You’d have to have been living under a rock, or absolutely dedicated to not reading or watching anything about the AFL, to not have heard the name Tom Lynch over the last twelve months.
It was not long after Dustin Martin’s ‘The Decision’ interview on The Footy Show last year, that the media started in on the next big free agent names in Tom Lynch, Rory Sloane, and a host of other great players.
Gradually, the list shortened, but Tom Lynch continued to dominate headlines. Even now, it’s reported that Hawthorn and Collingwood have been told not to waste any more time – he’s going to Richmond, but that won’t satiate the circus until there’s a signed contract.
After all, remember Buddy? He was locked in at GWS for months before Sydney came out of nowhere and blew everyone else’s offers out of the park.
This year’s media circus around Tom Lynch, though, has sparked new waves of controversy. The AFL are now forced to consider whether anti-tampering rules need to be introduced to prevent opposition coaches and players speaking to free agents during the season. Once again, the discussion about how free agency simply opens the doors for good players at the bottom to wander off to a “destination club,” keeping the top clubs at the top, and the bottom clubs at the bottom.
Let’s face it, a large number of free agency moves have been like this. Free agency kicked off with controversy when Brendon Goddard left St Kilda to play with Essendon. Arguably one of the best players in the league at the time, Goddard walked away from a team who finished ninth to play with a team who finished 11th.
The following year it was Lance Franklin. Buddy won a premiership with the Hawks, but elected to pursue free agency, and instead of going to the Giants as was expected, he ended up in the red and white of their cross-town rivals.
This same year, Eddie Betts walked as a restricted free agency from a Carlton team who played finals (by default) to an Adelaide team who had finished 11th, and Dale Thomas walked from a Collingwood team who played finals to a Carlton team who shouldn’t have done.
Eddie Betts of the Crows celebrates after kicking a goal. (Photo by Morne de Klerk/Getty Images)
Overall, only sixteen players have moved clubs as restricted free agents since it was introduced in 2012. That’s less than three players per year. Others have been forced into a trade situation, such as Patrick Dangerfield’s move home in 2015, but of those sixteen movements, the movement up and down the ladder has been split perfectly even, with eight players going to clubs who finished below, and eight moving up the ladder.
Then there are the dozens of restricted free agents who have re-signed with their clubs and not even put their toe in the water.
None of those sixteen players were players such as Brian Lake or James Frawley, who were both unrestricted free agents. That’s a separate conversation, but a conversation that must start with the fact that neither of those players was considered to be in the top 11 players at their clubs.
So let’s talk Tom Lynch. A player that some media pundits have called, “the best in the league,” throughout the course of 2018, has elected to leave Gold Coast and come back to Victoria. The current word is that he’s likely to end up at Richmond, which is setting off alarm bells around the league, because apparently, it shouldn’t be possible for the best player, to end up at the best club, by free agency and equalisation measures.
Peter Wright of the Suns celebrates a goal with teammate Tom Lynch. (Photo by Chris Hyde/Getty Images)
If you believe all the media reports (which it’s hard to, since they’re all speculation and half contradict the other half), Lynch’s best money on offer is coming from the Gold Coast. The Suns have more cash to throw at him than any other club in the league, which is not a surprise. Yet he’s still on the way out of the door, which means that it’s not just about chasing the money.
So he’s chasing success? Reportedly, Lynch has offers on the table from Richmond, Hawthorn, and Collingwood. All three clubs finished top four this year, so success is obviously far more likely with one of these clubs than at the Suns.
However one would argue that it’s probably going to be an even split between the three as to where the most premierships and glory is going to come from. These are three of the biggest clubs in the country, so the likelihood is that no matter which one he chooses, he’s going to play in grand finals and before huge crowds.
If Lynch ends up at Richmond, then it’s a masterstroke from the Tigers, but it’s not the fault of free agency.
The Tigers have built a culture and a team environment where their biggest names have been willing to take a lot less than market value, in order to stay a part of this club and team.
It’s widely been reported that Jack Riewoldt actively took a pay cut in renegotiating his contract earlier this year, and it’s quite likely that such has been the case for Alex Rance and captain Trent Cotchin as well.
Tom J Lynch is on his way out (Photo by Adam Trafford/AFL Media/Getty Images)
We’re never going to know the numbers being thrown around from the Tigers, Hawks and Pies as to exactly how much each of them are offering him, but it’s probably a fair bet to say the Tigers aren’t leading the cash race between those three either.
If Lynch is in yellow and black next year, then it’s not because of free agency not working, it’s because the Tigers have spent two years cultivating an environment that is worth more than money.
Steve009
Roar Rookie
That is the fault of the AFLPA. Players who aren't free agents or restricted free agents shouldn't get to choose what club they are going to. If they want to leave the club, the club they are leaving should be able to put the player on the market to get the best deal for the club.
