawthorn did.
As for player allowances, I am all for hardship payments, rental subsidies etc, but they should be paid for objectively by the AFL as acknowledgement that the competition structure will require players to get displaced in the interests of a national competition.

 

[telsor]

Free agency came into the AFL at the end of the 2012 season.

Since then there has been 7 Victorian premiers and 1 non Victorian premier. The likes of Tom Lynch and Jeremy Cameron opting to move from Non Victorian clubs to 2 currently strong Victorian teams, even before they joined. Which big name free agents have the likes of GWS, Brisbane, Fremantle or Port been able to recruit? None at the level of Lynch and Cameron I believe.

Does the AFL need to look at non Victorian teams being given some sort of COFA (cost of free agent) allowance to make them more competitive in the free agency market? Or alternatively are there any other ideas to make this more even for all clubs?

So a fan of the club with the biggest advantage in terms of 'go home factor' in the comp wants his club to have a bigger advantage.

Seems legit.

 

[Rich01]

Free agency came into the AFL at the end of the 2012 season.

Since then there has been 7 Victorian premiers and 1 non Victorian premier. The likes of Tom Lynch and Jeremy Cameron opting to move from Non Victorian clubs to 2 currently strong Victorian teams, even before they joined. Which big name free agents have the likes of GWS, Brisbane, Fremantle or Port been able to recruit? None at the level of Lynch and Cameron I believe.

Does the AFL need to look at non Victorian teams being given some sort of COFA (cost of free agent) allowance to make them more competitive in the free agency market? Or alternatively are there any other ideas to make this more even for all clubs?

Possibly indicates a lack of skill set for certain club list managers.

 

[FreoFan85]

I'd like to see one of two things happen.

1.) The compensation needs to come from the team that snags the free agents. Currently it not only strengthens the stronger teams, but it also impacts every other team not directly involved. For example Gold Coast receiving pick 3 compensation for Tom Lynch. Of course it strengthens Richmond and Gold Coast obviously get a decent pick for losing a quality player. But the 17 other teams all have to slide down the order. Now sure moving from pick 41 to pick 42 is neither here nor there, but sliding from pick 3 - 4 or from can be huge. Or in this example imagine being Adelaide, if the pick 3 wasn't given they would have had access to one of (Walsh, Lukosius, Rankine, King, King, Rozee or Smith) instead they ended up with Jones (not having a go at him, but who knows where Adelaide would have ranked him???). So because, Gold Coast lose a player Adelaide gets punished.

Instead, the afl should determine (age, contract, games played, etc) to formulate a points (exactly like NGA / F/S) and Richmond should be forced to meet that debt that would be transferred to Gold Coast. Now in this case, you would have to imagine that they would lose their first and second picks and maybe a future 1st. Would that be worthwhile for Richmond? of course it would.
Would a first rounder being pick 17 and a current second and a future first be adequate for losing Lynch? Probably a little bit under given Richmond's ladder position, but its not ridiculous.

This way only Gold Coast and Richmond are effected.... no one else. Whats the difference between this and a trade? well if it is Unrestricted the AFL would set the price (based on formulas) on the trade and both parties must agree. There would be no need to lock free agency to current ladder positions so for example Lynch could have been valued at pick 1, pick 5, pick 7 all of which would have a different amount of points to account for. There could even be different points for Restricted vs unrestricted.

The lesser teams would have higher draft picks and therefore would need to pay less for their free agents as they would need to try to find as many points so for in this instance if the roles were reversed. If Lynch was valued at pick 3 they would be able to pay for him with their pick 2.

OR

2.) I'd like to see that teams that don't make finals for x amount of years (maybe 5 or 6) actually be given a higher salary cap for x amount of years (2 or 3) and then it would revert back unless they didn't make finals in that time. That way they can actually lure players in with something of value. Take the Dockers vs the Eagles. There are many more financial opportunities outside of the cap for the Eagles players as they own more of the market. Even if they start a small business and promote it there are more eagles supporters and therefore if we both offer identical deals, then it is obvious to go to the Eagles. Which forces the lesser team to inflate their contract in this never ending cycle.

Now imagine if we were given an extra 400k per season for 2 - 3 years we would be able to up a prospective player contract by a couple of 100k which would make it more lucrative to come to our club. Or even that we could throw it at someone like Cerra this year to make it a situation that would likely make it harder to move.

Now if we are making finals within anytime in that 5 - 6 year range then we wouldn't be entitled to it.

