Oppo Camp Non-Essendon Football Thread XIV

[sameolds33]

No it wasn't. The draft was for that. FA was totally for players to move where they wanted to after a period of time in the league.

No, the AFL would never have agreed to FA "totally for players to move where they wanted". It had to benefit the competition before they would have signed off on it. Of course it was partly born out of GWS taking the cream of the crop for the foundation players which in itself created an imbalance but there's now been a series of raids on GWS by Victorian clubs which seriously compromises their ability to keep their players.

 

[sameolds33]

That article has nothing to do with the post you quoted.

Yes it does -
AFL commentators have questioned whether the free agency system is working as intended after another star player nominated a premiership contender as his preferred new home.
Jeremy Cameron

5

Jeremy Cameron

Age

31

Ht

196cm

Wt

94kg

Pos.

Fwd

Career

Season

Last 5

D

12.5

3star

K

9.0

3star

HB

3.4

3star

M

5.4

5star

T

1.6

4star

G

2.6

5star

D

10.0

3star

K

7.1

3star

HB

2.9

2star

M

4.6

4star

T

2.0

3star

G

1.9

5star

D

8.2

2star

K

5.0

2star

HB

3.2

3star

M

4.6

5star

T

2.4

4star

G

2.0

5star

’s decision to request a move from GWS to Geelong, just days before the latter plays in a Grand Final, is another mark against the idea of free agency as an equalisation tool.

 

[boncer34]

Yes it does -
AFL commentators have questioned whether the free agency system is working as intended after another star player nominated a premiership contender as his preferred new home.
Jeremy Cameron

5

Jeremy Cameron

Age

31

Ht

196cm

Wt

94kg

Pos.

Fwd

Career

Season

Last 5

D

12.5

3star

K

9.0

3star

HB

3.4

3star

M

5.4

5star

T

1.6

4star

G

2.6

5star

D

10.0

3star

K

7.1

3star

HB

2.9

2star

M

4.6

4star

T

2.0

3star

G

1.9

5star

D

8.2

2star

K

5.0

2star

HB

3.2

3star

M

4.6

5star

T

2.4

4star

G

2.0

5star

’s decision to request a move from GWS to Geelong, just days before the latter plays in a Grand Final, is another mark against the idea of free agency as an equalisation tool.

So you believe it coz AFL commentators thought so?

 

[sameolds33]

So you believe it coz AFL commentators thought so?

No, I think that top players moving to top clubs make for an unequal competition. Because I have eyes and can read and watch sport.

 

[boncer34]

No, I think that top players moving to top clubs make for an unequal competition. Because I have eyes and can read and watch sport.

I never said it didn't.

I'm wondering why anyone thinks it was ever going to do anything else. Why do people think it was intended to balance the competition?

 

[sameolds33]

I never said it didn't.

I'm wondering why anyone thinks it was ever going to do anything else. Why do people think it was intended to balance the competition?

I think it was because there had previously been such a strong culture of being "one club players" prior to FA and people thought that club loyalty would mean that the best players would be loyal to the clubs paying them the biggest share of their caps . Then list managers realised that a lateral signing could short circuit the 5 year rebuild and the culture of "destination club" was born. With of course the clubs at the top being the destination clubs. Money and success will always trump loyalty, especially for new clubs like the Suns and GWS.

 

[boncer34]

I think it was because there had previously been such a strong culture of being "one club players" prior to FA and people thought that club loyalty would mean that the best players would be loyal to the clubs paying them the biggest share of their caps . Then list managers realised that a lateral signing could short circuit the 5 year rebuild and the culture of "destination club" was born. With of course the clubs at the top being the destination clubs. Money and success will always trump loyalty, especially for new clubs like the Suns and GWS.

Which is why nobody should have ever thought free agency would do anything else. The minimum floor cap eliminates the possibility of a club throwing stupid money at players, though North have tried.

Having said that which FA really held clubs up the top? Danger? Geelong traded him. Lynch? Richmond are bloody good without him. Franklin? They didn't win a flag.

Cameron and Daniher? We don't know how they'll go.

 

[Phone]

again, if you're not happy about the current equalization tools, free agency is well behind the draft and the salary cap in the problems.

One of the key free agency problems is how few players actually use it.

 

[Phone]

I think it was because there had previously been such a strong culture of being "one club players" prior to FA and people thought that club loyalty would mean that the best players would be loyal to the clubs paying them the biggest share of their caps . Then list managers realised that a lateral signing could short circuit the 5 year rebuild and the culture of "destination club" was born. With of course the clubs at the top being the destination clubs. Money and success will always trump loyalty, especially for new clubs like the Suns and GWS.

