Free agency

[Jack]

RL a larger fan base than AFL? What *smile*. How'd you come up with that? Add the population of NSW & QLD versus the rest of Australia? Real scientific :

Don't the Swans and Lions get much bigger crowds than RL crowds, usually getting pretty much full houses when they play? Crowds of 6-8000 seem normal in RL. 20000 is considered a big crowd in RL, in AFL a small crowd.

I would have thought our game craps on RL in terms of interest, crowds and tV ratings Aust wide.

 

[Willo]

It'll get moved to another thread but anyway. (In my defence Willo, I'm actually new and don't know where to post it)


Simple question. The Sydney Swans outdraw the Parramatta Eels.


Are the Swans a more popular club in Sydney than Parramatta?


Your claim that crowds are indicative of popularity, would surely lead you to agree this is the case, yes?

Fair enough mate. I'll try to point you (and Azza & others ;D) in the right direction.
Go to main index, then scroll down to "General" then "General Talk" heading. Then "NRL". There's plenty of people there that will talk NRL with you. Hope that helps.

 

[collector]

Answer the question.

Are the Swans more popular than Parramatta.


Yes/No

 

[Azza]

Answer the question.

Are the Swans more popular than Parramatta.


Yes/No

I already did, and you haven't quoted it for some reason.

Now, give me the FACTS you owned me with.

 

[Jack]

It's a hard one really.

I agree in that my initial reaction is this could be bad for us. Players of ours wanting to go and chase success ( Otto for example ) and therefore being easier for them to do it. Also it would be hard to attact players to our club ( currently )

But if, and it's a big if, we have recruited properly now and our rebuild under DH is successful, then we should be looking a more attractive propersistion in a few years. Maybe not in 2012, but certainly soon after that.

I think everyone here agrees that we see our club as a sleeping giant. If we could get it right and turn our club around, then I think we would be a very attractive club to play at.

You would sell to players that they would play at the G, big crowds, a young team on the rise, a traditional strong club in footballs heartland, our new facilities being probably the best in the league etc.

I think a lot of players want these things, and would rather play for a club like ours under those circumstances than play for GC or GWS that can't offer those things. They might be paid a bit more up north, but most players want more than just money.

So I think initially free agency might be bad for us, but then good for us in 4 or 5 years. But what we are doing now has to be right, and our building plan has to work. If we are still a bottom club in 5 years time, we might never turn it around.

Interesting reading guys. Spirited and passionate, bordering on a full on blew. But thats ok.

Someone posted Gales response. Seems we are taking the win/win response.

I thought it was interesting Gales comments about our new facilities etc and making Richmond an attractive club to play at for our current players and prospective new recruits.

I thought in a lot of ways he mirrored my initial thoughts.

I tend to think that free agency looks bad for us now, but will be good longer term. We are proably lucky in is not coming in until after the 2012 season. We have 3 years to get our act together. If we are building properly, we should be getting somewhere in 3 years time. We might then be one of the more attractive clubs for a player in many ways. Young team rising, the G, facilities etc etc.

Sure, not many players would want to play for us right now, but I believe and hope it will be a different picture at the end of 2012.

 

[collector]

Fair enough mate. I'll try to point you (and Azza & others ;D) in the right direction.
Go to main index, then scroll down to "General" then "General Talk" heading. Then "NRL". There's plenty of people there that will talk NRL with you. Hope that helps.

Is one of the mods able to move the offending posts ? I think it was rosy23 who fixed the geelong players thread after i took it off topic

I wont go on anymore until that happens to keep this thread clean of anymore ott debate.

Azza i didnt quote you as willows post wasnt there when i posted, yours was the most recent.

 

[Willo]

Is one of the mods able to move the offending posts ? I think it was rosy23 who fixed the geelong players thread after i took it off topic

I wont go on anymore until that happens to keep this thread clean of anymore ott debate.

Azza i didnt quote you as willows post wasnt there when i posted, yours was the most recent.

Alls good mate, they're not offending anyone (I think).
It just makes it a bit easier to navigate.
I'm guilty of that as much as anyone. ;D

 

[TigerMasochist]

Interesting reading guys. Spirited and passionate, bordering on a full on blew. But thats ok.

