Free Agency

[robbieando]

Charlie I know the law and I also know that you can't get rid of the cap and the draft because of introducing free agency. As I said it works elsewhere without such legal problems. Not introducing free agency WILL cause problems because then the WHOLE system would be dragged to court and as a WHOLE would be found unlawful. In sections its OK because each is then treated differently.

The issue about free agency is that a player in the system should be allowed to change clubs if he wants when his contract is up, not as the system is now where the club decides where he go.

Charlie as I stated the system works well else where and it will work here. Freeagency won't work without the cap or the draft. Then and only then would it create the case of the EPL

[Charlie]

I hope to God you never get to the AFL Commission. This is an incredibly short-sighted view to take.

When the players decide to try and see how much power they've got, I hope the AFL calls their bluff. Suspend a season, let them strike, and let them see how they go without their $100,000s. They'll come crawling back. Don't be held to ransom like NBA and MBL!!!

Charlie

[chammond]

Fortunately for the AFL (and footy fans), the extremes that Robbie and Charlie describe are unlikely in the current football climate.

As the article suggests, the most likely outcome is that the AFLPA will forget about free agency if the AFL agrees to give senior players more contractual protection.

I suspect that the majority of players would be terrified of the extended meat market that free agency would bring about.

[penga]

Charlie, i usually agree with most of your posts but i don't think you know the NFL system well enough to comment on their shortfalls because you are quite ill informed...

they have:

- salary cap, therefore the richest club does not rule... in the superbowl coverage this year the commentator said how succesful the NFL's salary cap had been as the same team hadn't won it in about 10 years. their cap is at 56 million as you need at least 39 players who can be on the field. ie offense, defense and special teams. then there is the reserves for each position, and there are many! and there is so much more money involved in the nfl so therefore they can pay there players a hell of a lot more, ie a $180,000 contract for lynch would be worth about $1.8 million in the nfl as the market is as you say so much larger as there is no other similar code in the states with the exception of maybe soccer but that is SO remote... except that quite nfl kickers will be ex soccer players (kickers not punters, kicker for field goal, punter for obviously punt)

- they have a draft, much the same as ours... which means the bottom team can rebuild with good draft selections

- free agency, clubs can not bargain with an uncontracted player. as soon as a player comes out of contract it doesn't mean that they will be snapped up imediately, the club that they are with can renegotiate first and if no deal is struck they then become a free agent... with the whole aker thing, i realise that the other 15 clubs could pick him up, but it wouldnt mean that we would give up draft picks for him. and the team with the best position with their cap could afford him, therefore - swans

- trading period, say that ball, doyle and goodes all get dislocated knees first round and we have NO ruck option, how stupid is that to waste the rest of the year without any ruckmen!!! in the nfl, im not sure which round the trade deadline finishes but we could trade for at least one ruck option during the regular season, therefore we could put goodes, ball and doyle on the "injured roster" so that their salaries are not included under the cap and we could afford to either sign a free agent ruckman or trade. therefore in my opinion we should increase the length of the trading/signing period.

i hope this gives more clarity to my previous post...

[penga]

if u want a quick run down on the logistics of the nfl, hire or buy madden 2003... im absolutely addicted to this game, you can play it in about three or four different ways (and thats just in the franchise mode)... i update madden every 2nd year, so i now have 99, 01, 03... HIGHLY recomended!

[robbieando]

It all relates to the issue of weather a club can demand draft picks and/or player for a player who is out of contract. This is a restrant of trade because an out of contract player has no option of choosing a club he wants.

This has been in Europe found to be illegal and as such we now have the Bosman ruling which means a club no longer owns the players rights when his contract is up, meaning a player can leave to whoever he feels is the better club/deal without transfers being involved.

Trust me if this goes to court the AFL are ****ed, if they introduce free agency their liabity is less and is unlikely to be effected.

Charlie I understand your problems with free agency but you have to remember that if the AFL doesn't introduce it they could be forced by the courts to change the entire system which would be worse for football. Free Agency works well in all sports that have a draft and a salary cap. The MLB and NBA have different systems in place and if you look closely to the NFL you will see it makes the league much closer and has stopped club buying Superbowl wins

[Mike_B]

Originally posted by penga
...in the superbowl coverage this year the commentator said how succesful the NFL's salary cap had been as the same team hadn't won it in about 10 years.

