free agency

[Spagger83]

as soon as it looked like we were going to miss out on Ball and Fevola (both reported to have CHOSEN Collingwood) i was wondering to myself "if free agency was available they would be ours"

would i have been right? Or because Fev was in contract would we still have had to trade?

how would free agency work?

fwiw the AFL has put out a presser about free agency...

here it is:
THE AFL says the high level of trade week activity indicates there is less need for free agency.

The recently altered trading rules enable draft selections to be swapped without a player being involved, forced mediation when talks break down, and the ability to trade rookies.

AFL football operations manager Adrian Anderson said the changes had resulted in more beneficial interaction between clubs.

"I think the fact we've had 23 players find new homes and that we've relaxed the rules to enable more trades to happen more freely is a good thing," he said on Friday, after the official 2pm deadline.

"It means a club that loses a player is getting something in return, whereas free agency talked about not necessarily producing the same result."

He said the current regulations – that don't allow out-of-contract players to negotiate their next contract with rival clubs – are fair and reasonable.

"We think the draft and salary cap have served the competition really well, and are integral as to why we have an even competition and the competitive balance is as it is," he said.

"What we've seen this trade period is the vast majority of players wanting to move have been able to get to a club of their choice."

Anderson conceded St Kilda midfielder Luke Ball could be disappointed with the current rules, given he was denied a trade to his favoured club of Collingwood when the two parties failed to agree on terms.

But, he said the AFL was satisfied overall with how the trade period had panned out.

"I'm not across the details of why that particular trade didn't go ahead," he said. "The fact is, we've had 23 players this trade period find new homes via the trade mechanism."

source: http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/85938/default.aspx

 

[cust22]

I swear a player will sue the AFL eventually if they dont get to go where they want to, even though they are essentially out of contract. A draft should never dictate where an employee ends up working, i think its a breach of basic national employment laws.

I mean, imagine if we wanted to quit our jobs and go somewhere else but instead had to nominate for a draft and hope they employer of choice actually picks us up.....ludicrous.....

 

[SnowCool]

free agency would be terrible for the game, just look at how the NRL operate. players leaving clubs left right and centre.

clubs should get a compensated for the loss of their player.

at the end of the day you guys didn't want to do a fair trade, only have yourself to blame.

 

[Spagger83]

free agency would be terrible for the game, just look at how the NRL operate. players leaving clubs left right and centre.

clubs should get a compensated for the loss of their player.

at the end of the day you guys didn't want to do a fair trade, only have yourself to blame.

oh the joy of finishing last hey??
Luke Ball is the new Nick Stevens, shafted by his club and now his club get nothing, nothing!!

so st kilda get nothing now, how are they compensated?

 

[Teak_Pies]

Exactly StKilda get nothing for Ball and ball ends up in Melbourne everybody loses

 

[SnowCool]

well they wouldn't of been compensated if free agency was in place either.
they at least has the opportunity to be compensated if other clubs did their bit.

ball will get a lot of money if he comes to melbourne plus more game time which is ultimately why he left.

yes he is the new nick stevens, if i recall correctly, you didn't offer port a fair trade there either and lost out. i know a few collingwood supporters who are seething over this, they would of happily put brown or wellingham or goldsack or fraser with pick 26. saints would of taken any one of them, and you could of had ball

 

[Spagger83]

well they wouldn't of been compensated if free agency was in place either.
they at least has the opportunity to be compensated if other clubs did their bit.

ball will get a lot of money if he comes to melbourne plus more game time which is ultimately why he left.

yes he is the new nick stevens, if i recall correctly, you didn't offer port a fair trade there either and lost out. i know a few collingwood supporters who are seething over this, they would of happily put brown or wellingham or goldsack or fraser with pick 26. saints would of taken any one of them, and you could of had ball

mate get out of here will ya, we had a crack, if you feel so strongly about st kilda getting something for ball can you answer why melbourne, if they wanted ball so much didnt offer something for him?? the answer is because they knew they could get him for free.... fair system hey?

well done on finishing last mate! at least our club tried to build a list while also trying to win

 

[Axl the great]

Free agency i think has to come in for the benefit of the players that want and need a change to better enhance their careers.
I doubt we will see wholesale changes every year as the percentage of players eligable would not be huge if restrictions and conditions were put in to make it fair for club and player. I have thought a bit about this and have come up with a way it could work.

Eligability-7 years service. Not contracted. Over 50 games.
Clubs onus- Must offer player a contract in year of eligability or contract extension.
Potential clubs onus- Must offer 3 year deal if player is under 30. 2 years if 30 or over.

