JUST days after Hawthorn completed its lap of honour in the 2014 AFL Grand Final, player movement hit the headlines when free agents - former Western Bulldog Shaun Higgins and Carlton forward Jarrad Waite - accepted offers to join North Melbourne who had lost a preliminary final a fortnight earlier. The subject hasn't been far from the headlines since.

Nick Bowen and Peter Ryan debate the key issues around player movement and acquisition:

NB: What do you think of the proposed academy/father-son bidding system? 

PR: It's a start. I support the concept, but think clubs are right to be concerned about being pushed down the first round draft order if they use too many points the year before.

Principle should be pay real value for top picks, get some sneaky value at the late picks.

And the underlying objective of all this change should not be forgotten: competitive balance.

NB: At first glance, it’s a pretty complicated system. When your starting point is 3000 points for a No.1 pick and you’re working your way back from there, it’s got the potential to bamboozle the average supporter. But some of the most experienced list managers and recruiters in the game were in the working party that put the new system together and in a sense it doesn’t really matter if it’s confusing to fans so long as it produces fairer results.

I agree, though, the fact that teams might have to take carryover points into the following year’s draft that serve to shunt them down the order seems messy. If the system had been in place when the Dogs took Tom Liberatore and Mitch Wallis in 2010 – both potential first-round picks that year – they probably would have had to use their best picks in two drafts on them. Not sure clubs will be prepared to pay that high a price.

We're jumping at shadows: Cameron on proposed bidding system

PR: The MRP points system confused punters but it had more subjective elements to be debated, such as ‘what’s low impact?’ Punters who are engaged would get used to this system. Effectively value judgments are being made all the time but this system puts numbers to them. By the way, I worked out Geelong has used just 13,270 points since 2002 compared to Melbourne’s 34,746 points (counting just top 20 picks) and the results are there for everyone to see.

The flow-on effect of a new system is that draft night needs to be more dynamic, trading picks, trading future picks, trading players.

NB: Just worked out those points in your spare time did you, Brucey? Very impressive. Agree with you that draft night needs a makeover. I’m always excited to see the best young talent in the land unveiled, but how exciting would it be to see your team try to trade up the order to get their hands on that year's Christian Petracca or Angus Brayshaw? Live bidding for father-son and academy players would also ensure rival clubs make realistic bids. They’re not going to put up their hands if one of their favourites slides down the order to their pick, are they? My only concern – how long would the night drag on for? The NFL draft goes for about three days. If we get something similar here that might just push old blokes like us over the edge.

PR: There is a balance but if the system is good then it will maintain interest. Tinker with the points system, be bold but make sure it works. Clubs would need one-person central and others back doing the work. It doesn’t need to be over the top, just open up the potential for clubs to quickly improve if they can find an edge in recruiting.

Changes might mean clubs being given the power to trade players without their consent. Do you think that should happen?

NB: No. I know Richmond CEO Brendon Gale is pushing for clubs to be given this power and I can understand where he’s coming from.

Players seem to have all the power in the silly season now. Obviously, free agency has given them the right to go wherever they want once they’ve logged eight years’ service, but we’re seeing more and more contracted players demand trades. Last year alone we had Paddy Ryder, Dayne Beams, Ryan Griffen, Allen Christensen and Tom Boyd.

But I still don’t think we’re ready to join the US system where players can be pulling on their team colours one minute and packing up their locker the next. It’s not part of football’s culture and I don’t think it ever will be.

PR: I think the suggestion is worth discussion even if it just identifies the elephant in the room. If it did exist it would need a grievance type process to adjudicate special circumstances. There is a lot of recent talk about players dictating but clubs have a history of forcing a player's hand through salary cap constraints etc. If you think of Shane Woewodin or Justin Blumfield or even Chris Dawes being told the club would be happy for them to look elsewhere then you understand it’s not all one way. I reckon if such a radical move did come in then players should definitely get free agency after eight years service regardless of whether the time has been at the one club.

NB: Good point. Clubs have a long history of forcing reluctant players to accept a trade. As one player manager said to me, ‘What’s a player really going to do if his club is strongly suggesting that it’s in his best interests to agree to a move?’ Wouldn’t give you much confidence that the club sees you in its best 22, would it?

Don’t agree with you, though, on players being able to clock up their minimum free agency service at more than one club. Seems ridiculous to me that a player could put in six years at his first club, sign a two-year deal with another club and then be available to the highest bidder at the end of that contract.

And for that matter I’m not sure I agree with the AFLPA’s push to cut the minimum qualification period to six years. Some key-position kids are just starting to get going at that point. Look at Port’s Matthew Lobbe. He was the No.16 pick in the 2007 draft and did not really hit his straps until his sixth season, 2013. It would have been bloody harsh on Port after all the development it had put into him if Lobbe could have left at the end of that year.

