Push for Free Agency [merged]

[mightytiges]

Trading of future draft picks is a stupid idea.  A club on the verge of a flag could sell everything in order to snatch a flag. 

Freo 

But seriously, I agree with you Harry. It'd just encourage dumb recruiting.
 

The reason not many players are traded is becasue clubs have come to the realisation that draft picks are so valuable.  Clubs keep their guns, try to offload their mediocre players and try to find more guns through the draft.  They have figured out that by trading for other clubs mediocre players gets you nowhere more often than not.

We learnt that the hard way 

[one-eyed]

Father-son bidding wars tipped
Caroline Wilson | April 25, 2007
The Age

THE AFL will rewrite the father-son rule, removing a club's unconditional right to a second-generation player and instead enforcing a bidding system with opposing teams.

In a move that certainly would have had impressive Geelong newcomer Tom Hawkins taken as a first-round draft pick, the AFL will introduce the new system before the national draft later this year.

The change, the 12th to the father-son rule since it was first amended in 1967, means every club will have the opportunity to bid for father-son players by committing a first-, second-, third- or fourth-round pick before the national draft. The club with the first rights to take the player must then match the best bid from any other club or lose the player.

Should the premiership club, for example, commit to a first-round pick — in other words pick No. 16 — then the father-son club would be compelled to give up its next closest pick, in that case a second-round choice, to take the player.

Full article at: http://www.realfooty.com.au/news/news/fatherson-bidding-wars-tipped/2007/04/24/1177180652673.html

[one-eyed]

Push for free agency
11 July 2007   Herald Sun
Mark Robinson

THE AFL Players' Association wants the AFL to introduce free agency as early as next year.

No time frame has been officially proposed, but the AFLPA is adamant it wants drastic changes to the "unnecessary and unfairly rigid" rules governing players.

"We want to see a loosening up of the internal labour market for footballers," AFLPA chief executive Brendon Gale said last night.

"We think freeing up, liberalising it, would be in the best interests of the competition, for clubs, and would benefit players. We've identified the issues and we've got solutions we think are in the best interest of the competition."

The AFLPA and the AFL last year failed to agree on conditions for free agency, but formed a working party.

Clubs were asked for their view and offered their input earlier this year.

The AFLPA delivered its discussion document to the AFL last week.

It outlined its proposals for player managers at a conference on Monday.

The centrepiece of its document revolved around restricted and unrestricted free agency, which would allow players to move more easily between clubs.

Restricted free agency would enable a player after, say, four years, to go to the club of his choice.

His club would still have the power to match the offer of an opposition club.

If his club did so, the player would stay.

For example, if the Western Bulldogs offered a player $300,000 and Hawthorn offered $400,000, the Bulldogs would have to match the $400,000 offer.

The Hawks would be allowed just one offer.

Unrestricted free agency would mean a player after, say, seven years, would be able to go to the club of his choice.

All that club would be required to do was fit the player into its salary cap.

"Basically, players out of contract would be free to go and look at other opportunities without resorting to the trade week or pre-season draft," Gale said.

He said the time span that would allow players to move under free agency was still to be determined.

Gale said players didn't have the power to "ply their trade" at another club when situations arose, as they did last year, when players weren't recontracted before trade week, were not traded, and then were delisted.

He said free agency was not always about the league's superstars swapping clubs for more money.

"There's a lot of really disappointing situations and we don't think it's fair," Gale said.

"We support the salary cap and the national draft as a means to maintain competitive balance.

"But the rules to regulate the players, we think, are the most rigid and inflexible of any of the elite sports in the world.

"Ours are the most rigid and it leads to unfair outcomes.

"We think the time is right to reconsider those."

Gale predicted discussions with the AFL would be "long and arduous".

http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/footy/common/story_page/0,8033,22054448%255E20322,00.html

[one-eyed]

The Judd deal and what happened to Josh Kennedy is only further encouraging the Players Association to push for free agency.

http://realfooty.com.au/news/news/will-afl-players-cry-freedom/2007/10/12/1191696179362.html

[one-eyed]

Players call for free for all
By Greg Denham
The Australian
April 10, 2008

A MASSIVE rift between the AFL Players' Association, the league and the 16 clubs is set to open over the AFLPA's demand to introduce a free-agency system.

The players' union wants across-the-board free agency within two years, saying the proposal will also enhance the early competitiveness of the new clubs on the Gold Coast and in western Sydney.

AFLPA chief executive Brendon Gale said he was "encouraged" by the league's proposal to have a form of limited free agency apply to the new start-up clubs, but the players are demanding a widespread introduction.

Under present rules, a player can only transfer during the October player-exchange period, in which he must agree to be traded or enter the national and pre-season drafts.

Gale's forceful stance comes a week after AFL chief executive Andrew Demetriou proposed to introduce a form of free agency by providing the Gold Coast team with one uncontracted player per club at the end of 2010, a year before the new team enters the elite competition.

