The case for AFL free agency
Roar Rookie By Matthew Maguire, 10 Oct 2009 Matthew Maguire is a Roar Rookie
- Tagged:
- AFL, AFL Trade Week, Collingwood Magpies, Luke Ball, Ross Lyon, St Kilda Saints
Related coverage
Former St Kilda captain Luke Ball has been left in no man’s land after Collingwood and the Saints failed to reach agreement on an equitable trade during this week’s negotiations.
Uncontracted and with significant service already given to the club that drafted him in 2001, Ball requested a trade to the Pies to further his career after Saints coach Ross Lyon limited his playing opportunities this season and without much prospect of further game time in 2010.
It should not be considered unreasonable for a player who has given eight years of quality service to his club to, having played out his contract, gain control of his destiny and seek a trade to a club of his choice.
Collingwood wanted Ball. Ball wanted Collingwood.
The Saints were happy to let him go providing they were compensated, yet Ball is not a contracted St Kilda player. They should have no further claim to him but under current rules, the Saints still dictate his future.
AFL football operations manager Adrian Anderson claimed that 23 completed trades during the week negate the need for free agency, suggesting most trades ultimately eventuate.
True, but free agency after a minimum period of service, perhaps 7 seasons as the AFLPA has mooted, gives greater autonomy to AFL players to determine their own careers, where they live and who they play for.
Claims lesser clubs would be disadvantaged by free agency are melodramtic, with the draft and salary cap remaining in place to ensure fairness across the soon to be 18 team competition.
Struggling clubs still get the cream of the nation’s emerging playing talent each season and would then be given a minimum seven years to develop and nurture them into great players on and solid citizens off field, presumably influenced by a club culture that the majority of then 25 year olds would wish to remain part of.
The numbers seeking free agency each year would be minimal.
In a competition where 18 year olds are sent, without choice, from one side of the country to the other simply to enter the AFL system, free agency for players 25 years and over should become a fundamental right for those who put the show on week in, week out.
For now, the AFL appear blind to it.
Looking to join The Roar team? We're searching for an experienced Group Sales Manager to lead our team in Sydney. Yes, this does mean you get to work with the site all day long! If you're a digital media sales star, we want to hear from you. Apply now.
Passionate about your AFL? Then sign up to The Roar's brand new daily AFL email, delivering Roaring articles directly to you day-in, day-out. You'll love it!
Click here to join now!
- Explore:
- AFL, AFL Trade Week, Collingwood Magpies, Luke Ball, Ross Lyon, St Kilda Saints
October 10th 2009 @ 2:02pm
Pippinu said | October 10th 2009 @ 2:02pm | Report comment
I think free agency after a period of service would be a great move.
Let us not forget that a short lived 10 year rule was introduced way back in 1973 (aiding North Melbourne towards a first ever premiership in 1975).
I would think that you would want a rule somewhere between 7 and 10 years, perhaps 8 years, allowing for a kid drafted at the age of 17 to change to a club of his choice from the age of 25 without going back through the draft (perhaps with the club swapping a 3rd round draft pick?) – and that player stil being about midway through his professional career.
I think the AFL should investigate something similar.
October 10th 2009 @ 2:40pm
Dogs Of War said | October 10th 2009 @ 2:40pm | Report comment
Can’t believe it doesn’t exist. But for the sake of debate. I think something like once you hit age 25/26 for qualify for free agency, is probably the best fit. Most guys have done a lot for the game by that time (even if they don’t start playing the top grades till later in life), and are adult enough to make their own decision on their future and where they want to live and play.
October 10th 2009 @ 2:22pm
Shane said | October 10th 2009 @ 2:22pm | Report comment
too right.
crazy situation – st kilda should have dealt with collingwood anyway but when they wouldnt, the AFL should enforce a 2nd or 3rd round pick as mandatory compensation to allow the player to move on.
bring free agency in immediately
frustrated magpies fan!
