No freedom yet for loyal Tiger DeledioJake Niall
The Age
January 29, 2012BRETT Deledio was able to choose football over cricket, but, unlike the willow-wielders who can play for whichever state or Indian Premier League outfit that will have them, Deledio had no say in his choice of club. As the No. 1 pick, he was sentenced to play for Richmond.
Much has already been made of the fact that Deledio and fellow No. 1 draft pick Brendon Goddard will be eligible for free agency at season's end. Yet, as the rules and club landscape stand today - and there is the prospect of a slight fiddle with those complicated rules - that pair have fairly limited options. At year's end, they are restricted free agents, which allows their clubs to retain them by matching the best offer.
Deledio is entering his eighth year. Given the circumstances, the best course for him is: Sign a two-year deal with Richmond this year and make himself an unrestricted free agent at the conclusion of 2014.
Richmond couldn't match any offer then. He could simply walk to whichever club - Essendon, Carlton, Geelong - could accommodate him under its salary cap. If he left the Tigers after 2012, as a restricted free agent, however, his choices narrow greatly, because few top eight teams will have the scope to pay any player the $650-700,000 or more that Richmond mightn't match.
Deledio would be giving the Tigers another two years in which to demonstrate that they're really building a team that can contend. Should Richmond fail to make the finals by 2014, few - besides rusted-on, fundamentalist Punt Rd-enders - would deny him the opportunity to ply his talents at a team that has premiership prospects. After 10 years for zero finals, no one could say that he hadn't given Richmond a fair go.
In 2012, Essendon and Sydney might be the only top-eight teams with the capacity to pay that type of dollar, $650,000-plus, for a gun player. Collingwood, Hawthorn, Geelong and Carlton certainly can't afford that - they're finding it hard enough to retain everyone, much less recruit A-graders. One doubts West Coast would bid and the Saints want to reduce their high-player payments.
The internet speculation about Goddard becoming a Blue, thus, is ridiculous. How can Carlton pay Chris Judd almost a million dollars, accommodate Marc Murphy, Bryce Gibbs et al and find an additional $700,000 or more to purloin Goddard? Even if he had no restrictions on his movement, the stronger teams don't have the room for him, or for Deledio for that matter, unless they are willing to jettison expensive players or lose them.
Goddard and Deledio can consider Greater Western Sydney, which can sign anyone. To move there, however, would be entirely about money, since the Giants won't contend for four or five years.
The year 2012 won't be as cataclysmic as the very bad John Cusack movie about that year (the earth's crust explodes, Cusack tries, but cannot save the film). Free agency (FA) is a labour market reform, a limited loosening of a heavily regulated work place, rather than a revolution. The unfettered older players with 10 years' service might well end up as the most heavily traded commodity.
Even now, there's some important fine print in the FA system that the league and the AFL Players' Association are clarifying. By one reading of the rules, the likes of Deledio, Travis Cloke, Harry O'Brien and others from the draft/rookie class of 2004 would jeopardise their chances of becoming unrestricted free agents from the end of 2014 if they signed contracts during this coming season.
Yes, this can be confusing to journalists, too. In essence, the rule says that a player isn't unshackled and totally ''free'' until he has completed a) eight years and b) another, subsequent contract of at least two years, making him a 10-year player.
By the letter of the law, Deledio and Cloke have no incentive for re-signing until the season is over, even if they want to stay - a scenario that invites unseemly, potentially destabilising speculation. If they re-signed mid-season - as Richmond and Collingwood would prefer - then it could be argued, on a literal interpretation, that they can't be unrestricted, go-anywhere free agents once that contract expires.
Goddard, technically speaking, is restricted because he signed a three-year deal late in 2009, his seventh season. If he had signed 12 months later, he would be free to play anywhere now. The Saints believe that his movements are restricted.
One would imagine that the AFL will cede to the players' request and allow players to sign mid-season, without risking their future freedom; otherwise, there is a huge anomaly that doesn't help the players, the clubs or the league. The one party it might assist is the media, since it fuels speculation about the players' intentions.
Whatever course Deledio, Goddard, Cloke and company choose, they aren't truly free yet. Eight years isn't enough. Unless you've got 10 years service, or are willing to shift to a club that's down the ladder, free agency could be seen as, literally, sweet FA.
http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/no-freedom-yet-for-loyal-tiger-deledio-20120128-1qn9t.html#ixzz1kqjjOIUw