Someone posted Gales response. Seems we are taking the win/win response.

I thought it was interesting Gales comments about our new facilities etc and making Richmond an attractive club to play at for our current players and prospective new recruits.

I thought in a lot of ways he mirrored my initial thoughts.

I tend to think that free agency looks bad for us now, but will be good longer term. We are proably lucky in is not coming in until after the 2012 season. We have 3 years to get our act together. If we are building properly, we should be getting somewhere in 3 years time. We might then be one of the more attractive clubs for a player in many ways. Young team rising, the G, facilities etc etc.

Sure, not many players would want to play for us right now, but I believe and hope it will be a different picture at the end of 2012.

If our player development and game plans are working properly by the end of 2012 season and we are in position to seriously attack a finals window, then we should be perfectly positioned to steal a couple of very good to elite 26 / 27 year old players from the opposition clubs and push hard for grand finals.
I would expect that we have a very strong core of 23 / 27 year olds of our own by 2012.

 

[RedanTiger]

There seems to be an assumption or expectation that the AFL will tighten rules on third party deals with "associates" of a club to ensure the fairness of the Free Agency concept. Personally I believe that this is totally wrong.

If the problem with PLAYING contracts is that they constitute a restraint of trade, then these type of THIRD PARTY contracts being limited is an even more serious restraint. A playing contract for AFL is a fairly strictly controlled agreement within a very limited market controlled by a governing body who effectively "own" the market. Compare this to the cricket pre-Packer World Series Cricket. If you have control of a monopoly you can do virtually anything within that momopoly, including controlling the remuneration of all employees. If you can break the monopoly you change everything eg IPL cricket and their wages. This cannot really happen in AFL.

If you are talking about any other market, particularly advertising/promotion, the monopoly rules don't apply. It is very simple to compare Ricky Ponting selling vitamins to Ablett promoting real estate. The way in which cricketers are able to enhance their playing contract with third party contracts is a really glaring case for restraint of trade. You could easily make the case that real estate deals of the Casey type where players were given preferential advance options on shares or real estate is unfair but advertising opportunities.............

and let's not even open the can of worms about the AFL and club's use of players likenesses for commercial benefit. The existing Marketing Agreement in player contracts acknowledges this but Free Agency will put it back on the table big time. Will we also see a situation where AFL or club sponsors are protected and given cover from their commercial rivals using players in third party contracts. Think the boot apparrel debate on steriods.

If the AFL thinks the move to free agency will put the "top on a simmering pot" they are (again) sorely mistaken. This will open up so many other areas, but at least they will mostly affect the clubs and not the AFL.

 

[Baloo]

Understand what you're saying. Abblet I think has a fair case in that he is being used to gain market share. The Judd deal on the other hand just makes a mockery of it all. I mean, since when did a monopoly care about market share ?

 

[johnson2richo2003]

You have been owned in the debate, by FACTS, particularly on the membership and crowd issues, and have resorted to playing the man.

You've said something FACTUAL?

 

[Mr Pumblechook]

I've not followed this debate too closely, but a major concern for me is the role of player managers/agents.

They have been highly influential in this issue already, because they stand to make a lot of money out of it.

The more players move, the more money they stand to make. So they'll constantly be in 'their' player's ears about potential moves.

I note that Craig Kelly has already launched into Kennett for his comments.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/jeff-kennett-told-to-get-back-in-his-box-by-craig-kelly-over-free-agency-comments/story-e6frf9ix-1225834086078

 

[Motown]

I've not followed this debate too closely, but a major concern for me is the role of player managers/agents.

They have been highly influential in this issue already, because they stand to make a lot of money out of it.

How? They get a percentage of deals. The cap is still there, so the pie they divide amongst one another is the same with or without FA. Have I missed something?

 

[TOT70]

I've not followed this debate too closely, but a major concern for me is the role of player managers/agents.

They have been highly influential in this issue already, because they stand to make a lot of money out of it.

The more players move, the more money they stand to make. So they'll constantly be in 'their' player's ears about potential moves.

