Interesting article by Essendon CEO in today's paper

[Hawkk]

Dons warn of 'super teams' risk

http://www.realfooty.com.au/news/news/dons-warn-of-super-teams-risk/2008/06/03/1212258825858.html

ESSENDON has warned the AFL that the availability of the best draft picks to the AFL's northern start-up teams should be staggered and new clubs required to trade some top picks to avoid creating super teams and potentially cripple the bottom clubs.

The Bombers believe that giving the new Gold Coast team picks 1 to 5 in each of several drafts would risk artificially creating a super team while simultaneously inflicting unnecessary and excessive pain on those taking their turn at the foot of the ladder.

Just a couple of points from the article

- Hawthorn finished 6th and 4th in 2000 and 2001. In fact all clubs currently in the top 4 (Hawks, Cats, Dogs and Crows) made the finals in either/both 2000 and 2001

- As a leader of a professional football club, Jackson should have foreseen that movement was going to be made regarding the West Sydney and Gold Coast clubs in the coming years, 80 new players don’t just find football clubs by themselves. Using the draft to entice marquee players was always going to be the logical progression

- Instead of following the Sheedy mandate - which never looked likely of realistically delivering Essendon a flag since 2002 (even in 2003 and 2004 when Essendon made finals they traded water in 8th in both years)

- Instead of drafting 'top up' players such as Scott Camporeale, Essendon should have drafted more youth sooner. Hindsight may be a wonderful thing, but NO football journalist foresaw Essendon being a realistic premiership contender in 2005-2007.

Is Jackson blaming others for his football clubs failure to position its football department strongly in the long term?

[Daytripper]

Dons warn of 'super teams' risk

http://www.realfooty.com.au/news/news/dons-warn-of-super-teams-risk/2008/06/03/1212258825858.html



Just a couple of points from the article

- Hawthorn finished 6th and 4th in 2000 and 2001. In fact all clubs currently in the top 4 (Hawks, Cats, Dogs and Crows) made the finals in either/both 2000 and 2001

- As a leader of a professional football club, Jackson should have foreseen that movement was going to be made regarding the West Sydney and Gold Coast clubs in the coming years, 80 new players dont just find football clubs by themselves. Using the draft to entice marquee players was always going to be the logical progression

- Instead of following the Sheedy mandate - which never looked likely of realistically delieverying Essendon a flag since 2002 (even in 2003 and 2004 when Essendon made finals they tredded water in 8th in both years)

- Instead of drafting 'top up' players such as Scott Camporeale, Essendon should have drafted more youth sooner. Hindsight may be a wonderful thing, but NO football journalist foreso Essendon being a realistic premiership contender in 2005-2007.

Is Jackson blaming others for his football clubs failure to position its football department strongly in the long term?

The clubs really in trouble will be your St Kilda's, Kangaroos and Fremantles who appear to be on the slide and have had hardly any top 10 picks in the last 3-4 years.
Even Geelong could be in trouble by the time 2012 comes around as most of their good players now are 25+ and who knows what they will be like in 3 years

To tell you the truth, its teams such as Essendon, Carlton and Richmond who will be advantaged as they have filled up on high draft picks for the last three seasons which should keep them healthy come the 2012-2014 period.

[Daytripper]

By the way, C- for the troll attempt.

[Hawkk]

The clubs really in trouble will be your St Kilda's, Kangaroos and Fremantles who appear to be on the slide and have had hardly any top 10 picks in the last 3-4 years.
Even Geelong could be in trouble by the time 2012 comes around as most of their good players now are 25+ and who knows what they will be like in 3 years

Not really

All inside the first 2 rounds, not the amount of players selected in a short space of time.

2004 - 2, 5, 7, 21, 26
2005 - 3, 6, 14, 18, 22 (F/S)
2006 - 6, 23, 33 (F/S)
2007 - 12, 29

Geelong also have a truckload of talent coming through their reserve system, look at their performances in the VFL, albeit with some top up players.

On top of having good selections the new franchises will use their draft picks to trade for marquee players from the stronger clubs which will help the stronger clubs become more and more dominate in the medium to long term.

Agree with your calls on St Kilda and Fremantle though.

To tell you the truth, its teams such as Essendon, Carlton and Richmond who will be advantaged as they have filled up on high draft picks for the last three seasons which should keep them healthy come the 2012-2014 period.

Emphasis on drafting well.

