With free agency beginning it’s third season this year, a lot has been said about the merit or otherwise of the system. Some have suggested it only favours the players, others think it advantages the successful clubs.
Those such as Paul Roos have had even stronger views on the system.
The one thing it is doing is changing the way clubs think and act – which I think is in part responsible for the high level of potential player movement during trade week and even more significantly partly responsible for the recent coaching moves we have seen.
In this new era where clubs have to be more aware of contractual status of their players, the likelihood of a player deciding to up and leave a team which is struggling has increased. Not only is it easier for them to move, they now have a say in where they want to go.
This increase in freedom of choice in where a player might head, increases the chances of them considering a move.
But how does all this change things for the club?
We’ve seen a number of examples of players coming out of contract and being eligible for free agency delay contract talks – from the evidence so far, very few players who delay signing a contract end up staying where they are.
So clubs are now looking at being proactive and trying to anticipate a player’s next move. The Bulldogs cashed in on Brian Lake’s value a year before he would be eligible for free agency – they gained a second or third round draft pick where as another 12 months on their list may have seen him move without compensation.
Recent trade talk has suggested that Adelaide may consider a bid for Patrick Dangerfield? With him coming out of contract and eligible for free agency next year, and the go home factor being talked up in the media, are Adelaide just doing their sums and trying to anticipate whether or not to get in early?
Are they trying to gain maximum value for him now, rather than risk what compensation they may be granted in a years time?
Imagine the difference trading Buddy Franklin would have had for Hawthorn – pretty sure they would have received more than pick 19 if they had tried to trade Franklin 12 months earlier.
The flow on effect of the increased freedom of movement for players and the potential threat of losing a player to free agency now puts the power in the players court in more ways than one. Clearly on an individual basis players have more choice, and perhaps an extra bargaining chip for their managers to use to get them an extra year or $50K on their contracts.
But is it also giving greater power to the playing group in matters relating to the coach? While there is no solid evidence that any one player, or group of players, was directly responsible for removing either Brenton Sanderson or Guy McKenna, surely the threat of “losing the players” carries much more weight when players have more freedom to move.
Is it coincidence that Dangerfield is a free agent next year and the coach was removed twelve months prior to Dangerfield’s contract expiring – he had not yet committed to a new contract and with Tex Walker and Rory Sloane also out of contract just how important was it for the Adelaide Football Club to have a coach who had the trust and belief of the senior group?
Were the consequences of another mediocre year under Sanderson the risk of losing one or more of these players?
Suddenly a coach who may have one or two star players coming out of contract and eligible for free agency has a lot to think about in regards to list management and man management.
While we wait for the Gold Coast Suns to reveal exactly why they thought Guy McKenna wasn’t the man to lead them forward, Gary Ablett Jr, the game’s best player and undoubtedly a player with enormous influence at the Suns, was on the verge of a contract renewal but hadn’t yet signed.
Is it possible that the club may have had doubts over Ablett extending his career if the coach was thought to not be able to deliver on the expected success?
Free agency has changed the landscape of football, for the better in terms of individual player’s freedom of movement, but perhaps too may have made the task of coaching that much harder.
I wonder what the relationship between Damian Hardwick and Trent Cotchin is like?
Pumping Dougie
Guest
The biggest problem is that clubs don't have to sacrifice anything to get a free agent - i.e. no trades or player swaps required. For example, the Hawks picked-up Frawley this year without losing anything. It's like a bonus high draft pick has just been awarded to the premiership team. And North collect Higgins and Waite for free - other clubs would have liked them, but a side that finished fourth gets them as a bonus for a good year. It's a raffle for the clubs whether they're fairly compensated when they lose players. But clubs that pick up players are big winners. That's fine for the players, but bad for the sport if we genuinely want an even competition. Interesting to see the AFL give Melbourne a charity pick #3 for Frawley (versus #27 to Bulldogs for Higgins, both players are exactly the same age and similar number of games, both teams around the same spot on the ladder for the past few years), after all their whining, begging and lobbying this year.
johno
Guest
Free agency means now that clubs must either lock in a player who has less than a year left on their contract or look to trade them if free agency is a factor. Of course this all depends on how loyal the club has been to the player and their relationship with the coach. Mundy signed on for Freo where he would have been snapped up by the Hawks or another Vic club had he been a free agent. Freo were fortunate in this case. Fyfe has just signed a new 3 year deal which will see him through to being a free agent. At that stage you would think he'd be fielding huge offers from every club. Hopefully he will be the captain by then and on a good enough wicket to ignore the money. Overall this has meant more power to the player but has left some clubs re-building even more. The Dees have lost Sylvia, Frawley and Mitch Clark in the past 12 months which has put the handbrakes on a hoped for resurgence. Overall though players will be attracted by going home, more money, bigger more powerful clubs. This will be very interesting in 4-5 years when a lot of GWS and Gold Coast players become free agents. Will the NSW and QLD clubs be able to keep all tier interstate players against the lure of big bucks and playing in front of friends and family? I think thats when the AFl will realise how this is not such a great idea.
Radelaide
Guest
Somebody said it's up to the struggling clubs to make their club attractive to players because if they don't learn to walk without crutches then they wont be able to run, remember 14 years ago Hawthorn were Melbourne and Dermott Brereton wanted Gary Ayres and Jason Dunstall wanted Alastair Clarkson. One crucial descision is all it took, Clarko came in and culled in a big way, was given complete power because they had nothing to lose. Look at Port and North now, they've appointed strong leadership and backed them in and they've needed no help in retaining or attracting new players even Melbourne and Brisbane as strange as it sounds might be starting to turn it around, I think it's more culture at the club which is the problem at the Crows now.
Bill
Guest
why shouldn't players move on when they can do better, The clubs have no loyalty to the players trading them when it suits them. treat them with no respect like a piece of property at a second hand market .It's not a one way street now, and they don't like it. STIFF S;';T
Jack Smith
Roar Guru
Interesting. I think people need to understand there are two sides of the coin. It is great for the players but we need to take care of our struggling clubs too.