Emphatically rejecting a mooted draft system change that would remove the power of a contracted footballer to veto a trade, AFL Players Association boss Paul Marsh said the move would see his members reduced to cattle-like status.

The contentious proposition tabled in an AFL working party – which has a prominent supporter in Richmond coach Damian Hardwick, who has said the free agency threshold could be reduced if players give up the trade veto – would dehumanise footballers and run counter to the fundamental pillars of the AFLPA, according to the organisation's new CEO.

"We just don't think it's fair, and it doesn't apply to anyone else in this industry," said Marsh, the former Australian Cricketers Association head, who believes footballers are already significantly restricted.

"It just goes against everything that we stand for, that a player would have no choice about where he may play and where he may have to live.

"Players, through the draft, already have no choice about the club they go to. They can't move freely to a club that they might want to – until they become a free agent – unless they reach an agreement with their club and a new club."

Marsh told Fairfax on Wednesday that talk of removing players' trade veto rights suggested clubs were feeling disempowered.

Straight-shooting in his assessment, Marsh underlined his opinion that "there's almost a view that the clubs think they own the players. And this whole thought that, 'We put all this time into developing players, and we should be able to keep them for as long as we want them,' it just doesn't work that way.

"We think some of the clubs have this view that the players may have too much say, and too much power, in terms of their ability to move.

"If you make it so that players can't move, or if players can be moved on like is being proposed here, where is the incentive to create a better working environment within your club? That's actually been one of the real positives we've seen from free agency."

Hardwick backed reducing the free agency threshold for players, on the condition they acquiesce on their trade veto power, on radio last weekend.

"He's said that a few times over the last 12 months," Marsh said of the Richmond coach.

"I guess I can understand it if I look at it purely from a club's perspective. But I guess I see the players as human beings. And I just don't think you should be forced into a position, particularly when you've been in the system for a little while.

"It may be a terrible outcome for the player. And he's got no say in it? That's just not right."

Marsh said Adelaide star Patrick Dangerfield and Carlton's Lachie Henderson were equally entitled to hold their lines on delaying their contract negotiations.

Dangerfield is weighing up returning to his home state, while Henderson said this week he was assessing who the Blues select as their next senior coach and the direction of the struggling club before making his decision on whether to stay or move.

"I know Patrick, he's on our board, he's a very smart guy and he's obviously seriously weighing up what he does next, and he's got every right to take as long as he wants to on that decision," Marsh said.

"I know that he knows the public scrutiny that comes with delaying this decision. So it's not like he's gone into this with his eyes closed ... [but] he should not be pressured into a decision just because it may suit the club or it may suit whoever.

"It's not ideal that every time you front the media it's the question that you're getting, and it's the question all of his teammates are getting and his coaches are getting, but I'm not sure there's an alternative. I personally don't like the thought of a player signing with another club while they're still at a club, mid-season. I think that would be a worse situation than what we're seeing at the moment."

Of Henderson's position, Marsh said: "In a general work environment to understand who your boss is going to be is a pretty big factor in where you might work. So I see no issue with that at all."