View Full Version : Draft concessions
pedrothelioness
30 Jun 2003, 20:39
From the news on Fox Footy, congratulations must go to the board, who put together a very well thought out paper about the affects the draft concessions have/would have on the team. It seemed from this that the Lions atleast got 1/2 of their concession kept.
Now that we've seen pompous eddie get what he wants, It'll be nice to see the amount of money his team earns from all the blockbusters that they play, and the fact that they barely travel :ie home advantage? in the second part of the season monitored. Eddie out of all people should be the least likely complaining, since his show gives Collingwood unfair advantages with sponsoring ect, since he pretty much uses all the shows he's got his fat head on, as plug oppurtunities.
Pedro can you outline the full story? I've been trying to find out about it everywhere after hearing a news headline.
NICK THE PIE MAN
30 Jun 2003, 20:47
Originally posted by pedrothelioness
From the news on Fox Footy, congratulations must go to the board, who put together a very well thought out paper about the affects the draft concessions have/would have on the team. It seemed from this that the Lions atleast got 1/2 of their concession kept.
Now that we've seen pompous eddie get what he wants, It'll be nice to see the amount of money his team earns from all the blockbusters that they play, and the fact that they barely travel :ie home advantage? in the second part of the season monitored. Eddie out of all people should be the least likely complaining, since his show gives Collingwood unfair advantages with sponsoring ect, since he pretty much uses all the shows he's got his fat head on, as plug oppurtunities.
It was just Eddie was it?
Victoria wanted it changed, not just Eddie.
Originally posted by NICK THE PIE MAN
It was just Eddie was it?
Victoria wanted it changed, not just Eddie.
3 clubs, you mean. :rolleyes: :o
Originally posted by pedrothelioness
Eddie out of all people should be the least likely complaining, since his show gives Collingwood unfair advantages with sponsoring ect, since he pretty much uses all the shows he's got his fat head on, as plug oppurtunities.
They're hardly "unfair" opportunities. People have a choice as to whether or not they watch such shows, and how they interpret them, and likewise, they are not "official" productions of the AFL.
Brisbane will survive it but this will be dangerous to Sydney just when they started looking like they were getting together a decent team that could attract new supporters.
At least we'll have 3 years to adjust. We'll definately lose players at the end of this season. I'm glad our younger players are getting a go now.
Lenny29
30 Jun 2003, 21:20
I don't like the "we'll give you an extra $360k to pay 12 blokes if you have less than 40% on your list" bit. If they're on 39% with a draft pick left, and its either a local kid or a Melbourne kid, both with similar talent, I know who Leigh Matthews will be smart enough to pick.
Originally posted by L-Nizzy
I don't like the "we'll give you an extra $360k to pay 12 blokes if you have less than 40% on your list" bit. If they're on 39% with a draft pick left, and its either a local kid or a Melbourne kid, both with similar talent, I know who Leigh Matthews will be smart enough to pick.
Hopefully the local talent who will be more likely to stay at the club long term, and provide more interest for QLDers.
Lenny29
30 Jun 2003, 21:38
I'm thinking more along the lines of a 70th draft pick, which is pretty much a gamble. Not likely to recruit a superstar from there, but in the past the Lions usually would have gone a Queenslander, if he were up to the standard.
Originally posted by L-Nizzy
I'm thinking more along the lines of a 70th draft pick, which is pretty much a gamble. Not likely to recruit a superstar from there, but in the past the Lions usually would have gone a Queenslander, if he were up to the standard.
I reckon the possibility of this continuing is becoming greater due to the success of elevating local rookies over the past few years.
N.Clarke, R.Copeland and L.Weller are all local products who have been elevated from the rookie list, who have played a role in the seniors in one way or another. None of them have gone on to become superstars, but surely they'd be worth selection late in the draft.
Likewise, a player like D.Merrett who has only had limited AFL experience, was still selected on the basis of looking to be a handy future prospect.
I reckon the club is gradually becoming more open to taking risks on local talent - obviously the job is made easier as well, as the game becomes more popular, and the quality of players produced increases.
I'm sure it must be a real kick for QLD supporters, to see local talent running around with the Lions squad. Surely this must provide and incentive for the club to select such players.
the point i would worry about if i was a queenslander is the % of qld players allowed i think 40% before the concessions that remain either reduce or go altogether, do we think for one minute the lions will pick another qld player if it exceeds that amount ?
i think not, now afl is that in the interest of fostering local talent in queensland !!!
should the lions and the swans join forces to find some thing on our most vocal victorian brothers ie the pies and the bombers !!.
i will look with much interest at the possible cap breaches (lloyd and hirdys little web scams) and see if the afl can throw its weight around south of the border
by reductions to concessions i am refering to the 360k player bonus to 12 players
I think that the cross training that QLDer's, NSWelshman and Northern Territorians get can be a distinct advantage. Being exposed to the hard body contact of League as well as the hand and tackling skills can only contribute to an AFL footballers overall game.
