Why the A-League should allow transfer fees

Agree and as Middy goes out a very very very thin branch and then some ... Matthew Fletcher has been included I think in our match day squad and I think he will start.... Takes a very very deep breath and awaits scorn... MF could turn out to be the signing of the season ..... Reasons despite what outside the Marines may think this year has been planned to develop a squad and results this year have not been seen as important getting the club back on an even keel and putting together a very competitive young squad is as well as getting back to community engagement.... Why TW is so important in this is because IMO in the history of Hal no one comes within light years of his talent spotting ability ... in his first stint with us he identified the following... Danny V, Musty, Berine, Sainsbury, Carceras, Duke, and some others he was also the person who said we should sign weeMac .... because weeMac had had two to three years of bad injury but he had played for Celtic youth and Man U youth wanted him ... Fletcher has been injured over the past two and a half to three years but before that was in some very impressive youth and training academies... so much so he was given a national call up... Meaning we have a highly talented player trained in excellent academies returning from injury with a point to prove and a career to start off again. TW does not often sign a bad player and when he does he lets them go within months .. If I am right this kid could be the best signing in the A-League this year.. Not sure if he will start but he should at least get a run... Just remember you heard it here first...

No round preview? That's a shame. Brisbane v Adelaide - this will be a huge test for Aloisi. Thrashed last week but still top of the table coming up against a fast improving Adelaide side. With so many of their young stars missing it'll be tough to get past Adelaide. I can see this ending in a draw. Hopefully an exciting one in front of a healthy crowd. Central Coast v West Sydney - the Red and Black don't feel like they're in 2nd place on the ladder. Two heart breaking losses back to back including a last minute Derby loss last week. Contrast that with a Central Coast side sitting bottom of the ladder but full of excitement after the arrival of Luis Garcia. But I don't see that being enough for CCM. West Sydney absolutely must win this. A solid crowd of 15k is expected boosted by a travelling contingent of about 3k. Newcastle v Perth - not the most glamorous fixture of the weekend. But this could be Newcastle's chance to get into some much needed form. I was really enjoying Newcastle's surprise start to their campaign before it all fell apart. Would like to see them return to that short but sweet run. City v Wellington - City score for fun. Staggering 37 goals this season already. This could be the chance to add significantly to that tally. Can't see Wellington offering much resistance here. Let's see what their controversial loanee Caceres can offer. MVFC v SFC - massive marquee fixture here. With SFC's sturdy defence, this might not see a repeat of their high scoring affairs we've seen the last 4-5 times. But MVFC's high tempo football will cause serious problems for SFC. Only thing that is certain is that there will be drama. Again would love to see a massive crowd here. This clash deserves well over 30k.

IMO, we need to allow player movement, as it creates a football economy, but while not allowing the smaller clubs to bottom out as a result. As we can see from this season, we're already starting to see who the haves and the have nots are in the A-league. Why not allow the bigger clubs who have the money to virtually pump cash into the smaller clubs by acquiring talent, and in turn help out the smaller clubs survive and even thrive. This is how many tiny clubs in Europe stay afloat and sometimes even grow. This is how I would do it; Caceres is contracted for another 18 months at CCM but Melbourne City wants to buy him. The 2 clubs agree a buyout fee of $300k. On top of this, City have to pay an equalisation levy or tax of an extra 30% to CCM on top of the purchase price. However, this levy must be added into CCM's salary cap floor for that season, so the Mariners virtually have another $90k to spend on player salaries that season. So it's a win-win in my view. City gets their player, they pay the fee plus the tax. CCM gets their $300k fee, which will no doubt help to balance the books for that season, plus an additional $90k to add onto their salary cap for that year to help with player wages, to perhaps help out in attracting a few replacement players. It doesn't sound like much but it will help the smaller clubs.

you nail it frequently Waz!

correct

Reduced squads would for the most part eliminate that like I mentioned previously.

No it will not.

You are correct, a Club doesnt have to sell a player. But when a club is offered ridiculous sums of money by a cashed up club who is trying to weaken its competition, then in a business sense the smaller club will more than likely accept the offer. We see it happen all over the world.

Not silly at all, beats some of the angles the media go for with football. Add in promotion and relegation contests, there would be little room or interest in flare scares.....

This might sound silly but one huge additional big positive that transfers bring is transfer gossip. There's only so long that the weekend's matches can be discussed into the week, let alone the off season, but transfer gossip is never ending. Look at the endless transfer gossip that goes on in England, at all levels as an example. This keeps the game at the front of peoples minds, and generates interest. Also it is easy for 'journalists' who don't have a deep understanding of the game to generate which means more newspaper articles etc. I feel that the HAL really misses this ongoing level of interest outside it's core fan base.

"Im weary of the power that the cashed up clubs will have in the market and how much talent from the smaller teams they will be able to take. That is my only issue with the whole transfer ‘thing’" A club doesn't have to sell a player. Everyone makes the assumption that it is the buying club who benefits out of the transfer system. What if the player they buy ends up being a dud for them. The selling club ends up getting a good fee for their player where they can re-direct those funds and get other players or put it towards their clubs.