PR: The two-club free agency system proposed would require a player to be at his most recent club for four years. To be honest – and I don't mind free agency – we need to let free agency wash through the system. The game and fans need more time to see its impact.

Is it better that ‘Buddy’ Franklin can change clubs? I don’t know although it could be argued it's had a positive impact on both clubs. What is driving the AFLPA’s push for change?

There is a reasonable argument that lowering the eligibility criteria might in fact make the market more competitive and make all clubs seem attractive to free agents as they can see themselves having enough time to win a flag with the club they join. Remember before free agency, Chris Judd joined Carlton.

Having said that I suspect compensation helps redress the balance on free agency despite the ‘dooms-dayers’. It’s not perfect but Melbourne has managed to get Bernie Vince for Colin Sylvia, Angus Brayshaw for James Frawley and Dean Kent and Shannon Byrnes for Jared Rivers and Brent Moloney. In the short term it’s tough for the club but in the long term it might be great. Would Melbourne have received pick No.3 for Frawley or 23 for Sylvia in a trade? I suspect not.

One of the problems free agency created for clubs and players is that everyone suspects players are going but no one is able to reveal their intentions. Although Gary Ablett, ‘Buddy’ and Frawley played it right out until the end, would it have been better for everyone if they were able to say they were out before the end of the season, as happens in the NRL? It stops people having to lie, which I reckon demeans everyone in the industry.

NB: Ross Lyon told us he would like to see free agency compensation go, but I’m with you, I think it’s vital to ensure struggling clubs like Melbourne and St Kilda aren’t decimated by stronger predators. If you removed it now, I think we could get the two-tiered competition Mick Malthouse fears.

I know it’s more in keeping with the NRL’s culture than the AFL’s, but I would love to see players come out at the start of the season and say, ‘This will be my last year at the club. I’ve signed a 15-year deal with the Wombats, but I’ll be giving my all to the club right up until the end of this season.’ As you said, it stops players – some of whom have probably already entered binding agreements with other clubs – from having to maintain the company line that they just want to focus on their footy and will get around to their contract in good time.

Will this happen? I doubt it. At least not anytime soon. It’s an annual charade that seems entrenched in the football calendar now. It’s going to take a courageous trailblazer to change things. I’m not going to say I don’t enjoy the intrigue a little bit, but surely the club and player involved would rather nip the issue in the bud so they don’t have to put up with a year of endless speculation. Like ripping off a band-aid, the quicker you do it the less painful it is.

Speaking of speculation, there’s going to be plenty about the Giants’ out-of-contract players this year. Are they going to lose anyone?

PR: Certainly there is a feeling supporters would react badly to players declaring their hand about leaving before the season ends. I'm not sure about that. At least they are not being taken as fools. Of course, I'm not the player at the end of the inevitable barrage from a minority of fans so it's genuinely difficult. I'd be interested to hear what happened when it first took place in the NRL.

As for the Giants I predict one of their stars will go but quite a few will stay. They have room in the salary cap, particularly with the set-up rules that give them more players on the list but between $640-880k extra under total player payments in 2015, and a bit extra for the next four years. What impact, if any, do you think trading Tom Boyd had on how players perceive their club?

NB: Was it embarrassing for GWS? Yep, no doubt. But was it an open invitation for every other homesick Giant to demand a trade home, knowing if they push hard enough they’ll get it? I’m not so sure about that. The deal the Bulldogs offered in the end was too good to refuse, so GWS can put its hand on its heart and plead exceptional circumstances with Boyd’s exit. This won’t dissuade Victorian clubs from having a massive dip at this year's out-of-contract Giants. While I can’t see Jeremy Cameron leaving, my gut tells me GWS will struggle to hold on to all of Coniglio, Shiel, Treloar and Smith.

PR: I reckon they have plenty of money with all their expansion allowances and COLA and what not but if they lose one for a good exchange it's not the end of the world.

What about Adelaide's Rory Sloane? He's suggested a loyalty bonus.

NB: An interesting idea from Sloane. As I understand, he’s proposing that players get a one-off bonus five years after they retire for staying at the one club. It would be one way of dulling the attraction of free agency, but where’s the money going to come from? The club? The AFL? The AFLPA? If it’s the player’s club, is that money included in that year's salary cap?

But the one thing I’d take out of Sloane’s comments if I were a Crows supporter is that he sounds like he wants to stay. That would be welcome news at any time, but given Dangerfield’s future remains clouded it’s absolutely fantastic news.

Loyal Crow: Rory Sloane has suggested a loyalty bonus for players who remain at one club. 

PR: Yep, be great if he stays at Adelaide as it proves he's happy. His idea is worth debating but I reckon getting rewarded extra for staying at one club is – to be frank - ridiculous. I mean good on those that stay – such as St Kilda's Nick Riewoldt – but they make a pragmatic decision about what is best for them based on much more than loyalty, don’t they? Personality, family, enjoying their time at a club, mates, and then they make a decision. Is a player who switches clubs less loyal? I would not describe Andrejs Everitt as less loyal than some of his Carlton teammates. Does Mark Jamar deserve extra for being at Melbourne for his entire career? I'm all for supporting players post-career but think the rationale of tying it to loyalty is wrong.