 

[Go_collingwood_]

well they wouldn't of been compensated if free agency was in place either.
they at least has the opportunity to be compensated if other clubs did their bit.

ball will get a lot of money if he comes to melbourne plus more game time which is ultimately why he left.

yes he is the new nick stevens, if i recall correctly, you didn't offer port a fair trade there either and lost out. i know a few collingwood supporters who are seething over this, they would of happily put brown or wellingham or goldsack or fraser with pick 26. saints would of taken any one of them, and you could of had ball

mate your a idiot please leave

your team doesnt want free agency because nothing teams like you guys would have lost players for nothing.

face it with or without free agency you guys will still be on bottom of the ladder no one wants to join your club unless they are forced to

 

[Rohan25]

yes he is the new nick stevens, if i recall correctly, you didn't offer port a fair trade there either and lost out. i know a few collingwood supporters who are seething over this, they would of happily put brown or wellingham or goldsack or fraser with pick 26. saints would of taken any one of them, and you could of had ball

1) We offered Port a very fair trade. It was them who came off worse, losing Stevens for nothing, and refusing both a first round pick, and a player who is still playing with his new club. Stevens is finished, and the player we elected to keep has since become an All-Australian, a best and fairest winner and a star of the competition. How foolish of us to want to keep him.

2)I know far more people who are happy we didn't trade any of those players. Trading Brown would have been a colossal mistake. Big defenders don't grow on trees. The saints didn't want Wellingham or Goldsack. They were spoken about in discussions with other clubs in an attempt to facilitate the Ball deal, if the Saints had wanted either of them we wouldn't have been using them as leverage with other clubs.

In short, you don't know what you're talking about.

 

[macleodboy07]

free agency would be terrible for the game, just look at how the NRL operate. players leaving clubs left right and centre.

clubs should get a compensated for the loss of their player.

at the end of the day you guys didn't want to do a fair trade, only have yourself to blame.

ive posted this in a couple of places now. doesnt seem to be getting seen or just a dumb idea no one wishes to comment on but ill give it another go haha.

this is my idea of getting players to were they wanna go while club still get compensated.....somewhat.


everyone can call me a goose if this idea is just completely stupid but if the afl is so keen on players being able to move clubs and their club being compansated that why cant clubs (im asuming they cant cose ive never heard of it) but why cant they trade just PSD picks?
we could of traded wellingham and pick 30 to the kangaroos for pick 25 in the national draft. then offered that to melbounre for pick 1 in the pre season draft.
this all depends on wheather melb would accept. but we could of thrown in a late ND pick with the melb deal so they could get someone they were planning on getting in the PSD. i would think a club rebuilding would rather a top 30 ND pick, then a PSD pick.
pre season draft is always full of recycled hacks, delisted rookies or the players who didnt get drafted in the ND.
if this was able to happen we could of put that before the saints, forcing there hand to take pick 25 or else we get ball anyway.
this would make it alot easier for players to move to clubs were they want to go while there club still gets compansated.

people thoughts? im open to critisisum and will take whatever comes my way is everyone think this is just stupid. was just a thought i just had

 

[1eye]

as soon as it looked like we were going to miss out on Ball and Fevola (both reported to have CHOSEN Collingwood) i was wondering to myself "if free agency was available they would be ours"

would i have been right? Or because Fev was in contract would we still have had to trade?

how would free agency work?

fwiw the AFL has put out a presser about free agency...

here it is:
THE AFL says the high level of trade week activity indicates there is less need for free agency.

The recently altered trading rules enable draft selections to be swapped without a player being involved, forced mediation when talks break down, and the ability to trade rookies.

AFL football operations manager Adrian Anderson said the changes had resulted in more beneficial interaction between clubs.

"I think the fact we've had 23 players find new homes and that we've relaxed the rules to enable more trades to happen more freely is a good thing," he said on Friday, after the official 2pm deadline.

"It means a club that loses a player is getting something in return, whereas free agency talked about not necessarily producing the same result."

He said the current regulations – that don't allow out-of-contract players to negotiate their next contract with rival clubs – are fair and reasonable.

"We think the draft and salary cap have served the competition really well, and are integral as to why we have an even competition and the competitive balance is as it is," he said.

"What we've seen this trade period is the vast majority of players wanting to move have been able to get to a club of their choice."

Anderson conceded St Kilda midfielder Luke Ball could be disappointed with the current rules, given he was denied a trade to his favoured club of Collingwood when the two parties failed to agree on terms.

But, he said the AFL was satisfied overall with how the trade period had panned out.

"I'm not across the details of why that particular trade didn't go ahead," he said. "The fact is, we've had 23 players this trade period find new homes via the trade mechanism."

source: http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/85938/default.aspx

So why do we have a PSD then??????????

At very least a limited free agency is required. Player x plays for x club for min x years therfore should qualify to entertain his choice of club.

