-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Free agency
- Thread starter TOT70
- Start date
Panthera tigris FC said:
So when Costa gives Ablett an extra $400K a year to perform services in his fruit shop, do you really think he will expect Gazza to be one of the checkout chicks on Saturday mornings? He will argue that he is paying for access to Gazza's image and for his endorsement. I don't see Juddy rocking up to Visy Central and stacking a few pallets every Wednesday morning, they are paying, handsomely I might add, for the use of his image and his endorsement.
And that is the crux of the matter. We know that celebrity endorsement of your product is very expensive. The celeb actually doesn't have to do much. Even a 30 sec ad can be filmed in a day and the endorsing celeb can pocket a lot of money for this. The market can bear a great deal. Paying a footballer with a high profile a few G-spots a year and making it look like a commercial arrangement is not that difficult.
Its Pandora's Box, boys and girls, and it is now open.
TOT70 said:
I certainly agree with your main argument that an endorsement contract isn't time consuming for the player and very lucrative. I am wondering what the solution is here? This has already been a problem when you are trying to enforce a salary cap, however it becomes greater in the era of free agency. I can't see players being banned from external opportunities though, so I am not sure what the solution would be.
Panthera tigris FC said:
They should be banned from external opportunities that have direct connections to the club.
Tigers of Old said:
Define "direct" in this context. There are some obvious ones, such as Visy and the Gablett deals, but there are others that could be interpreted as a grey area (ie. sponsors, businesses of members etc.). I tend to agree with you, I just think it would be hard to unambiguously define and enforce.
Yeah, it's hard to police. If Crazy Johns had offered Judd half a million to be the face of CJ, would that have made it acceptable ? While a high profile Richmond supporter, John was never on the board. Actually, was he even a member ?
Murky waters indeed BUT what right do we or the AFL have to try and limit a players maximum earning potential ?
Murky waters indeed BUT what right do we or the AFL have to try and limit a players maximum earning potential ?
Baloo said:
I guess the same right that allows the AFL to limit the abililty of clubs to spend more than their salary cap. I don't mean that players shouldn't be able to work outside of their footy, but if you have FA in conjunction with a salary cap, the prevention of cap rorting via side deals becomes an imperative for the level playing field of the competition. It's not about the rights of the player to earn, it is about the rules of a competition that has a salary cap and FA. Allow such side deals and you may as well discard the cap (that would actually be fairer in such an unregulated system).
Having said that, the ambiguity of determining some cases may make it nigh on impossible to effectively police what constitutes a legal or illegal external contract.
Panthera tigris FC said:
As said previously, the AFL only controls their own competition and it's rules. Any thing outside the AFL competition is fair game with the exception of conflicts with the marketing agreement that is part of the playing contract - at the moment.
The salary cap is simply an agreement by the clubs and the players that ensures clubs can't spend themselves broke in a big hurry trying to outdo one another or keep up with the Joneses. I don't think to many people want to go back to a twelve team comp with eight clubs being interstaters.Panthera tigris FC said:
The side deals are a pocket pisser that allows some players to pick up a little AFL unrestricted cash on the side that every club can steer some of their players to via corporate connections. Every club has got fat cat supporters tucked away somewhere.
At present the outside earner equals about 1.4% of the total player payments, barely good pissup money.
I doubt that any but the elite players are ever going to be able to score a dollar on the side any way, could we really imagine the unknown fringe players being offered $100,000 endorsements by corporate sponsors.
Panthera tigris FC said:
It's a massive grey area and it will be hard to the AFL to pull it back. They've ignored it for so long, the AFLPA would scream blue murder if they pulled it back now. I would ban any involvement of companies that club directors, executive staff or sponsors are directors or senior executives of. It wouldn't stop coterie member Joe Bloggs from "employing" the players, but you have to draw a line somewhere.
Panthera tigris FC said:
Baloo said:
In that instance I have no problem with it whatsoever so long as John Ilhan is not connected to the club directly.
If he as a supporter wants to part with his money in a commercial sense for Crazy Judd that's up to him but he is not allowed to be on any boards or involved directly with the workings of the club and if he is then there should be severe penalties.
Total Tiger said:
Exactly. The conflict of interest makes a mockery of the salary cap as it currently stands.
collector said:
I found your response and apologise for my earlier comments. I must have been off for a while and it was pages later when I came back on. I'm sorry I missed it, because the debate has moved on a bit and I'd have liked to have explored this further with you.
Answering your question first, I think a great deal of why the AFL has agreed to this is because it is run by ex-players and ex-AFLPA executive who are sympathetic to the cause.
