Shane’s right, we’re still at the infancy of FA, and it needs to be considered as just one of the levers that controls the movement of players. Rhufus’ point is a good one; there may be unintended consequences like clubs considering FA in the context of drafting. It is a positive step that clubs more closely consider whether a player wants to be uprooted from their home as a 17 year old.
But let’s not forget that a player only becomes an unrestricted free agent after 10 years of service. Adelaide could match any club’s offer to Dangerfield, and effectively force him to play for Adelaide (or at least stop him from playing somewhere).
But let’s use an example closer to our heart. Let’s take Nat Fyfe. He would be eligible for restricted FA in 2018, and be an unrestricted free agent in 2020. Don’t you reckon that Freo would have been well compensated for using their 20th pick in the draft to select him? Don’t you think that after 10 years he should be able to do whatever he wants, without having to go cap in hand to someone like Bondy to try and get a deal done? Would the three premierships and four Brownlow’s not be enough return on Freo’s paltry investment?
The compensation element still needs work. Most US sports (where free agency has been around for decades) don’t compensate clubs when they lose players. The view there is that clubs will be impacted in the short term, but that mechanisms like the draft and salary cap will smooth that out over time. I like the idea of helping that process along, but it’s not easy.
And I’m not sure the ‘crash or crash through’ approach with the courts would work in the AFL’s favour. The AFLPA would have a pretty good case, and it’s in the fans’ interests that this never gets seriously tested in court.
