RFA - The new trade leverage

[Great8]

What the AFLPA want is for players to be able to choose where they go and have no restrictions on contract length/value, and for salaries and third party deals to not be made public.

Maybe a club that finishes top 8 should be made to cough up the compo rather than the AFL just giving a pick to the seller and it costing the buyer nothing.
Let’s say Butters chooses the Dogs. Port finish say 14th so Port get pick 5 plus compo pick 6 for him. Presently the Dogs get him for free but maybe the Dogs should have to give up 2 picks to equal pick 6 value so at least it means the Dogs get Butters but they lose most of this years capital so unable to enter the draft until third or fourth round

 

[Scotland]

Maybe a club that finishes top 8 should be made to cough up the compo rather than the AFL just giving a pick to the seller and it costing the buyer nothing.
Let’s say Butters chooses the Dogs. Port finish say 14th so Port get pick 5 plus compo pick 6 for him. Presently the Dogs get him for free but maybe the Dogs should have to give up 2 picks to equal pick 6 value so at least it means the Dogs get Butters but they lose most of this years capital so unable to enter the draft until third or fourth round

What happens if Butters decides to sign with Sydney or Gold Coast who already traded their 2026 firsts? If the onus is on the club signing the free agent to have trade assets then free agency may as well not exist.

The system is a mess because with the compo picks as they are the reward for losing a player when you are the bottom is too high and the compo on offer is capped at a pick tied to ladder position based on being a top 25% earner.

Let's say Oscar Allen got 6 x $900k which was enough to be band 1. He was always going to be at the lower end of band 1 because he's a pretty good player but he's not that good. So WC get band 1 and we suck so that's a top 5 pick. People are talking about $2m a year for Butters. He's not a top 25% earner, he's projecting to be the top earner at his club and would be top 5% in the comp. Even if Port suck this year and end up with a top 5 pick, it doesn't smell right that Butters contract sits in the same category as Allen, Battle, Frawley, Ben McKay etc.

When GC and GWS joined they signed uncontracted players. The highest level of compo was a first round pick tied to ladder position and a mid first round pick, and these were useable over a couple of years. Melbourne had pick 3 in 2012 so ended up with picks 4 and 14 for losing Tom Scully. Geelong got the same for Ablett Jr but obviously were a lot better at the time so any pick tied to ladder position wasn't that great. That felt like a fairer compensation for losing players of the calibre of Butters. Or TDK for that matter based on the size of the deal.

I never really bought into the 'Hawthorn don't deserve jack shit for losing Franklin because they won the flag' thing. He's still Buddy Franklin and the best they could do with the cap space was sign James Frawley a year later. If it was Franklin out when there's a pool of 20 or 30 good free agents sure that's a different discussion.

 

[FreeAgent1]

What happens if Butters decides to sign with Sydney or Gold Coast who already traded their 2026 firsts? If the onus is on the club signing the free agent to have trade assets then free agency may as well not exist.

The system is a mess because with the compo picks as they are the reward for losing a player when you are the bottom is too high and the compo on offer is capped at a pick tied to ladder position based on being a top 25% earner.

Let's say Oscar Allen got 6 x $900k which was enough to be band 1. He was always going to be at the lower end of band 1 because he's a pretty good player but he's not that good. So WC get band 1 and we suck so that's a top 5 pick. People are talking about $2m a year for Butters. He's not a top 25% earner, he's projecting to be the top earner at his club and would be top 5% in the comp. Even if Port suck this year and end up with a top 5 pick, it doesn't smell right that Butters contract sits in the same category as Allen, Battle, Frawley, Ben McKay etc.

When GC and GWS joined they signed uncontracted players. The highest level of compo was a first round pick tied to ladder position and a mid first round pick, and these were useable over a couple of years. Melbourne had pick 3 in 2012 so ended up with picks 4 and 14 for losing Tom Scully. Geelong got the same for Ablett Jr but obviously were a lot better at the time so any pick tied to ladder position wasn't that great. That felt like a fairer compensation for losing players of the calibre of Butters. Or TDK for that matter based on the size of the deal.

I never really bought into the 'Hawthorn don't deserve jack shit for losing Franklin because they won the flag' thing. He's still Buddy Franklin and the best they could do with the cap space was sign James Frawley a year later. If it was Franklin out when there's a pool of 20 or 30 good free agents sure that's a different discussion.

This is exactly my point. Teams down the bottom can threaten PSD. The teams getting these star free agency players never can realistically get them via PSD.

So if butters chose Gold Coast, it basically makes the club accept unders as the free agency compo or risk PSD…

I think there will be a club or two that risks PSD in coming years, matches and then tells the player to pick…as the deal they are matching are almost always long term…. Which loses them even more leverage it’s a high stakes game.

