The AFL’s prolonged decision to introduce free agency has caused much debate in football circles, and most of it seems to be negative. The convoluted set of rules and measures that were introduced the other day haven’t seemed to satisfy any parties.
Many club administrators and coaches feel that free agency will compromise the evenness and integrity of the competition that the AFL prides itself on.
And some of the league’s top players would feel raw about the fact that if they decide to leave their current club, they might not be able to choose a rival club for transfer because their current club would have the power to hold onto them, or worse, force them into the draft.
There is also a concern that big name players would be able to command larger salaries and as a result, low-tier players would have their pay drastically reduced.
In an attempt to satisfy clubs, players (and player managers!) and the integrity of the competition, AFL has implemented a series of rules and measures to govern free agency.
But the one area that is quite intriguing is the area of compensation for clubs that lose their players. A very briefly mentioned pre-determined AFL formula somehow magically calculates the appropriate compensation.
We know that the compensation currency comes in the form of draft picks, but how exactly they will determine what is suitable? Is it a complex scientific or mathematical formula?
Or is said ‘formula’ just a bunch of AFL administrators sitting around a table and determining what is just compensation to clubs that lose their player/s, and then announcing they used a formula to pass judgement?
I can’t wait to see how it will work – if it does work.
In any case it’s going to be controversial. There’ll be people who say the draft picks that are afforded to a club aren’t satisfactory, and there’ll be other parties who say a club has received too many picks, or the granted picks are too high in value.
It would be interesting to know what the West Coast Eagles would’ve received for the loss of Chris Judd if he made it to eight years and became a free agent.
Eagles fans might’ve wanted more than a couple of picks and a player for one of the league’s best performers, whereas Carlton fans might’ve said pick number three would’ve provided ample compensation.
And what would’ve St. Kilda received for Luke Ball?
During trade week last year Collingwood didn’t have any decent picks available to snare Ball – that’s why the trade ultimately failed and Ball was left to the mercy of the draft. Does the formula have the capability to suggest that the draft picks available are unsuitable for exchange?
The trading system before free agency had some flaws but ultimately it worked for the AFL. Players who sort trades generally ended up going to their club of preference, and the competition has remained relatively even.
We can only hope that the AFL has made a good move and the impact on the game is a positive one. In 2016 we’ll find out.
Olrac
Guest
I would like to have seen a teired system of transfer fees for compensations something like players are free to transfer after 10 years for no transfer fee between clubs, for 9 years the fee would be 100k 8years 200k ..... 5 years 500k The money paid could be from some seperate salary cap so clubs that are rich cant just buy up all the best players. This is similar to the world football system where players that are developed at a club are paid for the development of the player I think the FIFA mandate is 300k US or something allong those lines. The restrictions placed on players is just too flimsy that it is open to litigation but restrictions on clubs are fine because they all have to play by the AFL rules to remain in the competition...