October 10th 2009 @ 2:26pm
davelee said | October 10th 2009 @ 2:26pm | Report comment
it’s a tough gig being an AFL footballer. you’ve gotta be a rolemodel (no going out, drinking, or you get hit), and if a club wants to go somewhere, you kinda have to go. on the other hand, if you want to go somewhere and the club dont want you to, you don’t. not many jobs like it on this planet.
October 10th 2009 @ 2:27pm
Tom said | October 10th 2009 @ 2:27pm | Report comment
As a Melbourne Dees supporter, I love the idea of Luke Ball running through our midfield next year, should we snare him through the Pre Season Draft.
Yet I agree that for it to have got to this position is untenable for the future of the AFL trading period.
Ball should not be forced to play for a club he does not wish to represent – any other line of work and the general public has a choice which company they work for. No one is forced to stay. AFL footballers should be no different.
October 10th 2009 @ 10:38pm
Dogs Of War said | October 10th 2009 @ 10:38pm | Report comment
Just reading the whole article again, I wouldn’t be suprised if he took it to court and won. It’s a restraint of trade, and these drafts only work if the rules allow it to. It seems they are broken if St Kilda still has a say in his future even though they don’t have a contract with him anymore.
Really all it will take is a quick review of how the NFL do it, and implement the ones that reward service to the game, giving grown men a say in their future.
October 11th 2009 @ 4:27am
Redb said | October 11th 2009 @ 4:27am | Report comment
It’s only unlawful if all parties dont agree.
The AFL Players Assoc (AFLPA) current stance (agreed until 2011-12?) is they agree to the draft and trade process – therefore it is not illegal. People need to understand the law.
The AFLPA is pushing for a version of free agency and the AFL has agreed to talk about some form of it as they should.
I like the suggestion of the age limit.
Redb
October 11th 2009 @ 5:35am
Freud of Football said | October 11th 2009 @ 5:35am | Report comment
It should be shorter than the 7-10 years that has been mooted. Look at Geelong’s list. Someone like Mumford or Gamble, both well and truly good enough to get a game at any club in the AFL but only given minimal opportunities for the Cats due to their strength in depth.
Mumford was lucky to be traded, what about Gamble? If he doesn’t start playing now at the age of 21 it’s not likely he’ll have much of a career but he can’t move on even if he wanted to.
All we need is for Ball to go to court ala Jean-Marc Bosman and I don’t think the agreements between the AFL & the AFLPA will be watertight because at the end of the day they are restricting the players from furthering their career.
That there is no way a player can get out of his contract and move to another club without his current clubs permission is ludicrous, if you get drafted at 18 and have to move states for example there is a high chance it won’t work out, that you won’t like the lifestyle so why is the AFL so backwards to tie these players to clubs they don’t want to be at?
October 12th 2009 @ 11:07am
Michael C said | October 12th 2009 @ 11:07am | Report comment
- the thing for AFL and AFLPA is, in being such a closed workshop so to speak, both parties share a very similar interest with respect to the ‘good of the game’. As compared to the world behemoth of soccer where you probably can’t blame players for being in it for themselves, or the Rugby world where players are very open to that same attitude to the extent as well of swapping b/w RU & RL. The AFL balance b/w players and admin MUST work hand in glove or it just won’t work at all. And so it does. (not always perfectly, but, there’s no such thing as a perfect plan except in retrospect and untested!).
re a kid like Gamble:
Reality for Gamble is he need not sign the next contract and can go into the draft. If you can work it, you enter the draft with a price on your head that only one or two ‘suitor’ clubs are willing to pay – - it’s a bit of a risk.
He can pursue his club to seek a trade. No guarrantees there.
Or, he might be perfectly happy where he is knowing he’s next in line behind Cam Mooney who is nearing the end, and just as likely to be in the 22 come last Saturday in September next year………because, the general theory on back to back flags is you need a bit of turn over of players to occur…….so, for the Geelong list, the current fringe players are perhaps closer than ever they may get again to a Grand Final.
So, there’s an element of rolling the dice which ever way he goes.
October 11th 2009 @ 7:59am
Pippinu said | October 11th 2009 @ 7:59am | Report comment
Freud
but over the last 20 years, with a couple of thousand palyers having gone through this whole process, you can count the number of malcontents on one hand.