If there are no concerns, why the need to raise the concern by your CEO?

[Lance Uppercut]

If there are no concerns, why the need to raise the concern by your CEO?

because it's a valid point, whether it's Essendon or not!

Take off your Hawthorn/Essendon biases, and answer is the central question. Is it fair that, whomever it may be that bottoms out, doesn't get to take advantage of the system as other clubs have before, simply because of the timing of the new teams?

Wouldn't it be better to make the concessions fairer to everyone else in the competition, for the good of the competition? Can you agree with that simple point?

[dalethomas13]

I think Hawkk makes some valid points.

The impression I got from reading Jackson's comments were that his club will feel 'disadvantaged' if they bottomed out beyond this season and many clubs will probably feel the same.

I agree with Hawkk, Essendon and every club should have forseen movement and expansion in the Gold Coast and Western Sydney markets and planned accordingly.

Having said that, Essendon have gone to the draft table over the last few drafts and shouldn't be affected by any draft concessions, provided their kids come along and again that is the same for all clubs.

[Lance Uppercut]

I think Hawkk makes some valid points.

The impression I got from reading Jackson's comments were that his club will feel 'disadvantaged' if they bottomed out beyond this season and many clubs will probably feel the same.

I agree with Hawkk, Essendon and every club should have forseen movement and expansion in the Gold Coast and Western Sydney markets and planned accordingly.

Having said that, Essendon have gone to the draft table over the last few drafts and shouldn't be affected by any draft concessions, provided their kids come along and again that is the same for all clubs.

a few weeks back they had an article in the paper about a hypothetical team that would exist now, had the GC entry process started two years ago.

Now, it was hypothetical of course, so a few names here and there would be different.

Let me tell you, it was a ____ing awesome team, one that would only get a lot better as the youngsters matured.

Forget the issue of the teams at the bottom missing out. What if your team was approaching their premiership window in 5 years time, only to miss out this cycle simply because the GC team got such good concessionsthatthey are indeed a "super team"?

Isn't it better for the comp to ensure the concessions given are fair?

I can't believe anyone could disagree with that proposition; which was, in essence, the only point PJ was making

[Lance Uppercut]

I think Hawkk makes some valid points.

The impression I got from reading Jackson's comments were that his club will feel 'disadvantaged' if they bottomed out beyond this season and many clubs will probably feel the same.

I agree with Hawkk, Essendon and every club should have forseen movement and expansion in the Gold Coast and Western Sydney markets and planned accordingly.

Having said that, Essendon have gone to the draft table over the last few drafts and shouldn't be affected by any draft concessions, provided their kids come along and again that is the same for all clubs.

by the way, how exactly should the clubs have "forseen" this, when it was thrust upon us all when North decided they wouldn't go to the GC, less than 12 months ago?!

It's amusing posters think that somehow clubs should be omniscient and be able to predict the future and the mind of AD and AA

[Hawkk]

because it's a valid point, whether it's Essendon or not!

Take off your Hawthorn/Essendon biases, and answer is the central question. Is it fair that, whomever it may be that bottoms out, doesn't get to take advantage of the system as other clubs have before, simply because of the timing of the new teams?

Wouldn't it be better to make the concessions fairer to everyone else in the competition, for the good of the competition? Can you agree with that simple point?

The fact that sides such as Melbourne, Sydney, Fremantle and Essendon (although admittedly you did have a crack in the 2006 and 2007 drafts) are in this situation is no fault but their own.

Fact is, you won't get another North Melbourne or Fremantle at the trading table anymore and given these clubs have/were floating in no mans land for years (6-12) and therefore only have themselves to blame for their complacency regarding building up their lists.

The clubs would have known about the Gold Coast and West Sydney plans for years, the fact that Gold Coast and West Sydney will use these draft picks to trade off for marquee players from the stronger clubs was the logical progession.

Collingwood is a pretty good example of a club in recent years that has brought together alot of good talent from on the whole pretty dull draft picks.

Essendon wasted years in 2003-2005 are the primary reason why they are in the position they are today. Jackson complaining to the AFL regarding the advent of 'super clubs' isnt going to solve the complacency issues that have lead to the current plight.

[Lance Uppercut]

The fact that sides such as Melbourne, Sydney, Fremantle and Essendon (although admittedly you did have a crack in the 2006 and 2007 drafts) are in this situation is no fault but their own.