Ligue 1 IMO is the most unbalanced league not only in the whole of Europe but the world, ever since QSI dispatched itself in Paris the club of love has been untouchable domestically, not any other club comes close, although dramatically improving there chances in Europe their league is shit.

I read most of it and I don't agree with it. The only part that I agreed with is the part that talks about the Bosman ruling. That is clubs shouldn't be allowed to determine the rights of players to move to other clubs once out of contract. I can hardly believe that used to be the case but there you go. He spends way too much time on a ruling that no longer affects any clubs in Europe. It is opinion that transfer fees make a league non competitive, they do not. A club receives a player and the selling club receives the fee. He makes a whole stack of assumptions which again I don't agree with. Interesting read nonetheless but if this was challenged in court in Europe, I think you will find that the transfer system will remain as is. It will be game changer whatever the outcome. The single biggest issue I have with the transfer system is the hoarding of players and the loan system. If they limit the squad sizes to a reasonable amount and stop the huge number of loaned out players a lot of the issues with transfers will be solved.

I'm happy with transfer fee's, Im weary of the power that the cashed up clubs will have in the market and how much talent from the smaller teams they will be able to take. That is my only issue with the whole transfer 'thing'. The cashed up teams will no doubt dominate like the cashed up teams in Europe usually do. I dont want a situation like the Ligue 1 where PSG is more than likely going to win the league every year because it can afford higher calibre players.

you need to read up on the Stewart report (1995) and the senate inquiry which abolished domestic transfer fees

Of all the burning issues facing the HAL I'm not sure this one should make it to the top of the list and there's maybe a few things on this topic that probably make it more complex than it first seems. HAL contract lengths are typical 2 years of late meaning there's only 2 transfer windows open when a player can be transferred for a fee, by the time the third "window" comes around he's able to sign for free anyway 6 months out from his contract expiring. So the opportunity is limited especially as agents are likely to continue to advise the best players to sign shorter contracts (as they are already doing today) if transfer fees were introduced. Plus of course agents and players have negotiated a right to a "cut" from transfer fees elsewhere in the world meaning less money would go to the club than the headline transfer fee suggests if the same happened here. Which it surely would. And really, is the big money in HAL to HAL transfers or is it in HAL to overseas club transfers? A fee of $300k is relatively nothing compared to the one or two million that can be achieved overseas, especially considering most A league clubs are losing between $1-$2 million each season. And the arguments above in favour of HAL/HAL transfers are all rather benign in nature and it's hard to argue against it on that basis, but would it make a big difference to the finance of the poorer clubs? I'd say no, it might reduce losses in a financial year by 10-20% but that's about it, and that assumes that the "poorer" clubs aren't then slugged having to pay transfer fees for NPL players who would rightly fully demand their cut. Of course then the argument might be that is only fair but if the argument here is for a redistribution of wealth within the HAL it might well fail if costs of incoming players goes from nil to say $30k each? Then let's look at where the wealth is coming from - City and SFC lose $4m+ each season so the wealth is coming from outside of the game; Victory (profits from Milligans transfer aside) made a healthy profit of $500k+ ($300k after tax?) which isn't enough to buy players and reinvest in the club. So I'd say it's a fragile top end that your seeking to redistribute wealth from which would not seem sustainable or financially viable. So I go back to my opening comment - is this and urgent and important issue for the HAL to address in the next 5 years? I'd say definitely not. Close the CFG loophole and leave it as it is. At least for now.

Yes but that isn't the case with the A-league and with the salary cap in place we might only have a couple of transfers in each window anyway. The biggest issue in Europe is the hoarding of players, other than that I cant see any issues. If clubs didn't want to sell any players there would be no issue and this is the thing people are missing here. Not one club has to sell their player under contract if they don't want. The other thing to consider is what incentives will there be for smaller clubs looking to develop players and sell them. There is none except to develop for their own first team. If anything the abolishing of transfer fees will have the opposite effect. It will restrict the movement of contracted players further. If you are a contracted player you can always sign a 1-2 year deal in your career if you wanted to move around. If clubs treat their players well and if they pay them what they are worth on the market they will stay at the club. If other clubs really want a player under contract quite rightly they will pay for them.

FIFpro has recently stated that the market is anti-competitive, places unbalanced power in the hands of elite clubs, conflicts wth European law of restraint of trade and freedom of movement via a labour contract and that the trickle-down effect between active clubs holds no water.

I dont understand the opposition to transfer fees in the A-league. Firstly if a club doesn't want to enter into the transfer market they dont have to. They can wait for a player to come off contract, this will happen for about 80-90 p.c of cases in the A-league if transfer fees are introduced. Lets be clear transfer fees only involves players who are currently contracted. The player wanting to leave still has to agree to the move or it wont happen, usually higher wages helps. The selling team doesnt have to sell him either. So at the end of the day the buying club gets the player they want now and the selling club gets a fee they are happy with. How is that not a win win win. It seems to me a lot of people on here dont understand how this works.