So let's say the Mariners find a decent player and then put them on a small contract after organising a transfer fee. The Mariners outlay the money, the mariners take 100% of the risk. Along comes, one of the big clubs and says they'll pay the Former NPL Player triple, one year in to a 2 year contract. The Mariner now have a choice, a disgruntled player if they restrict the movement, or they can get no reimbursement if they want to recoup the risk and money outlayed.

And this is a good thing?

I have nothing against NPL clubs attempting to ensure they make money from their contracted players I'm just saying that it's going to shaft the small Aleague clubs, and if it shafts them to much, expect a reduction in number of NPL Players being scouted.

I want a DTS more than anyone but this will now squeeze the small clubs from both direction, it will be at the detriment of Australian Players, and Developmental Clubs.

It's standard in all the major leagues though, I don't get that you want DTS more than most actually man.
Accept how things would play out.

It's standard in all league's, that you have to work to make trades with lower tiered clubs, and can then have your players taken by any club in the same league because there's not DTS amongst top tiered clubs?

What are you talking about, we are pretty much the only league in the world without a DTS. As stated this now shaft the development clubs in the Aleague further, Australian Football and Australian Footballers will suffer.

Just something else to add, if this is the percieved right direction of Australian Football by JJ why didn't he do it to all levels 2 years ago, when he was incharge of the direction of the Aleague,  before the decoupling.

Hang on, I'm a fan of transfer fees, aren't you?

I am, but if my club is getting dicked from 2 directions that ain't fair, and sqeezing those above for better deals, while not affording those Squeezed, the same rights of sell-on is not only wrong but will, in my opinion, be damaging.

For what it's worth Huddo I think you have a 100% valid point.... IS the reason why, I hope, the DTS is implemented sooner rather than later to ALL clubs in Australia. 

Key hurdle seems to be both the franchise holders AND the Players Union......  Basic fact is that a true, value driven, football transfer system cannot work if their is a cap on salaries at club level.   This NRL, AFL shit needs to go and the owners dont seem to want it to.

There is little to no reason why it should not be brought in at a-league level, after all it help clubs like yours when it comes to making money of transfers.

If anything its an indictment that CCM will lose a player such as Lewis Miller to a near rival club for nothing, this doesnt happen in a more established football countries where they make money from transfers as a way surviving and growing as a business otherwise you might as well ignore the Australian market to sell them overseas within the first opportunity. 

The a-league needs to get there act soon, at least this is a step in the direction starting at NPL level but it puts the a-league in an awkward place.

As it stands though Huddo is right, you have the totally ludicrous scenario where, on paper, the transfer value of the playing squad of on NPL club is lightyears ahead of what an Aleague franchise can get.... 
*thanks to smfcmike for the wonderful graphic I poached below :)

It's a good graphic.
Interesting to note that the record transfer fee for an Australian player sold from a domestic league still remains in the NSL era.
In fact, something like four of the top five transfer fees ever paid for an Australian player from a domestic league are from the NSL era.

Why not give it a shot.

Beats doing nothing.

You arent wrong mate, but its the AL clubs who have declined to implement the DTS, the NPL clubs shouldn't be picking up the tab because the AL clubs decided they wanted to fight to keep the status quo of getting players for next to nothing. Your issue is fixed immediately if the AL clubs just implemented the DTS as well.
 
The resistance from the AL teams according to what Danny Townsend said is "Why would an AL club pay for a talented NPL player when its cheaper to use a player who is almost as good from their academy". So in the interim we have a scenario where more youth players are given a chance because it becomes cheaper (and more profitable if they are sold O/S). The NPL clubs would be able to either sell players to the 2 Div clubs or amongst themselves, if a div 2 is implemented these players would still be in the professional environment. 
 
There is also the issue of the Players association saying they want DTS or Salary Cap and not both because it restricts what players can earn which is something the AL teams also need to overcome.

You can tell Danny boy there is a simple remedy for this ... one that involves the APL actually wanting to IMPROVE football standards in Australia rather than just put any old warm bodies on the field in order to sell merchandise and streaming rights........ its call pro/rel wink wink :)

Why does any other club around the world pay money to sign a player??? FFS these are fundamentals.... we really are unique

Alou Kuol, would never have been looked at, contracted to Goulburn (and thus his brothers would have had to make there way alot harder)
No Jedinak, contracted to Syd Utd.
No Rogic, contracted to belconnen.

Like I said I'm not against paying for contracted players, or paying the team, I'm just saying if you have clubs in the NPL pushing for payment, and the Aleague clubs don't even get paid for players they take a gamble on, why are they looking for to take a gamble on Kuol, it will just stiffle players careers.

It's so fucking stupid

Do you think paying a transfer fee and offering a two year contract is a smart move? 

