Fixing the compensation system

[Faz 2000]

Fair? Define that please. In my mind fairness = reward for excellence. This is a sporting competition we are talking about, after all.

If Hawthorn have managed themselves well enough that they can afford to add talent and $ to an already talented list within the rules of the salary cap, it’s unfair to deny or compromise their opportunity to do so.

OK, OK, let's take a step back here. Let me know at which point we start to disagree significantly:

1. Australian rules football is a competitive ball game.
2. The Australian Football League is a sporting football competition. Once the games start, it's "may the best team win", absolutely.
3. The AFL's job is to define the rules and structure and framework in which that competition occurs.
4. The AFL has openly made it's position clear that it is aiming to run a level/equalised type competition where every club has a reasonable chance and opportunity for success. The primary mechanisms it uses for this are the draft and the salary cap. For clarity, this is in contrast to some other professional sporting competitions in the world where there's no draft or salary cap and the "haves" dominate and everyone is OK with that.
5. AFL players have contracts and "belong" to a club for the duration of their contract (and even afterwards, which I think is a quirk and weird situation).
6. AFL players can be traded between clubs for other players or picks in the draft. The clubs make the decision, even though the player's opinion carries some weight (it arguably shouldn't).
7. The AFLPA wants players to maximise their earnings and their rights to choose where they play (ie. "agency" over where they play).
8. Players achieve "free agent" status after a certain amount of time in the game (and some other criteria).
9. Once a player is a free agent they can negotiate a contract with another club independently of their current club.
10. If a free agent agrees to terms with another club they can sign on and go play for that club.
11. The destination club can add a player they want to.
12. The player can get to where they want to do.
13. In executing their mandate in item #4 up above, the AFL determines (in a poor, non-transparent manner) what the source club should get by way of draft pick compensation so that every club has a reasonable chance and opportunity for success
14. The AFL gives the source club compensation by way of draft picks that did not previously exist.

I am not really suggesting really any of items 1-12 needs to change, just the mechanisms for 13 and 14 (ie. this thread concept).

If we're bringing "what's fair" into the whole shooting match, I guess you are talking about changing more fundamental elements of the league than just FA?

 

[Beast__Mode]

OK, OK, let's take a step back here. Let me know at which point we start to disagree significantly:

1. Australian rules football is a competitive ball game.
2. The Australian Football League is a sporting football competition. Once the games start, it's "may the best team win", absolutely.
3. The AFL's job is to define the rules and structure and framework in which that competition occurs.
4. The AFL has openly made it's position clear that it is aiming to run a level/equalised type competition where every club has a reasonable chance and opportunity for success. The primary mechanisms it uses for this are the draft and the salary cap. For clarity, this is in contrast to some other professional sporting competitions in the world where there's no draft or salary cap and the "haves" dominate and everyone is OK with that.
5. AFL players have contracts and "belong" to a club for the duration of their contract (and even afterwards, which I think is a quirk and weird situation).
6. AFL players can be traded between clubs for other players or picks in the draft. The clubs make the decision, even though the player's opinion carries some weight (it arguably shouldn't).
7. The AFLPA wants players to maximise their earnings and their rights to choose where they play (ie. "agency" over where they play).
8. Players achieve "free agent" status after a certain amount of time in the game (and some other criteria).
9. Once a player is a free agent they can negotiate a contract with another club independently of their current club.
10. If a free agent agrees to terms with another club they can sign on and go play for that club.
11. The destination club can add a player they want to.
12. The player can get to where they want to do.
13. In executing their mandate in item #4 up above, the AFL determines (in a poor, non-transparent manner) what the source club should get by way of draft pick compensation so that every club has a reasonable chance and opportunity for success
14. The AFL gives the source club compensation by way of draft picks that did not previously exist.

I am not really suggesting really any of items 1-12 needs to change, just the mechanisms for 13 and 14 (ie. this thread concept).

If we're bringing "what's fair" into the whole shooting match, I guess you are talking about changing more fundamental elements of the league than just FA?

Faz, you introduced fairness into the discussion up above, in all caps if I’m not mistaken.

What I want to change is already stated.

1. No priority picks, ever.
2. No compensation via way of draft picks for free agent departures.
3. Reduce the minimum floor of salary cap payments. Extend the years over which the minimum floor must be met to either 4-5 years.
4. Sides not playing finals have one round of mature age selections from state leagues prior to the national draft.

Ideally I’d remove Father Son and academy selections, but the game isn’t mature enough in northern states at this time to remove academy structures, and there’s too much emotion around Father Son for that to ever change, which I accept.

