Is Free Agency Creating a lop sided competition? | PUNT ROAD END | Richmond Tigers Forum
  • 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.

Is Free Agency Creating a lop sided competition?

I guess it comes down to how much loyalty you want. It's all fine to sack to dud coach or de-list the dud player but if a decent coach or player walks out, the loyalty card comes into play and everyone gets upset for some reason.

Here's my ill thought out solution.

1/ Abolish player contracts entirely.
2/ Every player in every club to be paid the same set match payment for every game played.
3/ The salary cap to be made up at the end of the year by awarding bonus payments to players based on performance.
4/ Give the players the free agency they want. Allow clubs to hire and fire players whenever they like on a weekly basis. I'm sure there are plenty of players from local clubs who would jump at the chance of making some money and given a chance at AFL level.

Why do this? Players have an incentive to perform well and stay at the one club. They're hardly likely to be given performance bonuses at the end of the year if they only play a couple of games, are they? If players won't play out of loyalty for a club, then at least make them play for the money. Each week, no player will be disadvantaged by the club he plays at since everyone will be on the same match payment. More players will be given a chance at AFL level, not just those drafted each year. And let's face it, half the players drafted turn out to be duds anyway. There goes another year wasted. Screw that.

In addition, each junior player should be allowed to nominate a preferred AFL club and that club should get first chance the try said player in the event of competition from other clubs for said player. Players would then be given some say in their destination, as it should be.

There are two downsides I can see (aside from corruption which happens now anyway). 1/ Local clubs would have players taken at will. Some regulation would be required here. 2/ AFL lists would probably change on a weekly basis. Not a big deal for me but if you're into getting numbers sewn onto jumpers, then might be a problem.

Like I said, ill thought out and probably heaps more cons and unworkable but could be lot more interesting.
 
1eyedtiger said:
I guess it comes down to how much loyalty you want. It's all fine to sack to dud coach or de-list the dud player but if a decent coach or player walks out, the loyalty card comes into play and everyone gets upset for some reason.

Here's my ill thought out solution.

1/ Abolish player contracts entirely.
2/ Every player in every club to be paid the same set match payment for every game played.
3/ The salary cap to be made up at the end of the year by awarding bonus payments to players based on performance.
4/ Give the players the free agency they want. Allow clubs to hire and fire players whenever they like on a weekly basis. I'm sure there are plenty of players from local clubs who would jump at the chance of making some money and given a chance at AFL level.

Why do this? Players have an incentive to perform well and stay at the one club. They're hardly likely to be given performance bonuses at the end of the year if they only play a couple of games, are they? If players won't play out of loyalty for a club, then at least make them play for the money. Each week, no player will be disadvantaged by the club he plays at since everyone will be on the same match payment. More players will be given a chance at AFL level, not just those drafted each year. And let's face it, half the players drafted turn out to be duds anyway. There goes another year wasted. Screw that.

In addition, each junior player should be allowed to nominate a preferred AFL club and that club should get first chance the try said player in the event of competition from other clubs for said player. Players would then be given some say in their destination, as it should be.

There are two downsides I can see (aside from corruption which happens now anyway). 1/ Local clubs would have players taken at will. Some regulation would be required here. 2/ AFL lists would probably change on a weekly basis. Not a big deal for me but if you're into getting numbers sewn onto jumpers, then might be a problem.

Like I said, ill thought out and probably heaps more cons and unworkable but could be lot more interesting.
Kaos in theory and practice
It's a bit like a fantasy league
Each coach could have a new list every week, and that would radically change game plans
Each footy manager could have a new coaching panel every week
Each club could have a new administration every week
Each club could have a new President and board every week
Every fan could support a new club every week

Nice idea, but I'm not fully supportive of it at the moment.
 
Baloo said:
oh, let me add, I hate the compo pick. All it does is spread the pain of a FA across all other clubs be them slipping spots in the draft. It could be the difference between landing a dud or gun
Yep. Nothing free about free agency if every other team in the comp gets a kick up the arse to compensate the club losing a player whilst the club " pinching the player " gets to walk away laughing.

AFL shiny suits keep tampering n tinkering to appear relevant yet all they do is make the system far more convoluted n constipated every year.
COLA for some clubs n not others, why no lesser caps for clubs in less expensive states?
Veterans payments that suddenly change when certain clubs are overloaded with old players.
Free agency that isn't really free anyway, backed up with half baked pretend you're nearly free agency.
Minimum salary cap that is virtually as high as maximum salary cap where clubs with a crap list going through a rebuild with youngsters n duds are forced to pay the same amount of salary as clubs chasing a three peat of flags. Ninety five percent of players would sacrifice a dollar to belong to the flag chasing clubs n only crocks n pretenders would volunteer to go to the arse end clubs for a few extra shekels at the end of their careers.
 
BillyB,

Not sure it'll be as bad you might imagine. Like I said, there would be some incentive for players to stay at the one club with the performance bonuses on offer at the end of the season. And if players have a say in where they go, at least they've had a chance of going where they want even if they end up somewhere else. But at the end of the day, turn it into a dog eat dog world, and make them earn their keep, just like the real world and what the rest of the workforce has to contend with.
I'd also like to believe that there is an amount of group loyalty within a club. I'd think the leadership group of each club would be long term players for the club. Maybe I'm wrong.

The players want free agency, but only on their terms. Lets make it a free for all. Then the duds are in and out in no time and only those who actually perform are kept and rewarded accordingly.

But the free for all has to be on an even level across the competition. No more of this working for Visy on the side crap.
 
DirtyDogTiger said:
It's not about equalisation, it's about long serving players having earned freedom of choice.

And avoid a potential lawsuit in the future.
 
DirtyDogTiger said:
it's about long serving players having earned freedom of choice.
Why should a player have to " EARN " freedom of choice? Player signs a two, three, five year contract n plays footy. When that contract expires, why should that player be restricted from exercising his options? He should be able to choose to negotiate a contract extension if both parties are comfortable with the services provided to one another. He should be able to negotiate a deal with a rival club if he feels he would receive better career opportunities or more money from another club.
There's been plenty of clubs happy to on sell a player if they think they can get better value from the deal, or restrict a player if they think they'll be short changed. Yet clubs constantly push the loyalty card if a player chooses to look around.
Clubs don't own the players, they never have, but the rules n systems that have been in place for a hundred years sure as hell make it look as though they do.