The romantic notion of being a one-club player is no longer just under threat, but completely out of touch with the realities of modern football.
Now, the end of the football year means one thing: the beginning of the trade season, a period so frenetic it resembles an open season.
Since the introduction of free agency, the trade period has never been filled with more intrigue or uncertainty.
The momentum of finals and the grand final can now be carried into the ensuing weeks of trade, with every pundit watching the movements of their team and favourite players.
It’s great for fans and it’s great for the players who bargained for their right to free agency – essentially the right to choose where to work after a certain time spent at one club.
But since the introduction of free agency, and the increased movement of players, never has loyalty or the primacy of being a one-club player been so heavily debated.
Even now, on the eve of the final round of the home-and-away season, these same issues dominate discussion.
Should Steve Johnson stay? Will he move to another club? Will Geelong move him on to make way for Patrick Dangerfield? And just how many of those Geelong greats need to retire?
The question marks hanging over players’ heads, including those of Johnson and Dangerfield, are inextricably linked to expectations that champions should remain as one-club champions.
Cameron Ling has been particularly vocal on the issue, citing the move of Paul Chapman from Geelong to Essendon in the twilight of his career as something regrettable from the Cats’ perspective, as well as Chappy’s.
But why, exactly? Chapman was a loyal servant for Geelong and will always be remembered as a triple-premiership legend of the club. His final two years at Essendon can, in no way, belie the instrumental role he played in the Cats’ success.
What’s more, Chapman had every right to seek employment at another club once he and Geelong could no longer agree on his role at the club, or how much his services were worth.
So while the idea of Steve Johnson following the same path as Chapman seems somewhat abhorrent to Ling and other traditionalists, the counter-argument – that remaining a one-club player is part of the fabric of football – is romantic and antiquated.
Free agency was something the players wanted and they should be free to work within the rules to move between clubs, even if that means they take the unholy pledge of being a two or, god forbid, three-club player.
Shaun Higgins – the recruit of the year in many people’s books – has repeatedly said how his move from the Western Bulldogs to North Melbourne as a free agent this year was a decision that completely reenergised his career.
Given more freedom to roam forward, Higgins is second only to Drew Petrie in the goal-kicking stakes at the Kangaroos.
The change of environment and culture has manifested in one of Higgins’ best years as a footballer. And it must be noted, the Bulldogs have not missed him much either.
Because what often goes unheeded in the free-agency debate is that teams are compensated for their losses, and are able to change their structures and game plan in order to adapt to the change.
In the absence of Buddy Franklin, Hawthorn’s forward line remained just as potent because the Hawks were able to adapt their game style, and share the goal-kicking load around a group of players.
And so, regardless of whether Johnson, Dangerfield or any other champion decides to move clubs come trade time, what mustn’t be lost around the hysteria is that free agency now makes it less desirable than ever to be a one-club player.
While notions of loyalty are part of the football narrative, they are now at odds with the system at hand. It’s a system the players opted for, and rightly so. Why shouldn’t they have some say in their own destinies?
At the same time, free agency doesn’t automatically preclude loyalty from winning over players and keeping them at the one club for their entire career.
This loyalty does, however, have to be reciprocal. It’s up to the clubs as much as the players to be open, transparent and steadfast in their commitment to one another.
Penster
Guest
Can't blame them wanting to wring every last drop out of their careers, for most it'll be the last time they earn that sort of coin, not all will walk into lucrative media careers or coaching gigs like Lingy did.
Seano
Guest
Nicky Winmar sacked and forced to go elsewhere after staying even though the saints were rubbish. What's your point?
Todd
Guest
No I don't - I dealt with this adequately before. The salary cap is having no impact on where players are going - players of any quality are all going to the top clubs and, thus, a two-tiered competition has been created - an EPL style competition if you like.
Todd
Guest
Technically, it's not a restraint of trade as the players are quite free to go and play in the VFL, WAFL or whatever other league they choose for as much money as they can get. In fact, there was no real impediment to moving before free agency, all the players did was seek a trade and the club arranged for suitable compensation - it was very rare for someone to be held back. That was the ideal scenario and the players union forced them away from that. The fact is, players have previously understood that without an even competition, they don't have a livelihood as the competition will die.That has been lost in this restraint of trade bull - it's like cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Tricky
Guest
There is an argument for the players to have a say in where they want to play - that's fair enough................. the downside - purely in a simple sense - is that players want to play in premierships (generally) and this mechanism does allow a possibility to choose between flag contender or otherwise, of course IF the choice is there - this is undeniable fact. Take Frawley for example, he had a choice to go to the hawks and well duh a no brainer - sure a flag is not the only incentive and in fact there are many variables but the free trade mechanism does allow to bump up the a top side if the choice is there for a player. On the flip side, players are employees and they just want a fair deal and fair enough. Something that can't be avoided unfortunately.
Jamie Radford
Roar Pro
Why can't any player that has played with the one club for a decade just be exempt from that club's salary cap?
BigAl
Guest
Cameron Ling's comment re. Chapman's move to Essendon is an example of why he is not much chop as a media performer - a cardboard cut out - never has anything enlightening or provocative to say, just old blokey stuff !