Reg23
Guest
There is already a salary cap in place for equalisation of teams. IMO its a restraint of trade by AFL with player movements unless there a free agent. If a player is out of contract he should be allowed to freely move to any club of his choosing if they can afford to pay him. There is no logical reason why a club has to offer up draft picks or give up players if a player is out of contract. That player doesn't owe the club anything when he wants to leave. In the real world this doesn't happen, it really is bad luck they've left. I hate the arguments that the club needs to receive something because they've invested their time into the player. It is pure socialist fantasy by the AFL. The NRL seems to be able to have team equalisation without this stupid AFL system.
Mick Jeffrey
Roar Rookie
It's certainly not Richmond's fault, it's the fault of those who believe in the age of entitlement. It's the players who believe that they can just feel they can get whatever they want much like anyone else seems to in most facets of life these days (pay rises, free agency and the like) and find it very easy to take what is in reality the easy option which more often than not backfires (3 out of about 30 players who have moved as FA's have actually tasted success, the 30 is the most accurate guesstimate I can provide).
TomC
Roar Guru
The one piece of relevant analysis is the 'perfectly balanced ledger' on FA movements. I'm going to call this out as a blatant falsehood. You tell me which FA moved to a lower ranked club that 'perfectly balances' Lynch's move to Richmond.
TomC
Roar Guru
You know very well my argument isn't 'free agency is a factor because free agency exists'. It's that Richmond would have to make real sacrifices to get Lynch without FA, and with FA they don't. You're not misrepresenting me. You're just inventing stuff. The bulk of your reply seems to be trying to distinguish the commentary around FA with FA itself. But your contention is that FA isn't at fault for this particular player movement. If you feel your analysis is based on the commentary, then it's simply that your analysis doesn't support your contention. At the very least, FA exacerbates inequalities, whatever the commentary says. You disagree, explain why. But you have so far been focused entirely on irrelevancies and logical fallacies.
Slane
Guest
The problem with free-agency is that there are a bunch of people who think free-agency was meant to be an equalization policy whereas it was merely a concession to the AFLPA. The sooner people get their heads around the fact that players deserve to have a mechanism to facilitate their movement between clubs the sooner the competition can mature.
Papa Joe
Roar Rookie
The only gripe that I have with free agency is that the gaining club pays zero in terms of the draft/trades. I believe this unfair. The want-away player gets to move where they want after good long service - fine and fair. The losing club gets compensation for losing a good player - fine and fair. But the gaining club pays nothing (except for the player's salary) - this is not fair IMO. In the Lynch example, it appears Richmond will have to forgo nothing (except salary) for getting an elite KPF. I contend that they should (at minimum) lose their first draft selection that falls after the compensation pick to the losing club.
Paul D
Roar Guru
"I would agree there’s been a rise in the number of “forced trades” in the past decade, but I’d argue that it’s a coincidence in timing, not that FA is a causal factor." Balderdash. Players know they have the whip hand and are flexing it for all they are worth. FA is absolutely the causal factor as tom explains below. "Not that the AFLPA would probably ever let that get through, but it’s still not FA’s fault." Not sure how you can separate these two entities, given FA was something the AFLPA was incredibly gung-ho for and threatened strike action at times over preceding years about.
Larry1950
Guest
my response to your response never made it up, obviously someone has time to vet stuff they disagree with. no abuse, expletives, controversy etc in it so moderators obviously have agendas.
Josh Mitchell
Roar Rookie
Oh! Right, I get you - yeah, I didn't think of that side of it. I got caught up by thinking that all a "player cap" does is pull the Suns' advantage by not allowing them to offer him a higher figure. It's an interesting concept, for sure. Would be a complicated system to work out though.
Josh Mitchell
Roar Rookie
lol... Not sure about that, otherwise Tom and I wouldn't be going hammer and tong at it. ;)
Josh Mitchell
Roar Rookie
It's also a polite way of saying that you're not worth the effort of the argument, but since you want to actually have it spelled out. Your argument is simple. Free agency is a factor because free agency exists. Well, duh. By the same logic, Tom Lynch is a factor because he was born, Richmond is a factor because they're an AFL club, and Tom Wills is a factor because he's the guy who actually came up with the concept of what we now know as Australian Rules Football back in the 1850s. By this argument, well yes, of course you're right, if there were no free agency, then of course Tom Lynch couldn't leave the Suns as a free agent. My premise in this article has already commenced with free agency existing, though, so it's not a point of contention as to whether it does or doesn't exist, it simply does. In fact, I mad it very clear from the headline and the first several paragraphs of the article that I'm addressing the drama and conversation that *surrounds* Lynch's decision (wherever he happens to end up). The media circus surrounding Tom Lynch, though, and the commentary around how free agency is a farce because of his potential move to Richmond, is not caused by free agency itself, and that is the premise of my argument. You've got people like Mark Robinson and Kane Cornes (and many others, but they're some of the big names) saying it's a joke. Even you've said that it undermines equalisation, but even there, that's not shown by history to date - as I said, dozens of free agents stay right where they are, and the restricted free agents who have left clubs have, to date, a perfectly balanced ledger between moving to clubs above or below them, so the idea that free agency is somehow facilitating ongoing dominance by particular clubs is false, based on the evidence at hand so far. In fact, again, remembering that I'm specifically addressing RFAs in this discussion, the closest any RFA has gotten to a premiership medal so far is between Danyle Pearce and Lance Franklin, who both played in losing grand finals. So I stand by my argument. The idea that free agency is somehow unbalancing the game, as demonstrated through the commentary around Tom Lynch, is simply false. I hope that's spelled out enough for you now, because I'm done with the discussion. Feel free to post your 'last word' to have a final dig, but I've acquiesced to your demand to "spell it out," and that's as far as I'll take it.