Now before you say that this disadvantages the players in stronger teams financially. Just remember there are extras in contracts such as if you win a grand final your playing list gets x amount from the AFL. You get paid more for playing finals. That is even before all the endorsements etc

Anyway... food for thought.

 

[99cents]

There needs to be a 'best city in Australia and third best in the world' allowance for Adelaide.

Fly in, fly out.

 

[Kanga Commando]

I'd like to see one of two things happen.

1.) The compensation needs to come from the team that snags the free agents. Currently it not only strengthens the stronger teams, but it also impacts every other team not directly involved. For example Gold Coast receiving pick 3 compensation for Tom Lynch. Of course it strengthens Richmond and Gold Coast obviously get a decent pick for losing a quality player. But the 17 other teams all have to slide down the order. Now sure moving from pick 41 to pick 42 is neither here nor there, but sliding from pick 3 - 4 or from can be huge. Or in this example imagine being Adelaide, if the pick 3 wasn't given they would have had access to one of (Walsh, Lukosius, Rankine, King, King, Rozee or Smith) instead they ended up with Jones (not having a go at him, but who knows where Adelaide would have ranked him???). So because, Gold Coast lose a player Adelaide gets punished.

Instead, the afl should determine (age, contract, games played, etc) to formulate a points (exactly like NGA / F/S) and Richmond should be forced to meet that debt that would be transferred to Gold Coast. Now in this case, you would have to imagine that they would lose their first and second picks and maybe a future 1st. Would that be worthwhile for Richmond? of course it would.
Would a first rounder being pick 17 and a current second and a future first be adequate for losing Lynch? Probably a little bit under given Richmond's ladder position, but its not ridiculous.

This way only Gold Coast and Richmond are effected.... no one else. Whats the difference between this and a trade? well if it is Unrestricted the AFL would set the price (based on formulas) on the trade and both parties must agree. There would be no need to lock free agency to current ladder positions so for example Lynch could have been valued at pick 1, pick 5, pick 7 all of which would have a different amount of points to account for. There could even be different points for Restricted vs unrestricted.

The lesser teams would have higher draft picks and therefore would need to pay less for their free agents as they would need to try to find as many points so for in this instance if the roles were reversed. If Lynch was valued at pick 3 they would be able to pay for him with their pick 2.

OR

2.) I'd like to see that teams that don't make finals for x amount of years (maybe 5 or 6) actually be given a higher salary cap for x amount of years (2 or 3) and then it would revert back unless they didn't make finals in that time. That way they can actually lure players in with something of value. Take the Dockers vs the Eagles. There are many more financial opportunities outside of the cap for the Eagles players as they own more of the market. Even if they start a small business and promote it there are more eagles supporters and therefore if we both offer identical deals, then it is obvious to go to the Eagles. Which forces the lesser team to inflate their contract in this never ending cycle.

Now imagine if we were given an extra 400k per season for 2 - 3 years we would be able to up a prospective player contract by a couple of 100k which would make it more lucrative to come to our club. Or even that we could throw it at someone like Cerra this year to make it a situation that would likely make it harder to move.

Now if we are making finals within anytime in that 5 - 6 year range then we wouldn't be entitled to it.

Now before you say that this disadvantages the players in stronger teams financially. Just remember there are extras in contracts such as if you win a grand final your playing list gets x amount from the AFL. You get paid more for playing finals. That is even before all the endorsements etc

Anyway... food for thought.

In principle, I like the idea of #2 - a kind of floating salary cap depending on ladder position.

Except that it can also create a moral hazard where bad teams know they will always get handouts from the AFL no matter how much, or how badly they spend.

 

[Ati Tude]

There needs to be a 'best city in Australia and third best in the world' allowance for Adelaide.

The people that voted for that presumably didn't go there due to COVID...

 

[strath39]

The only thing I would change would be the ability to trade players when there contracted. similar to the NBA.

It allows to move on player who unlikly to stay and get a better return a year before they leave

 

[PHanevski]

I'd like to see one of two things happen.

1.) The compensation needs to come from the team that snags the free agents.

There should be no compensation at all for free agency. In most cases (not all) the club losing the player go on about how they would like said player to stay but they do nothing to try and keep the player. In fact the compensation in most cases makes it a good proposition for that club to let the player go. Look at some of the free agents in the past, their club either didn't offer them a contract or offered them so little that they were never going to stay and then got a far better pick than they would have ever got for a trade.

 

[Shannon M]

Free agency came into the AFL at the end of the 2012 season.