What redb says about the employment agreement between the AFL and the AFLPA is spot on.
And on top of that, experts in the filed have referred to the unique market that is Australian Football which makes the court interpretation of this whole field far more unpredictable than many would suggest (i.e. can’t compare with what has happened to other codes).
October 12th 2009 @ 6:37am
Dogs Of War said | October 12th 2009 @ 6:37am | Report comment
To be honest, the unique market that AFL has, makes it even worse for a court. It’s not like they can go overseas like Rugby players can if they don’t like what is on offer.
The NRL had a draft, and it got thrown out in court. No agreement between a players association and the AFL holds any weight, when the club still controls a players future when the contract has run out. That is restraint of trade.
October 12th 2009 @ 7:02am
Redb said | October 12th 2009 @ 7:02am | Report comment
Rubbish.
The NRL is not relevant to the AFL system. AFL players are already paid good money compared to the NRL, whose players who can earn more money by going overseas.
The AFL’s draft system reflects what is overall the best option for players. It’s not perfect, but what system is.
Whilst in Luke Ball’s case it appears he is left with few options and the system in this case has not served the player’s best interests, it is unique and rare. Some sort of free agency mechanism could help or the AFL should have brought in a mediator to resolve the dispute between St Kilda and Collingwood.
The players sign up for the AFLPA to represent them and would be bound by any agreements the AFLPA make.
The AFL needs to be working on providing more options no doubt but you dont need to throw the baby out with the bath water.
Redb
October 12th 2009 @ 6:56am
Pippinu said | October 12th 2009 @ 6:56am | Report comment
I don’t think it’s as straightforward as that.
Anyone wishing to pursue an AFL career must deal with the AFL – there are no other employment opportunities – so from day one, there is an acceptance that players starting off on their AFL career do so under those conditions, and that includes entering the draft.
I can’t remember the exact wording, but at the legal level, there is a difference between the labour market conditions that exist for an AFL player and those that exist for an NRL player. The latter can pursue work opportunies overseas for greater reward, and the restraint of trade is more apparent in that situation if he is stopped from doing so freely.
An AFL player has no option but to pursue work opportunities within the AFL framework. A court is likely to find that the existing AFL framework in no way reduces the earning capacity of players, and indeed, has enhanced it consderably over the past couple of decades. That would be an influential element to any judicial decision on the matter.
October 12th 2009 @ 3:19pm
Freud of Football said | October 12th 2009 @ 3:19pm | Report comment
Good point Pip. Ben Cousins of course had to work pretty hard to appease the AFL after coming back to finally get on the books of Richmond. In many other sports he would have just went somewhere else but the AFL holds a monopoly type role over the players as they know they have no other choice.
October 12th 2009 @ 3:35pm
Lazza said | October 12th 2009 @ 3:35pm | Report comment
If they don’t like those conditions then what options do they have? None. That’s why it would probably be deemed illegal and restraint of trade if it ever went to court.
October 12th 2009 @ 3:38pm
Pippinu said | October 12th 2009 @ 3:38pm | Report comment
There’s no diminution of earnings – that’s a key factor that the court will look at.
October 12th 2009 @ 10:18am
Ian Whitchurch said | October 12th 2009 @ 10:18am | Report comment
If Luke Ball doesnt want to play for St Kilda, then he can nominate his salary and enter the pre-season draft.
The good of the code is for an even competition, and that means a draft and a hard salary cap. If restrictions on free agency are part of that, so be it.
Oh and Pipinu … ‘An AFL player has no option but to pursue work opportunities within the AFL framework.’
Go tell that to Ben Graham and Sav Rocca.
October 12th 2009 @ 10:46am
AndyRoo said | October 12th 2009 @ 10:46am | Report comment
It does seem that AFL players get a rough deal conditions wise when compared to the other codes but they as a whole are pretty well compensated in comparison.
% wise they don’t seem to get the same share of the pie that Rugby league players get but their pie is much bigger.
So hard for them to complain even though a few guys like Shane Woewodin seem to have suffered a bit under these rules.
October 12th 2009 @ 10:58am
Pippinu said | October 12th 2009 @ 10:58am | Report comment
I think there would be broad acceptance across all four codes that a balance has to be struck between compensating players (sufficiently that a quality product can be guaranteed), and ensuring that quality young players continue to be developed so that the game as a whole remains healthy.
No one really knows where that balance is, but as long a the quality of players produced remains high, the income potential of players entering the industry will remain high – that’s the general cyclical formula that applies.
The consensus that has emerged between the AFL and the players association over a very long period now has been crucial in creating a win-win situation for all parties – with players being adequately compensated, but with the AFL been able to create a kitty to ensure the game’s health is safeguarded.
It has worked for the AFL’s very unique set of circumstances (domestic comp, zero international responsibilities).
As we’ve seen recently with the negotiations between the Socceroos and the FFA, codes with an international exposure have a layer of complication that makes it a bit tougher for the game’s administrators.
This is just intended as a general observation – each code just has to deal with its own set of unique circumstances as best as it is able.
October 12th 2009 @ 11:07am
Redb said | October 12th 2009 @ 11:07am | Report comment
People must remember the AFL is essentailly a not for profit organisation – there are no shareholders to please who would recevie dividends on the TV rights money – all the money ends up in the game.
How it’s divided is a matter of opinion but no-one can question the best endeavours of the AFL in the interests of the game. There is no other purpose to satisfy other than to nurture and develop Australian Football itself.
Redb
October 12th 2009 @ 11:02am
Redb said | October 12th 2009 @ 11:02am | Report comment
The point is there will always be exceptions who end up in no mans land (although has Pre Season Draft ). You cant always cater for the exceptions.
Last year there were only 6 trades , this year about 25, with only main 1 trade that didnt happen – Luke Ball.
I tell you one thing, IMO the fans would much rather the player sticks with the club, its the clubs who like to trade and treat their players like meat (like the rest of the codes around the world) , not the AFL admin.
Ask an AFL fan and they are often spewing to see even one of their better players go, free agency would rip that up very quickly and make AFL no better than the other codes. Loyalty = tribalism.
There is a balance to be struck with some form of free agency as no system is perfect, but making vast changes to suit one-offs is un-necessary.
Redb
October 12th 2009 @ 11:17am
Pippinu said | October 12th 2009 @ 11:17am | Report comment
I would agree that low levels of player movement does a lot to instill supporter loyalty – it’s something the AFL and PA should keep in mind in discussing free agency.
A period of service of around 8 years seems a very good starting point.
One thing for the games administrators to conisider is the increasing trend for player to return to their home state – especiallly Victorians.
The Victorian clubs hold onto their interstate recruits quite well – about a quarter of the bullie’s list are South Australians, including some big names: Cooney, Griffen, Lake, etc.
But the Victorians located interstate are increasingly keen to get back to Victoria.
October 12th 2009 @ 11:24am
AndyRoo said | October 12th 2009 @ 11:24am | Report comment
Pip that’s because Melbourne is a footy culture. If you come from a state like NSW or QLD (unless you’re a country boy who hates the limelight) you are going to love it. Similar to the soccer players that go to Europe, it’s a fantastic experience.
Adelaide and Perth also have a footy culture but they are not the centre of the AFL universe like Melbourne and you are also much more personally in the spotlight because there are only two teams.
October 12th 2009 @ 11:41am
Pippinu said | October 12th 2009 @ 11:41am | Report comment
AndyRoo
I think you’re right – it has a lot to do with it – and as you say, there are those who prefer to be away from the limelight (and there are many examples of that).
October 12th 2009 @ 11:18am
AndyRoo said | October 12th 2009 @ 11:18am | Report comment
Yeh I am envious of how many 1 club men the AFL has and the draft plays a big part in that.
If the draft system falls over I feel it would be because the clubs are being greedy. Look at Barry Hall the swans put a price out in the market straight away with no fuss. They didn’t go for the maximum return but it felt like the right thing to do considering the years of service from Barry and that he wasn’t worth anything as a player to them. Trying to get a higher price would feel like they are exploiting the system. Similar to how Arsenal let Thiery go to Barcelona for less than market value (Still 16 million quid though), even Arsenal fans didn’t begrudge the gesture. Some would say it’s fair enough to get the most you can using the rules but it’s moments like that where the rules come into question.
