Third-Party Payments under examination in free agency talks (Age)

[one-eyed]

Payments under examination in free agency talks
Caroline Wilson
December 6, 2009

THIRD-party payments to footballers have come under renewed scrutiny from the AFL, placing the league at odds with its players' union and creating another hurdle in the contentious free agency negotiations.

Football operations boss Adrian Anderson has told the AFL Players Association that payments outside the salary cap, such as Chris Judd's annual six-figure agreement with the Visy Group, have become a concern for the competition as it fights to retain equalisation among the clubs.

Anderson has also told player agents that the AFL executive was having second thoughts about outside payments and the potential damage they could inflict on the weaker clubs, particularly if they face losing their stars once free agency is introduced.

With the AFL Commission still harbouring serious misgivings over the prospect of footballers moving clubs outside the trade period or the draft, AFLPA chief executive Matt Finnis said footballers were becoming impatient at the failure to achieve a resolution upon free agency.

''We're becoming frustrated with the lack of progress,'' Finnis conceded yesterday, ''particularly when you consider the vast structural changes that have happened in the competition since we started talking about this.

''And we are firm in that free agency needs to be introduced at a point in time in a player's career when he can still make a significant contribution.''

The AFL's total player payments boss, Ken Wood, has provided a chart of each club's third party payments, a document displayed at last week's players' conference involving the AFLPA executive and 40 club representatives. Finnis said it was wrong to target outside sponsorships when far more significant differences existed from club to club inside the salary cap.

''When you look at the gap between clubs paying the minimum 92.5 per cent of the salary cap and the maximum you are looking at upwards of half a million dollars and that is a far bigger gap than the one we are talking about with third party payments,'' Finnis told The Sunday Age.

''I think the players are alive to the issue of third party payments and the pressures they can create and free agency shouldn't be clouded by that. We are certainly not opposed to more rigour being placed on those payments and more scrutiny being brought to bear.''

The AFLPA and the AFL remain significantly apart in terms of length of service for free agency with Finnis pushing for players to be given the opportunity to move after seven years and the AFL still negotiating for 10 years.

However, Finnis said that his organisation would consider a more lateral approach to the debate at talks with the AFL. One compromise being examined would give clubs the opportunity to match offers from the opposition should the player in question be in the top 25 per cent of money-earners in the competition.

Anderson and Finnis will continue to thrash out negotiations in the coming weeks with the AFL to report on the progress of the free agency debate to the commission when the AFL's board meets for the final time before Christmas.

The two parties remain at odds also over the question of compensation, with the AFLPA insisting that should compensation become a platform of free agency, the club gaining a player should not be forced to give up a draft pick.

In rules to be introduced for the Gold Coast and western Sydney, those clubs can sign up to 16 uncontracted players without losing early draft picks. Instead, clubs losing players would be compensated by gaining a draft choice at the end of the first or second round, something the AFLPA believes could be mirrored in new free agency rules.

Finnis said players moving clubs should not be subjected to trade week-style conditions.

''They bear the burden of an equalised competition from the time they join the competition, surely they deserve the right to determine their careers after a significant period of time,'' Finnis said.

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/payments-under-examination-in-free-agency-talks-20091205-kc39.html

[Ramps]

Each club should be given 1 form4s where they can recruit 1 youngster outside of the draft system, I also think each club should be allowed to recruit 1 player from another club outside of the draft system and compensation for the loss of this player can be determined by an independent panel. The rest of the draft should stay the same.

This solution allows 16 players to move under free agency every year. This solution also gives 16 youngsters the choice of going to the club of there choice. To that end, a junior player needs by the age of say 16 to have nominated a club. And only that club can pick him up under this free agency provision.

I should be running the AFL 

[Penelope]

Each club should be given 1 form4s where they can recruit 1 youngster outside of the draft system, I also think each club should be allowed to recruit 1 player from another club outside of the draft system and compensation for the loss of this player can be determined by an independent panel. The rest of the draft should stay the same.

This solution allows 16 players to move under free agency every year. This solution also gives 16 youngsters the choice of going to the club of there choice. To that end, a junior player needs by the age of say 16 to have nominated a club. And only that club can pick him up under this free agency provision.

I should be running the AFL 

Not too sure if agree about the young players but 1 older player with compensation has merit. If a player was to change clubs outside of the draft system a predetermined "transfer fee" (althogh I doubt it would be called that) could work. This fee should also be included in the salary cap casculations of the new club. This would go some way to alleviating fears about richer clubs pillaging poorer clubs

[mightytiges]

Transfer fees favour rich clubs who can afford to pay them. If you're West Coast or Collingwood generating $50m+ in revenue, giving Richmond $500k for a Cotchin or Deledio would be worth it to them even if they had to include it in their salary cap. Merchandise returns from guernsey sales and more money from sponsors who want their brand associated with consistently winning top sides will more than pay for the transfer fee. On the other hand how is $500k extra to play with going to help if the poorer clubs continually have their best player poached and they stay bottom 4.

The AFLPA came blame Carlton for 3rd-party deals coming under scrutiny. Hmmm so the president of a club gives the best player in the AFL an "ambassador" job at his company so said player comes and plays with the president's club. Sure it's allowed but it's getting into murky waters and open to exploitation to evade the salary cap restrictions.