My letter to you yesterday about the AFL’s new policy around Free Agency has led to considerable debate in the community. That is good and healthy.
I now wish to respond to some of the comments made in response to mine, and the latest development where the AFL has admitted that 114 current AFL players are receiving financial payments above the salary cap and all approved by the AFL.
Firstly in response to my comments yesterday.
1. Many callers to talkback have said I am only protecting Hawthorn’s interests and am worried about the impact of this new rule on Hawthorn.
As President of Hawthorn, my most direct responsibilities are to Hawthorn, but I also have a genuine interest and responsibility for the code that we know as Australian Rules. My entering the debate was firstly for the code long term, and the viability and opportunity for all clubs long term.
2. Many have commented that clubs treat players badly and delist or not extend contracts when a player wishes to play on.
No one is forced to play football. But once a person offers himself and is successfully gets drafted to a club, normally at 18 years of age, the drafting club not only pays the player at a higher salary than he would earn in the market place as an 18 year old, but starts to invest heavily in that players welfare and development.
Sadly, it is true that some players do not develop as their potential indicated prior to the draft , and may at some time not have their contract renewed or be delisted or traded. This happens in any form of employment.
I remember a Premier who was delisted earlier than he expected. But that is life. No one has an employment guarantee for life.
3. Greg Denham in today’s Australian inferred that because the AFL asked Hawthorn’s General Manager Player Personnel and Strategy, Chris Pelchen, to serve with others on the AFL’s advisory panel to consider the model for Free Agency, that the Hawthorn Board was consulted and involved.
Sadly Greg could not be more mistaken and fails to understand the difference between Board Governance and our willingness to have our employees assist the AFL.
Another member of that advisory panel, when he was asked by his president for details of the AFL panels discussion was told by his club’s representative, that he could not discuss the issue with his president as all members “swore to confidentiality”.
When a major decision is made by the AFL that affects forever the welfare of the clubs, I would argue it is imperative for each club at Board level to consider the changes, and the impact of such changes on the club and the code. Boards were not consulted. Yes the AFL had consultations with football employees at clubs, but never were Boards asked for their opinion, consulted, or given the opportunity to effect the final shape of the model.
4. Mike Sheahan in the Herald Sun said “Kennett’s Hawthorn sent Mark Williams off to Essendon after the president said of Campbell Brown that no premiership player would be discarded by the Club”
Wrong Mike. Mark Williams was still under contract to Hawthorn but Essendon offered Mark a three year contract at Essendon. Mark asked to leave. We agreed to release him and use his departure in our trade negotiations. So we worked and acted with Mark to allow him to continue his career at Essendon. We did not delist Mark, nor did we wish him to leave, just he got a longer contract than we felt was prudent to offer.
Proving I would have thought, you do not need free agency. Change for players can be affected under the current rules.
And yes Mike, we did secure Shaun Burgoyne and Josh Gibson, but that is under the current rules. No need for free agency.
5. I am aware of only two presidents who commented publicly on these matters to date, others privately to me. Jim Stynes, President at Melbourne, expressed that he was worried about the long term opportunities for the less successful Clubs. As well he might. Those Clubs that are on the bottom end of the ladder at the end of 2011, who are also not financially strong, have almost no chance thereafter of getting into the top eight let alone the top four. And we end up with a two tier system within the 18 Clubs which will exist by then. It is bad enough now, it will be worse then.
Frank Costa is not as worried as I am about the impact of Free Agency and was on radio saying it will force clubs to do more for their players while at their original club. I agree that all clubs do all they can to develop their players.
At Hawthorn we have welfare officers, financial advisors, assist with education pursuits for the players, and provide them with professional development courses. We have developed a wonderful culture. Other clubs will do more or less, and as I expressed yesterday I hope all certainly most of our players will stay at the club for the club it is. I still think a player gets substantially more from football, after his playing days are over if he remains a one club player all his playing days.
6. Matt Finnis, the CEO of the AFLPA, admitted that there was no limit on the amount of players a team could lose in one year. That could decimate the premiership plans for any club. And if players in weaker clubs felt they were never going to win a premiership medal at their original club, why would they not be seduced to join a more successful club later in their career.
Matt also made some comments in the Herald Sun in response to my points, and I am not surprised by his responses. After all his job is to represent the players, not the future of the code. The AFLPA will by 2011 have had an extra 100 players join their ranks because of the two new Clubs. So the AFLPA has done pretty well without Free Agency. Sadly I am of the view that this short sighted approach to Free Agency by the AFLPA will destroy a lot of the good work the AFLPA currently does for players.
Today in the Herald Sun was reported that 114 players currently receive payments, approved by the AFL, outside the salary cap. (I think there a number of such players at Hawthorn.)
Geelong President Frank Costa has admitted Geelong might need to find extra sponsors to fund Gary Ablett through non-football income, outside the salary cap to ward of an approach to Gary from the Gold Coast.
In short the salary cap has and is being breached. Not by one or two players but 114 players or approximately 16% of all players in the league. That is a massive breach that the AFL has already approved. Now Frank Costa, president of a very successful and strong Club is suggesting they will need more money in an attempt to keep Gary Ablett and maybe other players at Geelong. Does anyone think Free Agency will help this situation? Quite the reverse, it will make it substantially worse.
What chance then for Jimmy Stynes’s Melbourne as he continues to rebuild Melbourne? No chance at all.
Finally, one of the player managers in the Herald Sun today Craig Kelly had a go at me and told me to “go jump back in my box” He did not debate any of the substantive issues I raised, but does that surprise anyone. First it was Craig being Craig, but also the greatest beneficiaries of Free Agency will be the irresponsible Player Managers who put their own opportunities ahead of the players they represent and the long term interests of the code.
Nothing that has been said today has changed my views, in fact only worsened them.
There are issues such as compensation that have not been worked through. Any Club could lose a swag of good players in any year. We adopt an American system that is built on private ownership of clubs, most of which are financially covered in red ink.
We are a community sport, that is our strength, and that will change, the salary cap concept will be destroyed as the AFL continues to attempt to justify these changes, and finally the opportunities for all clubs to succeed will be lost, with the weaker clubs only making up the numbers for the stronger clubs.
Once the AFL introduces this system in 2012 you will not be able to reverse the process. Let’s hope commonsense prevails between now and then.
Go Hawkers; see you at the game tomorrow night
Jeff