Fact is, you won't get another North Melbourne or Fremantle at the trading table anymore and given these clubs have/were floating in no mans land for years (6-12) and therefore only have themselves to blame for their complacency regarding building up their lists.

The clubs would have known about the Gold Coast and West Sydney plans for years, the fact that Gold Coast and West Sydney will use these draft picks to trade off for marquee players from the stronger clubs was the logical progession.

Collingwood is a pretty good example of a club in recent years that has brought together alot of good talent from on the whole pretty dull draft picks.

Essendon wasted years in 2003-2005 are the primary reason why they are in the position they are today. Jackson complaining to the AFL regarding the advent of 'super clubs' isnt going to solve the complacency issues that have lead to the current plight.

thanks for avoiding my question completely.

Is it fair if teams at the bottom are denied the socialist benefits given to teams before them (ie Carlton, St Kilda etc); and would it be fair if Hawthorn, for eg, got beaten in a GF by the GC Schoolies because they have a super awesome team gifted to them by AFL policy?

Yes clubs (including Essendon) have gotten themselves into that position, but isn't that the ENTIRE philosophy behind the draft and priority picks? Cyclic equality?

You got both Roughead and Franklin, instead of one or the other, as a direct result of this system; but you want to deny other clubs that benefit.

Now, I want you to answer this next point as well, please.

12 months ago it was AFL policy that a team such as NM would go to the GC. Can you explain to me exactly how clubs should have forseen the future?

Crystal ball perhaps?

It's the most outlandish argument ever. When the AFL announced an expansion to 18 teams, NO-ONE saw it coming. Is your attention span that short you don't remember that? Now you say, with hindsight, that clubs should have forseen it.

Gimme a break, sweet jesus :rolleyes:

[genghiskhan]

Dons warn of 'super teams' risk

http://www.realfooty.com.au/news/news/dons-warn-of-super-teams-risk/2008/06/03/1212258825858.html


Essendon should be fine. That don't have any name players that the Gold Coast or West Sydney would target.

Drafting shouldn't be a problem either. The only club that seems to have successfully rebuilt by bottoming out is Hawthorn, and there has been some luck there as well. That had the fortune that two of their top ten picks turned out to be gems. Most turn out to be rubbish in the vein Wells or Goddard.

Then you have the likes of Brisbane, Geelong, Adelaide and Port that have always been there abouts.

[retroparty]

He's got the right idea but needs to get his facts right about the Hawks. I feel embarrassed that the CEO of the best sporting club in Australia would make such a comment like that.

[Bulldog Joe]

If we look beyond the club prejudices they have raised a valid point. How good would a side be that had Brett Deledio, Jarryd Roughead, Ryan Griffen, Richard Tambling, Buddy Franklin, Marc Murphy, Dale Thomas, Xavier Ellis, Josh Kennedy and Scott Pendlebury.
These are the top 5 from 2004 and 2005.
I feel it would be fairer to provide 2 players from each of the 16 clubs with at least 50 games experience including at least 10 in 2010 and then slot them in with pick 1 in each round. They should also be able to priority draft 3 17 year olds players from their Gold Coast area or Darwin in each of the next 2 years.

[McCrann]

You got both Roughead and Franklin, instead of one or the other, as a direct result of this system; but you want to deny other clubs that benefit.



Actually - Hawthorn only got Roughead and Franklin because Richmond had indicated they would draft Roughead with their 2nd pick - but they weren't going to draft Franklin.

And Dogs were always going to draft Griffin.

If the Hawks had drafted Franklin with their first pick - Richmond would then have picked up Roughead - its only because the Hawks took Roughead first that they ended up with both of them - wouldn't have worked the other way around.

So, the point is - it was not as a direct result of the drafting system - it was a direct result of the fact Richmond didn't rate Franklin and weren't going to draft either Roughead or Franklin with their 2nd pick.

TO BE COMPLETELY PLAIN - IT WAS A RICHMOND STUFF-UP.

Oh, what a surprise!

The other thing to note is - the Gold Coast club won't be getting the Top 5 picks for 2 years in a row - that will only be for 1 year, as the West Sydney side will then get the same concessions the following year - as they come in a year later.

A few other things you have to remember - when these clubs start, their infrastructure and coaching staff are not likely to be up to scratch, that could take 5 to 6 years (or, look at Fremantle - could take 15 years+).