We'll have to agree to disagree on who the primary employer is, and I am no lawyer and don't know the legal answer to that question. As AFL registration is required for a player plays for any team, I see it a bit like being a member of the bar in legal terms. Lawyers can be employed by law firms to engage in a number of duties, but unless they are members of the bar, the cannot represent clients in court. I see AFL players similarly. No-one and nothing stops these players being engaged by other clubs, but unless they are registered players of the AFL, they can't take the field. Therefore, the conditions of transfer would be agreed to as a condition of registration, and the AFL could have easily prevented free agency had they wanted to.
My initial thoughts re free agency were feelings of doom for our club. Since then I have had a re-think and I firmly believe this could be the vehicle which may be the final cog toward achieving the Richmond Manifesto of 3 premierships by 2020.
Firstly, off course, the club needs to add to the talent recruited in the last few national drafts and make sure that development of our young talent is a priority. We must keep this young talent at Tigerland, and good on young Trent Cotchin for recently showing the way.
Secondly, given that each club is compelled to pay at least 92%(?) of TPPs, the RFC should identify those current players who are unlikely to be at the club post 2012 and pay them over and above what they are worth over the next 2 years, or front end their contracts if the club feels they may still be required beyond 2012. I'm talking players like McGuane, Moore, Edwards, Polo, Morton, Tuck, White, etc. This is paradoxical, but think about it.
Come season 2012, the club should then have more than enough room within the salary cap to both a) reward those young players who have taken the next step and fit the long-term needs of the club, and, b) land 2 or 3 big names to fill our on-field needs.
I know it's not as easy as it sounds, but I think if the club can position itself to take advantage of the rule when it comes in, well then you just never know.
Firstly, off course, the club needs to add to the talent recruited in the last few national drafts and make sure that development of our young talent is a priority. We must keep this young talent at Tigerland, and good on young Trent Cotchin for recently showing the way.
Secondly, given that each club is compelled to pay at least 92%(?) of TPPs, the RFC should identify those current players who are unlikely to be at the club post 2012 and pay them over and above what they are worth over the next 2 years, or front end their contracts if the club feels they may still be required beyond 2012. I'm talking players like McGuane, Moore, Edwards, Polo, Morton, Tuck, White, etc. This is paradoxical, but think about it.
Come season 2012, the club should then have more than enough room within the salary cap to both a) reward those young players who have taken the next step and fit the long-term needs of the club, and, b) land 2 or 3 big names to fill our on-field needs.
I know it's not as easy as it sounds, but I think if the club can position itself to take advantage of the rule when it comes in, well then you just never know.
bump.
i'm not saying i'm against free agency, but what is currently going on is quite concerning if you ask me...
james frawley leaves lowly melbourne and speaks to 3 clubs (that i know of). these 3 clubs are geelong, fremantle and hawthorn. what do these 3 have in common? they all made the top 4 in 2014.
the only top 4 club that didn't talk to him, couldn't afford him because they took buddy as a free agent 12 months ago... and tippet the year before (yes, tippet wasn't a free agent, but they didn't have to trade for him).
thoughts?
i'm not saying i'm against free agency, but what is currently going on is quite concerning if you ask me...
james frawley leaves lowly melbourne and speaks to 3 clubs (that i know of). these 3 clubs are geelong, fremantle and hawthorn. what do these 3 have in common? they all made the top 4 in 2014.
the only top 4 club that didn't talk to him, couldn't afford him because they took buddy as a free agent 12 months ago... and tippet the year before (yes, tippet wasn't a free agent, but they didn't have to trade for him).
thoughts?
It will hasten the death of a few lowly Melbourne clubs (Melbourne, Dogs, St Kilda, maybe North?), which is probably what the AFL wanted.
B
Bill James
Guest
Not sure its what the AFL want as its addicted to 9 games a week of TV revenue, but I agree that will be its effect.23.21.159 said:
Ian4 said:
Despite the protestations of the AFLPA Free Agency is very definitely not an equalisation measure . They talked about it on SEN Morning Glory with Nathan Buckley during the week and he came right out and said it was anti-equalisation.
Was never intended to have anything to do with equalisation. Free agency is all about and has always been about giving the players back a little bit of control over the outcome of their careers.IanG said:
Players never got a choice of which club they went to play for at the start of their careers.
At times they got limited or no say as to which club they were traded to, or even whether they wanted to leave in some cases.
If they left in dispute with their club they were forced back into the random draft, with again no control over where they got sent to play.
Free agency simply gives moderate to mid range players the opportunity to find the best possible option to enhance, extend their careers or even go back to their home region. It also gives elite players the chance to play finals if they have spent most of their playing careers stuck on death row at poorly performed clubs. The best youngsters are always forced into the bottom end clubs to give those clubs the potential to rise, shouldn't force these youngsters to be stuck in the mire due to total incompetence of the clubs management.
Eight to ten years service should be more than enough from any player before allowing him to explore his options. Free agency should also be exactly that,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, FREE.