St Kilda strike me as greedy going for too much for a bloke no longer in their first team plans. And I felt Essendon did the right thing as a business by not really pushing Lloyd to have another year but the wrong thing as a Footy Team.
A lot of the drama could dissapear if you have a compensation commitee that can step in if the clubs can’t agree a price.
October 12th 2009 @ 11:48am
Michael C said | October 12th 2009 @ 11:48am | Report comment
Essendon were very happy to have Lloyd play on. He was offered a 1 yr contract, and he’s been on SEN where he illustrated that it was a very singular personal feeling that he was finding it that much harder, given the shocking hammy injury he’d had – to compete the way he wanted, and despite the club and his wife wanting him to continue, he just felt it was the right time to pull the pin.
- – -
re compensation committee – - the blueprint on that is already in place in a sense with the ‘father/son’ system. It’s a bidding system. So, if the Bulldogs want in future to use father son on Tony Liberatore’s son, then, they indicate they plan to, and other clubs have a chance to bid. i.e. if North Melbourne said “Yep, we want him with our 2nd round draft pick”, then, the Doggies have to either commit their 2nd round pick (it doesn’t specifically need to be higher or lower, just, that it IS a 2nd round pick to ‘match’ the best offer from any other club). If the Doggies decide he’s not worth it, then, North would have him at the nominated price.
That’s a cute system.
October 12th 2009 @ 12:23pm
AndyRoo said | October 12th 2009 @ 12:23pm | Report comment
I got the feeling he was unwanted, with no guarantee of being a full forward.
Awaits to be corrected by RedB
That’s not having a go at the AFL as it happens in all sports, just a sad fact now that sports are all profesional.
October 12th 2009 @ 12:35pm
Redb said | October 12th 2009 @ 12:35pm | Report comment
Await you should.
If people have an incorrect intepretation of the law it needs to be corrected.
invoice in the mail.
Redb
October 12th 2009 @ 12:28pm
Pippinu said | October 12th 2009 @ 12:28pm | Report comment
I don’t mind that system.
But Geelong built a grand final team on getting father – son selections (and good luck to them), and the bullies had to offer a first round pick to get Ayce Cordy – that seemed a bit unfair to me at the time.
October 12th 2009 @ 2:30pm
Michael C said | October 12th 2009 @ 2:30pm | Report comment
I love the passage of time. The passage of time allows us to forget that Geelong amassed a legion of elite troops on the back of a father-son system that was too easy.
St Kilda amassed a legion of elite troops on the basis of a priority pick system that was too accommodating.
Good luck to them.
in reality, you need to find your ‘back door’ and maximise it before the loophole is closed.
Afterall, as you pointed out, North Melb mid 70s was built on the old short lived 10 year rule, and even our ’90s success was in no small part due to the strong internal talent pool via the North focus on Under 19s, such that we were perfectly placed when the Crows joined and the SA pool dried up and clubs had to get used to drafting in from the Under 18s.
Then there were other era’s of success due to under the table brown paper bag dealings!!!
And all along, have the Doggies been one of the most ethical clubs?? to never exploit a loophole???
October 12th 2009 @ 2:49pm
Redb said | October 12th 2009 @ 2:49pm | Report comment
Draft picks only get you so far. There have been many high draft pick players who have not peformed and vice-versa.
Talent spotting is still critical – a lot got Daniel Rich wrong.
Redb
October 12th 2009 @ 12:36pm
Redb said | October 12th 2009 @ 12:36pm | Report comment
Lloydy did the right thing by himself and the club. No issue with that.
October 12th 2009 @ 1:08pm
Lazza said | October 12th 2009 @ 1:08pm | Report comment
Lack of player loyalty hasn’t stopped the EPL becoming the World’s most popular sports league. Let’s not confuse the issue – you don’t need a draft to have an even competition. If every team has to operate under a hard salary cap and they all get an even share of that huge TV contract money then you have an even competition.
