Free Agent Bulldust from Rob Kerr

[Rob-bloods]

What about Rob Kerr raising free agency in aftermath of the Rawlings imbroglio?

Tony Shaw very passionate last night on radio regarding this issue (anti). Kerr referring to it working sooooo well in the NFL.

Players Assoc want it raised with AFL again by all accounts.

[robbieando]

Re: Free Agent Bulldust from Rob Kerr

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Rob-bloods
[B]What about Rob Kerr raising free agency in aftermath of the Rawlings imbroglio?

Tony Shaw very passionate last night on radio regarding this issue (anti). Kerr referring to it working sooooo well in the NFL.

Players Assoc want it raised with AFL again by all accounts.

and so it should, I think what we saw last week proves how bad the trade period is. I support a verson of free agency that is simular to the NFL's and one that since introduced has made it hard for teams to win more than 1 Superbowl in a row.

Last time this was brought up we had the doomdayers who said it wouldn't work, well I'm here to say it would. The Salary Cap and the Draft stay in place and free agancy is brought is where a player who has played a certain number of games become eligable to become a free agent.

Now if the player decides to become a free agent, he either becomes a RFA or a UFA, if he is a UFA he can leave a club for nothing, if he is a RFA and another club gives him an offer, his current club has a certain amount of days to match that offer and if they match the offer, he stays and is no longer a free agent. But if his club doesn't match the offer then he leaves the club, but the club he leaves doesn't end up emptyhanded.

Depending on what the offer is relates to a draft pick, so if he is offered a contract of $500,000 a year, the club he goes to must give up a 1st Round Draft Pick, but if the offer is $150,000 a year then the club must give up a 3rd Round Pick.

Also each club can place a 1 tag on a player in their team that means they view him as the clubs best team and as long as that tag is on, that player if eligable for free agancy he can't leave via free agancy unless traded and must sign a new contract or at least agree to play on with a 1 year deal.

I think its time this issue was looked into some more and trust me if it isn't, its only a matter of time before a player take the current system to court, where the AFL has no hope of winning

[Charlie]

Sorry Rob, but I think it's intolerable in the AFL for a club to get nothing whilst a player has a choice of where to go.

Clubs deserve a fair return for the draft pick, time and money they invest in their players.

[robbieando]

Clubs deserve a fair return for the draft pick, time and money they invest in their players.

Sorry Charlie, but its only a matter of time before the AFLPA supports a player in a test case in regard to the player trading rules and trust me the AFL don't stand a chance, nor have a foot to stand on because frankly the current system is a restain of trade. Now if the AFL are smart and want to keep the entry level draft system and the salary cap, they will make a deal with the AFLPA to introduce a free agancy system which as I explained earlier is in place in the NFL and DOES include a system of return for the top players who move though free agancy.

Moral problems won't stop it happening Charlie, it will happen sooner or later

[Bart]

Originally posted by robbieando
Sorry Charlie, but its only a matter of time before the AFLPA supports a player in a test case in regard to the player trading rules and trust me the AFL don't stand a chance, nor have a foot to stand on because frankly the current system is a restain of trade. Now if the AFL are smart and want to keep the entry level draft system and the salary cap, they will make a deal with the AFLPA to introduce a free agancy system which as I explained earlier is in place in the NFL and DOES include a system of return for the top players who move though free agancy.

Moral problems won't stop it happening Charlie, it will happen sooner or later

I've often wondered about the legal aspect of a player being out of contract, and I'm sure the AFL have it coverered.

I personally feel it is a restraint of trade. I don't feel good about that though

But the day free trade happens. Goodbye Dogs. Goodbye Roos. Goodbye Cats. Except for players who are absolute mercenaries, these clubs don't stand a chance.

[robbieando]

Originally posted by Bart
But the day free trade happens. Goodbye Dogs. Goodbye Roos. Goodbye Cats. Except for players who are absolute mercenaries, these clubs don't stand a chance.

I don't think that would happen under the current Salary Cap and drafting system, if free agency was brought in. To bring in Free agency doesn't mean the salary cap and the draft would go. For the above to happen the salary cap would be to be taken away because if all clubs were on the same salary then the bigger club couldn't just go out and stock their team with the best available players. Free Agency doesn't mean every out of contract player is a free agent, look at the Free agency systems in the major US Sports, its after you have been playing the sport for a period of time before you become eligable and I think the working number the AFLPA would look at would be 5 years.

[hardluck_harry]

I'm not entirely sure it's a restraint of trade. Take Rawlings as an example, he'll still be playing AFL next year and by going into the pre-season draft he can set his own wages. Same with Nick Stevens he'll be in the town he wants to play, getting 500k a year, but he'll be wearing a blue jumper instead of black & white.

It's tough to find sympathy for guys who are getting 400-500k per year playing a sport.

[robbieando]

Originally posted by hardluck_harry
I'm not entirely sure it's a restraint of trade. Take Rawlings as an example, he'll still be playing AFL next year and by going into the pre-season draft he can set his own wages. Same with Nick Stevens he'll be in the town he wants to play, getting 500k a year, but he'll be wearing a blue jumper instead of black & white.

It's tough to find sympathy for guys who are getting 400-500k per year playing a sport.

That is the ISSUE. The restraint of trade is that players can't move freely to the club they want to play at. Its doesn't matter that they are playing football for a living, what matters is that they are restrained from doing their trade if they decide to go elsewhere.

[liz]

Originally posted by Charlie
Sorry Rob, but I think it's intolerable in the AFL for a club to get nothing whilst a player has a choice of where to go.

Clubs deserve a fair return for the draft pick, time and money they invest in their players.