My concept of fairness is clear; uncompromised access to the key mechanism’s governing the game, ie draft and salary cap. If teams manage those well, why should their access to them be compromised in any way because other clubs perform poorly? Any concept of compensation for one club compromises other clubs, which is the core of my opposition to dressed up trade scenarios masquerading as FA compensation.

There are winners and losers. When you lose, there shouldn’t be an expectation of compensation or whining about how unfair a result is when you’re in a competition and everyone is playing by the same rules. If others play better, get better.

I know everyone needs a medal in kids sports, which is good. But this is supposedly a professional sporting competition populated with adults.

 

[Beast__Mode]

Comparing it to Hawthorn in the 00's is inaccurate regardless - they weren't competing with free agency at the time. If a player left, they got value for them, whereas you seem to be arguing for a system where a player can leave a club after 7-8 years and that club gets nothing in return.

You're applying the "reap what you sow" approach to poor clubs, but are against a "pay for what you get" approach for free agents, which seems at odds to me.

Discussing my earlier idea further, I've realised it borrows a little from the academy and father son model, which I think makes sense in a way.

Value the free agent that is leaving.
Give the player's club a compo pick accordingly.
Force the recruiting club to match points (with flexibility to do so with any picks from the same year). These picks could be "lost" or moved to the back of the draft, whichever is more appropriate.

GC get Pick 3 for Lynch.
Richmond need to give up 2234 points worth of picks.
Picks 19 and 37 leave them 803 points short.
They could trade out a player for Pick 23.
They could trade out two players for picks 41 and 42.
They could trade out a player for Pick 11 and keep their Pick 37.
They could trade out three players for Picks 30, 31 and 35, and keep their Pick 19.

What Richmond choose to do doesn't impact GC, they still get the compo pick awarded by the AFL.
But other clubs potentially benefit from Richmond offloading some fringe players, or a reliable best 22 one.
All other clubs benefit slightly from Richmond sacrificing draft picks.
When you tie it in to the existing draft system, it naturally allows lower clubs more valuable assets to secure free agents, while the higher ranked clubs get less.

Sorry I can’t be neat and tidy with quotes I’m on a train in Guangxi on a mobile

But I am loving the exchange of views.

Reap sow vs pay.

There’s nothing at all at odds in my position. Clubs acquiring free agents are paying. They’re paying the salary of the player they are acquiring. They are doing so within the same salary cap constraints as every other team in the competition. Why should their access to the other key plank, ie the draft, be compromised because they manage their salary cap well and create an environment which attracts professional Athletes?

In no FA mechanism in world sports (that I am aware of) is there a concept of ‘paying’ for a FA acquisition in any way other than the financial cost of the contract. Certainly none where their access to draftable talent is directly compromised by way of forfeiting their own access.

 

[Das2Blue]

There are two main problems with Compo .

1. The Team that acquires the player also keeps their Draft picks. (this can only keep competition uneven)
2. The Team that loses the player get compo pick which effects the integrity of Draft and effects other 16 teams that have nothing to do with player exchange.

So i can see only 2 Actions available.

1 . Forced Trade of Sorts...Afl gives the player a point value in Draft based on magic , The winning Team must give it's draft picks to the accumulation of these points to the losing Team . Thus not effecting other clubs not involved.

2. No Compo..........Afl still gives the player a point value in Draft , The Winning team Still pays with Draft picks to the value determined , just not to the Losing Side , these draft pick disappear and the other 17 clubs all improve there standing in Draft . Thus draft integrity is solid and Winning team doesn't get to Have their Cake and Eat it To ..

 

[Faz 2000]

Beast_Mode Right, so you are talking far beyond just Free Agency, which is fine. I'd probably sign up to your model defined there, too, in theory. As you say, there are some inequities in the landscape which make it impractical, though, such as northern state weakness, etc.

I was just trying to fix step 13 and 14 of my model of the AFL world there, the FA bit. The compo, as implemented, in my mind is totally unfair. It does not force those buying the goodies to pay for the goodies.

Totally agree that priority picks, FS and many other things are not what they could/should be if we start from scratch.

Only took a few thousand words, but we mostly got there in the end.

 

[Beast__Mode]

PS Faz I am fully aligned with your list and re: point 6, it reminded me of my other change.

5. Clubs can trade players mid contract at their discretion (of course players can attempt to negotiate a non-trade clause into their contract).

Great discussion.