I went though this before, but this is a complete bullshit point btw. there was no culture of that. there was a culture of players being stuck at the team that drafted them, and teams being stuck with who they drafted

 

[sameolds33]

Which is why nobody should have ever thought free agency would do anything else. The minimum floor cap eliminates the possibility of a club throwing stupid money at players, though North have tried.

Having said that which FA really held clubs up the top? Danger? Geelong traded him. Lynch? Richmond are bloody good without him. Franklin? They didn't win a flag.

Cameron and Daniher? We don't know how they'll go.

You keep talking about the performances of the top players and the top clubs. Development of a strong competition relies on top players being drafted and retained by the other 14 clubs. Back in the olden days the zoned system meant that clubs got an even spread of talent. With the draft the talent is pooled. Bottom teams get the best picks but only one or two and only for 4 years before FA kicks in. What's the point of a GCS or GWS developing top talent if they're going to move to another destination club once they've been developed? No benefit to the competition at all. And, unsatisfying for fans too, to see their best players move from club to club - after all there's an expectation that fans stay loyal to the their team's colours.

 

[sameolds33]

I went though this before, but this is a complete bullshit point btw. there was no culture of that. there was a culture of players being stuck at the team that drafted them, and teams being stuck with who they drafted

Disagree. Players who weren't wanted by their clubs were always moved on. Players who wanted to move could challenge their contracts under restraint of trade laws. Club loyalty was a thing for both players and fans (and administrators, for that matter). http://www.footyindustry.com/?page_id=274

 

[boncer34]

You keep talking about the performances of the top players and the top clubs. Development of a strong competition relies on top players being drafted and retained by the other 14 clubs. Back in the olden days the zoned system meant that clubs got an even spread of talent. With the draft the talent is pooled. Bottom teams get the best picks but only one or two and only for 4 years before FA kicks in. What's the point of a GCS or GWS developing top talent if they're going to move to another destination club once they've been developed? No benefit to the competition at all. And, unsatisfying for fans too, to see their best players move from club to club - after all there's an expectation that fans stay loyal to the their team's colours.

Well yeah because isn't the "problem" with free agency being discussed that players are moving to the top teams keeping the top teams at the top?

If your issue is players aren't loyal as a whole I've got zero time for that argument because clubs aren't loyal to players. Expecting the reverse is silly.

 

[sameolds33]

Well yeah because isn't the "problem" with free agency being discussed that players are moving to the top teams keeping the top teams at the top?

If your issue is players aren't loyal as a whole I've got zero time for that argument because clubs aren't loyal to players. Expecting the reverse is silly.

My issue is having a strong competition.

 

[ant555]

No, the AFL would never have agreed to FA "totally for players to move where they wanted". It had to benefit the competition before they would have signed off on it. Of course it was partly born out of GWS taking the cream of the crop for the foundation players which in itself created an imbalance but there's now been a series of raids on GWS by Victorian clubs which seriously compromises their ability to keep their players.

Well we see it differently then. The players association had been pushing for FA well before GWS was even thought of.

 

[ant555]

You keep talking about the performances of the top players and the top clubs. Development of a strong competition relies on top players being drafted and retained by the other 14 clubs. Back in the olden days the zoned system meant that clubs got an even spread of talent. With the draft the talent is pooled. Bottom teams get the best picks but only one or two and only for 4 years before FA kicks in. What's the point of a GCS or GWS developing top talent if they're going to move to another destination club once they've been developed? No benefit to the competition at all. And, unsatisfying for fans too, to see their best players move from club to club - after all there's an expectation that fans stay loyal to the their team's colours.

The clubs wanted out of the zone system as it was too unbalanced .

 

[ant555]

If only they could trade their coach for someone who actually knows what they’re doing.

Ross Lyon would be a good get for them.

I do not think it is the coach. The issue has been too many top end picks which sounds odd but they keep drafting kids from the top end that are used to being the number 1 players as juniors. There are limited good ordinary players to get in and do the team stuff.
I think injury has hurt them as well. Premiership sides do not have the injury list the Giants have had. GWS have also been raided every year.
Personally I think they have done reasonably to do what they have done to date. They may have only made it to one GF in that time but no other Premiership club has gone through what they have.

 

[sameolds33]

Well we see it differently then. The players association had been pushing for FA well before GWS was even thought of.

Agree that there was player movement between clubs before GWS but my point is that the sheer talent of GWS' foundation list was instrumental in list managers looking for lateral top talent rather than the traditional 5 year rebuild.

 

[sameolds33]

The clubs wanted out of the zone system as it was too unbalanced .

