-
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
Ridley said:
LMAO, you refuse to quit with the anti-free trade jihad hey? If any employer tried to do something grossly illegal to their employees, EVERY trade union in this country would stand up for their members in a much more devestating fashion than the AFLPA
Fact is, the AFL system as stands can be torn down legally under restraint of trade laws. It's been done in RL, so there is a legal precedent in this country for it. The AFL simply would not be able to defend the system in court, all it would take is one player to cite more money, or more oppurtunites available elsewhere to prove that the AFL is restricting their careers in an illegal fashion.
To their credit, for many years the players Union has not taken the same road as the likes of Terry Hill did and challenge the system, what they have done, is negotiated their way into a free agency agreement that maintains the drafting system, allows clubs to maintain control over their players movements for 8 years and gives the players freedom to choose their employer afer that time.
The AFL has done brilliantly here in maintaining MOST of the current system, and giving the players a trade off that they seemingly have accepted.
Credit is due all round.
Frankly, who gives a flying if you personally think the players are lucky to have the career they do? We demand they be full time professionals, but you don't want to treat them as such - Respect and fairness work BOTH ways.
Interested to read today what the great man Geoffry Kennet has to say about FA on the Hawthorn Website.
Compensation wise.Lets just say Buddy Franklin wants to go to Richmond.Under the FA rules the AFL will decide on compensation draft pick wise Hawthorn get.Now you would think Franklin would be worth 2 first Rnd picks.Where would these Draft picks come from? Where ever they come from it would be penalising other clubs who would drop down the draft order.
Motown said:
They are blessed with the ability to play a sport well and get paid extremely handsomely to do so. The average AFL wage is approx. 5 times that of the average Australian wage. They get everything handed to them on a platter. Great lifestyle, great health and all the necessary training and guidance to handle anything that life throws at them off the field; though obviously some don't take heed of that. They are heavily schooled in dealing with life after their footy career is finished.
The trade off for all these benefits and advantages is that certain restrictions need to be in place to protect the very organisations that provide all of these opportunities; the clubs. They should realise how good they have it and not attempt to bite the hand that feeds. Free agency has the potential to inflict serious damage on weaker clubs, of which RFCis one right now. Quite frankly, if I was a Collingwood or Essendon supporter I'd be ecstatic.
Boo *smile* hoo if every single one of them can't play excatly where they want to. You can't have all of it all of the time. It seems that doesn't apply to AFL footballers though :
Leysy Days said:
I'm not convinced about this. GC and GWS will have a lot of youngsters, true. They also have an increased salary cap and plenty of leftover cash once they put 30 or so kids on basic contracts. They may not be able to extract too many Gary Ablett types out of other clubs but their money will be very appealing to second tier players and older 26-30 types who will be looking for one juicy contract to round out their careers. They will attract plenty of interest. What are the odds on both Matthew Stokes and Andrew Lovett ending up there next year?
From a Richmond point of view, free agency is likely to be an opportunity. A lowly team paying near the bottom of its salary cap should be able to hang on to all of its top 10 players and target three or four 11-22 players and maybe a marquee player from other clubs in a well-planned raid in one off-season. Remember, compensation for the loss of free agents comes from the AFL, not the club, so draft picks can be retained.
Of course, the words Richmond and well-planned don't normally appear on the same page, let alone in the same sentence.
The teams with the most to lose are the mature teams with lots of 26-28 year-olds playing together and having to sacrifice a few zeroes to keep a list together, such as Collingwood , the bullies and St Kilda. That is going to become hard to do. Any team that emerges from the mire over the next year or two, where lots of players have breakout years together might also get caught on the hop.
Make no mistake. Free agency opens up the possibility of a North Melbourne-ten year rule style raid on the competition by a cashed-up predator. More than likely, that will be one of the interstaters, due to their larger salary caps. We will also find out if Benny Gale and Craig Cameron have what it takes to push this club back up the ladder.
collector said:
Yeah let's follow the example of Rugby League. That sport is in fantastic shape isn't it :rofl
Let's see what you think in the next 2 years when the few good players we have take off to GC17 or GWS or one of the bigger more successful clubs under free agency and we're rattling tins again.
And I see you're still on the "oh we don't treat the players fairly, oh we don't respect the players" bandwagon. :nopity Never have I heard such a load of *smile*.
I hate to say this - but I agree with Jeff Kennett.