 

[Faz 2000]

In no FA mechanism in world sports (that I am aware of) is there a concept of ‘paying’ for a FA acquisition in any way other than the financial cost of the contract. Certainly none where their access to draftable talent is directly compromised by way of forfeiting their own access.

100% there is. Check out https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restricted_free_agent

Most US pro sports work this way. And in general, this bit of it works well.

 

[Beast__Mode]

100% there is. Check out https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restricted_free_agent

Most US pro sports work this way. And in general, this bit of it works well.

Great point I neglected to consider RFA, I was fixated on UFA in my mind.

That system works well because the club itself sets the “price”, ie the qualifying offer. So if they want a first Rd pick, if no one bites they are paying more salary. It takes the magic 8 ball Commission calculations out of the equation. Much cleaner.

 

[Faz 2000]

Another reason to define the terms and boundaries of a debate - I've been banging on about Restricted Free Agency for the last 10 posts. Because I think it's a model that works.

 

[Arr0w]

We are all going to have differing views and no amendments will allow for the perfect, equalizing system, especially with current fixtures, yet the disparity seems to be widening. The number one factor, still is club management of list, drafting, trading and development. Things I would like to see introduced, which many of us have already documented

1. Remove the PP system
2. FA compensation to be streamlined. Rather than a pick being award directly after a club's existing pick, have a set structure. Pick 1, pick 11, pick 19 and so on, through to the end of the 3rd round. This will alleviate frustrations such as the Frawley vs Buddy variation. Buddy would have attracted pick 1, Frawley pick 11 etc. A fairer compensation for both players considering their quality.
3. Club winning the rights to the FA, pays losing club the compensation. This may seem harsh for the recipient, yet they just acquired the services of a valuable player. The benefit of this system, while being a glorified trade, is there is little variance in the fixed cost. No haggling required, fee is set +/-
4. Taking the Lynch/Tigers scenario, GC would be awarded pick 1 in points value. Tigers would have to trade to amass the fee, yet none of their stars would possibly be traded. It would be a combination middle tier players such as, Ellis, McIntosh, Rioli etc. Receiving club has the option of either taking the combination of picks/players or picks only or players only. This would not overly strengthen the Tigers, nor would it considerably weaken GC. If GC only want picks, Tigers would be forced to trade out players to other clubs, more than likely, it would be to other lower clubs, to satisfy pick 1 points. Win win at both ends of the ladder
5. Bottom 4 club mini draft/mature age FA signing period. Any player that was overlooked in their draft year and or 19+ is eligible.
6. Allow minimum salary cap spending to be at 90%, bottom sides could build a bigger warchest
7. Fixtures for bottom 6 clubs from previous year. After scheduling to play every team once, the other 5 games, to be played among the other bottom 6 sides. Now of course this will vary as we have seen a side like North improving this year, but it would be rare a side from the bottom 6 the previous year, makes the finals

Now some are suggesting that points 3 & 4 could decrease player movement, I would argue it would do the opposite. Again using Lynch/Tigers as an example, under the current format, Lynch would be secured by the Tigers, they would make their normal list changes, generally, retirements and delistings, none of which would remain in the system by moving to another club. If point 3 & 4 are introduced, not only would Lynch be on the move, so would middle tier players such as Ellis, McIntosh, Rioli. So I believe it would have no real effect on player movement, if anything increase it.

There are other more radical ideas that could also help, but I believe the above would go a long way in reducing the disparity between top and bottom clubs

 

[Beast__Mode]

Another reason to define the terms and boundaries of a debate - I've been banging on about Restricted Free Agency for the last 10 posts. Because I think it's a model that works.

OK then, let’s talk RFA. It’s essentially a glorified trade except there’s only one bidder. I’d take the NFL model, largely.

“Selling” club nominates the “price” (draft pick). As a consequence of that price, they commit to a minimum salary if the price isn’t met. If the price is met, the trade is consummated. Done.

Range could be from a 3rd round pick (league average salary) to 2 x first round picks (top 5% of salaries). With a range in between. They could probably manage this and still avoid making the exact salaries public knowledge, which obviously would end the world as we know it if that were to change.

 

[Faz 2000]

Something like that, though I like the NHL model better where it's around the other way a bit. The "buying" club sets the "price", with the "selling" club having the option to match or accept the pre-priced trade.

 

[Big Red is back]

Miss finals 4 years in a row get pre first round pick, simple we need to create an environement where teams can climb faster. Put simply 1 pick in first 18 is simple not enough.

 

[Beast__Mode]

Something like that, though I like the NHL model better where it's around the other way a bit. The "buying" club sets the "price", with the "selling" club having the option to match or accept the pre-priced trade.

I’m more with the seller setting the price, because I think it reflects more that they still hold, or should hold, the ‘rights’ to the player until true FA hits.

But ultimately, under either method the player will move at an agreeable price.

 

[CFC_#17]

how would we react if we lost cripps in 2 years to freo or wce, and got nothing for it i dont think removing compensation for FAs leaving

Cripps will be a restricted free agent, and we match the offer forcing a trade alternatively we trade him next year while in contract.

 

[BluStreak]

remove restricted free agency altogether and return FA back to original time period. If player wants to move then organise a trade.
FA was originally mooted to give those players at the lower clubs a chance at a premiership after serving their club the better part of their career.
The Robbie Flowers etc it was never about giving the club a leg up.

 

[therubbernub]

It’s an exchange between two clubs in practice if not in name. So... trading. Dress it up however you like, but it walking and sounding a lot like a duck.

Were the Eagles begrudging in their acceptance of trading Judd to us? Would GWS be berudging in trading Sheil this year if they don’t win the flag? Seems like we have a mechanism to handle that, it’s called trading.

And the suggestion hopelessly compromises an already compromised draft. Huge no from me.

You have two huge competing forces, that are innately diametrically opposed.
1 In corner one the AFL Players association- who's only agenda is player welfare-ultimately give as much power to the players

2 The AFL: Commited to running and promoting the rules of the game. The draft system is ultimately a flawed system as it promoted restriction of trade, which if challenged legally , would fall over like a pack of cards. But it the best system we have for allocating talent "fairly". So the AFLPA IMO have to accept the draft system as it is the cornerstone of modern AFL talent allocation. If they dont , the whole system falls apart, and so does the income that the players enjoy

The AFLPA knows that they cant have the huge influx in their members income without cooperating with the AFL- No AFL>no TV Rights>No huge contracts>

The AFL want the most even competition they can orchestrate , which means that ultimately, so does the AFLPA- as it is in the best interests of the game . But the concept of Free agency,arguably, takes away the AFL's ability to maintain an even competition and here we have the dilemma. We have to have free agency from a player welfare perspective, so given that, how do we minimize the impact that FA has on the struggling teams ability to compete? Clearly something has to give. And so your dismissal "hopelessly compromises an already compromised draft" really totally ignores that changes are needed. Simply put , the draft/FA system needs to be further tampered with , to allow the AFL to do its job properly- which includes protecting the smaller less desirable clubs from player exodus.
You see in times past, VFL clubs were tribal , based on intense rivalry's between neighboring suburbs , and it was this intense rivalry that kept players at their club- even if it was a weak club such as stkilda or footscray in VFL times. But that tribal devotion has gone, replaced with huge contracts and a national competition, and its never coming back. We have to move on and face the changes- changes that ultimately and necessarily IMO means compromises.

 

[therubbernub]

In my view, that's the exact reason to introduce this "club pays" concept. If a strong team like the Hawks can add an asset valued at pick 5, SHOULDN'T they have to pay for it? SHOULDN'T they have to pause to consider whether it's the right move? SHOULDN'T they have to sacrifice something longer term for the here and now? I think they absolutely should. They can still go ahead, but it's their choice.

Exactly. The clubs have to have consequences. It should hurt , if they attract a big fish in terms of other player picks.

 

[therubbernub]

How on EARTH do Hawthorn obtain pick 5 without sacrificing key members of their squad for that selection, or trade out of the draft for two years and crippling their futures for the sake of a single player?

That is only fair isnt it?

 

[Beast__Mode]

Rubbernub, thank goodness you are as far away from a decision and influence as I am. I couldn’t be more opposed to your view.

Changes are definitely needed, we just disagree on the type of change. I want clubs to compete, I think you want them manipulated and coddled.

 

[Gethelred]

That is only fair isnt it?

See, where you're seeing fairness, I'm seeing decreasing player movement options.

My argument is simple. The AFL, the fans and the PA do not want less player movement. It's interesting, it provides a sideshow that draws the eye and gives fans at the bottom end of the ladder cause to watch and pay attention, dreaming of a day when their side isn't shit, and it provides more capacity for players to obtain more money and to choose the course their life takes once they've made it.

Because of that, any policy change that would inhibit player movement in any way would be impeded by all contenders.

Does a change to the policy in the way suggested - ie, changing the FA formula to a system where a team must stump up enough points to trade for the player, either in picks or players - affect the likelihood of players/clubs exploring FA? Of course it does, as sides don't want to dismantle their structures to obtain a superstar, unless they've lopsided their list management to be able to make that decision. You'd still see FA, but they'd be at the margins.