The players' union is pushing for two types of free agency, a restricted and an unrestricted form. Under the restricted form, which might kick in for players with five, six or seven years of service, the player's original club would have the right of last refusal for any new contract.

The unrestricted form would be for longer service and the player's original club would not have the last right of refusal.

"We think a player, if he's performed a certain amount of service and he's out of contract, should have the right to determine his own future without resorting to trade week or the pre-season draft," Gale said.

Gale said free agency would not just benefit marquee players targeted by the expansion clubs.

"It will really help guys with at least six or seven years of service, guys who are not superstars, but professionals who are good honest players," he said.

"Their opportunity to be traded is limited. These are the guys that feel they are unreasonably restrained in their ability to ply their profession somewhere else."

Gale said he did not have an "exact" timetable for when an annual free-agency window should arise, but he believed that it could be held each November.

Full article at:
http://www.foxsports.com.au/story/0,8659,23514982-23211,00.html

[one-eyed]

Players put free-agency on the negotiating table
Courtney Walsh | October 11, 2008

THE adoption of a free-agency model could help prevent the inactivity that again plagued trade week, according to the AFL players association.

The AFLPA's general manager of operations Matt Finnis yesterday said a form of free agency would help increase the number of trades each year after a record low of only six deals were completed over the past week. The previous low was nine player trades in 2006.

The AFLPA will present free agency models to the AFL Commission by the end of the year.

"I guess this week really continues a trend that has been in existence for some years where the level of player movement is really quite minimal," Finnis said.

"Clearly there is some aspect of trade week which impacts on the ability of trades at different levels to get done."

Clubs have previously rejected free agency as a legitimate solution, yet their continued reluctance to part with valued picks during trade week has boosted the player association's case.

AFLPA chief executive Brendon Gale said this year players were pushing for two different types of free agency, a restricted and an unrestricted form.

Under the restricted form, which would affect players with between five and seven years of service, their existing club would have last refusal on any contract.

The unrestricted form would be for longer service and the player's existing club would not have the right of refusal.

"We'll go back and refine our proposals, refine our framework, something that meets the interest of the players and the industry," Gale said in May.

While Sydney's Ryan O'Keefe and Melbourne's Brad Green, who yesterday agreed to remain with the Demons until 2011, are players that would have benefited under free agency, Finnis believes it could also help contracted players seeking to move elsewhere by enticing clubs to deal.

Players under contract who will remain at homes they wanted to leave in 2009 include West Coast's Mark Seaby, Essendon's Andrew Lovett and Kangaroos' Daniel Harris and Corey Jones.

"If players have got more direct influence when they are out of contract, we think that will promote a more flexible marketplace, but also for those within contract because there is greater incentive for clubs to move and deal with players who are contracted," Finnis said.

A recent player survey found 95 per cent of players believed their ability to move to a new club of choice was important.

O'Keefe had hoped to return to Melbourne after spending nine years with Sydney.

He may enter the pre-season draft and hope he can make his way to trade-week suitors Carlton or Hawthorn, with Sydney unsure how the situation will pan out.

"The first port of call is that Ryan needs to get back to us and say 'I want to remain at the Sydney Swans and then we can start talking about contracts," Swans' personnel manager Stuart Maxfield said yesterday.

Another factor certain to be discussed will be the introduction of a rule allowing clubs to trade future draft picks to gain a player.

While clubs were determined not to offer a first-round pick this year given the pending inclusion of sides from the Gold Coast and, perhaps, western Sydney, a rule alteration would allow them to use their first pick from the following year as trade bait.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24477522-5012432,00.html

[mightytiges]

It's the AFL's fault. Allowing Judd to interview clubs and choose just one for West Coast to deal with has opened a Pandora's box with now everyone else wanting to do the same including no-namers like Warnock who have offered little service to their club despite Freo putting in 3-4 years of development. It screws the player's existing club because they are limited to only what the club of choice is willing to offer or they lose their player for zip. Freo would've got a better pick from Melbourne but Warnock froze them out.

Carlton have realised this loophole so they make sure the player and his manager tell the world that the player will only deal with the Blues and miraculously Carlton have more salary cap room than everyone else to pick the player up in the PSD if no deal is done . This holds up trade week to Friday because the existing club isn't happy about being screwed and (pointlessly) holds out to the end hoping the other club will crack which of course they don't.

It really is tampering with the draft. "Hey if you don't accept what we're offering then your player will put a ransom on his head to bypass clubs with earlier picks in the National and Preseason drafts and we'll get him for nothing". This blackmail used to be classed as draft tampering but of course the AFL being afraid of free agency will ignore it again  . If Carlton with pick 6 in the PSD get O'Keefe as well then the system truly is stuffed.

Oh well we can only hope the Blues think they are above the rules of the game again (seems only white-collar crooks are prez of the Blues these days) and they get caught cheating again  .

[one-eyed]

Free-agency model mooted for players
Michael Gleeson | February 5, 2009

FREE agency is inching closer in the AFL with a model being considered for players to be given a five-week window to move to a club of choice.

