Free agency

[smasha]

The only way we can beat this thing is by becoming stronger off field.

Even if the AFL umps screw us sideways,keep buying memberships.

Stand up in the face of adversity.

Never let in to these chumps.

We are the greatest club and lets make it that way.

It's in our hands!

 

[Motown]

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.

What's a couple of extra Gs? $10k or $100k under the table? I'm not sure $10k is enough to influence a player one way or another, or that $100k is that easy to hide in order to avoid a Carltonesque b!tch-slap from the AFL. It's the context in which the money is earnt that's important. If the player has to legitimately earn that money at a reasonable market rate then, IMO, there should be no problem. If every milk bar in Geelong pays $1k to Gaz to have him stand in front signing autographs for the morning, I have no problem. If a development group pays him $200k to use his likeness in their promotional campaigns, I have no problem if that's reasonable market value (ie same as Ponting or Kewell would get). If any of it is contractually tying him to Geelong FC, then there's a problem. If those opportunities disappear if he moves away, that's a completely different matter as, obviously, Gary Ablett Inc will have access to opportunities in his new area.

I know some of it will smell, but really, what's the alternative? No players can have any external commercial relations with any business associated with any AFL club (Toyota, Ford, SGIO, HSBC, Tasmania etc)?

Given the choice of legally-suspect prohibition and management with respect to these arrangements, I say the AFL's made the right choice with management.
Given the choice of the current legally-suspect, failing transfer mechanisms and adding restricted FA again, I say the AFL's made the right choice.

Concerns about what may happen in the future shouldn't trump change to what, IMO, is a deeply flawed system, particularly seeing the issue's already been identified for investigation.

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.

I'd argue that managing one's affairs such that players will want to stay and others join will be far, far more important.

For context, according to the numbers bandied about in the media, such deals represent about $2M dollars spread over 114 players. That's about 1.5% of TPP (2 / (16 * 8M)), isn't it? $17.5k per player simple average or about $14k if Judd and Ablett have $200k each. Is that reason enough to prevent a player unhappy at a club moving to the club of his choice when out of contract, after 8 years of service?

If the numbers get to 5 or 10%, then maybe there's a cause for concern. As it is now, for me this is all jumping at shadows.

 

[Azza]

If any of it is contractually tying him to Geelong FC, then there's a problem. If those opportunities disappear if he moves away, that's a completely different matter as, obviously, Gary Ablett Inc will have access to opportunities in his new area.

Not sure what you're saying here, Motown.

 

[Motown]

Not sure what you're saying here, Motown.

Yes, it's badly put.

Using my example above, hypothetically he loses those Geelong milk bars and development company by shifting club but gains Gold Coast pizza shops and theme parks. Gary Ablett Inc will not be lacking for opportunities and "forced" to stay in Geelong as it's the best for him financially off the field.

 

[Azza]

Yes, it's badly put.

Using my example above, hypothetically he loses those Geelong milk bars and development company by shifting club but gains Gold Coast pizza shops and theme parks. Gary Ablett Inc will not be lacking for opportunities and "forced" to stay in Geelong as it's the best for him financially off the field.

Ah, I see. Thanks.

So you don't mind any external payment as long as it doesn't have a contractual link with the club? It seems to me that avoiding the contractual link would be easy enough to do, while still in effect having payments linked to the club. This could lead to payments limited only by the number of milkbars prepared to fork-out the 1k. Ultimately, the salary cap is undermined.

How do you see the cap being sustained (if at all)? Not having a crack here - it's a bloody tricky issue.

 

[Motown]

It seems to me that avoiding the contractual link would be easy enough to do, while still in effect having payments linked to the club. This could lead to payments limited only by the number of milkbars prepared to fork-out the 1k. Ultimately, the salary cap is undermined.

That's just it, though. That line of thinking can only be appeased by dictating that no player can make any commercial relationships with anyone which will never fly, nor should it. One can argue for arm's-length arrangements (ie non sponsors etc), but wouldn't a deal with Ford carry an implication that a player may favour a move to Geelong? Same for Toyota and Adelaide? Besides, seeking a synergistic relationship with a sponsor is entirely sensible for both parties. Buddy spruiking for Luxbet makes no sense compared to Cousins in that role.

How do you see the cap being sustained (if at all)? Not having a crack here - it's a bloody tricky issue.

It is. Whatever solution there is will surely not restrain players' earning capacities, though. That'll never fly.

As I've said, at <5% of the total money in play it's well within the bounds of a manageable problem.

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

This could lead to payments limited only by the number of milkbars prepared to fork-out the 1k.

According to Motown's argument, it is also limited by GAblett's availablity and ability to perform some service for those milk bars. This is payment for service, not a Save GAblett campaign.

Interesting discussion this one.

 

[Azza]

As I've said, at <5% of the total money in play it's well within the bounds of a manageable problem.

But how is it limited at <5%? I reckon the AFL will be hard pressed to keep things as they are now the inflated prices from the new teams are putting pressure on.

 

[Ridley]

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?

Yes you have missed something. Although the pie remains the same size, notwithstanding the extra two clubs, FA allows individual player managers to push the case of their players to make a change and earn more money. For example, Ablett's manager will earn more if Ablett is paid $1.5 million at GC17 as opposed to him getting $800K at Geelong. Greed is a now the motivator.

 

[Azza]

According to Motown's argument, it is also limited by GAblett's availablity and ability to perform some service for those milk bars. This is payment for service, not a Save GAblett campaign.