I note that Craig Kelly has already launched into Kennett for his comments.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/jeff-kennett-told-to-get-back-in-his-box-by-craig-kelly-over-free-agency-comments/story-e6frf9ix-1225834086078

Introducing two new teams is a major windfall for the managers, who can now take a percentage of an extra two salary caps, thank you very much.

These additional "genuine work payments" that players are getting from sponsors and "business men" who are friends of the club are an obvious source of additional income for them. They can't do much to grow the salary cap, all they can do is secure bigger chunk of it for their clients but, if they can get additional payments outside of the cap for their clients, that's all blue sky. Free agency will see those sorts of arrangements really take off.

Of course Craig Kelly would feel the need to attack any dissent.

 

[Motown]

These additional "genuine work payments" that players are getting from sponsors and "business men" who are friends of the club are an obvious source of additional income for them. They can't do much to grow the salary cap, all they can do is secure bigger chunk of it for their clients but, if they can get additional payments outside of the cap for their clients, that's all blue sky. Free agency will see those sorts of arrangements really take off.

Honest question - why exactly would FA exacerbate the situation?

 

[TOT70]

Honest question - why exactly would FA exacerbate the situation?

GC have free agency available to them now. If the internet chatter is to be believed they have used it to chuck money at Gary Ablett, money that Geelong haven't any hope in hell of matching. What can they do to build a fence around him? Get him money from somewhere else, what else can they do? The old '"stay with your mates and win another flag" won't cut it if an extra half a mill a year for four years is on the line.

Chris Judd wanted to leave WC a few years ago. Which club did he go to, the one that offered WC the best deal, or the one that offered him the best deal, including whatever additional payments that he now enjoys?. Free agency wasn't around then, but that deal was brokered as if it was. I would say the revelations this week of around 100 players who are on these sorts of deals is the legacy of that action. Those numbers would suggest that a fair proportion of of established AFL players who have renewed a contract since October, 07 have been given a bit of "sly money."

How can a leading club with 15-25 mature players that is contending for a Premiership build a fence around its team? Logically, when their players come out of contract, they will be fair game for the predators so the club has to sign them before they come out of contract to protect its investment. The managers will be in their players' ear to "test the market." Chucking a couple of extra Gs their way during contract negotiations will become an imprtant way of holding on to them and you are limited in what you can do under the salary cap.

I would suggest that anything that aids player movement will increase pressure on the salary cap and will encourage deals outside of it.

Remember, under current rules player movement is restricted because clubs don't really have any currency to exchange. If they want to extract a player of the quality of Judd or Ablett, they are talking about giving up two or three early draft picks. Hawthorn, for example, picked up Gibson and Burgoyne, but it cost them Williams, McGlynn and Kennedy and they didn't get a pick until pick 39 or whatever it was. A well-planned assault on free agents could see a more beneficial playyer exchange than that one AND the retention of first and second round draft picks, so there will be plenty of incentive to splash money around.

Building a fence around your potential free agents and extracting some from other clubs will become key to future success. The rich clubs, with significant business support, are going to be well-placed.

 

[collector]

You've said something FACTUAL?

My contributions were far greater than your personal attack on myself, which was your sole contribution to the debate.


I'm still waiting for you to detail what is wrong with the NRL system...

 

[collector]

I already did, and you haven't quoted it for some reason.

No, you spun and twisted in a desire to avoid answering the question, as you know one answer will be a lie, the other means I can instantly tear down your crowds being indicative of popularity argument.


Are the Sydney Swans more popular than the Parramatta Eels? Yes/No

 

[collector]

There seems to be an assumption or expectation that the AFL will tighten rules on third party deals with "associates" of a club to ensure the fairness of the Free Agency concept. Personally I believe that this is totally wrong.

Redan, I thought I read that the AFL were quoted as stating they would in future look much more closely at these types of deals, specifically highlighting the Judd/Visy sham in doing so.

 

[Azza]

No, you spun and twisted in a desire to avoid answering the question, as you know one answer will be a lie, the other means I can instantly tear down your crowds being indicative of popularity argument.


Are the Sydney Swans more popular than the Parramatta Eels? Yes/No

Please repeat the FACTS you owned me with.