Opinion Your Ideal Free Agency Model

[Hank Heavenly]

With a lot of bullshit talk around Free Agency, aimed at the process, aimed at the rules, aimed at the clubs and aimed at the players, I think it's important to look at what the ideal Free Agency model looks like. For mine, if it was really broken down and potentially invited a lot more player movement, it would actually break down some of these "godfather" type offers. Here's what I think it should look like and what implications that would have moving forward:

RULES
- Every Draftee gets existing 2 year contract HOWEVER the player must sign his second contract with the same club. The reason it is just not a 4 year contract upfront, so there is still room for players to be drafted, and if they don't work out, can be delisted after the initial 2 year contract. If delisted they become a DFA and can be signed by another club as per existing rules.

- Restricted Free Agency kicks in after the first 4 years of service. This gives some flexibility around kids with 'go home factor' and other personal type issues to be able to move but giving the clubs the ability to match and keep players as per today's rules

- Free Agency after 6 years of service. Basically meaning any 24 year old or over still at their original club has the right to move tot he club of their choice PERIOD.

- No Free Agency compensation. It's called FREE Agency for a reason... Not having compensation would drive different behaviours with clubs and the environment they create around list management. This can work in clubs favour, with clubs circling a player knowing they don't have the bargaining chip of the exiting club taking compo picks instead of trading.

REASONS
- If every club drafts on average 4 kids per draft, then anywhere between 12-16 kids on their list every year would be untouchable under new Free Agency Rules. Clubs have a better chance of keeping kids knowing they have them for the first 4 years of their contract. Create a culture an environment that makes them happy, then they shouldn't want to leave in the first place (I can't stress this enough, the question is never asked now as to why players want to leave their original club, rather we all whinge a player wants to leave).

- What it also means is, that instead of the average 40 players per year that qualify for FA or RFA (granted most of them aren't exactly trade targets for other clubs), that number could be as large as 500+ (granted that would only be if every player was out of contract). If half of that number was out of contract that is still 250+ players who qualify.

- With 250+ players qualifying it would do 2 things... 1) create greater competition and desire for mid range players who have been in the system for 4-8 years that under today's rules don't qualify for FA or RFA. Granted it may drive their price up a little, but that then leads to point 2) with more players 'on the market' and higher value for them, it wouldn't leave such a big gap at the top of clubs salary caps, and given there are more than a handful of targets, it would eliminate the 'godfather' offers, as clubs would have to stretch their cap across a greater number of players

- It would also allow teams to rebuild a lot quicker by having so many more players available to recruit. Carlton or Gold Coast for example, they could target say 10 new players around the 22-26 year age bracket to come to the club at once, on top to compliment the 16 draftees that are untouchable by the new rules. With no compensation, there would be no worry about number of players coming in and going out, it would purely come down to salary cap and list spots.

Obviously there would be more detail behind these principals, but it theory, more player movement actually creates an even playing field and eliminates players being over-valued. It gives clubs a chance to rebuild a lot faster and gives players the choice they have been asking for for years.

 

[tigs2010]

My ideal FA model is the one where we get Lynch for unders and have enough room to get next years top FA after a 3peat.

 

[JR82]

Only for delisted players. FA was never so the stars could leave bottom Clubs to boost the contenders.

 

[Dr Tigris]

FA by its nature means that player get to choose. So that means that players leave for the following reasons

1) Money - more of it
2) Success - all/most players want success and some add value to good teams. Look at it from the point of a top 4 team (i.e. likely be a challenger for the premiership). They already have a good well balanced team. they might need one or two positions covered for quality (i.e. Tigers and Pies want another KPF). And they will likely be paying near the salary cap. So they only want very good players that they can fit into the salary cap. Thus very good players that want success likely have to sacrifice $ for a shot at the title. Isn't that what FA is for? Players get to choose how they want their careers to progress (if they find a club that they want that wants them as well)
3) Personal issues - homesickness, interpersonal problems, can't stand the weather, don't trust the clubs medical people etc.

What is getting Robbo etc fired up right now is 2). Well sorry, if top players want to win a premiership they have to go to a team that is contending. And they are likely to go for relative unders. So the player possibly wins, and the team that gets them obtains value. Currently the team that loses them has a bit of a lottery (ask Hawks over Buddy).

Given that the whole point of FA is that players have freedom to structure their careers. Therefore, teams can acquire FAs outside of the trade/draft system for it to work.

What they are getting upset about is FA itself, not something unfair within how it works. Suck it up princess. This is how the system works. And it is also how people work - some want success more than extra $.

 

[TigerTime_89]

Whatever slobbo isn't supporting.

 

[Sterge]

I like the idea regarding the second contract but the AFLPA will never go for that

Make it 4 year base contract, but players can be traded against their will at any time it's Australia ffs Perth is 3 hours away stop being such babies, go home factor is a complete cop out

After the 4 years you are a free agent restricted if you current club has made an offer to you or unrestricted if there is no offer.

Would also look at something similar to the NFL where clubs can franchise tag 1 or 2 players in order to protect them from free agency and a rising star tag to protect a young kid with potential from FA but not have to pay him Franchise cash.