Since then there has been 7 Victorian premiers and 1 non Victorian premier. The likes of Tom Lynch and Jeremy Cameron opting to move from Non Victorian clubs to 2 currently strong Victorian teams, even before they joined. Which big name free agents have the likes of GWS, Brisbane, Fremantle or Port been able to recruit? None at the level of Lynch and Cameron I believe.

Does the AFL need to look at non Victorian teams being given some sort of COFA (cost of free agent) allowance to make them more competitive in the free agency market? Or alternatively are there any other ideas to make this more even for all clubs?

Free agency rules favouring big Victorian clubs is by design. The AFL would have changed the rules around free agency years ago if it was favouring Fremantle, Port to the detriment of Richmond, Geelong, etc.

Remember how angry the AFL got with Sydney when they made a better offer to Buddy than their vanity project GWS. Cut their salary cap, banned them from trading.

Shameless, grubby, mafioso, standover tactics from the AFL. If it went to court the AFL wouldn't have had a hope in hell of winning.

 

[telsor]

Free agency rules favouring big Victorian clubs is by design. The AFL would have changed the rules around free agency years ago if it was favouring Fremantle, Port to the detriment of Richmond, Geelong, etc.

Remember how angry the AFL got with Sydney when they made a better offer to Buddy than their vanity project GWS. Cut their salary cap, banned them from trading.

Shameless, grubby, mafioso, standover tactics from the AFL. If it went to court the AFL wouldn't have had a hope in hell of winning.

Then why aren't they taken to court?

 

[Shannon M]

Then why aren't they taken to court?

You'd have to ask the Swans. I'm sure there are political reasons, a lot of people not wanting to be blackballed from the AFL industry.

 

[GhostofJimJess]

I'd like to see one of two things happen.

1.) The compensation needs to come from the team that snags the free agents. Currently it not only strengthens the stronger teams, but it also impacts every other team not directly involved. For example Gold Coast receiving pick 3 compensation for Tom Lynch. Of course it strengthens Richmond and Gold Coast obviously get a decent pick for losing a quality player. But the 17 other teams all have to slide down the order. Now sure moving from pick 41 to pick 42 is neither here nor there, but sliding from pick 3 - 4 or from can be huge. Or in this example imagine being Adelaide, if the pick 3 wasn't given they would have had access to one of (Walsh, Lukosius, Rankine, King, King, Rozee or Smith) instead they ended up with Jones (not having a go at him, but who knows where Adelaide would have ranked him???). So because, Gold Coast lose a player Adelaide gets punished.

Instead, the afl should determine (age, contract, games played, etc) to formulate a points (exactly like NGA / F/S) and Richmond should be forced to meet that debt that would be transferred to Gold Coast. Now in this case, you would have to imagine that they would lose their first and second picks and maybe a future 1st. Would that be worthwhile for Richmond? of course it would.
Would a first rounder being pick 17 and a current second and a future first be adequate for losing Lynch? Probably a little bit under given Richmond's ladder position, but its not ridiculous.

This way only Gold Coast and Richmond are effected.... no one else. Whats the difference between this and a trade? well if it is Unrestricted the AFL would set the price (based on formulas) on the trade and both parties must agree. There would be no need to lock free agency to current ladder positions so for example Lynch could have been valued at pick 1, pick 5, pick 7 all of which would have a different amount of points to account for. There could even be different points for Restricted vs unrestricted.

The lesser teams would have higher draft picks and therefore would need to pay less for their free agents as they would need to try to find as many points so for in this instance if the roles were reversed. If Lynch was valued at pick 3 they would be able to pay for him with their pick 2.

I made this very suggestion a couple of years back - that the club who is the recipient of the free agent cough up an amount of draft points in line with a suitable formula - and got pilloried. Good luck with continuing the crusade - it's a sound idea.

 

[telsor]

You'd have to ask the Swans. I'm sure there are political reasons, a lot of people not wanting to be blackballed from the AFL industry.

a) The court could rule against any such retribution.

b) I meant all the non-Vic clubs against the vast multitude of #VICBIAS at play.

 

[PHanevski]

I made this very suggestion a couple of years back - that the club who is the recipient of the free agent cough up an amount of draft points in line with a suitable formula - and got pilloried. Good luck with continuing the crusade - it's a sound idea.

Not really, because then in becomes a forced trade, not free agency. Free agency was brought in to allow for more player movement because the AFLPA wanted players to have more freedom of movement. If it became a forced trade then why wouldn't clubs just traded for the player with agreed upon picks (as happens now with a normal player trade). There would be no reason to for a third party to become involved saying this is the picks that you need to give up. Besides when would you suggest those points applied, before or after the "free agent" has signed a contract. If it is as it is now, after the paperwork, would the club then have the ability to back out because they don't agree with the points that are applied. Where does that leave the player?