Yes, the zoned system had its drawbacks too. But what has developed out of the draft/FA combination is a worse imbalance between destination teams and the rest.

 

[ant555]

Agree that there was player movement between clubs before GWS but my point is that the sheer talent of GWS' foundation list was instrumental in list managers looking for lateral top talent rather than the traditional 5 year rebuild.

Yes but it was still driven by the AFLPA and before GWS it was the players wanting some sort of FA for unrestricted movement.
The clubs certainly did not want RFA which is the biggest problem child.

 

[boncer34]

My issue is having a strong competition.

As I showed above the gap between the top and bottom isn't any further apart than previous years.

 

[ant555]

Yes, the zoned system had its drawbacks too. But what has developed out of the draft/FA combination is a worse imbalance between destination teams and the rest.

I do not agree. There is a massive spread of clubs where players get to for various reasons and it goes both ways. Geelong and Hawthorn may have both done well but they also lost super stars to other clubs while they where at the top of the ladder.
Carlton are now attracting players. St.Kilda are attracting players. Melbourne have been attracting players. Brisbane got Neale in when they where a bottom club. Bulldogs have had players through the door and even North have attracted players to join them.
In Hawthorns case it has burnt them in the end as they went to the recycled player well too often.

You also have to remember that the zone system operated most of its life along side the player transfer system where the rich raided the rest of the country.

FA has not skewed anything. Richmond , Bulldogs and Brisbane have proven it has not in recent times. All three where basket cases at some stage in recent history yet two have won flags and the other has picked itself up off the floor in 4 years.

 

[Phone]

Disagree. Players who weren't wanted by their clubs were always moved on. Players who wanted to move could challenge their contracts under restraint of trade laws. Club loyalty was a thing for both players and fans (and administrators, for that matter). http://www.footyindustry.com/?page_id=274

....so restraint of trade was the only thing keeping 'loyalty'?

We know from history that players will move jobs if no barriers are put in place. we saw that with the 10 year rule in the 70s. Using the brownlow medal as an example, between 1980 and 1994, every brownlow medalist (17 of them) bar 6 played for multiple clubs, and one was John Platten (career in the SANFL) and one was Jim Stynes. and between 1995 and 2007, only 5 brownlow medalists out of the 14 played for multiple clubs. and of those 5, Counsins and Akermanis weren't welcome back, Buckley left after his first year and Judd was involved in the biggest trade of this dead period of player movement.

what changed? the draft became the only real way of recruiting star players. the pre season draft, in place to combat restraint of trade, was bascially for discards, not for stars. trades were hard to accomplish. and a star player faced the lottery of the PSD if a trade failed and they still refused to go back to their club. And once player movement freed up? players and teams started making moves.

loyalty was forced upon players and clubs. it's a good thing it's gone. now, for the people with weird loyalty fetishes, you can actually have players truly show their loyalty!

 

[11kgm]

Matt Steven helps Richmond a lot

 

[sameolds33]

As I showed above the gap between the top and bottom isn't any further apart than previous years.

But the aim was equalisation. I think moving forward it's going to be even harder for non-destination clubs to move up the table if top players continue to nominate top clubs. The average AFL career is 5 years. Top draft picks will go to the bottom teams and likely move after 4 years. As an investment, there's not much incentive for clubs to develop these players before they are picked off by the more successful clubs.

 

[sameolds33]

....so restraint of trade was the only thing keeping 'loyalty'?

We know from history that players will move jobs if no barriers are put in place. we saw that with the 10 year rule in the 70s. Using the brownlow medal as an example, between 1980 and 1994, every brownlow medalist (17 of them) bar 6 played for multiple clubs, and one was John Platten (career in the SANFL) and one was Jim Stynes. and between 1995 and 2007, only 5 brownlow medalists out of the 14 played for multiple clubs. and of those 5, Counsins and Akermanis weren't welcome back, Buckley left after his first year and Judd was involved in the biggest trade of this dead period of player movement.

what changed? the draft became the only real way of recruiting star players. the pre season draft, in place to combat restraint of trade, was bascially for discards, not for stars. trades were hard to accomplish. and a star player faced the lottery of the PSD if a trade failed and they still refused to go back to their club. And once player movement freed up? players and teams started making moves.

loyalty was forced upon players and clubs. it's a good thing it's gone. now, for the people with weird loyalty fetishes, you can actually have players truly show their loyalty!

No, restraint of trade allowed players who wanted to move to move before FA. In my opinion, team sport without loyalty is less interesting. There's less emotional investment. We're just cheering for clothes, as Seinfeld said: