AFL CEO Andrew Demetriou addresses the media during an AFL Media Conference at AFL House, Melbourne. Slattery Images
While it’s a historic agreement, the AFL’s free agency model is also very complicated and has overlooked its most important function. It still fails to allow big name players to move freely between clubs.
For such a professional sport I would have thought a more professional outcome would have been achieved. How hard is it for unrestricted free agency to be implemented?
If the clubs are smart when free agency is introduced at the end of season 2012, they will easily be able to retain they’re elite players because of the restricted component to the agreement.
Let’s take a quick look at some of the fundamental elements.
The agreed model will see delisted players, and players with 8 years service to one club as unrestricted free agents, allowing them to move clubs if uncontracted. But only if they’re outside the top 25% of paid players at the club.
Players of 8 years service who fall inside the top 25% will be restricted. Meaning before the most highly paid players can move, their original club first has the chance to match any offer made by another club in order to retain them. If the player is still adamant on leaving they then must nominate for the national draft.
This is how the free agency model is failing as it gives the clubs too much power over players who have worked so hard to be at the top of the money tree. Free agency is designed to allow a player his choice of destination but this model is doing the opposite, if a player wants to leave but the club matches the offer, they have to enter the national draft which is a complete lottery.
It’s important to remember clubs are also restricted by the salary cap and the draft. But the AFL believe they’ve reached a balance between increasing the choices available to players, greater flexibility for clubs to manage their lists, all whilst taking into account the interests of members and supporters.
The AFLPA originally wanted just four years service at a given club before free agency kicked in, now they’ve agreed on 8 years and with a restricted component.
What kind of a soft negotiation by the player’s body is that?
Clubs losing a player will be compensated with national draft picks, under a formula taking into account the player’s salary, age, best and fairest record and position they were initially
drafted. The exact details of just how this will be formulated though are still to be determined.
Another problem is going to be adjudicating the top 25%. The AFL is yet to finalise the details of exactly how this will be done either. But I can guarantee you the player agents will argue their players are outside the 25% while the clubs will be arguing the player is inside the 25%.
Two clubs have already been granted a temporary form of free agency with the Gold Coast able to lure up to one uncontracted player from each existing club this year and Western Sydney both next year and in 2012.
This opens the door to yet another dilemma for the AFL.
2010 is set to become a poaching frenzy for the Gold Coast franchise as it attempts to lure uncontracted players to the club. Other football codes readily accept player movement mid-season, but the AFL has until now been able to avoid such an attack on its moral fibre.
By all means players should have the right to move clubs at seasons end when uncontracted, and now to some degree are able to do so through free agency, but jumping ship mid-season is in my mind a form of treachery.
Making matters worse, the specific players are unknown to the media and the football public. Speculation is rife the league’s 17th team is not only talking to potential recruits but has drafted a document of consent for players to sign if they choose to pledge their allegiance at seasons end.
How many players have not only been targeted but secretly signed confidentiality agreements?
Michael C
Roar Guru
I only have to think of how hard it was for Jade Rawlings to exit Hawthorn to North......Hawthorn didn't play ball - he ends up was the Doggies before finally getting to North but, too late she cried!!!
Michael C
Roar Guru
A draft per se not necessarily so, it depends how you determine the selection order. Certainly the draft as is - is structured bottom up and non-negotiable OTHER than the capacity to trade draft picks - - and from this perspective - what the draft at very least does is provides 'trade currency' where a club may otherwise be forced to trade/sell their best current players.......so, instead can trade away their best future players!!!!! Coaches and 'football departments' get judged on their capacity to develop talent (i.e. Richmond have come under heavy criticism for certain 'wasted' draft picks in the past....and took Tambling ahead of Buddy Franklin and Fiora and Oakley-Nichols did nothing etc), and the other aspect is the capacity to develop and manage game plans/strategies etc and list management in general, Richmond as an example again suddenly found themselves last year with all these over 30s players - Richo, Cousins, Brown, Johnson......and floundering 4 weeks into the season 2009 - their supporters would then look towards the coaches and ask where their plan B was - that's left them rebuilding now. btw - if ever you've sat through even a muck around 'fantasy league' draft night - you'll understand that the recruiting/football departments have a huge job in prepping for a draft and for recruiting decisions made. Next in line on draft day isn't so clear. The requirements for the club moving forward aren't so clear - - the common dilemma on draft day is 'next best available' vs 'best for required positions at your club'. And - then, via the Rookies come the hidden gems...and that's where footy departments can really build reputations.
Michael C
Roar Guru
the priority picks have been watered down a fair bit now anyway - - - thankfully, it WAS ridiculous previously. Reasonable question though.
Lazza
Guest
The draft system came from America. They don't have clubs but franchises which are all privately owned so I don't know what Kennett is on about? The system over there ensures that all the private owners can make a profit. A salary cap is enough to maintain an even competition. A draft is used so teams at the bottom can rise quicker by being given all the best new, young talent which really defeats the whole purpose of 'competition'. How do you really judge a team or coach when there are so many restictions? Did they fail or over achieve given that they have so little control over recruiting. As far as theatre goes give me the unrestricted madness of European Football's transfer battles anytime. Wouldn't work here but are much more entertaining than a boring draft.
matt
Guest
Are people reading too much into the fact some players will be considered "restricted free-agents". From my understanding all that means is that the players current club is given the opportunity to match any offer given to these players from rival clubs. The player can choose to accept that offer or seek a trade or enter the draft. So for example if Buddy Franklin was offered X amount from Melbourne, the most likely outcome would be that the Hawks couldn't match the offer and Buddy is free to go to the Dees. If the Hawks can match the offer, Buddy stays and gets paid what he is worth or Buddy doesn't accept the offer then he obviously wants to go and the Hawks can negotiate a trade which would benefit all parties. Conversely he could take a punt and enter the draft and end up anywhere. I think it does enable easy player movement. I think it also encourages clubs to negotiate and come up with the best deal for all parties concerned. If for example Buddy declined the hawks offer and decided to go to the Dees anyway, the Hawks would be foolish if they did not negotiate a trade and get something in return. I think the idea of giving the players original club one last chance to negotiate and try to keep them is great as it will hopefully mean more stars will stay put and give the club an idea of its players true market value. It also gives players who are being paid well under their market value the opportunity to make better money elsewhere without restriction of trade.
Redb
Roar Guru
Jeff Jeff Jeff, Just a heartfelt plug for membership :-) How can creating more opportuntity to trade after 8 years be more restrictive on players than now? I agree on player loyalty but if your a Melbourne or Richmond fan you'll soon recover once they start winning. Redb
AndyRoo
Roar Guru
Will the new free agency agreement lead to getting rid of the priority pick. If a team can possibly buy 2 or 3 senior players from other clubs in additon to getting the first round pick that's surely enough in one season?
Michael C
Roar Guru
The draft system is a means of achieving a regulated entry point into the system. It provides a structured doorway or two (the rookie draft, main draft, pre-season draft and once upon a time the mid-season draft!!!), and it is structured to service the facilitated talent pathways (there's certainly been efforts to effectively 'channel' the talent, and a few toes stepped on along the way). ANd that's probably fine - it's good theatre as well - as the US have found. The Salary cap is less to do with the draft and more to do with the trade process - - club to club - - NOT achieved via the draft; and the trade is mainly to do with the draft by virtue of the capacity to trade draft picks.....and the question is will clubs ever be permitted to trade future draft picks??
Lazza
Guest
The current system and even the new restricted free agency model is restraint of trade and would most certainly be deemed illegal if it ever went to court. The AFL had to compromise because it had to avoid a court case and try to placate the players association. It would only take one player who wasn't happy to go to court and the whole system would be thrown out or the players association deciding in the future that the new system was too restrictive. The question I've always asked is why do you need a draft system when a Salary Cap and an equal share of the TV money works so well in other sports to maintain an even competition? Why won't it work in the AFL?
Michael C
Roar Guru
might be a couple of 'em at Gold Coast.
Michael C
Roar Guru
So long as that bottom club isn't struggling along at 92.5% of salary cap and more likely to be in a position where they are likely to struggle to offer their top players the big money - - who are then lured to the clubs who are wealthier and more able to pay nearer to 98.75% give or take of their cap (whatever managed margin is worked with). This I guess is the thing that is always a concern - we've had clubs forcibly operating at 92.5% even when doing pretty well......we're also seen crap lists seemingly overpaid because of this minimum for that matter!!!! We've seen clubs unable to afford rookies and that's been exposed now as a major competitive disadvantage. YEp - clubs have to work better, operate more efficiently.......and until the AFL fully owns Docklands, then, there'll be a lot of hand holding still required in Victoria,......or, might the Vic Govt drag itself from the Myki disaster, jump around the Bubbledome roof fiasco - and build a 3rd AFL venue (first publicly funded in Melb) and help put more AFL generated money back in the hands of AFL clubs!!!! (hmmm, or buy out Docklands early for the AFL).
Redb
Roar Guru
Very much agree that this change will only hasten more trades between clubs. As we saw with the Nov 2009 draft, trading is becoming more common and clubs like Brisbane have gone for trades over development to hopefully open up their premiership window. The downside is player loyalty will diminish, a valuable intangible for us AFL fans who get to see most players through a whole period of 5 to 8 years together. The upside is perhaps spending less time 'rebuilding' through the draft. The draft was becoming compromised due to the integrity of the priority pick. So diminishing the value of the priority pick as a rebuilding tool is a positive.
Michael C
Roar Guru
it is true that in an ideal scenario - - with the salary cap and draft and trade process - that a limited free agency policy seems all well and good, but that's if everything were transparent, and since simple simon knows it's not - - there needed to be 'real world' mechanisms put in place. How effectively it can all be managed and run, who knows - - how much it still relies or not on the good will of all parties??? btw - I note in the AFLPA paper they spoke of Clubs at the bottom of the AFL ladder have no effective way of quickly making themselves more competitive. Teams finishing in the bottom two positions on the AFL ladder over the past 20 years have taken around 6 years to reach the top 4 and 12 years to play in a Grand Final. At this superficial level - well, AFL over the 2000-2009 decade has seen every single club contest at least one Prelim final (i.e. just 1 week from a GF - granted 4 of those sides did it just once each) whilst no single club contested more than 4 prelim finals (Bris, Coll, Geel, Port and StK each with 4). Compared to the NRL (with 15 sides for much of the decade) - Souths and Canberra failed to make the last 4, (Titans thus far not) and Wests only 1, whilst Parramatta and Brisbane both contested 5 Prelims. SO, top 5 clubs in AFL have 20 Prelims, top 5 in NRL have 22, bottom five in AFL have 6 prelims and bottom 5 in NRL have 3 prelims. ON that basis - you'd suggest the AFL system is working okay now that it's getting bedded down. (back in the 90s, clubs like North Melb contest every prelim from 1994 on....into 2000...but, then, we know that they didn't pay 'overs' for players - the players were taking pay cuts to stay). So - I'm not sure you can just superficially present such sort of info and draw conclusions. 6 years to reach the top 4 from down the bottom...... well,....I guess we can ask just how much clubs have deliberately 'bottomed' out for successive seasons - such as StKilda to gain Goddard, Riewoldt and Kosi.....irony now is they could be vulnerable to losing them to limited free agency whilst their (the clubs bottoming out) policy produced an outcome that supported the position of the AFLPA in seeking limited free agency.
Redb
Roar Guru
The list is adjusted for age in 2012 with 8 years service. I agree some would be retired, delisted and restricted. So who would be free agency prospects? perhaps: Mark Blake (27) Shannon Byrnes (28) Joel Corey (30) Josh Hunt (30) James Kelly (28) Tom Lonergan (28) Andrew Mackie (28) Max Rooke (30) Steve Johnson will be 25, but likely in the 25% as of course would be Ablett, Chapman and Bartel. At the moment very few of that list would be available at all unless delisted and then have to go in pre season draft and be picked up by any club, in this system at least those delisted can pick their club.
Art Sapphire
Guest
redb - come 2012 you will see that the Geelong list will be shorter than the one published in The Age today as some would have been traded, delisted or retired. A current list of players with 8 years after 2009 season would give us an idea of what we are dealing with here.
James
Guest
Is Kennet ever happy!
Art Sapphire
Guest
I am busy at work Dogz - can't do everything. :) Thanks for the link, redb
Michael C
Roar Guru
on behalf of Redb I can assure you the salary cap would go up. I'll try to find some figures i saw recently. okay - from the AFLPA : "The salary cap or Total Player Payments (TPP) is the total amount a club can spend on players on the playing list of the club. The cap is in place to assist in maintaining a competitive balance across the league, preventing more wealthy clubs from stockpiling the best talent. The 2010 salary cap is listed at $7,950,000, an increase of 3.2% on 2009. The final year of the agreement, 2011, will see the cap rise to $8,212,500. The total TTP across the competition for 2010 is set at a maximum $127.2 million across 16 clubs. " No doubt, a new CBA would be negotiated going forward were the broadcast deal to increase significantly. btw - previous AFLPA paper on restricted free agency, Titled “A more flexible market for AFL players”, the proposal argues that the introduction of a limited form of free agency will be a win for fans, the code, clubs and players. The paper has been presented to the AFLPA / AFL player movement working party, which was created to formally review the rules regulating AFL player movement following the successful conclusion of the 2007 – 2011 Collective Bargaining Agreement. At its heart, the paper strikes a balance between respecting the integrity and fabric of our game, whilst offering supporters, clubs, players and the code the first real prospect of improving competitive balance since the ‘ten year rule’ of the 1970’s. and also an explanation on the collective bargaining agreement, and also comments suggesting a salary cap to the off-field spending of clubs .
Justin Rodski
Guest
As always Jeff Kennet has voiced his views via the Hawthorn website today and as per usual he disagrees with the AFL http://www.hawthornfc.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/4742/newsid/89841/default.aspx
Brissie Kid
Guest
Yadda - "A free agency system *without* the restriction implemented by the AFL would allow experienced players to move to any club for *less* money, while actually receiving larger payments off book" So how come it works ok in the NRL? Or are you implying NRL clubs cheat? All the AFL just needs to have is a salary cap auditor.