Ridley said:Some reasonable points there Scoop but you're probably missing one key point about those "fringe" players. Free agency is only applicable to those that have played 8 seasons with one club. Most clubs (maybe not RFC ) would have weeded out those types well before 8 years comes up.
In any case, it seems many are thinking that FA will allow RFC to attract the guns of the competition. I can't see that happening.
That is the problem with this model IMO. The only guys who will take advantage of free agency are those who are good enough to stick on a list for 8 years. That is not going to be of that much use to anyone trying to build long term, only to a team trying to exploit the opportunity at the time to win a flag. Some players will come up, but not that many.
If the AFL was really serious about FA, they would have adopted the NFL model IMO. The NFL have been refining their model for years, and have both restricted and unrestricted free agency, as well as tags that can be applied to certain players in certain situations.
I certainly believe that the AFL model should have included a Restricted Free Agent component that allows rival clubs to offer a contract to a younger player, which the player's current club can match if they want to keep the player.
But regardless, my take on the whole Free Agency thing is this.......
1. The AFL has agreed to a form of Free Agency that they know will still be very restrictive on player movements outside trading or drafting. They have only offered this model to keep the peace with the Players Association.
2. The Players Association have agreed to the model, with its shortcomings, because it is all the AFL has offered and they want to look they are doing something for the players. I would suggest that the Players Association has got legal advice that the AFL is not in breach of the Restraint of Trade laws regarding employment, and would not win if they went to court. So this agreement is a way of saving face.