Comments on: The AFL Stadium Deals & Free Agency

By: What is the go with this Free Agency? | Expert AFL Tips, AFL Game & Dream Team reviews along with featured AFL articles. The A to F to L of Australian Football.

Wed, 03 Jun 2009 06:57:35 +0000

[...] my comments of The AFL Stadium Deals & Free Agency I made mention that clubs should be compensated but that defeats the purpose of a FREE agency [...]

By: aussierulesblog

aussierulesblog — Sat, 30 May 2009 13:21:02 +0000

. . .he signed the contract, he should have to honour it.

That's fair enough if BOTH parties to the contract are similarly bound. As we know with Trade Week and sundry other delistings at each club (it's immaterial that the AFL requires a certain number of delistings), clubs don't always regard the contracts the way we, or the players, would like them to. @Jermayn: Yes, I'm guilty of being picky. I think it's important to the discussion to call things by the right name to avoid misunderstanding and confusion. The other point to make is that players CAN just walk away once they've fulfilled their contract — Stevens at Port, for example — but they have to submit themselves to the vagaries of the draft. And they can put a price on their services that most clubs won't pay, in an effort to get to the club of their choice (not always successfully). Logically, free agency would mean that an out-of-contract player, after a certain term of service to a club or clubs, could avoid the draft and do a deal direct with the club of their choice, perhaps with that club losing a draft pick. For what it's worth, I agree with you. I don't think the game needs free agency. There are Scott Wests and Robert Harveys who retire without a Premiership medallion and are heroes of their clubs and the sport. Would they be regarded in the same way for deserting their club in search of a Premiership medallion? I think their reputations would be just a little bit tarnished. aussierulesblogs last blog post..Free agency vs loyalty vs footy socialism?

By: Geaghs

Geaghs — Fri, 29 May 2009 23:21:52 +0000

I just realised we are arguing the same point. lol .

By: Geaghs

Geaghs — Fri, 29 May 2009 23:20:33 +0000

But O’Keefe was still in contract, he signed the contract, he should have to honour it. Yes if a trade could be found Sydney would have traded him but you can’t expect Sydney to give away a contracted player for nothing. If he was out of contract do you think no Melbourne team would have picked him up in the draft for nothing (and because Sydney would have got nothing they would have worked doubly hard for a trade prior to the draft, like West Coast did for Judd).

I thought Stevens just wanted to come back to Melbourne but if he preferred Collingwood fair enough, I will stand corrected.

By: Jermayn

Jermayn — Fri, 29 May 2009 14:46:12 +0000

Stevens wanted to go to Collingwood and O’Keefe wanted to go to Hawks but they did not. However most players do get to go the place they want to. I think its more that the trade week needs relaxing rather than introducing free agency.

btw AussieRulesBlog your just being picky Yes its technically not free agency but I would rather that than ‘total’ free agency where players can just walk away.

By: Geaghs

Geaghs — Fri, 29 May 2009 07:46:38 +0000

The way I see it, we already have limited free-agency in place. Can somebody please tell me of any out of contract player in the last few years who did not go to a club (or city) of there choosing. Stevens wanted to go home to Melbourne and did, Judd wanted to go to Carlton and did. Free Agency should only be for out of contract players and most out of contract players these days end up where they want to go.

By: aussierulesblog

aussierulesblog — Fri, 29 May 2009 06:04:09 +0000

So the point is, Jermayn, it's not FREE agency. Call it something else. The key word is 'free' — if compensation is involved, the player's freedom of decision is constrained in some way, so it's not a free decision (not to be confused with the value of the compensation). Thus your view expressed above as "total free agency where they can move over without any compensation for the old club is wrong" is really "I don't agree with free agency". aussierulesblogs last blog post..Free agency vs loyalty vs footy socialism?

By: Jermayn

Jermayn — Fri, 29 May 2009 02:10:21 +0000

I understand what Free Agency is about but I would prefer the club got some sort of compensation. I like the idea of how clubs can be compensated for loosing a player to the Gold Coast. That could be a good option….

By: aussierulesblog

aussierulesblog — Thu, 28 May 2009 11:39:20 +0000

total free agency where they can move over without any compensation for the old club is wrong.

But that's what free agency is. If there's compensation involved, then presumably someone can kick up about it and scupper the deal — think Nick Stevens and Port Adelaide. Free agency with compensation is like being just a little bit pregnant. aussierulesblogs last blog post..Free agency vs loyalty vs footy socialism?

By: craig eyles

craig eyles — Thu, 28 May 2009 02:46:29 +0000

Jermayn
Not looking at this in the form of payments outside the cap. Looking at this from a perspective that the AFL & teams are furious with stadiums, but yet they have virtually signed some clubs death warrants by doing it.

On free agency, check out the Herald Sun website today. Things are going to get worse.