 

[GhostofJimJess]

Not really, because then in becomes a forced trade, not free agency. Free agency was brought in to allow for more player movement because the AFLPA wanted players to have more freedom of movement. If it became a forced trade then why wouldn't clubs just traded for the player with agreed upon picks (as happens now with a normal player trade). There would be no reason to for a third party to become involved saying this is the picks that you need to give up. Besides when would you suggest those points applied, before or after the "free agent" has signed a contract. If it is as it is now, after the paperwork, would the club then have the ability to back out because they don't agree with the points that are applied. Where does that leave the player?

Yep, I totally get that in terms of protecting the rights of the actual free agent to switch to the club of his choice. In terms of the integrity of the rule, you're right on it.

Perhaps the points conceded can be absorbed across a three-year period of drafts, or something to that effect? As it stands now, we will just have to endure the plethora of tiresome "How can (insert high-placed team) be allowed just take (insert gun player) from (insert low-placed team) that they've put so much development into without any cost?!"

 

[PHanevski]

Yep, I totally get that in terms of protecting the rights of the actual free agent to switch to the club of his choice. In terms of the integrity of the rule, you're right on it.

Perhaps the points conceded can be absorbed across a three-year period of drafts, or something to that effect? As it stands now, we will just have to endure the plethora of tiresome "How can (insert high-placed team) be allowed just take (insert gun player) from (insert low-placed team) that they've put so much development into without any cost?!"

I just don't think there should be compensation at all. The player has been at the club for 8-10 years and is out of contract. Too many times clubs don't really want to keep them but want the top compensation. Not to mention that the compensation seems to be random based on the panel of experts.

As for top player leaves bottom side to go to top side, it is generally the bottom side looking for good draft picks over player retention or the player wanting to go back to their home state, so the opening argument seems to be due to recent moves. As has been mentioned Franklin and Ablett leaving Vic clubs to go to Sydney and CG were big name players.

 

[FreoFan85]

Not really, because then in becomes a forced trade, not free agency. Free agency was brought in to allow for more player movement because the AFLPA wanted players to have more freedom of movement. If it became a forced trade then why wouldn't clubs just traded for the player with agreed upon picks (as happens now with a normal player trade). There would be no reason to for a third party to become involved saying this is the picks that you need to give up. Besides when would you suggest those points applied, before or after the "free agent" has signed a contract. If it is as it is now, after the paperwork, would the club then have the ability to back out because they don't agree with the points that are applied. Where does that leave the player?

Because a trade currently needs to be agreed to by both clubs. This would only need to be between the incoming club and the player. Therefore a free agency situation. The third party would be needed to work out the debt to be paid.

 

[Elmer_Judd]

The only thing I would change would be the ability to trade players when there contracted. similar to the NBA.

It allows to move on player who unlikly to stay and get a better return a year before they leave

Players under contract can still get traded.

I would like players to be traded to any club, without their consent (like they do in the NBA and NFL)

 

[telsor]

Players under contract can still get traded.

I would like players to be traded to any club, without their consent (like they do in the NBA and NFL)

Given players here don't earn nearly as much as in the NBA of NFL, that's pretty big.

You'd need to include something like ...

Any player traded without his consent gets a bonus of 50% of his salary, or 200K (whichever is greater), paid out of the receiving club's salary cap.

Even then the AFLPA would probably block it.

 

[Underarm]

Free agency rules favouring big Victorian clubs is by design. The AFL would have changed the rules around free agency years ago if it was favouring Fremantle, Port to the detriment of Richmond, Geelong, etc.

Remember how angry the AFL got with Sydney when they made a better offer to Buddy than their vanity project GWS. Cut their salary cap, banned them from trading.

Shameless, grubby, mafioso, standover tactics from the AFL. If it went to court the AFL wouldn't have had a hope in hell of winning.

Scott Lycett, Tom Rockliff, Steven Motlop.

Port Adelaide have picked up more 1st round worthy free agents than any other club.

This idea that free agency favours Victorian clubs is a myth.

 

[calman]

exclude the top 4 teams from being able to secure a free agent, stop the strong clubs from raiding weaker ones
eg lynch to richmond and cameron to geelong is what we dont want

Want to go to a club from 6 to 8 to play finals, no problem

Allow bottom 4 clubs benefits to attract free agents, eg X amount outside the salary cap for 3 years of agents contract
Or free agents can move to a bottom 4 club a bit earlier