Dalgety Carrington
Roar Guru
Restraint of trade? Clubs/players aren't fully independent trading entities, they only have capacity to operate within the confines of the AFL. It's a very different system to those operating under company trade law. It's more accurate to view the AFL as the company, the clubs as departments and the players as employees of the AFL.
damo
Guest
To be fair Todd, & I am a Carlton fan, but if I was a player & Carlton wanted me & I had other options, well Carlton look to be a bit of a basket case of turmoil & internal disruption. If I knew the coach (especially the new one) from some previous time, say if he was an assistant at my former club & is now head coach, then I can see the attraction, but if those sort of relationships don't exist, then it comes down to who sells the package & the vision the best. Even if Dangerfield wanted to be & was offered the sort of deal that Judd got for example, would he really believe it could come to fruition ? As a relatively casual observer, Geelong seem to have a fair bit more to offer to such a player than Carlton do.
Anonymous
Roar Pro
I was questioning your rational using Collingwood as an example. My position is as you stated, we can’t judge this yet because we don’t have a big enough sample size. Do you not agree? So you assure me Collingwood will eventually sign a big name free agent? I could assure you that too, just like every other club eventually will. This again is the problem I have, everyone is to haste in their thinking that free agency is going to somehow ruin the competition or be exclusive to certain clubs. And yes I was talking about Dangerfield to Geelong, however I quite like talking in riddles. Thanks for picking that up, my e-peen feels so big.
Paul D
Roar Guru
So you say Collingwood is a poor example – because in 3 years they haven’t signed one – and then go on to say we can’t yet judge free agency because it has only been around 3 years. Those carrots Collingwood can dangle aren’t going to change. I assure you that just because they haven’t signed one yet, doesn’t mean they won’t. They are actively pursuing plenty. “biggest free agent” to “fastest declining club in the competition” Do you mean Dangerfield to Geelong? Then say so for Pete’s sake. Talking in riddles might stroke your e-peen but it just makes you sound pompous.
Anonymous
Roar Pro
Geelong are not just coming off three flags. By the time we start next season there last would have been 5 seasons ago. The club has been in gradual decline since and this year was the tipping point. Even with Dangerfield I struggle to see Geelong even coming close to finals next year so I’m not sure how this reinforces your review. And if Adelaide don’t feel they will be adequately compensated (by the way, most sporting organisations don’t offer any compensation for losing free agents) then they should have traded him last year when they had the chance. Melbourne offered their second and third picks (which is more than adequate).
Anonymous
Roar Pro
Its not that I’m overlooking it, I’m just saying I believe money is the greater influence. However, I do agree, there’s no doubt some players would be happy to sacrifice money for a certain club. Your example with Collingwood though is a poor one because they are yet to sign a big name free agent. You could be right in your thinking but this is the issue I have, people are assuming the big clubs or the ‘premiership contenders’ will get the best free agents each year. I have an issue with this because free agency has only been around for three years and its not nearly a big enough sample size to see how it will ultimately work. People have been caught up in the hysteria of the Swans signing Tippet then Franklin (which was COLA assisted) and subsequently Hawthorn signing the biggest free agent the following year (which was assisted by the Buddy size hole left is their salary cap). These are anomaly’s in my book, caused by the reason I stated. And lets not forgot, this year’s biggest free agent is going to one of the fastest declining clubs in the competition.
Paul D
Roar Guru
Todd also overlooks the salary cap, which doesn't exist in EPL.
Paul D
Roar Guru
You’re overlooking though that the status of certain clubs can cause players to sign for less. Eg. Collingwood can dangle lots of MCG games, ANZAC Day clash, playing in front of huge crowds. Money can’t buy that at one of the frontier clubs. Successful clubs attract players who want to be part of that culture and don't mind sacrificing $ to get a piece of it.
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
It's not a dumb comment. Preventing free agency would be a restraint of trade if legally challenged.
Lazza
Guest
You serious Todd? Free agency in the AFL is very restricted at the moment. You obviously don't know how the EPL and Football in general works. Any player who's out of contract, at any age, can go to any club who wants him. Imagine that in the AFL? That's what would happen in AFL if the players challenge it in court. Every lawyer I've read says it's restraint of trade and would open the floodgates. That's why it's best to have a compromise situation like they have now. Let's ignore your comments until you understand how these things work.
Anonymous
Roar Pro
You were correct in your initial thinking though, money talks. Hence the reason I brought up the salary cap. At the end of the day a club that has more room in their cap, regardless of their 'status', will always be able to offer a greater deal. Not to mention there is also a caps on football department spending now. The gap between the ‘rich’ and ‘poor’ clubs is gradually declining (although of course it will never cease to exist). More often than not, money will play the greatest influence on a free agents decision.
Todd
Guest
Dumb comment should be ignored. The current system in afl terms is already the epl system. We are already there and that's the point. The players can sue all they like they have no livelihood anyway as the irrelevance of several clubs means the comp will die a slow death and free agency is the major cause.
Todd
Guest
On the contrary, the danger field situation reinforces my view. Geelong are one of the privileged clubs that benefit most from this. Geelong are just coming off three flags and now they will pick up three or four players that will take them straight back to the top four. Carlton never stood a chance of getting these players and will lose several for no compensation. Likewise compo for Adelaide will be inadequate which is the real point Also their are hundreds of examples of the premiership lure being much stronger than the dollar. Geelong are a good example of this and hawthorn who still have room in their cap despite coming off two flags. Also Brisbane a decade ago.