I think free agency is a very dangerous initiative for a sport that has built its very emergence on the notion of an even competition. The drafts and salary cap are the two foundations of this - and we've finally got to a point where both have reasonable integrity (leave Judd aside for a moment). This even comp is the platform on which our product stands as the most marketable TV product in the country - and the AFL and clubs benefit more from this than ever imaginable.
So why on earth are we implementing something that compromises this? What possible good can be done other than to satisfy the individual greed of a player looking for more money or that elusive shot at a flag that doesn't appear to be in the club's forthcoming "window"? Why the hell do we think it's a problem that Luke Ball found it difficult to get out of St.Kilda - hey Luke nobody put a gun to your head when you signed that nice juicy contract than ran until the end of 2010!
We already skew the opportunities of certain clubs just enough to make a difference through the draw. Really - how are Melbourne supposed to sell memberships when every kid in the country watches Collingwood play every Friday night?! Now we find another small way to make sure that clubs like Collingwood, Sydney and Carlton can avoid the tough rebuilding phases that other clubs are forced to periodically go through. Again the rich get richer and the poor need to do it the hard way.
Let's be realistic - how many 26yr olds after 8yrs of service at Collingwood are going to say "Hey I really need a fresh start and think my career can really flourish through some sub-standard trainiing facilities, poorer medical staff, a coaching panel half the size and the exciting opportunity to play Sunday arvo twilight games in front of 9,000 people."?
It's wrong. Plain and simple. Let a successful system do its job, and stop wasting time on satisfying individual greed at the expense of the greater good.
I think free agency is a very dangerous initiative for a sport that has built its very emergence on the notion of an even competition. The drafts and salary cap are the two foundations of this - and we've finally got to a point where both have reasonable integrity (leave Judd aside for a moment). This even comp is the platform on which our product stands as the most marketable TV product in the country - and the AFL and clubs benefit more from this than ever imaginable.
So why on earth are we implementing something that compromises this? What possible good can be done other than to satisfy the individual greed of a player looking for more money or that elusive shot at a flag that doesn't appear to be in the club's forthcoming "window"? Why the hell do we think it's a problem that Luke Ball found it difficult to get out of St.Kilda - hey Luke nobody put a gun to your head when you signed that nice juicy contract than ran until the end of 2010!
We already skew the opportunities of certain clubs just enough to make a difference through the draw. Really - how are Melbourne supposed to sell memberships when every kid in the country watches Collingwood play every Friday night?! Now we find another small way to make sure that clubs like Collingwood, Sydney and Carlton can avoid the tough rebuilding phases that other clubs are forced to periodically go through. Again the rich get richer and the poor need to do it the hard way.
Let's be realistic - how many 26yr olds after 8yrs of service at Collingwood are going to say "Hey I really need a fresh start and think my career can really flourish through some sub-standard trainiing facilities, poorer medical staff, a coaching panel half the size and the exciting opportunity to play Sunday arvo twilight games in front of 9,000 people."?
It's wrong. Plain and simple. Let a successful system do its job, and stop wasting time on satisfying individual greed at the expense of the greater good.
hopper said:
Probably the best post I've read on the subject. Well done Hopper :clap
But some think it's more important that every player can go where he wants when he wants :
Free agency can only be bad for struggling clubs like RFC and Melbourne. They are just not attractive destinations for players because they are perenially crap and this will make it even harder for them to get better, as much as they try.
They have and will under the new FA conditions or did I miss the bit where the draft and cap were abolished. Eight years is a more than reasonable time for a player to "support the game" at the expense of their personal situation I'd have thought.Ridley said:
I'd be more sympathetic to your argument if you could outlined what exactly in the new arrangements you think will bring on the downfall of clubs or TEOTWAWKI.
How does FA change this, though?hopper said:
Players have always had the ability to leave a drafting club once a contract was up, so I'm not sure the draft is invalidated to any greater extent. The only difference is that they will get some control over their destination. The cap will still exist, as will any rorts/workarounds that may be found. So I don't know how the cap is invalidated any more than it is now.
Motown said:
I don't give a *smile* how sympathetic you are to my argument. You are fortunate enough to support a professional club that has rebuilt itself over the past few years extremely well and is very well run with record membership, sponsorship and will be playing finals more years than not. Your club will be attracting players under free agency, mine will lose them. You may lose one or 2 players to massive dollars on offer at Adolf's new love children clubs but it won't have a huge effect on you. Yep, I might think it was good if I was a Hawthorn supporter as well.
