With player movements being firmly a sticking point, clubs are being held to ransom by want-away players. Is there a better method than compensation picks?
I think so.
Basically, a proposed system I would suggest for player movements is to dehumanise the process; and treat players like used cars, with the AFL as the broker and ‘black book holders’ of player values.
This method is to address the idea of young players finishing up their first three-to-five years and wanting to go to a particular club, independent of the clubs trying to make a fair trade. Specifically if a Saints player says “I want to play for Kangaroos, make it happen or I quit”, and a trade is manufactured.
Put simply the two clubs are advised of the buying price and the selling price of a player, and have to agree to those terms for a ‘trade’ to be made. This is slightly different to a normal trade, because it introduces another factor, there is going to be a profit made by the AFL.
Let’s take Tom Lynch as an example. To get Tom Lynch at your club, it will cost 2,517 Draft Points, paid to the AFL in the form of returning high draft picks. Gold Coast in return however, would not receive all of this, maybe receiving the equivalent of Pick 7 (1,644 Draft Points) in return. Using Richmond as the buyer, having to pay Pick 2, and Gold Coast in return would get Pick 7.
Tom J Lynch (Photo by Adam Trafford/AFL Media/Getty Images)
The idea being, make this option really unattractive to clubs, and push for them to trade in a fair and equal trade. While also holding the want away players to account, by nominating destination clubs at a premium price to be paid to get them, while the club losing them will be ‘some compensation’ but not a one-for-one.
Ultimately, a system like this would replace the restricted and free agency with weighting to the ‘return value’ diminishing based on the various factors that the existing compensation picks attract.
Where this system would differ, and one movement is independent of any other deals or trades. So clubs won’t be able to say “we will let this player walk as a free agent, but won’t get anyone in as to not affect our compensation”.
The idea of diluting the draft picks that get moved around (and a caveat, it must always be the highest draft picks used to pay), is to avoid the situation where if Carlton and Gold Coast where to receive compensation and free agent picks, they would hold the Top 5 picks. Under this system, Gold Coast’s additional pick would be much lower in the draft for losing Lynch, more in line if a trade was to be conducted.
A system that facilities player movements might not necessarily be popular, but with more and more players nominating their preferred destinations even as contracted players or non-free agents, this solution could solve a problem that is sitting on the horizon.
tim
Roar Rookie
You've hit on the fundamental point. Free & restricted agency was a concession to the players, who have to put up with the artificial market of the draft when they start their careers. If the AFLPA doesn't think free & restricted agency is broken, then it is not broken. Actually, I'm sure they regard the agreement as a compromise full of concessions from the players, so I doubt the clubs and the AFL completely welcome to the idea of reopening negotiations. AFL is about the clubs ... and also about the players.
RT
Roar Rookie
Ok I never said I think players should be able to veto trades, that's another issue. Add to my example plenty of players have chosen the other club, like Buddy. It didn't really hurt Hawthorn in the end and the argument can be made that Hawthorn had enough service from him not to warrant a compensation pick anyway. Back to Lynch, ok it frees up 1.5 million maybe. Then they should be able to attract someone of equivalent ability with that sort of spare cash. Remember if they do it in the same year then it can cancel out a compensation pick. In the Dusty scenario Richmond could have received compensation one year and signed Lynch thr next. Quite a difference to signing someone the same year.
Macca
Roar Rookie
The question has to be asked if the players have been given too much power. Where else do they get free agency but also the ability to veto a trade? This version of free agency will only lead to the bottom clubs being feeder clubs for the top. As for your example the whole point is that Martin wouldn't go to North despite the massive offer but Lynch is going to the Tigers for less money than he could get at the Suns.
RT
Roar Rookie
The receiving club giving up a pick means you don't have true free agency. This goes against what the AFLPA fought for and won't happen so it's not worth debating. The better idea is to get rid of compensation picks altogether. If Richmond lost Dusty to North last year but gained Lynch now you could argue they are no better or worse off based on rumoured salaries. But with a compensation pick for Dusty you could say they would be better off. The fact is the Suns should have another million dollars in there cap which they can use to attract another free agent balancing out the loss of Lynch.