Clubs actually lose players for nothing all the time - once they reach retirement age or injuries get the better of them they have no replacement value. And Port have just demonstrated that there are times when it is better to let a player go for nothing, even to another club.

In any case, clubs wouldn't be left empty handed under this proposal - even for a UFO there would be draft picks exchanging hands.

I think a system along these lines could work. It would require the salary cap to remain and the qualification point for free agency would obviously be important. I reckon it should be at least 7 years at a club so that clubs get at least a couple of years of prime playing time from players they have drafted and developed.

Also remember that the number of players who want to change clubs each year is relatively small - most prefer to stay in the environment in which they are comfortable. Also, money is only one reason why players may look for a change Neither Hall nor Plugger left the Saints for the lure of more cash.

In the vast majority of cases players who state a strong preference do get to go where they want. Can anyone remember any recent examples before Rawlings and Stevens of clubs not doing their best to help out the player concerned?

[liz]

Originally posted by hardluck_harry
I'm not entirely sure it's a restraint of trade.

It probably would be deemed to be a restraint of trade, but on it's own that doesn't mean it would be overturned - it would have to be shown to be an "unreasonable" restraint of trade. That's where things would get judgemental, and the AFL would argue that it was not unreasonable within the context of the competition.

[robbieando]

Originally posted by lizz
In any case, clubs wouldn't be left empty handed under this proposal - even for a UFO there would be draft picks exchanging hands.

I think you'll see 2 kinds of free agents, Resricted (RFA) and Unresricted (UFA).

I think a system along these lines could work. It would require the salary cap to remain and the qualification point for free agency would obviously be important. I reckon it should be at least 7 years at a club so that clubs get at least a couple of years of prime playing time from players they have drafted and developed.

I think the starting point should be after 5 full seasons in the League to become a UFA and 7 Full Seasons to become a RFA. Now Lizz I get your point re prime playing time, but I think 5 years is the best time because by then most players would have served 2 contracts (2 years when drafted and then 3 years after that is normally the way clubs go)

The Salary Cap System as it is now stays in place, but the draft system will change, to become an Entry Level Draft where only rookies (by rookies I mean any player who hasn't been on an AFL Senior List) can enter, because Uncontracted Players with 5 years service or Dislisted Players would become free agent's. Of course that would be a slight change to what is in place now.

Free Agency would start 3 weeks after the Grand Final with a trading period a week before that. Now the trading period would be to trade contracted players, uncontracted players who haven't given 5 years service to the League.

Now as to what UFA and RFA are, well basically a UFA can leave for nothing, while a RFA if he leaves his current club the club who he goes to must supply compensation which is based on what the contract value a year is worth and is as follows

$500,000 plus - First and Second Round Draft Pick
$400,000 - $499,000 - First and Third Round Draft Pick
$300,000 - $399,000 - First Round Draft Pick
$200,000 - $299,000 - Second Round Draft Pick
$100,000 - $199,000 - Third Round Draft Pick
$0 - $99,000 - Fourth Round Draft Pick

Also if a club deems a UFA is of such value to the club, they can put a tag on him which means that he can't leave the club for nothing and becomes a RFA. Each Club can only name 1 player per club and this player must of player at least 125 games for this club.

[hardluck_harry]

Originally posted by lizz
It probably would be deemed to be a restraint of trade, but on it's own that doesn't mean it would be overturned - it would have to be shown to be an "unreasonable" restraint of trade. That's where things would get judgemental, and the AFL would argue that it was not unreasonable within the context of the competition.

I'm no lawyer so that was just a layman's opinion.

[aflconvert]

Originally posted by lizz
It probably would be deemed to be a restraint of trade, but on it's own that doesn't mean it would be overturned - it would have to be shown to be an "unreasonable" restraint of trade. That's where things would get judgemental, and the AFL would argue that it was not unreasonable within the context of the competition.

Im no lawyer either but IMHO the AFL wouldnt win that argument . Rugby League had a draft for a couple of years about 10 years ago until a player took it to court and the League lost


Bingo no more draft


Now I know some of my fellow RWOers cant stand league but
in this context both codes are the same - professional sports

I hope nobody challenges the draft but when the challenge comes my money will be on the player not the AFL

[sydnophile]

Originally posted by Bart
But the day free trade happens. Goodbye Dogs. Goodbye Roos. Goodbye Cats.

Hoo-bloody-ray!
The AFL's (read as Demetriou's) commitment to 16 teams, of which 10 out of 16 are from Melbourne, is holding back the credibility of the AFL as a national comp.
The Bulldogs in particular have to put their hand out every year.
Bulldogs match attendances are made up primarily of opposition supporters, that's why they choose to play their "home" games "away" games whereever possible. Dog's supporters (if they still exist) are usually 60+ year olds with very long memories.

It's about time the AFL chopped out the dead wood (esp. WB, NM for now) so there's more money to go around for the vibrant clubs that still have, and will go on to make, the future of the AFL.

[sharpie]

Originally posted by sydnophile
Hoo-bloody-ray!
The AFL's (read as Demetriou's) commitment to 16 teams, of which 10 out of 16 are from Melbourne, is holding back the credibility of the AFL as a national comp.
The Bulldogs in particular have to put their hand out every year.
Bulldogs match attendances are made up primarily of opposition supporters, that's why they choose to play their "home" games "away" games whereever possible. Dog's supporters (if they still exist) are usually 60+ year olds with very long memories.

It's about time the AFL chopped out the dead wood (esp. WB, NM for now) so there's more money to go around for the vibrant clubs that still have, and will go on to make, the future of the AFL.

You have to be careful with widespread changes that could destroy the tradition of the game. Look at Super League.