Peter the Scribe
Roar Guru
I think it's just painfully slow Larry.
Larry1950
Guest
Comment moderation seems to be excluding anyone with a different opinion, hate the new roar format.
Fat Toad
Roar Rookie
Thanks Josh, this is a good analysis. Most people's complaints about free agency are not really about if free agency works, but that they did not like a specific outcome. The draft and salary caps are anti-competitive measures applied to limit the power of the wealthiest clubs and to address the open market failing to provide stable and predictable outcomes for the league, and also to prevent the sort of long-term domination that occurs in European Soccer which effected the VFL prior to salary caps and the draft. The salary cap, draft, and free agency rules apply equally to all clubs. If clubs do not understand that players will take lower pay for success and consider culture in their club selection process, they must have had their heads in the sand for the last 30 years. In business it is common to take potential employees to your building and sell the facilities to attract the best staff, think of the Google campus. Also, think of Eddie Maguire's comments a decade ago that the new facilities were a recruiting tool. Clubs who are loosing players to other clubs for a lower salary, need to think more critically about their internal working environments. Free agency provides selection pressure to clubs to evolve and improve in a high performance competition that is so competitive a difference of only couple of percent can translate into domination across the coarse of a season. But like blaming the umpire, complaining about the rules allows poor performers to divert attention from their own lack of achievements. Administrations that think players outside their club do not have a pretty good idea about what the club is really like, forget that the product they put on the field each week and their behaviour is in fact also a marketing strength or weakness in the player market. Additionally, many of the players have years of playing together before they are drafted and stay in contact during the rest of their careers. All this smoke and heat generated about free agency is really just a screen to cover poor culture management at low performing clubs.
whiskers
Guest
Free agents chasing premierships usually fail. Almost all clubs improve when the free agent leaves and many wind up chasing rainbows elsewhere: Deledio must feel like a goose, for example
Larry1950
Guest
Thought it was obvious, for example the tigers as say consecutive premiers in 2019 would have higher values assessed on their current list so may not be able to go to the market for Lynch without releasing someone. The fact that Riewoldt & others took less than their notional cap value becomes irrelevant & they have to work with what is considered a 'fair & neutral' assessment of their list. For the suns, they can pay overs to keep him with a lower figure assessed in the salary cap. Not a hard concept, just open to whinges from parties with a vested interest.
TomC
Roar Guru
I think your argument boils down to free agency not causing Lynch's move to Richmond, because Richmond's culture of success is causing the move. So I would certainly agree that we have different processes of thinking. I believe that effects can have multiple causes, for example, something you appear not to believe. The basis for my post was that free agency and trading are fundamentally different and require different things of the destination club, so it is rather hard to understand how you felt I was using those two things interchangeably. 'Agree to disagree' is a comfortable cliché trotted out by people having difficulty supporting their argument. I do not agree to disagree. If you're confident in your argument, spell it out instead of misreading the responses.
TomC
Roar Guru
Yes, the fact that players are willing to receive below market value to play at a successful club undermines the salary cap. To some extent we can all accept that the salary cap is not a perfect instrument for this and other reasons. Free agency makes it much easier for players who value success much more highly than their salary to move to clubs who are successful, and shifts the cost-benefit balance for existing players at successful clubs towards sacrificing money to allow their club to get more free agents. In that specific sense, free agency doesn't create a new problem. It exacerbates an existing problem.
Josh Mitchell
Roar Rookie
Apparently we just seem to have exceptionally different processes of thinking and viewing the entire situation, because not only was I confused how you seemed to think there was no link between my analysis and conclusion, but I absolutely was addressing your comment, especially given that you seemed to just be using the idea of trading interchangeably with free agency, even though they're completely different aspects of the broader player movement conversation. So, I'm just going to agree to disagree, since I'm not even sure what you're disagreeing with me about.