I suspect clubs will start either having to pay overs in trades and all good RFAs are matched or deals will be worked so no one is out of contract in RFA year and only go in FA year where it’s way better for them.

Expect if there is one PSD event the RFA will lose the R…

 

[Scotland]

IMO PSD threats are not realistic.

It's possible Port could match a bid for Butters and then he ends up at say Essendon or Richmond, but I don't see a scenario where he isn't traded, doesn't re-sign with Port and then is re-drafted by them.

What should happen for a player like Butters:

3 year first round pick rookie deal, then eligible for:

• 1 year rookie extension to achieve early RFA status
• 2 year extension elsewhere (capped at average player salary)
• 3 year extension with Port taking him to RFA (capped at average player salary + 50%)
• 5 year extension with Port taking him to UFA (uncapped)

Once a free agent can sign anywhere for as much as he wants for 4 years, Port can offer 5.

The whole purpose of the draft system is that Port chose Butters, not the other way around. His earnings should be maximised in his first 8 years by staying at Port, then after that he can do whatever he want and Port get 0 say in it. No compo no matching nothing.

The AFLPA will never agree to any of this, but it's absurd that we have scenarios like Tom Boyd and JHF where a player can play one season then demand a trade and end up getting paid a shitload the first year after their rookie deal ends.

 

[FreeAgent1]

IMO PSD threats are not realistic.

It's possible Port could match a bid for Butters and then he ends up at say Essendon or Richmond, but I don't see a scenario where he isn't traded, doesn't re-sign with Port and then is re-drafted by them.

What should happen for a player like Butters:

3 year first round pick rookie deal, then eligible for:

• 1 year rookie extension to achieve early RFA status
• 2 year extension elsewhere (capped at average player salary)
• 3 year extension with Port taking him to RFA (capped at average player salary + 50%)
• 5 year extension with Port taking him to UFA (uncapped)

Once a free agent can sign anywhere for as much as he wants for 4 years, Port can offer 5.

The whole purpose of the draft system is that Port chose Butters, not the other way around. His earnings should be maximised in his first 8 years by staying at Port, then after that he can do whatever he want and Port get 0 say in it. No compo no matching nothing.

The AFLPA will never agree to any of this, but it's absurd that we have scenarios like Tom Boyd and JHF where a player can play one season then demand a trade and end up getting paid a shitload the first year after their rookie deal ends.

Agree.

Just interested if he chooses cats then what happens…. Especially if port finish like 11th.

Usually there is a trade compromise that is fair enough to value….can’t see that in this case.

 

[Scotland]

Agree.

Just interested if he chooses cats then what happens…. Especially if port finish like 11th.

Usually there is a trade compromise that is fair enough to value….can’t see that in this case.

Swings and roundabouts.

Port had 0 complaints signing Steven Motlop, Scott Lycett or Tom Rockliff, or trading for JHF after one year and paying unders. They of course lost Pearce, Chaplin, Trengove etc. the other way.

The real kick in the nuts will be if the AFL follow through with compo changes and bidding changes at the exact moment they have a band 1 free agent and an academy prospect.

 

[Purple Suit]

Swings and roundabouts.

Port had 0 complaints signing Steven Motlop, Scott Lycett or Tom Rockliff, or trading for JHF after one year and paying unders. They of course lost Pearce, Chaplin, Trengove etc. the other way.

The real kick in the nuts will be if the AFL follow through with compo changes and bidding changes at the exact moment they have a band 1 free agent and an academy prospect.

Port aren't excepting compo for Butters unless they completely implode and finish last. I would have thought they can match anything unless he ends up with Richmond on a godfather deal. Any contender can't pay him more than Port.

 

[Scotland]

Port aren't excepting compo for Butters unless they completely implode and finish last. I would have thought they can match anything unless he ends up with Richmond on a godfather deal. Any contender can't pay him more than Port.

That is their prerogative. I've already seen some of their fans complaining that 3 firsts from a contender isn't enough for Butters. People don't live in reality. It's not the NBA and they're not getting 5 firsts and half the roster of another team. If you want to behave like Essendon then don't let your star players run out of contract to RFA.

 

[briztoon]

That is the American model, but the go home factor seems much more prevelent here than in the US for some reason.

Because players are traded without consent to where ever the current team can get the best deal.

Maybe because cities are smaller?

Because it's part of their sporting culture.

Because their sports are true national sports.

Kids grow up knowing if they "make it", they can be traded anywhere, any time. Also kids move cities and states while in high school, to put themselves in the best pathways to "make it". And they have the college system, where kids move cities and states before even getting to the League.

Lots of kids in other sports leave Australia before they finish school to chase a sporting dream. Soccer, basketball, F1, moto gp. It's a mindset thing. Most Vic kids don't even think about having to leave home when they "make it".