Therefore, this kind of a change in policy will not be accepted by all groups, and would not be instituted.

 

[Blue__Balls]

Rubbernub, thank goodness you are as far away from a decision and influence as I am. I couldn’t be more opposed to your view.

Changes are definitely needed, we just disagree on the type of change. I want clubs to compete, I think you want them manipulated and coddled.

I think something that needs to be considered is that Free Agency was introduced. And it was introduced at a time when the draft was being heavily compromised by new franchises.

Relevance? It was never an even playing field in the first place. The salary cap requirements make it difficult (not impossible) for lower placed clubs to offer ridiculous contracts to woo players. Whereas the ultimate goal of winning a flag is a mighty tempting carrot to dangle.

Chance at a flag or two and all the post-footy opportunities and sponsorship deals that can lead to + the enjoyment of winning games of footy
vs.
An extra $100k a year after tax (when you're already earning $800k or more) + enduring embarrassing losses on a regular basis and getting booed by fans

Sure, some will take the money. Others will be outside the "star" bracket and will move for opportunity. But when we're talking gun players (which are the ones everyone cares about), there's a stronger pull to play for successful clubs, who can counteract their lower draft position by signing quality free agents from other clubs. There's a negligible amount of risk involved too - they know exactly what they're buying, whereas the draft is a bigger gamble.

I doubt we'll all agree on a perfect solution. But I do think that forcing clubs to give up draft assets to secure free agents is a good thing. It makes it easier for lower placed clubs to meet the price, while higher placed clubs still have the option to trade surplus players away to create a favourable collection of draft picks with which to work.

So if Richmond need to offload Houli or Edawards, or a combination of Short and Bolton, to make room for Lynch, that generates more player movement than just letting them grab him for $$$ alone. Whereas Carlton maybe only need to offload one lesser player to do the same.

 

[Beast__Mode]

B_B, why is Gaff considering Nth Melbourne (supposedly)? They’re in no man’s land ladder wise, don’t have a huge array of young talent, aren’t a high profile club. But $1.2m is pretty persuasive. That’s the leverage they have and they are using it - good on them. Should they have to - on top of the hefty chunk of their cap now potentially spoken for- have to give up multiple draft assets to a stronger team?

 

[Blue__Balls]

B_B, why is Gaff considering Nth Melbourne (supposedly)? They’re in no man’s land ladder wise, don’t have a huge array of young talent, aren’t a high profile club. But $1.2m is pretty persuasive. That’s the leverage they have and they are using it - good on them. Should they have to - on top of the hefty chunk of their cap now potentially spoken for- have to give up multiple draft assets to a stronger team?

Not much to say about Gaff's motivations except that a decision hasn't been made yet. Melbourne apparently well in the frame too.

As far as whether they should have to give up picks as well - why not? When it comes to player movement and acquisition, the draft is supposedly the equalizer. Lowet clubs get better picks. Better picks can secure better players. Unless they're free agents, when they can go to a club without any draft picks being given up. So free agency becomes a more efficient recruitment model for string clubs. They can still draft decent players, but they can also get immediate impact from mature players who are attracted to a club with a greater chance of success than their current one. Meanwhile, the lower placed clubs are trying to buy signatures, because the odds of Gold Coast or Carlton winning a flag in the next 4 years is next to none. There will be the odd exception, but what it boils down to us that I'm in favour of a model that gives lower placed clubs a greater capacity to recruit free agents. Not by preventing higher clubs from getting them, but by adding a draft pick "cost" which leverages the existing draft order so that lower placed clubs have more natural collateral to work with. The better teams can still offload players to generate picks, so it stimulates further trading as well.

 

[Beast__Mode]

I dont think you’ve answered the question. Nth Melbourne are lower than West Coast on the ladder. If they sign Gaff as a FA - in addition to the hefty salary, should they have the give up draft picks? If you answer ‘yes’ to that question, how exactly does your system help Nth Melbourne climb the ladder? They get Gaff but give up one or two first round picks?

One step forward, one step back, maybe two steps back if the stronger club directly receives the draft capital. That’s exactly the type of treadmill you seek to avoid, presumably. And if a player wants to forgo $ to win, good on them. Plenty won’t, particularly as the stigma attached to changing clubs dissipates.

What happens when the 9th placed team signs a FA from the 8th placed team? Or 16 v 15?

RFA is a different story as discussed above. That’s just glorified trading.