SA Footy

I'm not just saying this because of the Crows and this potential grab for Pav ...

But how far away are we from some form of free-agency system for players over a certain age? You can only imagine how hard this trade will be to pull off and Pav may end up stuck where he is, even if he doesn't want to.

Ditto Judd if he ever wants to go back to Victoria. The current system arguably makes if extremely difficult for star players to go anywhere else.

I know there's pros and cons, and I know the Players' Assoc are floating this idea currently, but doesn't a player have some rights to choose where he wants to go once he has done a long-term stint at one club?

If not free-agency, then something has to change because the trading system we have in place is turning into a joke IMO. As S-D has suggested, trading future years' draft picks is another innovation that would help.

I'm all for parity and protection for less financial clubs but let's get into the 21st century I reckon. Maintaining a strict salary cap and minimum player numbers on lists will ensure the richest clubs don't all the best players.

I dont mind the A-Leagues "marque player" rule, where you can sign 1 player outside the cap and pay them whatever you can afford

Thinking about this some more ....

A club could nominate 2-4 'Stars' on their list and then if they lose them in free-agency there could be an automatic compensation of a priority pick in the next draft.

Players outside that group would just go luck of the draw. You'd have to have some period of time (say 5-7 seasons) at one club to qualify.

Would stop repeats of the Mal Michael situation. Players wouldn't have to 'retire' and then miraculously become suddenly available again.

I'll keep working on it .... early days of the theory

Dutchy wrote:I dont mind the A-Leagues "marque player" rule, where you can sign 1 player outside the cap and pay them whatever you can afford

Yeah, I can just imagine the Shinboners laughing up trying to fork out the cash to hang on to their tenty.

regards,

REB

Yeah I'm for the marque rule, hell it worked for Carlton in the 80's early 90's...
Just buy the blokes like Kernas, Braddles, Mots, Naley, Dorotich, Diesel, etc etc.
The salary cap sucks, I'm all for spiralling debts, counter deals, back door payments etc

i would like to see some version of free agency, but need to give careful consideration to how to compensate the club losing the player.

While we are at it, I would love to see some form of zoning return.
Clubs get first pick of kids in their zone via the draft like the father-son rule.

Stop the traversty of seeing Gibbs playing with Carlton happening again!

POOSHOOTER ?? Righto with the Zoning...Carlton used to do quite well from our old VFL zoning region.
I'd look at that for sure, but what you'd fins is due to being a NATIONAL comp now, the AFL would look at
granting interstate zones for clubs, i.e West Coast get the south of WA, plus say Alice Springs. Carlton get
Bendigo and Mount Gambier region. etc etc .

Dutchy wrote:I dont mind the A-Leagues "marque player" rule, where you can sign 1 player outside the cap and pay them whatever you can afford

That would work well for clubs with plenty of cash and players that are good enough to earn this. For example, if collingwood wanted Judd then they could put him up as there marque player and pay im 10 Mill per season. I can hear eddie calling him now

stan wrote:

Dutchy wrote:I dont mind the A-Leagues "marque player" rule, where you can sign 1 player outside the cap and pay them whatever you can afford

That would work well for clubs with plenty of cash and players that are good enough to earn this. For example, if collingwood wanted Judd then they could put him up as there marque player and pay im 10 Mill per season. I can hear eddie calling him now

But I think he would have to change his name to Emirates Judd.

The stats on the decline in player trading in recent years - there were 33 trades after the 2000 season, but that decreased each subsequent year, with just nine after the 2006 season.

So much for theories about certain clubs not trading because of a set policy. More likely is an outdated trading/player movement system as we concluded int the end.

Free agency has been raised by the AFLPA as one means of lifting the number of players traded and also a way of avoiding a restraint of trade. However, some coaches have reservations

http://www.smh.com.au/news/Sport/AFL-coaches-warn-against-free-agency/2007/07/11/1183833590910.html

Agree that something probably has to be done but am not for free agency at all.
I do follow the NBA but if you look at what happens there and in other pro sport leagues around the world, there is a huge amount of player movement and I think it's hard to align yourself with teams because their playing list changes so frequently.
If you're someone who thinks there's no loyalty in football, wait 'til you see what happens if free agency comes to the AFL. IMHO, you will also have a situation where the top 20 percent of the playing list will earning about 50-60 percent of the salary cap and there'll be more players than there is currently that will be on the minimum wage.

A possibility might be that a version of the short lived '10 year rule' in the VFL could be looked at. Which is what I think hondo has brought up, but I reakon this should apply to say anywhere between 7 and onwards seasons with one club can make you a free agent.

Prefer a 'restricted free agency' system myself.

The AFL has to avoid the farce that happens every year in the NRL...