NB: Good to see the mercenary in you is still alive and well, Pete! Take your point but think Sloane’s proposal is well intentioned. As he notes, free agency was principally brought in to help fringe players who sometimes struggled to move in trade week when clubs got caught up in big-name deals. But as we’ve seen clubs are throwing most of their energies into snagging big-name free agents like Buddy, Goddard and Frawley. Delisted free agency has become the haven of the journeyman instead.

We've touched on this topic briefly already, but what did you make of Damien Hardwick’s column on AFL.com.au yesterday? He wants clubs to be able to trade first to seven-year players without their consent.

PR: That would be a radical change and one that might work, eventually, against attracting first choice athletes to the game. It would also need some pretty significant parameters around it. Imagine if the Crows just offloaded Dangerfield at the end of last year to, say, Melbourne, without his consent.

It would also lead to no-trade clauses and the like where players sign contracts saying they can’t be traded to certain clubs. Having said that I liked Damien’s piece because he articulated things well, is right in being frustrated about how long it takes to change the list and he moved interstate as a player and made the absolute best of it. Truth is I don’t think it will happen. You?

NB: It’s not going to come in any time soon. The AFLPA and player managers won’t be fans and I’ve spoken to quite a few people at other clubs who don’t like the idea. The majority of people aren’t ready for the types of scenes in US sport where players are getting changed to play for the Red Sox one minute and the next are getting ready to fly across the country to play for the Oakland As. But, as you said, good on Damien for putting the idea out there. It's not without merit and we need healthy debate in footy.

PR: True, so to finish up, if you had a magic wand what changes would you make to the system?

NB: I don’t think there’s too much wrong with it. I would like to see more flexibility come into trading so teams can trade future draft picks and trade on draft night. The latter change would jazz up draft night a bit too, which wouldn’t go astray.

Ross Lyon has argued for the father-son system to be axed, but I’d like the tradition to continue. 

Yes, it compromises the draft to an extent but the proposed new bidding system put forward by the AFL would ensure clubs pay fairer prices. Same for academy selections, which I also would like to see continue given the inherent disadvantages the Swans, Giants, Lions and Suns face being based in non-football states.

Finally, on free agency I think we should resist the AFLPA’s push to reduce the qualification period to six years. Eight years strikes a fair balance for player and club, while the compensation picks are vital to ensure smaller clubs aren’t decimated.

In short, the system’s in reasonable shape, Pete.

PR: It might revert back to reasonable shape but the system's been out of control for too long now.

The last time the first round picks went in reverse ladder order was 2008. I reckon North Melbourne, Richmond, Adelaide and Essendon have been cruelled by finishing in the middle rungs for years in succession.

The impact of priority picks, draft penalties, list development rules for expansion clubs, free agency, compensation picks for loss of uncontracted players, veterans list, COLA, academies, forever changing father-son rules has created an uneven playing field and just six grand finalists in the past seven years reminds us that it's not working as hoped.

I'd examine the possibility of freeing the system up to make it easier for clubs to move players and players to move but I'd do it with real rigour. Perhaps the game needs a sweeping review of the player movement system in the way the Crawford report restructured the game's administration. Let's remember the salary cap was first introduced in 1984 and the national draft – as we now know it – was held in 1986. Such a review might have the same effect on the footy economy as floating the dollar did for the Australian economy in 1983.

Personally I'd give serious thought to ditching the father-son rule altogether although I respect it would need careful consideration before doing so.

There is a case for keeping the first round free of any distortion – in other words clubs can just pick any player in the pool in the first round – but that would take plenty of thought to see what effect such a move would have.

I suspect that if free agency eligibility goes lower or applies to two-club players then there should be a counter-measure around clubs being able to trade players without consent and the compensation picks are essential.

I agree with you regarding live bidding, trading future picks and taking a wait and see approach on free agency.

Clubs want live picks

It's a good discussion and certainly plenty to debate. I suspect the introduction of expansion clubs has led to an extreme era that might self correct a little in the coming years.

As I said before, the key issues to drive it are competitive balance, game development and a balance between player and club rights and responsibilities.

What you may have missed in AFL.com.au's player movement debate…

WEDNESDAY

- 2015's free agency list as it stands

- Patrick Dangerfield: the free agency poster boy 

- How the northern football academies work

THURSDAY

- Is state of origin an issue?
- Coaches have their say on player power

FRIDAY

- Coaches have their say on the father-son and academy rules
- Push to scrap late-round father-son and academy bids

SATURDAY

- The academy names you need to know
- Coaches on free agency
- Damien Hardwick's trade/draft blueprint

SUNDAY

- Coaches on drafting