 

[King Jedd]

I like the idea regarding the second contract but the AFLPA will never go for that

Make it 4 year base contract, but players can be traded against their will at any time it's Australia ffs Perth is 3 hours away stop being such babies, go home factor is a complete cop out

After the 4 years you are a free agent restricted if you current club has made an offer to you or unrestricted if there is no offer.

Would also look at something similar to the NFL where clubs can franchise tag 1 or 2 players in order to protect them from free agency and a rising star tag to protect a young kid with potential from FA but not have to pay him Franchise cash.

I like these ideas. I think four years for first round picks and maybe three years for 2-4th though.

Franchise and rising star tag would be good, although mechanics on $$$ might be more difficult than in the NFL. It could be worked out though.

 

[pebblestone]

Of course we all know that what is actually going to happen is that due to whinging from one and all, the club gaining the FA will have to accept some sort of draft penalty and jump back positions based on a complicated algorithm that is indecipherable (and probably not public anyway). The club losing the player will then be given a compo pick as now, and also some sort of loading based on ladder position, years since last flag, accumulated debt, mabo type vibe and astrological/tarot readings.

So basically FA will become a convoluted league run trading again because the league is too pissweak to just accept that lots of people won't like it for a while and then they'll adjust to it and realise that we were being a bunch of babies all along.

 

[Livonski]

AFLPA drove this so players, after a period of time, could move at will, usually to chase success. Restraint of trade otherwise and strike action was contemplated. Robbo can whinge all he likes but this is what the players demanded.
As long as the club that is left gets compensated I don’t care.
Lose a great player, get a high draft pick. Works for me if the formula delivers sufficient compo.
I agree on a 4 year initial deal for draftees. Then recontract, trade or delist.

 

[Schlurp]

Of course we all know that what is actually going to happen is that due to whinging from one and all, the club gaining the FA will have to accept some sort of draft penalty and jump back positions based on a complicated algorithm that is indecipherable (and probably not public anyway). The club losing the player will then be given a compo pick as now, and also some sort of loading based on ladder position, years since last flag, accumulated debt, mabo type vibe and astrological/tarot readings.

So basically FA will become a convoluted league run trading again because the league is too pissweak to just accept that lots of people won't like it for a while and then they'll adjust to it and realise that we were being a bunch of babies all along.

Don't forget casting of the runes and examination of the entrails of sacrificed goats. Actually, this might get some traction if we include former delusional narcissistic AFL Presidents and random dyspeptic television presenters in the goat (smelly breath type) category.

 

[Infamy]

Not necessarily free agency, but I'd like to see the following brought in
- Next salary cap rise is linked with an increase of the base salary of $250-300k per year so it doesn't all go to the top players and helps allow trading without permission
- Force clubs to carry a full list of players to stop them from redirecting those funds to the top players
- Prior to becoming a free agent, a club can trade a player to any team without their permission (increased base salary to cover this)
- Lower the free agency age to 4 restricted, 6 unrestricted
- Reintroduce the veterans list so that after a player has 10 years at one club, only half their salary (or a significant discount) is counted towards the cap. So despite there being free agency to encourage player movement, there will be a large incentive if you stay with the same club which could help player retention

 

[Deanos]

I like the idea regarding the second contract but the AFLPA will never go for that

Make it 4 year base contract, but players can be traded against their will at any time it's Australia ffs Perth is 3 hours away stop being such babies, go home factor is a complete cop out

After the 4 years you are a free agent restricted if you current club has made an offer to you or unrestricted if there is no offer.

Would also look at something similar to the NFL where clubs can franchise tag 1 or 2 players in order to protect them from free agency and a rising star tag to protect a young kid with potential from FA but not have to pay him Franchise cash.

I'm torn, I like the idea of trading too much to bring free agency that far forward but those ideas have merit. Maybe make free agency 6 years, right inbetween the current system and yours. 24 is a good age for free agency.

 

[A Tiger 4 lyf]

why was free agency never intended for players to go to the top clubs over bottom clubs? Would beat the whole purpose of it imo

would be career suicide if lynch went to the blues over us & collingwood

 

[scarecrow2k1]

My model would be:
- No first round pick compensation. Second round pick if you lose a young gun
- RFA begins at 6 years
- FA begins at 8 years
- Free agency to recognise total service in AFL, not with club
- Remove ridiculous rule that you must test Free Agency as a restricted free agent to be unrestricted
- Remove stipulations around being in the top 25%of players- rules are the same for all wages
- Clubs can trade players without their consent.

 

[HTT]

I don’t mind the current system. 26 year olds leaving isn’t what anchors teams to the bottom anyway. Realistically they are likely to be 30ish before that team contends anyway. The issue is 20-23 year olds leaving, and they do that through trading anyway.
Could that be solved? Probably. Does free agency stop it? Not in any obvious manner.
If anything I’d want the compensation formula made more transparent, but that’s unrealistic.

 

[THE THIN MAN]

 

[fleabitten]

Sounds a lot like the NBA system (a good thing IMO). The main issue i have with making it easy for players to freely move to contenders on unders is when you get lots of guns all choosing to play together or a superstar joining a team that was a contender without him. You could end up with one game per round that is kind of entertaining in a circus-y kind of way, and the rest of the week is low standard and meaningless because we all know who is winning the flag.