Not an even amount of travel? Steph Curry for example grew up in North Carolina and went to college there but has stayed entire career at Warriors instead of going back to Charlotte. Why the difference?

$$$ NBA contracts incentivize stars to stay a 1 team player, as they can earn 10's of millions extra staying a one team player.

 

[FreeAgent1]

That is their prerogative. I've already seen some of their fans complaining that 3 firsts from a contender isn't enough for Butters. People don't live in reality. It's not the NBA and they're not getting 5 firsts and half the roster of another team. If you want to behave like Essendon then don't let your star players run out of contract to RFA.

But “run out of contract to RFA” is kinda the point here.

I think Port can effectively say to his manager, pick any bottom 4 side, otherwise we are matching and he can risk PSD.

Two or three firsts in compromised drafts from top 4 teams is not great value…

If he still nominates dogs or cats this will be fireworks!!! Unless the trade out players to get some picks….

This is why I started this thread. I think after last trade period the tide has turned and player agents threatening to blackmail clubs is over. For top tier talent (like butters/warner etc) coming out as RFA, they will tell agent fo to bottom 4 team who has picks or risk PSD…. Btw the bottom 6 teams have a war chest…

Bottom line - clubs have the leverage in RFA.

 

[Pure_Ownage]

But “run out of contract to RFA” is kinda the point here.

I think Port can effectively say to his manager, pick any bottom 4 side, otherwise we are matching and he can risk PSD.

Two or three firsts in compromised drafts from top 4 teams is not great value…

If he still nominates dogs or cats this will be fireworks!!! Unless the trade out players to get some picks….

This is why I started this thread. I think after last trade period the tide has turned and player agents threatening to blackmail clubs is over. For top tier talent (like butters/warner etc) coming out as RFA, they will tell agent fo to bottom 4 team who has picks or risk PSD…. Btw the bottom 6 teams have a war chest…

Bottom line - clubs have the leverage in RFA.

A player like him is never going to pick a bottom club and he isnt going to sign at Port. We know how this will end. Port will get 3 1sts and a fringe player or two from a club like Geelong. Both clubs will say the deal wasn't to their liking but it will get done.

 

[Dtennent94]

What if clubs below could sign a player as an UFA, but clubs above would have to sign them under RFA conditions?

 

[FreeAgent1]

A player like him is never going to pick a bottom club and he isnt going to sign at Port. We know how this will end. Port will get 3 1sts and a fringe player or two from a club like Geelong. Both clubs will say the deal wasn't to their liking but it will get done.

I know a couple of player agents…..they are less confident that this will always happen now, because how weak a top4 clubs first picks are.

If they are offering pick 25, F23 and FF20 I mean I can see a club turning that down to try to force leverage.

Also if they turn down the compo of pick 7-8 they are too proud then to accept above.

 

[Pure_Ownage]

I know a couple of player agents…..they are less confident that this will always happen now, because how weak a top4 clubs first picks are.

If they are offering pick 25, F23 and FF20 I mean I can see a club turning that down to try to force leverage.

Also if they turn down the compo of pick 7-8 they are too proud then to accept above.

They are going to turn it down for what? The alternative is what when butters leaves-gets where he wants anyway and they get nothing-what list management team would survive that? The leverage is on paper. In the real world they don't have leverage.

 

[Tom14]

If he picks Geelong - that's the reason they will trade him to Geelong.

Cats got that deal done and Cameron was probably a bigger signature at the time than Butter is now.

Cats gave - 13, 15, 20 and F4
Cats got - Cameron, GWS F2, Ess F2.

Dangerfield and Dunkley were RFA and the clubs forced a trade.

Dunkley was not a RFA - had only been in comp for 7 years so was just uncontracted.

 

[FreeAgent1]

They are going to turn it down for what? The alternative is what when butters leaves-gets where he wants anyway and they get nothing-what list management team would survive that? The leverage is on paper. In the real world they don't have leverage.

He has a guaranteed RFA contract from Port on the table which is better than a dodgy gamble that he will get through the PSD via threats loaded $$$ and blackmail to a top 4 team….

 

[Pure_Ownage]

He has a guaranteed RFA contract from Port on the table which is better than a dodgy gamble that he will get through the PSD via threats loaded $$$ and blackmail to a top 4 team….

We have seen this before. Players through their behaviour and their managements behaviour get to the club they want to go to and other clubs take them. I dont agree with it (and frankly I think agents should be deregistered for it) but thats how it is.
Geelong or whoever will be reasonable so port will get 3 1sts but they wont get much more than that. And the idea that he will either sign back at Port if he doesnt want to or agree to pick a bottom team to get them better picks is utter fantasy. They dont have leverage.