Giving them high draft picks is not going to be enough to make them into any sort of super-team - they have no history of success!

The most succesful expansion team of the past 20 years has been Port Adelaide - making the finals in most years and managing to win a Premiership along the way (although as a Saints fan I maintain they were extremely fortunate to even win that - check out the stats from that night and you'll wonder how the Saints managed to lose that PF)

One thing that everyone knows about Port Adelaide? It was an existing club with a strong strong history of success for well over a century.

It had success in spades.

That is something these new teams will definitely not have an ounce of when they start up.

Everyone should stop worrying, these teams are not going to dominate - their main goal in their early years will be to knock-off their local rivals - and if possible finish up higher on the ladder.

Just look at Fremantle for a case in point. The amount of celebrating they did when they first beat the Eagles was incredible. It took them a few years and didn't they know it.

But where have they gone since? Basically nowhere.

[harmesy 37]

I sympathise with any club supporters or club that has "bottomed out" for a long period of time. To then have some new "franchise" take a high percentage of the new talent isn't really something that thrills me as a Carlton supporter.

Richmond and Carlton have made errors in recruiting - but i don't think those teams or Essendon will be happy if a new club takes 5 of the top 15 players.

[Lance Uppercut]

Actually - Hawthorn only got Roughead and Franklin because Richmond had indicated they would draft Roughead with their 2nd pick - but they weren't going to draft Franklin.

And Dogs were always going to draft Griffin.

If the Hawks had drafted Franklin with their first pick - Richmond would then have picked up Roughead - its only because the Hawks took Roughead first that they ended up with both of them - wouldn't have worked the other way around.

So, the point is - it was not as a direct result of the drafting system - it was a direct result of the fact Richmond didn't rate Franklin and weren't going to draft either Roughead or Franklin with their 2nd pick.

TO BE COMPLETELY PLAIN - IT WAS A RICHMOND STUFF-UP.



did you, or did you not, receive two of the first five picks as a result of performing poorly enough to finish in the lowest rungs of the ladder?

[McCrann]

did you, or did you not, receive two of the first five picks as a result of performing poorly enough to finish in the lowest rungs of the ladder?

Mate - take a look underneath my name - I don't go for Hawthorn.

I was simply raising the point that the example you used was a bad one, for Hawthorn should not have ended up with both of those players.

In fact, a better example - and closer to home for me, would have been the year (2001) we picked up Riewoldt and Koschitzke.

No stuff-ups at the drafting table there by other clubs - just a season of pain that we Sainters had to endure.

[Lance Uppercut]

Mate - take a look underneath my name - I don't go for Hawthorn.

I was simply raising the point that the example you used was a bad one, for Hawthorn should not have ended up with both of those players.

In fact, a better example - and closer to home for me, would have been the year (2001) we picked up Riewoldt and Koschitzke.

No stuff-ups at the drafting table there by other clubs - just a season of pain that we Sainters had to endure.

apologies for mistaking your team. You get so conditioned to Hawthorn supporters ragging out Richmond it gets kinda automatic :o

The point, though, is that whether or not Richmond screwed up, at least they had a shot at it, with a couple of high end picks; as did Hawthorn

Under this scenario, a team like Hawthorn or Richmond, or St Kilda - who finish in the bottom couple - wouldn't get that opportunity. They wouldn't even get one pick in the top 5.

[FIGJAM]

I have to agree with the Bummer bloke. Whilst it ain't going to be easy initially for them, the up cycle will be between 4 to 6 years and it may be riddiculously strong.

If we look at peaking players today, a new club with such concessions between 2000 to 2002 could have:

2000:
Nick Reiwoldt
Juston Koschitzke
Alan Didak
Luke Livingstone
Andrew McDougall

2001:
Luke Hodge
Luke Ball
Chris Judd
Graham Polak
Xavier Clarke

2002:
Brendon Goddard
Daniel Wells
Jarred Brennan
Tim Walsh
Jarred McVeigh

Even after allowing for a few dud picks, which happens, you have a pretty mighty team from 2006 onwards:

HB: Goddard, Polak, McVeigh
C: Wells, Hodge, Didak
HF: Riewoldt, Clarke
F: Brennan
R: Koschitzke, Judd, Ball

We haven't even worried about their second or third round selections, or mature age concessions, but we could start inserting logs around these blokes to be challenging for the flag this year. The midfield is riddiculously good.