 

[SnowCool]

ive posted this in a couple of places now. doesnt seem to be getting seen or just a dumb idea no one wishes to comment on but ill give it another go haha.

this is my idea of getting players to were they wanna go while club still get compensated.....somewhat.


everyone can call me a goose if this idea is just completely stupid but if the afl is so keen on players being able to move clubs and their club being compansated that why cant clubs (im asuming they cant cose ive never heard of it) but why cant they trade just PSD picks?
we could of traded wellingham and pick 30 to the kangaroos for pick 25 in the national draft. then offered that to melbounre for pick 1 in the pre season draft.
this all depends on wheather melb would accept. but we could of thrown in a late ND pick with the melb deal so they could get someone they were planning on getting in the PSD. i would think a club rebuilding would rather a top 30 ND pick, then a PSD pick.
pre season draft is always full of recycled hacks, delisted rookies or the players who didnt get drafted in the ND.
if this was able to happen we could of put that before the saints, forcing there hand to take pick 25 or else we get ball anyway.
this would make it alot easier for players to move to clubs were they want to go while there club still gets compansated.

people thoughts? im open to critisisum and will take whatever comes my way is everyone think this is just stupid. was just a thought i just had

The pre-season draft is more valuable than you think.
We have picked up Liam Jurrah, Stephan Martin and hopefully Luke Ball this year in the pre season draft. I don't think Melbourne would trade this pick to easy even if it was possible to do.

To all the other bitter collingwood supporters, your offer to St Kilda was not good enough and you know it, if you were in the saints position you would be livid giving up ball for a late second round pick. gotta give something to get something. Look at McLean, pick 11, yes we r*ped carlton with that trade but Ball is better than McClean and demands something in the top 15.

 

[macleodboy07]

The pre-season draft is more valuable than you think.
We have picked up Liam Jurrah, Stephan Martin and hopefully Luke Ball this year in the pre season draft. I don't think Melbourne would trade this pick to easy even if it was possible to do.

To all the other bitter collingwood supporters, your offer to St Kilda was not good enough and you know it, if you were in the saints position you would be livid giving up ball for a late second round pick. gotta give something to get something. Look at McLean, pick 11, yes we r*ped carlton with that trade but Ball is better than McClean and demands something in the top 15.

thats what im saying..... if we gave u pick 25 and another 4th or even 5th round pick you could use any of them to get ur Liam Jurrah or Stephan Martin then before they go into the national draft.
and then if what happened today happens balls just has to nominate for the ND only and collingwood would have pick 1 and ball gets to were he wants. which would have made st kilda take pick 25 up front and get something insted of nothing like the probly will now.

just for the record i knew we were not going to get ball when i heard we offered pick 25. it was never going to be enough but the fact is collingwood could not offer anything better. we are happy with the players st kilda wanted and were never going to part with them. they are more valuable to us then ball would be. although i thinkg we should have traded goldsack for ball if the saints were happy with that trade

 

[Alexander323bc]

Lets not get carried away. How many players do you think can Collingwood fit in under the salary cap? If J Brown, M Pavlich, L Hodge, M Scarlett, C Judd, D Cox all said we want to play for Collingwood do you think that we can fit them all in? Highly unlikely.
For argument sake lets say we do and then we need to pay all of the other players a lot less money to make sure we keep the "stars". Do you think they will hang around if it was a free agency?
Now lets say, West Coast has $2M in their salary cap and have to spend it to stay competitive. So they go out and make an offer for to D Cox of $200k more then what he is in at Collingwood. Do you think Cox will hang around?
We will have what the rest of the world knows as a competitive market.
Ball wants to move because they offered him a 50% pay cut in order to fit their stars under the cap. Frankly, at this point Ball owes StKilda nothing! If your boss came to you and said your taking a 50% pay cut next year, you will tell him to f off. There is someone else out there that has a greater use for your services.
This whole thing of needing to compensate the club propaganda is fn annoying and only people who just dont understand how to run a company under true economic conditions are for it. Unfortunately most clubs hire people who have absolutely no knowledge of how to run a business and put them in charge and thats when things such as what is happening at Carlton now happen.
Salary cap will control player movement. We dont need these Draconian rules as well.

Now to Little Hitler! What the F does this mean?

He said the current regulations – that don't allow out-of-contract players to negotiate their next contract with rival clubs – are fair and reasonable.

How is it fair on Ball who has been offered a 50% pay cut from his employer not to go to another club of his choosing who can meet his both financial needs and personal ambition? How is that Fair and Reasonable?
Was it fair when Pratt went and paid Swann an obscene amount of money to go from Collingwood to Carlton? What is the difference?

The longer AA and AD stay in power at the AFL the worse the game is going to be. There is a solution, its just that they are too fat and lazy to go out there and find the answer.

I swear a player will sue the AFL eventually if they dont get to go where they want to, even though they are essentially out of contract. A draft should never dictate where an employee ends up working, i think its a breach of basic national employment laws.

Dont quote me on this, but I believe that the way the contracts are structured, all players are effectively working for the AFL except that they all work for different divisions. And while all divisions are responsible for their own profit and loss, ultimately they are all part of the one collective "The Borg"