Fat Toad
Roar Rookie
Hi PJ, I understand your comments and agree. But also from a strategy perspective, that is why the Suns should be striving to make themselves the very best in this respect and have never allowed themselves to slip into a pattern where they became viewed as one of the worst. Complaining about free agency etc only really confirms that tehy are avoiding the self examination required for organisational change. Every organisation really needs to do a SWOT analysis (or similar) every year and also assess how they performed against milestones for goals.
Macca
Roar Rookie
I think this idea has some merit, the big issue with free agency is good clubs end up getting big quality players and still keep their draft picks and the "black book" idea goes quite some way to addressing this. Every one is up in arms about Carlton and the Suns possibly getting an extra draft pick this year but the tigers are effectively getting at least a top 5 pick (and possibly more) becuase they don't have to trade for Lynch.
Papa Joe
Roar Rookie
I agree with this comment, but only to an extent. If all other things were equal, then the comment should hold true - but all other things are not equal. Yes, clubs need to look after their players and that clearly plays a big part. But for example, no matter how well a club like GC looks after their players, there will always be the pull-away effect to a bigger southern club to play in front of big crowds and/or family. They may be able to mitigate it through good player management, but cannot, IMO, eradicate it.
Papa Joe
Roar Rookie
Hmmmm, good food for thought Wayne, and I spport the underlying premise that the club losing a player should be compensated in some way, and that the gaining club should also have to pay a cost. Under the current rules, the gaining club pays no price (apart from salary of course). Your suggestion tries to address this, but I think that the AFL setting a market value for want-away players may be too complex and cumbersome to receive industry support. As others have mentioned, free agency is only available after long service - so I think is fair for the players. But you also need fairness for the clubs. if equalisation is not to be undermined, then both compensation to the losing club and a cost to the gaining club is necessary IMO. This could be managed simply by tweaking the current system so that the gaining club would have to forgo their first draft selection that falls after the compensation pick that goes to the losing club. That way, the player gets to exercise his free agency, the losing club is compensated and the gaining club also pays a price. I know this is what you are trying to achieve with your suggestion, but I just feel it may become too cumbersome. Good food for thought though - and I do agree the rules around free agency still need some work.
Fat Toad
Roar Rookie
The AFL is not a disinterested party in all of this because they have a vested interest in teams in single team cities doing well and have at time imposed administration on clubs. Consequently, they should have no rule in direction where players can play. Your assertion that clubs are not being held to ransom by players is incorrect; it is precisely the other way around. Clubs are able to trade players for cash, draft picks or other players. Like a kidnapper with a hostage, the clubs hold all the power in almost all negotiations. It is only in a very few cases that a player is sufficiently demand on the market that any pressure can be applied back up to the club. There is an axiom in business that employees do not resign from a business, the resign from their manager. Clubs that can not hold players should be asking is our management style disconnected from the expectations of players. Thinks about how well this went for Adelaide this year.
Josh Mitchell
Roar Rookie
I’m a bit confused, because you seem to be interchanging the idea of free agency with being out of contract. The very essence of free agency is that a player is entitled to choose their destination club. The entire system has become a mess through want-away players requesting trades, but how does one set a market value? Even with used cars, the market value is only a guide and, like anything, a player is “only worth what someone is willing to pay,” as my father always said. Market valuation doesn’t provide the best system, though. Last year Weller wanted out to GC. The Suns paid overs because they really wanted him, and Freo ended up getting two highly prized young recruits for it. Free agency is a different matter, though. After eight years of service at a club, I think a player is quite within their rights to call their own destiny. The average AFL career is around six years, so they’ve played above and beyond for that club, so why shouldn’t they be afforded the choice? And as I alluded to in my article today, as well, the majority of free agents actually stay where they are. It’s just that we don’t hear about all of them because it doesn’t sell as many clicks.