As for Eddie, I see he gets his way again. Eddie is an excellent television presenter, and more importantly popular, or at least his shows are. He is also an excellent President who, like any president should, does anything within his power that he can to promote his club. Eddie has amassed a lot of power and that amounts to a hell of a lot of promotion. I think that his massive TV coverage along with his shameless plugging of Collingwood and the fact that Collingwood is the No1. team off the field is no coincidence. Unfortunately none of this means that he is good for football in general. His relentless pursuit of premiership glory for Collingwood has resulted in him now being on a path to remove all obsticles. One of them being us. He will now find a new crusade and it will continue until he gets his way again. We can only hope this time we are not directly in his sights.
cjwalkley
1 Jul 2003, 10:34
Don't forget that all the rookies on the Lions list are Queenslanders, so if the Lions were at 39% they would automatically go over the 40% mark once they elevated a rookie. But then if Shaun Mugavin had of been rookie listed and then was elevated do they rate him as a Victorian or a Queenslander?
If Lynch plays on next year, will he qualify for the Veterans list - 10 yrs of service and over 30?
If so that will give us some room. I realise that we can have more than 2 Veterans now but I still expect Choppers to retire.
As I read it, Voss and Leppa will qualify in 2005.
If Lynch doesn't play on, and Choppers and Hart retire I'm not sure if we'll have any qualified Veterans - a bit tricky then!
Originally posted by Stocka
N.Clarke, R.Copeland and L.Weller are all local products who have been elevated from the rookie list, who have played a role in the seniors in one way or another. None of them have gone on to become superstars, but surely they'd be worth selection late in the draft.
At the moment, you're 100% on the money. But would drafting a Clarke, Copeland, Weller, be worth having $360,000 less in the
salary cap? I think not.
Originally posted by Stocka
[b]I'm sure it must be a real kick for QLD supporters, to see local talent running around with the Lions squad. Surely this must provide and incentive for the club to select such players.
I still reckon they'd rather have $360k extra room to move in the cap, than one extra token Queenslander who may or may not become good. I know I would, if I were in charge.. it's only smart.
rchowell
2 Jul 2003, 13:47
Originally posted by NICK THE PIE MAN
It was just Eddie was it?
Victoria wanted it changed, not just Eddie.
Nope Eddie and his best mate McMahon wanted it changed, the rest of Victoria just jumped on the bandwagon. Just goes to show there's a first time for everything :o
What about the stupid 50km rule ? Will it be extended to 100km ( the father / son precident ) ? How about 200km , excluding any areas where potential AFL guns just happen to be ? What a farce.
Originally posted by L-Nizzy
At the moment, you're 100% on the money. But would drafting a Clarke, Copeland, Weller, be worth having $360,000 less in the
salary cap? I think not.
I still reckon they'd rather have $360k extra room to move in the cap, than one extra token Queenslander who may or may not become good. I know I would, if I were in charge.. it's only smart.
I don't particularly agree.
The club surely must realise that an eventual goal, would be to have as many QLDers on the list as possible (whilst obviously looking to have the best list possible). With this in mind, if they continually try and go for an extra 360k in the salary cap by deliberately keeping the local content to under 40%, they are shooting themselves in the foot with this objective. Likewise, this would in turn see the club shooting itself in the foot in regards to being able to survive unassisted on its own, with a strong local market feeding it.
As I said before, considering the increasing number of players who are making the grade from QLD (as well as those who 'could' based on elevations from the rookie list, etc.), I reckon it would be feasible to see us with between 50%-60% local content on our list within 10 years. With this in mind, at some stage, they will have to go over the 40% mark in order to achieve this.
Holding back on drafting a local talent merely to get an extra 360k on the salary cap for one year would therefore be fairly short sighted, IMO.
Then again, I'm not saying that's what 'will' happen, but I certainly think it is what 'should' happen.
Originally posted by Stocka
I don't particularly agree.
The club surely must realise that an eventual goal, would be to have as many QLDers on the list as possible (whilst obviously looking to have the best list possible). With this in mind, if they continually try and go for an extra 360k in the salary cap by deliberately keeping the local content to under 40%, they are shooting themselves in the foot with this objective. Likewise, this would in turn see the club shooting itself in the foot in regards to being able to survive unassisted on its own, with a strong local market feeding it.
As I said before, considering the increasing number of players who are making the grade from QLD (as well as those who 'could' based on elevations from the rookie list, etc.), I reckon it would be feasible to see us with between 50%-60% local content on our list within 10 years. With this in mind, at some stage, they will have to go over the 40% mark in order to achieve this.
Holding back on drafting a local talent merely to get an extra 360k on the salary cap for one year would therefore be fairly short sighted, IMO.
Then again, I'm not saying that's what 'will' happen, but I certainly think it is what 'should' happen.
I guess my point is that I fear for the future of "mid-range" and late drafted Queenslanders to get a run with the Lions. They'd always go the Riewoldt, Voss, Akermanis type, but this new ruling may turn them against drafting a Copeland, Weller type.
sorry stocka i agree with your moral stance but the fact is we run at i think 24% qld talant at present and any chance of the 40% being broken is now a lost cause. the club will manage its list to ensure the extra money is in the kit to attract higher profile players. i dont say its fair but it will be reality.