It’s time to review free agency rules, writes Mark Ricciuto

DOES anyone think that Hawthorn was left short-changed when it only got pick No. 19 for Lance Franklin when he walked to Sydney in 2013? Of course, writes Mark Ricciuto.

DOES anyone think that Hawthorn was left short-changed when it only got pick No. 19 for Lance Franklin when he walked to Sydney in 2013? Of course.

Does anyone think Melbourne received overs with pick No. 3 for James Frawley when he decided to head to Hawthorn? Absolutely, in fact Melbourne helped him pack his bags and pushed him out the door.

So then if Patrick Dangerfield chooses to go to Geelong for family reasons and the Crows get pick No. 8, 9 or 10 for a 25-year-old entering the prime of his career, would that be fair? Of course not.

That makes it three out of three. If that’s the case then I think the AFL needs to have a serious look at the way it is compensating clubs who lose free agents.

This is the third year of free agency in the AFL and it has divided the football community on its worth to the game. But love it or hate it, the reality is it’s here to stay.

And if that’s the case, I think the rules need to be changed so that whether you’re the reigning premier like Hawthorn, bottom-six side like Melbourne or a middle of the road club like Adelaide, it works out to be as close to fair as possible when someone decides to change clubs.

Is everyone agreeing with me at the moment? I hope so.News_Image_File: James Frawley during the NAB Challenge earlier in the season. Photo: Wayne Ludbey.

People will think I’m whingeing because this year it’s Dangerfield who could be on the move and Adelaide potentially loses on the deal.

Of course I’m going to be unhappy but I also know writing this is not going to make any difference to that.

It’s about making sure we review the rules after three years and get the system right for the future.

What needs to happen is that an independent panel should be formed to work out what is fair compensation for a club in the event of losing a free agent.

Not that they’ll always get it right — like the match review panel — but at least it will be closer.

All the normal things like best-and-fairest awards, games played, All-Australians, their true trade value, leadership and ability to win a game should be taken into account so that we don’t get a farcical situation like Franklin and Frawley.

Ladder position should not have anything to do with how you determine what a club receives for losing a player to free agency.

This comes at a time when the Players’ Association is pushing for the eight-year time-frame for free agency to be reduced to six.

Surely this will make matters worse as clubs will be losing players at the age of 23 and 24 and heightens the need to get the compensation what it should be.

Let’s use the players above as an example of what that panel might decide is worthy:

Realistically Hawthorn deserved pick No. 1 as well as pick No. 19 which they got for losing Buddy, where as Melbourne who got pick No. 3 really should have only received a pick from 10-15 for losing Frawley.

In Dangerfield’s case, if he was on the trade table this year, what do you think he’d be worth?

Melbourne was prepared to consider offering picks No. 2 and 3 to get him to the Demons last year, which is a long way from pick 9 for example which is what the Crows would get under the current system.News_Image_File: Patrick Dangerfield marks one right on the chest at Metricon Stadium. Photo: Adam Head.

Anyone disagreeing with me yet?

The next thing I would consider bringing in if you wanted another form of equalisation is not allowing either the top four clubs, or top six clubs, to be able to receive free agents.

For example — (first placed) Hawthorn would not have been able to get Frawley from (17th placed) Melbourne last year for nothing or Brian Lake from the Bulldogs who won a Norm Smith Medal the previous year.

North Melbourne, a preliminary finalist last year, would not have been able to pick up Shaun Higgins or Jarrad Waite from the Bulldogs and Carlton who both missed the finals, again for nothing.

If that’s unfair to block the top clubs from the free agency market — and hence denying players the ability to move to a club of their choice which is what free agency was designed for — then if they want to participate they must either contribute draft picks or players of their own to get the deal done, as opposed to the AFL creating a draft pick as compensation as it stands at the moment.

In other words, instead of those top clubs getting a free agent for nothing — they have to give up equal value so they aren’t simply getting stronger, they just have different personnel of the same value.

Everyone still agreeing with me? I’m sure most of you are.

No matter what system is in place, there will always be debate over the value of free agency in the AFL.

But I’m sure that debate is a little bit healthier and a lot less frustrating for most if the AFL was to review the rules to make the compensation a lot fairer for everyone.

Whether you’ve got a premiership medal around your neck or a wooden spoon on your backside.