The reason the AFL needs a draft is because it’s not a national sport and it’s trying to prop up 10 clubs in one city. You have to force players to go to these less fashionable clubs so they will remain viable. If an upstart competition like the A-League can do without a draft then why does our ‘strongest’ competition need one?
October 12th 2009 @ 1:39pm
Redb said | October 12th 2009 @ 1:39pm | Report comment
You know the answer but choose to ignore it.
Hint: the A League has foreign players, but not the best Australian players.
October 12th 2009 @ 1:48pm
Lazza said | October 12th 2009 @ 1:48pm | Report comment
The point I’m making is that the A-League is an even competition without having a draft. Small clubs like Newcastle and Central Coast have been competitive and won a premiership. Richer clubs like Melbourne or Gold Coast can’t buy a premiership like the EPL.
Let’s just stop pretending that a draft is needed for an even competition. It’s a completely different issue.
October 12th 2009 @ 1:53pm
AndyRoo said | October 12th 2009 @ 1:53pm | Report comment
Sorry Lazza I mistook your point before.
I agree they don’t need a draft to have an even competition especially with a salary cap in place.
I do think the 1 club players they have are a big boon though.
October 12th 2009 @ 2:18pm
Michael C said | October 12th 2009 @ 2:18pm | Report comment
Ah, but, a sport like basketball employs a draft,
and soccer doesn’t,
in a scoring sense, AFL is in the basketball corner so to speak. They are games that are more offensively geared. Or, at least, a less negatively/defensively geared.
Soccer can hide a lot of it’s inequalities behind the negatively geared rulesets.
In AFL, without salary caps and drafts, teams down the bottom wouldn’t need to consider tanking…..as, they’d be struggling for a single win as a natural consequence…….because, that IS what WAS happening in the past.
The draft also provides an orderly framework within which the clubs, the player managers and the players conduct their business. It provides those entering the system (i.e. new recruits) a reasonably transparent system to enter into.
But – - drafts alone only really work at their maximum with a defined player pool for the regional or globally highest level ‘league’ of the given sport……thus, again an AFL/NBA parallel.
October 12th 2009 @ 2:40pm
Lazza said | October 12th 2009 @ 2:40pm | Report comment
The NBA recruits players from all over the world? It’s the second biggest team sport after Football. Again, you are confusing the draft with having an even competition. It’s a different issue.
October 12th 2009 @ 2:42pm
AndyRoo said | October 12th 2009 @ 2:42pm | Report comment
Football does have a draft in the MLS.
October 12th 2009 @ 3:08pm
Michael C said | October 12th 2009 @ 3:08pm | Report comment
Yeah, the NBA is the highest level basketball comp in the world. It works particularly well.
The AFL is the highest level Australian football comp in the world. It works particularly well.
The other aspect about a draft system is where it applies, i.e. what are it’s parameters, and who can qualify (or nominate for it).
btw – what works really well is the avenues around the fringes of the draft – - like the rookie draft and the NSW scholarships and international scholarships. Clubs that work the system well have done pretty well under the system.
October 12th 2009 @ 2:03pm
Redb said | October 12th 2009 @ 2:03pm | Report comment
Your confusing salary cap with player recruitment systems.
There is no comparison between the AFL and A League, on many levels, but not least of which is the fact that the player pool is entirely different.
The NFL and NBA have a draft are they inferior competitions? They just have a different player recruitment strucuture.
October 12th 2009 @ 2:06pm
AndyRoo said | October 12th 2009 @ 2:06pm | Report comment
Redb
I think the point is it’s the salary cap that would keep the comp even regardless if their is a draft or not.
October 12th 2009 @ 2:46pm
Redb said | October 12th 2009 @ 2:46pm | Report comment
Who said the A League is even? Melb Victory have won 2 of the 4 comps.
The draft came into the AFL about 12-15 years ago, not sure exact timing, but obviously prior to its introduction the AFL wanted to streamline they way new kids are brought into the game.