Except for Denver winning it two years in a row in the mid-late '90's IIRC

[penga]

Originally posted by Mike_B
Except for Denver winning it two years in a row in the mid-late '90's IIRC

yeah, true that well the commentator mustve made a comment after that that i forgot, but u get the point

[robbieando]

The thing is the NFL since introducing the salary cap, draft and free agency has become a very even comp. Teams from small markets like Green Bay, Denver, Tampa Bay, St Louis, Baltimore, Boston have won the Superbowl while teams from New York and Los Angleas are no where to be seen. I proves free agency work if the right system is in place.

[chammond]

It all relates to the issue of weather a club can demand draft picks and/or player for a player who is out of contract. This is a restrant of trade because an out of contract player has no option of choosing a club he wants.

I don't understand this bit.

How can an AFL club demand draft picks and/or player for a player who is out of contract?

If a player is out of contract, surely the club can't make any demands?

[robbieando]

During the trade period the player is still under contract, but by the end of October is out of contract. So yes a club can demand draft picks/players. The AFLPA would like to see players whose contract will be up after the trade period become free agents so a player can decide where he ends up.

[liz]

Originally posted by robbieando
During the trade period the player is still under contract, but by the end of October is out of contract. So yes a club can demand draft picks/players. The AFLPA would like to see players whose contract will be up after the trade period become free agents so a player can decide where he ends up.

Except that a player has to agree to a trade. Any player who will be out of contract by the end of October can refuse to be traded to a club he doesn't want to go to. Only problem, of course, is that he then has to subject to the lottery of the draft.

Changing the rules so that these players become free agents would represent a huge shift of power towards the players, particularly those who don't need the security of a contract because they know they'll be in high demand. They can allow their contracts to expire and then shop themselves around to the highest bidder, knowing that there's nothing their current club can do to stop them joining whoever is willing to pay the most. Even if a player really wants to stay with his existing club, it still increases his negotiating power.

The counter to this, though, is that clubs are increasingly unwilling to pay even the best players more than they are worth, being willing to lose them if need be. Melbourne's approach to the Woewodin situation is an example (even though he wasn't actually out of contract).

[chammond]

During the trade period the player is still under contract, but by the end of October is out of contract. So yes a club can demand draft picks/players.

How will this change under free agency? While the player is under contract, the clubs will take any steps necessary to manage their assets, which they are perfectly entitled to do under trade practices law.

Once the player is out of contract, the club is no longer a factor. The constraints then are all imposed by the AFL through the draft system. Free agency and the pre-season draft are incompatible, and, as Liz describes, there will be a power shift which will be determined by the marketplace. Two years ago, the shift would have been significant as it was a sellers market. Now I think the players would be a lot less enthusiastic, given the recent upheavals.

The really interesting factor would be what happens to the national draft? None of the potential draftees are contracted, and they would all probably be very interested in choosing which club they go to. I think, in the current climate, they would be much more interested in 'free agency' than the senior players.

[Charlie]

The really interesting factor would be what happens to the national draft? None of the potential draftees are contracted, and they would all probably be very interested in choosing which club they go to. I think, in the current climate, they would be much more interested in 'free agency' than the senior players.

Exactly. Which is why free agency MUST NOT be allowed.

[robbieando]

Each players contract end on the same date so I would expect the AFL and the AFLPA would agree for a new date which would mostly be much more early than it is now.

Lizz the power might move towards the player but if the AFL follows the lead of the NFL the club might be given the right to have a player who forfills a certain certia named a "franchise" player meaning if another club wants to sign this player they would have to give up draft picks. I would expect 2 levels of free agency - RFA AND UFA (Restricted and Unrestricted) Restricted would mean a club gets compensation if the player forfills the criteia and unrestricted for those who aren't the club gets nothing. This limits the players power.

I think people are too worried about free agency and look too easily to the English Premier League and Major League Baseball where the rich club rule. The facts are those leagues don't have any form of salary cap and thus free agency does effect results. But with the salary cap in place each club has the same amount to spend and each club therefore is on a level playing field. It doesn't cause a problem in the NFL so it should in the AFL.