"Transfer Fees" in the AFL: Would it work?

[Freomaniac]

I just had this thought just the other day.

1st off Im a massive fan of soccer/Football/round ball game/world game.

In the EPL you have the top teams like Manchester United, Chelsea, Manchester city, Liverpool, Arsenal etc. Then you have the mid teams like west ham, wigan etc.

Some midtable EPL and lower division English teams make ends meet by selling their best players to bigger clubs. Some of these players are sold at least with one, even 2 years left on their contract. Once the player contract runs out, they can become free agents under the "Bosman" ruling. They can go to any club they want that has interest in them.

Now go back in the Mid 1980s, the VFL was nearly bankrupt because they paid high transfer fees to poach good players from the SANFL and WAFL. This year it is 2013 and the AFL in under a significantly better financial shape.

I saw on another thread on this Forum that When AFL player gets drafted from a VFL/WAFL/SANFL club, that club is paid $20,000 in transfer fees and get paid another $20,000 if they play a certain amount of games.

This is the start of the Free Agency era in the AFL and there are Fears that the Wealthier and top clubs are going to poach players from the Financially struggling clubs. The AFL is also trying to Make the League as competitive and even as possible.

Im going to mention an Example... Freo who are a very Profitable club recruited Danyle Pearce from Port Adelaide, who lost a few million last season. Danyle Pearce is I think on $500,000 a year. My point is this... Should Freo have paid compensated Port Financially to help Port Adelaide's financial problems? Such Like paying $500,000 to Port Adelaide to help them? Im not trying to Troll or offend Port Adelaide, I am just mentioning them as an example.

Would that help try and bridge the gap between the rich and Poor clubs? Would this be one Idea to bridge the gap in Football departments as well?

 

[mojito]

I've always thought that if you have the transfer fees in a code like Aussie Rules, it just reinforces the divide between rich/poor?

The mechanics of such a system, while interesting, probably wouldn't work in the short-medium term.

How would you determine how much a player is "worth"? In one instance, it may be acceptable to pay out a contract (as per your Pearce example) to it's exact value, however, what if clubs demand over the odds for bit-part players, just to squeeze out that extra dollar in transfer income?

 

[Freomaniac]

I've always thought that if you have the transfer fees in a code like Aussie Rules, it just reinforces the divide between rich/poor?

The mechanics of such a system, while interesting, probably wouldn't work in the short-medium term.

How would you determine how much a player is "worth"? In one instance, it may be acceptable to pay out a contract (as per your Pearce example) to it's exact value, however, what if clubs demand over the odds for bit-part players, just to squeeze out that extra dollar in transfer income?

Thats the thing Also you need to think that go back to the 1950s and 60s, Melbourne were one of the most dominating teams in any era. Between 1964 and 1988, they struggled to lure many good players.

Port Adelaide were a Powerhouse from 2001-2005 and they Lured guys like Hardwick and Pickett, Then in 2008-2011, they struggled to lure many good players, Shaun Burgoyne left to Hawthorn and the Hawks offered a lot to Port (picks 9 and 16).

Danyle Pearce was Probrably on $300,000-$350,000 a year in his final season at Port. Then hes on $500,000 a year at Freo. Should Freo given Port $300,000 a year based on the amount he was on at his previous club or $500,000 a year which is the amount he is on now?

 

[Shupe]

I don't believe transfer fees will work in the AFL system.

Also, do you know how and when to use capital letters properly? I couldn't help but notice you randomly capitalise random words in the middle of your sentences.

 

[Silent Alarm]

This is essentially what lead to the creation of the AFL, but the death of the SANFL and WAFL.

Clubs in Victoria, through a bigger economy, were able to offer Perth clubs money for their players.

Though you won't have a new league established or teams relegated to irrelevance, you will have a massive gulf between poor and rich.

Your example of Freo giving Port what they're going to pay wage wise would be as fair as you got, but there's still a skewering towards wealthy clubs. Some sides could consistently be able to pay $1 million a year for a player ($500,000 in transfers, the other 500k in heroin wages). Could North really afford that? Could the Bullies?

Clubs already offer certain advantages over others which is divisive enough. Transfers will see every interstate club, Collingwood and Carlton dominate every year.

 

[Freomaniac]

I don't believe transfer fees will work in the AFL system.

Also, do you know how and when to use capital letters properly? I couldn't help but notice you randomly capitalise random words in the middle of your sentences.

yeah I got bagged out before on the Port board for that... It was a long post though.

 

[The_Reaper]

This is essentially what lead to the creation of the AFL, but the death of the SANFL and WAFL.

Clubs in Victoria, through a bigger economy, were able to offer Perth clubs money for their players.

Though you won't have a new league established or teams relegated to irrelevance, you will have a massive gulf between poor and rich.

Your example of Freo giving Port what they're going to pay wage wise would be as fair as you got, but there's still a skewering towards wealthy clubs. Some sides could consistently be able to pay $1 million a year for a player ($500,000 in transfers, the other 500k in heroin wages). Could North really afford that? Could the Bullies?

Clubs already offer certain advantages over others which is divisive enough. Transfers will see every interstate club, Collingwood and Carlton dominate every year.

And the clubs in Victoria spent themselves into near bankruptcy- forcing the need for interstate bailouts in the form of licenses.

 

[Freomaniac]

And the clubs in Victoria spent themselves into near bankruptcy- forcing the need for interstate bailouts in the form of licenses.

Keep in mind that was 1986. This year is 2013 and AFLs TV rights contract is worth 1.25 billion over a 5 year period.