The AFL has several feeder structures coming from different comps: VFL, SANFL, WAFL, QLD,etc
The AFL studied the various systems and decided the draft best suits the AFL in a closed player market similiar to the NFL.
Redb
October 12th 2009 @ 2:57pm
AndyRoo said | October 12th 2009 @ 2:57pm | Report comment
The NRL is pretty even becasue of the cap. The storm have done amazing work with their recruiting finding young stars all the time and getting value out of their recycled players (I love that AFL term, and now use it for other sports) but it’s a fairly even comp throughout. Good teams with good cultures and coaches tend to do better as they should.
I think the draft is a good thing for the AFL overall though as it keeps the player agents away from young kids, apart from the odd sponcership deal there is little way to exploit them until they are drafted.
Imagine oppeneing up recruitment, would you trust Carlton not to offer your young adelaide starlet money to switch at the age of 15.
Obviously if it aint broke dont fix it, but I found the conversation interesting.
October 12th 2009 @ 2:20pm
Lazza said | October 12th 2009 @ 2:20pm | Report comment
The NFL and NBA have a draft because teams in the smaller markets would fail without it. That’s a sign of weakness not strength.
I agree that player loyalty is probably better but clubs are quick to get rid of players if they don’t perform or are getting old so you can’t blame them for getting the best deal they can.
The thing that frustrates me with the draft is that you can’t really judge a team or a coach properly. If Adelaide Utd fail then I can blame the coach and recruiting staff. Under the strict guidelines of the salary cap they have total control over which players come to the club. When the Adelaide Crows fall short as they did again this year how do I judge the coach? He can’t recruit the players he wants and the higher they finish on the table the lower the draft picks. Have they over achieved this year with the limited recruiting options or did they just fail again in the Finals?
October 12th 2009 @ 2:41pm
Michael C said | October 12th 2009 @ 2:41pm | Report comment
“That’s a sign of weakness not strength. ”
interesting,
I won’t try to guess. I’ll ask. How do you figure that as a sign of weakness??
btw -
at the elite level – the attitude players need to keep is that the club owes them nothing. AFter that, it’s the Kennedy “Ask not what your country can do for you, but, what you can do for your country”. Loyalty and sentiment don’t really belong in the Club to player equation……but,….here and there it does, as can be ‘afforded’. Otherwise, we’d have never seen Jason McCartney, Adam Ramanauskas or Graham Polak making ‘comeback’ games where otherwise they’d have been shown the door in a fully pragmatic world. Thankfully.
on the judgement point, I’d like to think about that separately. It’s a good point that deserves separate handling.
October 12th 2009 @ 1:18pm
AndyRoo said | October 12th 2009 @ 1:18pm | Report comment
Lazza
The English top flight isn’t better for the fact there is no player loyalty, it’s one of the best and oldest leagues in the world which means it survives despite player movement and teams made up entirely of foreigners. What the EPL does right outweighs what it does wrong so don’t mistake player movement as one of the reasons the league is successful.
Yes the competition is successful but not for those reasons. I don’t think Mark Bridges going from Newcastle to Sydney FC strengthens the A league. It didn’t kill it but it’s not a positive thing.
The AFL is a different beast. It’s a domestic only game which is very strong in Australia for cultural reasons. It’s built on a tight fabric of ownership between fans and the game. There membership culture is fantastic and a lot of player movement would damage that a little.
October 12th 2009 @ 1:26pm
Lazza said | October 12th 2009 @ 1:26pm | Report comment
The EPL is technically not made up of foreigners. The UK is part of the European Union and EU citizens have the right to work in any member country. There is a limit of 4 non EU players per team.
October 12th 2009 @ 1:46pm
AndyRoo said | October 12th 2009 @ 1:46pm | Report comment
I know the rules Lazza, I actually follow football rather than AFL. I am just playing devils advocate in that yes the EPL is succesful but it isn’t becasue the players move a lot between clubs.
A simmilar argument that is brought up with people saying get rid of finals and the salary cap becasue the best leagues in the world don’t have them. That’s true but they are not the reasons those leagues are the best in the world, there are also some pretty ordinary elagues which have those rules too.