I don't think you see where I'm coming from. Ambitious, smart, clubs will succeed here, just like anywhere else in the world. The ones that have a set idea of how they are going to survive in that environment will figure it out. We have this tendency to make sure the whole thing doesn't just fall in a heap, but football is a brutal business, the ones that can find a way to survive will survive, those that need babying are always going to keep us behind.

The Mariners are succeeding and will continue to do so off their current model. It does however mean avenues for players dry up, and development clubs like the Mariners will be restrained as they no longer are willing to take risks. If you can't sell the player on at a profit, how do you make money in a development league?

You will be hard pressed getting more than a 2 year contract moving from the NPL, and as such the idea that someone would pay good money in a transfer, only to have the insecurity of another club nicking the player seems pretty stupid

The other argument is what about the NPL club that has developed them, you think its fair they lose their player for nothing? 

The a-league clubs have been poaching players from the NPL for years and outside of sell on clauses the NPL make no money from letting players go to the a-league.

The game needs to support each other not alienated themselves and not leave one to dry.

Exactly. Whats with this, oh no what about the 'A-League' the league thats needed every bit of help along the way whilst grassroots and NPL clubs genuinely go about their business with little to no help whatsoever from said AL teams. If the AL teams cant survive with this new development so be it. They are not the be all and end all. We have a much larger grassroots following than those genuinely invested in AL clubs. It's about time these people be slightly rewarded. If this actually ever occurs.

Actually last year, the only player the Mariners "poached" from the NPL was Alou (and look where he is now).

Like I said I'm not against transfers, but forcing the Mariners to pay a fee, and dicking them by no allowing them to sell there investment, you're essentially just moving the problem on to the smaller A-league Clubs, and if this happens I can guarantee that the number of NPL players will reduce.

But they did sell Alou overseas?

My point exactly.

The system works. But only if the player goes overseas.

My point is that the Mariners are stifled in their forms of revenue, if the FFA increase the outlays, without atleast giving them surety that they can sell the product on, then why would the Mariners risk it on an untested product if they have a similar if not marginally inferior product, or products from percieved superior league. the riskier product will be reduced.
No more Koul, no more Jedinak, no more Rogic.

Nah man, you need to look at the bigger picture. The Mariners play their part well in the australian eco-system as it is currently, But that system is so broken it isn't funny. they give players opportunities yes, but what they don't do is pay their fair share to other clubs who similarly would like to produce a Rogic for instance or a Jedinak or someone better for that matter. Did anyone ask Belconnen what they got in return for producing Rogic? or Sydney United for Jedinak? I'm sure they would've liked to have put some funds in to further improve their youth structures as well.

If I was a Mariners fan I would be annoyed i get it. But this is the way it is and clubs will have to find a way to make it work. The way the rest of the world makes it work (mostly)

So the bigger issue, isn't that Tommy rogic is a gun in the SPL, or that Mile single handedly got us to a WC with the game against Honduras, becuase they got in the shop front, it's the fact the NPL Clubs didn't get reimbursed 15 years earlier for these players, because the system is broke?

Like I've said if the mariners continue to be dicked from both directions, then the NPL clubs will eventually lose a pathway, and then the "Big Picture" is Australian Football as a whole loses. 

Now read this carefully Ds because I've now said it multiple times, I want a "full DTS", but this is not a "full DTS", and because it's only half measure I don't support it. It means paths for development will become even more stifled for developing players.

I understand that, trust me. But if you go to my original reply, you would see that I'm judging this literally for what it is.  And from what I can see this is a move in the right direction for the grassroots (which is the foundations of the game) 

But your reasoning sounds like you don't see the DTS as a benefit, due to the mariners success of getting players for free which is why I may be getting confused.

Is it?

I'm a central coast fan, look at the other clubs rosters and the players histories, why the fuck would I not want a DTS?

if we get 200k off Macauther for Lewis Miller, we invest that into getting more (NPL and CCM juniors), but we got nothing and so that will trickle down.

I'm looking at this new initiative from the lens of an NPL1, 2, 3, 4 club. Couldn't care less about the A-League because in the report it didn't say it was coming into effect. Everything I've written relays to how this effects NPL clubs lol. 

NPL being the "Big Picture", not DTS, player progression or fairness in top tier trading.

Advancement of football in this country is the "Big Picture", half measures don't cut it. When you shit on clubs like CCM, it doesn't help the league, it doesn't help the players, and believe it or not it will not help the NPL clubs

To be fair don't blame Football Australia for implementing this, because they are doing this for the best interests for the whole sport not just for 11 a-league clubs.
Agree it will hurt CCM/Adelaide etc whom rely on the NPL market but you should blame this on certain sections in the APL whom seemly don't want it and whom don't use the NPL system for talent.

It really shows what is the true intentions for the APL is it to benefit themselves and milk everything from the game here or is to help the benefit for the sport?  They if they say they want the sport to benefit then why are they reluctant to introduce this policy at a-league level if it means no salary cap? 

FFA were incharge of the sport, before the decoupling 18 months ago.