 

[Mr_McBoogerBalls]

I'm a big fan of Football (soccer) too, but I think what makes our game in Australia so special is that players have historically always been one club players throughout their careers. If clubs could splash the cash, the rich teams would always be the best and the mid to low tier teams would lose their star players (some argue that free agency is a big enough issue, but that's a different topic).

 

[The_Reaper]

Keep in mind that was 1986. This year is 2013 and AFLs TV rights contract is worth 1.25 billion over a 5 year period.

And?
That just means the transfer fee amounts would be higher.

 

[The_Wookie]

transfer fees were abolished in the 80s for the most part. Cant see clubs agreeing to go back to it.

 

[Shoei]

I just had this thought just the other day.

1st off Im a massive fan of soccer/Football/round ball game/world game.

In the EPL you have the top teams like Manchester United, Chelsea, Manchester city, Liverpool, Arsenal etc. Then you have the mid teams like west ham, wigan etc.

Some midtable EPL and lower division English teams make ends meet by selling their best players to bigger clubs. Some of these players are sold at least with one, even 2 years left on their contract. Once the player contract runs out, they can become free agents under the "Bosman" ruling. They can go to any club they want that has interest in them.

Now go back in the Mid 1980s, the VFL was nearly bankrupt because they paid high transfer fees to poach good players from the SANFL and WAFL. This year it is 2013 and the AFL in under a significantly better financial shape.

I saw on another thread on this Forum that When AFL player gets drafted from a VFL/WAFL/SANFL club, that club is paid $20,000 in transfer fees and get paid another $20,000 if they play a certain amount of games.

This is the start of the Free Agency era in the AFL and there are Fears that the Wealthier and top clubs are going to poach players from the Financially struggling clubs. The AFL is also trying to Make the League as competitive and even as possible.

Im going to mention an Example... Freo who are a very Profitable club recruited Danyle Pearce from Port Adelaide, who lost a few million last season. Danyle Pearce is I think on $500,000 a year. My point is this... Should Freo have paid compensated Port Financially to help Port Adelaide's financial problems? Such Like paying $500,000 to Port Adelaide to help them? Im not trying to Troll or offend Port Adelaide, I am just mentioning them as an example.

Would that help try and bridge the gap between the rich and Poor clubs? Would this be one Idea to bridge the gap in Football departments as well?

You are confusing the term "Free". When you pay for something it is not free.

What you are advocating is a compensation system similarly to what was imposed in Europe before the "Bosman" ruling on free agents.

Under your proposed system, why would Fremantle want to pay Pearce $500,000 a year and then an additional $500,000 for the privilege to do so?

If anything, it was cripple smaller clubs. Lets use an example.

Lets say player X (A free Agent) wanted to move from GC to a club that was really financially in trouble but had a lot of salary cap space. They offer player X 2 million a year but then are forced to pay the same about back to the club he came from. What would be the point? Sell the farm to buy the cow.

European Football is a terrible thing to base any ideas off. You are essentially comparing a free market in terms of players to a completely restricted market in the AFL (Cannot get players except through a pre-determined draft).

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Transfer fees and a league with a salary cap + draft, don't work together. I can't think of any major one world wide that combines the two

The reason why soccer has transfer fees is because its basically a free market. If the EPL put a salary cap on, then the best players would just move to Spain, Germany, France or Italy. EU Law also doesn't allow for a salary cap according to Dr Geoff Pearson from Liverpool University Business School who I had some correspondence with back in January 2007. He wrote to me and said

In my opion a salary cap in football would be illegal as it would fall foul of either Article 81 or Art 82 of the EU Treaty - anti-competitive practices. If clubs got together and agreed on a salary cap they would be acting as an illegal cartel.

Transfer fees are basically compensation in a game where free market movements are allowed once a contract is completed. Leagues with drafts have compensation via draft compo picks, not $$$.

Smaller European soccer clubs survive by selling players as they know they can't pay their players market value if they are any good. The WAFL clubs of the late 1970's and early 1980's were surviving by selling players to VFL clubs and getting up to a max of $60,000 transfer fees. Then the VFL got the smaller leagues to vote with them in 1986 and the ANFC changed the transfer fee maximum to be reduced to $22,500 in 1986. ( see Endangered Species article). 7 of the 8 WAFL clubs were insolvent and surviving on transfer fees in the early 1980's. This is why the WA government set up the Mitchell Inquiry in the early 1980's, which lead to the WAFC being formed in 1984 and the WAFC agreeing in October 1986 to put a team in the VFL.

The AFL industry is currently compensating the junior club who develops the players not another AFL club.

 

[SayWhatAgain]

The competition would be too lob-sided, so no for me.

 

[doona]

One way it could work. Is with Restricted Free agents (Not Free Agents) so we can scrape the draft pick compensation idea. It is ridiculous that clubs not involved can get a lower draft pick.

With Restricted free agents:
- The club with the player lodge the contract, the initially offer to the player. (that the player rejects and decides to test free agency). This contract price is made public to all teams.
- A club can then bid for a player like normal, the player accepts another teams offer.
- The original club then can choose to match the offer (like the current implementation). If they dont, the team with the winning bid is required to pay the club the difference between, the price per season of the initial contract and the offered, winning contract. The fee is included towards the salary cap over the contract period.

eg for example from last year:
- St.k offer Player X 500K a season for 4 years
- Essendon offer Player X 700K a season for 4 years
- St. Kilda decide not to match. Essendon are required to pay st. kilda 200K transfer fee. Essendon have their salary cap reduced by 50K per season as it is a 4 year contract.

I dont think this would effect the competition as the club loosing the player still has to pay 95% of their salary cap. So no one would want to loose a gun player for not much money in the grand scheme of things.