Uncontracted players would be able to move during the five weeks between the end of trade week and the national draft under the latest suggested change being negotiated.

Only players who had been at clubs for a reasonable period of service would qualify for free agency. While debate remains over what length of service is suitable, it is likely to be about seven years.

The players' association this week met player agents and advised on the state of negotiations with the AFL and admitted that the post-trade-week window was the latest model. There is no set time frame for any change to be introduced, but the AFL Commission resolved last April that the executive would negotiate meaningfully with the players to devise an appropriate model.

The concessions granted to the new Gold Coast team — with provision for it to select a certain number of uncontracted players — introduced a form of free agency, albeit one limited to one club.

The proposed model with a free agency period after the trade week would apply greater pressure on clubs to sign players earlier or risk them being able to move.

It would also apply greater pressure on clubs to do a deal in trade week lest they lose a player for nothing.

Last year's constipated trade-week negotiations, which culminated in just four players moving clubs, did not help the argument against free agency.

A change such as that suggested might make trade week redundant for those players who qualify as they could move to a club of choice without the need for negotiating a trade.

Most players, however, would prefer their original club be compensated in some form and would not wish to be seen as mercenaries walking out on their clubs for nothing.

Fears that clubs would lose their best players for nothing is mitigated by the salary cap, meaning the richest clubs could not simply buy any player they wished regardless.

It also remains open to clubs to re-sign players sooner and on more market competitive rates, rather than risk them leaving in the free-agency window.

The suggested seven-year qualifying period would have meant that in the recent case of Chris Judd — the biggest player transfer in decades — the Eagles would have still been entitled to compensation in a trade for he had only been at the Eagles six years at that point.

"I can confirm we have updated our player agents with the progress of negotiations with the AFL," AFLPA operations manager Matt Finnis said.

"We are encouraged with the progress and look forward to finalising some arrangements."

http://www.realfooty.com.au/news/news/freeagency-model-mooted/2009/02/04/1233423312974.html

[one-eyed]

Clause could force AFL to act on free agency
Mark Stevens From: Herald Sun Tue Oct 13

A LITTLE-KNOWN clause in the AFL Collective Bargaining Agreement threatens to bring the free agency battle to flash point.

The AFL Players' Association has grown increasingly frustrated by inaction from the league and has the right to withdraw its support for the current transfer rules.

If the AFLPA revoked its agreement under the clause, it would be significantly easier for players to launch legal action against the league's restrictive player-movement system.

A working party has been investigating the issue for more than two years and the AFLPA is uneasy about the lack of progress given the swift movement on more complex issues such as new teams on the Gold Coast and in western Sydney.

Luke Ball being left in limbo on Friday has strengthened the AFLPA's resolve to call on the commission to step in and fast-track a form of free agency.

If the AFLPA is not satisfied with the commission's actions, it has the ability to turn up the blowtorch through clause 8.6 of the CBA.

The clause states: "If the outcome of the working party on player movement is not satisfactory to the AFLPA, the AFLPA shall be entitled to revoke its agreement to the terms of clause 8.1."

Clause 8.1 spells out the restrictions on freedom of players to transfer clubs.

Although the AFLPA has refused to comment on clause 8.6, which amounts to a ticking time bomb, the Herald Sun understands it has not ruled out bringing it into play.

It would arguably leave the AFL rules more exposed to a potential legal challenge from a player, current or former, who is aggrieved at the restrictive rules.

At the moment, if a player challenged the rules as being in restraint of trade, the AFL would be well placed. It would almost certainly argue the restraints were reasonable and necessary for the competition to remain equal.

The league could also fall back on the AFLPA's agreement to the rules as evidence of their reasonableness. The AFLPA clearly would be in a better position to support a player's challenge to the rules if it was not party to the agreement.

AFLPA chief executive Matt Finnis yesterday reiterated the players' union wanted free agency introduced for the 2012 season. To do that, Finnis is adamant moves have to be made as soon as possible.

"The timing is now," Finnis said.

The AFLPA has proposed players should be eligible to move to the club of their choice after seven years of service. Finnis said the AFLPA was "frustrated" by a lack of a resolution from the working party after 2 1/2 years.

"Particularly when you consider how quickly other major structural reforms have been passed through as in the list concessions and models for Gold Coast and western Sydney," Finnis said.

 

What the get-out line says

DISAGREEMENT over free agency raises the spectre of players going to court to get to a new club.

Clause 8.6 of the AFL-AFLPA Collective Bargaining Agreement 2001-2011 states:

(a) The AFL acknowledges that the AFLPA has reserved its position in relation to its agreement to the terms set out in sub-clause 8.1 pending the outcome of the Working Party on Player Movement.

b) If the outcome of the Working Party on Player Movement is not satisfactory to the AFLPA (acting reasonably), the AFLPA shall be entitled to revoke its agreement to the terms of clause 8.1 as they pertain to the AFL Player Rules which restrict the freedom of players to transfer from one AFL club to another.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/clause-could-force-afl-to-act-on-free-agency/story-e6frf9jf-1225786062951