The draft? LMAO :rofl Yep, I'm really looking forward to the next few years when we finish on the bottom and get pick 4 from a diluted pool for our troubles after GC17 & GWS have raided the best talent.
Salary cap? If you think the strong clubs aren't going to use this free agency system to rort the salary cap with 3rd party deals (a la Judd and Visy) then I've got some land to sell you. It's right near the beach near Wonthaggi, never mind the construction site nearby.........................
hopper said:
Agree with you on this Hopper. The big winner out of this just might well be Tassie, who will now have hope that they can get a team in, because I believe that one of the Victorian teams will go as a result of this.
As for the restraint of trade arguement, it doesn't hold up for me. If it did, the AFLPA would have challenged it years ago. These men are employed by the AFL system. Nobody makes them play AFL. They could all be brickies or stockbrokers or garbologists or whatever if they want to. The AFL does not stop them leaving the game and joining any other employer.
This is the system that Benny Gale fought for. I hope to God he has the ability to see the arguement from both perspectives, because he is going to be responsible for how the club manages it.
I was just trying being polite in pointing out that your argument is unclear and read more like a rant throwing up a grab-bag of emotive catch-phrases that have little relevance to the subject at hand.Ridley said:
...and free agency changes this how? If anything, it will give you alternate pathway to bring in talent, so I'd have thought it would be a good thing.Ridley said:
...and this doesn't already happen? It may well be the proposed scrutiny accompanying FA tightens this up, for all we know.Ridley said:
You're scaremongering. FA is not the boogieman.
As I said, if you've got anything of substance, I'd be genuinely interested in seeing it. Feel free to rant, though.
I thought Paul Roos' comments were most interesting, although this is clearly a players association initiative, the result could be that a few highly sought after players can get a big pay rise at the expense of the good ordinary players.
The salary cap isn't going anywhere, so if the top players are able to start bidding wars between 2 clubs without the risk of ending up at the wooden spoon team, who has first pick in the draft, then the top players get an inflated salary at the expense of the journey men.
Sort of like robbing Peter to pay Paul, or in this case robbing Carrazzo to pay Judd. The voting members of the players association probably think it sounds like a great idea, but in reality the majority will probably get a pay cut in the long term.
The salary cap isn't going anywhere, so if the top players are able to start bidding wars between 2 clubs without the risk of ending up at the wooden spoon team, who has first pick in the draft, then the top players get an inflated salary at the expense of the journey men.
Sort of like robbing Peter to pay Paul, or in this case robbing Carrazzo to pay Judd. The voting members of the players association probably think it sounds like a great idea, but in reality the majority will probably get a pay cut in the long term.
Maintain the rage, Ridley. Make no mistake, this is bad for Richmond.
But lets face it, what do the bloody AFL care. As long as any new rule benefits the Collingwoods and Adelaides, along with th the new franchisees, it's all good.
PS. Good post, Hopper
PPS. "Working families".
But lets face it, what do the bloody AFL care. As long as any new rule benefits the Collingwoods and Adelaides, along with th the new franchisees, it's all good.
PS. Good post, Hopper
PPS. "Working families".
Ridley said:They are blessed with the ability to play a sport well and get paid extremely handsomely to do so. The average AFL wage is approx. 5 times that of the average Australian wage. They get everything handed to them on a platter. Great lifestyle, great health and all the necessary training and guidance to handle anything that life throws at them off the field; though obviously some don't take heed of that. They are heavily schooled in dealing with life after their footy career is finished.
The trade off for all these benefits and advantages is that certain restrictions need to be in place to protect the very organisations that provide all of these opportunities; the clubs. They should realise how good they have it and not attempt to bite the hand that feeds. Free agency has the potential to inflict serious damage on weaker clubs, of which RFCis one right now. Quite frankly, if I was a Collingwood or Essendon supporter I'd be ecstatic.
Boo *smile*ing hoo if every single one of them can't play excatly where they want to. You can't have all of it all of the time. It seems that doesn't apply to AFL footballers though :
I think you give no respect to the sacrifices they make to play football, both in lifestyle and privacy. Great health is something they work for, not something handed to them - you show your naievity if you think elite sportpeople have things handed to them
Most average Australians have every opprotunity to earn more money, have better health etc, the only thing stopping them is themselves. (and BTW I'm one of them that could have better health and earn more but chooses not to)
It is up to the club to provide an environment that not only satisfies the existing group but attracts other players - get them wanting to play for ther RFC. If they don't want to play for us in the main that is a failure on the clubs part