True, but leaving aside the milkbar example, a series of promotional photo shoots in the off-season could easily rack-up significant payments with very little commitment from a player.

 

[Ridley]

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.

Why would the AFL highlight the Judd/Visy sham? Sham that it is, the AFL approved it.

 

[Ridley]

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

Whilst not having the actual facts, as you also do not, I think it is a reasonable assumption that the Swans would be more popular then Parramatta. In a city of approximately 4.5million, there is one AFL team. There are what, eight RL teams. Support is spread amongst those eight teams. The Swans basically have the entire market to themselves. Even if only 10% of the Sydney population supported the Swans, that may be still more than Parramatta.

Yep, without knowing the facts, that is a reasonable assumption.

 

[TigerMasochist]

When the Gold Coast were introduced to the NRL, they were able to work within the same system as the other clubs to build their playing roster. Whilst their signings may have hurt some clubs, those clubs had equal op to sign players from elsewhere to replace the players they had lost.

With the Gold Coast being introduced to the AFL, the AFL has completely corrupted the drafting/trading system to allow the Gold Coast to build a list. They have introduced Free Agency for them to raid other clubs, whilst not allowing the other clubs the same chance to replace the players they are losing. Hawthorn lose Lance Franklin, Geelong lose Gary Ablett, Richmond lose Trent Cotchin? That's ok, you can have a draft pick, of our choosing, years down the road, to draft a kid, who will take 3-4 years to turn into a superstar, to replace the superstar you have right now. For any clubs, (including our own) that finish near the bottom over the next few years, you won't be afforded the standard rights to draft the best kids in the comp, we've given all those players to the Gold Coast.


So, again I ask... What is wrong the NRL system?

Melb Storm also seem to have done reasonably well under the NRL system over the last fifteen years or so. Plenty of clubs flat out trying to poach their players and cut them back down to the arse end of the ladder and they just keep on finding replacements and playing premierships.
I've never been comfortable with the way AFL clubs deem themselves to own each and every player that walks through their doors so I'm comfortable with the free agency system coming into play. Hopefully our footy dept. learns how to get the best value out of the free agency system.

Not happy that both the new teams get handed a perfect lamb roast with all the trimmings at the expense of the existing clubs who are copping stale sangers but the biggest bugbear I have is the additional salary cap advantage that some clubs have.
It's impossible to have a fair system when some have more cash than others to purchase players.
To claim the cost of living as higher in one state being the reason for extra cap should then be countered by cheaper cost of living in other states ensuring lower caps for them.

 

[Ridley]

To claim the cost of living as higher in one state being the reason for extra cap should then be countered by cheaper cost of living in other states ensuring lower caps for them.

100% agree. The extra cost of living allowance for Sydney is garbage. Whilst it may be a bit more expensive to live there, house prices in Melbourne have bridged the gap in recent years and are not far behind at all. Perth is the same. Do Melbourne and Perth clubs get an allowance over Adelaide clubs and Brisbane? Nup. It is *smile*. Just call it what it is. Sydney's additional salary cap is a player retention allowance, pure and simple.

 

[RedanTiger]

Why would the AFL highlight the Judd/Visy sham? Sham that it is, the AFL approved it.

Looks like the AFL closing the gate after the horse is in the next state. They know they can't stop it but they agree with irate opposition supporters after the fact. If you look at the VIP's connected to Visy in the US you would be amazed. Think they include the greatest sportsperson of all time, Muhammed Ali, ex-President Clinton and many film stars. Huge PR benefits for the company on environmental grounds and they have invested a lot of money in it. Judd is minor, minor player in their global corporate investment in this area.

The thing is that AFL agents work in a very, very small pond. Their skill set is of a corresponding size. They seem able to operate within a matey club and media arena but little beyond. I cannot think of a single AFL player who has broadened his appeal enough to be worthy of even the small amount (reportedly $2000,000) that Judd - one of our best known players - gets. Think Ponting ($4.2M), Clarke, Lee ($3.5M), McGrath, Thorpe. That's serious money. Then include something like Warne's "Spinner" underwear line and you start to get to a whole other arena where you don't spruik a product, you are the product. Why do you think Elle and Kylie have their own labels. Every hip hop star has his own clothing label, like "Sean John" Coombs or Lupe Fiasco in todays Age gig guide.

We have not yet seen the standard of AFL star that other sports have. That is partly because of the small appeal of our game but IMO also because of the poor skills of the agents and their colleagues around our game.

 

[U2Tigers]

I admit - I've been away and missed all of this - but will read up on it to be better informed.

byut before I do - my initial reaction is to worry for my club,

I ask myself does this mean we will struggle for pretty much ever - will the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

will there always be the same clubs up the top - I couldn't handle the Australian version of the English Premier League - I may be over the top there, but this is where it starts.

sad day I reckon. ( now to better inform myself)

 

[Ridley]

I admit - I've been away and missed all of this - but will read up on it to be better informed.

byut before I do - my initial reaction is to worry for my club,

I ask myself does this mean we will struggle for pretty much ever - will the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

will there always be the same clubs up the top - I couldn't handle the Australian version of the English Premier League - I may be over the top there, but this is where it starts.

sad day I reckon. ( now to better inform myself)

Just read my posts mate, and maybe TOT70 and evo as well. That'll tell you all you need to know 8)

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

Just read my posts mate, and maybe TOT70 and evo as well. That'll tell you all you need to know 8)

Well, one side of it anyway. ;D

 

[Ridley]

Well, one side of it anyway. ;D

What, there's another side?

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

What, there's another side?

As always, the consumate debater. ;D