Unfortunately Freo have done us all a disservice by being completely incompetent, but any half competent outfit with a half intelligent recruiter, coupled with external concessions to build a core, should be able to comfortably build a premiership side.

There are of course issues with the club settling and some initial rejections ala Brisbane. They may even be a basket case ala Freo. But then they might be competent like Port. The AFL need to be careful on how they distribute talent in setting them up, and it should not be to the detriment of everyone else.

[Centurion]

Lance Uppercut, excuse me for seeming naive but do you think this issue will affect us by keeping us down for longer or will we be ok in the long run. To be honest im a little worried that we will miss on enough talent that we need.

[Lance Uppercut]

Lance Uppercut, excuse me for seeming naive but do you think this issue will affect us by keeping us down for longer or will we be ok in the long run. To be honest im a little worried that we will miss on enough talent that we need.

no-one is naive on this issue, it's full of known knowns, unknown knowns, and unknown unknowns, so to speak, lol

I think the Essendon CEO spoke up because he was representing Essendon's interests, so I'd suggest there'd be some concern from Essendon that we would be in that position.

I see us as on the cusp. We've drafted really well for the last few season's where we've performed badly. I think we have the core of a good team, and it looks like we'll have the opportunity to pick up some early picks this year also - normally I'd say unfortunately, but given the arbitrary timing of the whole affair, it's not that clear-cut.

The teams who are at the beginning of the bottoming out process, and the closing of the premiership window right now, are the one's in real trouble imo; but like anything, smart management doesn't make that fait accompli.

We're definitely vulnerable, but like everyone else, the onus is on us to work with the system, develop our players, and identify good talent deeper in the draft.

People might remember that a number of teams benefited from the old PP system; whereby you got two players in the first 2-4 picks.

Essendon had the misfortune of being in the position to qualify for that in the same year the AFL changed the rules so that the PP came at the end of the first round.

I've always said, and continue to do so, that that decision was the correct one for the AFL to make, or at least a step in the right direction, so there's no point whinging. However it can't be argued that we weren't disadvantaged simply by the timing of the decision and our bottoming out.

This is like that, but to a factor of 10. The whole system is based on cyclical equality, yet that will be removed for those unfortunate enough to be on the down now.

That's just not fair. You do need the new teams competitive. No doubt.

But arbitrary timing is the issue. Surely it's possible to strike a better balance between fairness to existing teams and the incoming teams. PJ made some very good points regarding this (ie alternating picks etc).

In any case, it's all a process of negotiation, which is what the clubs (including Essendon and PJ), and the AFL, are doing.

I just think it's hard to argue with the proposition that it should be a fair process

[Centurion]

Thank you kind sir for your wonderful explanation. I just hope the club will put in the right processes to select the next batch of young talent correctly due to the fact it is a limited draft in terms of selections. It puts added pressure on the recruiting team due to if they make a mistake, it could keep the club from rising to the ultimate success.

[Professor Knowall]

The Essendon President was speaking purely out of Essendon's interests, not the greater good (and fair enough - it's his job to look after his own club's self interest first). But don't forget, its all about his own clubs self interest.
... The other thing to note is - the Gold Coast club won't be getting the Top 5 picks for 2 years in a row - that will only be for 1 year, as the West Sydney side will then get the same concessions the following year - as they come in a year later.

A few other things you have to remember - when these clubs start, their infrastructure and coaching staff are not likely to be up to scratch, that could take 5 to 6 years (or, look at Fremantle - could take 15 years+).

Giving them high draft picks is not going to be enough to make them into any sort of super-team - they have no history of success!

The most succesful expansion team of the past 20 years has been Port Adelaide - making the finals in most years and managing to win a Premiership along the way (although as a Saints fan I maintain they were extremely fortunate to even win that - check out the stats from that night and you'll wonder how the Saints managed to lose that PF)

One thing that everyone knows about Port Adelaide? It was an existing club with a strong strong history of success for well over a century.

It had success in spades.

That is something these new teams will definitely not have an ounce of when they start up.

Everyone should stop worrying, these teams are not going to dominate - their main goal in their early years will be to knock-off their local rivals - and if possible finish up higher on the ladder.

Just look at Fremantle for a case in point. The amount of celebrating they did when they first beat the Eagles was incredible. It took them a few years and didn't they know it.

But where have they gone since? Basically nowhere.

Excellent post.