How about a "zoning" draft?

[Olmy]

Why don't the AFL reintroduce zoning to ALL clubs, in a pre-national draft, "zoning" draft.

Each club could get free reign, with up to 3 or so picks in the "zoning" draft, before heading off to the national draft.

Each club would have its own zone(s), which wouldn't be able to be drafted from, by other clubs, until the national draft.

Perhaps this could also be incoporated with the father-son picks. That way, we could get the zoning, and father-son picks out of the way before the national draft. The recent furoar over the Lions and Swans getting "preferential" picks, would then be resolved, to some extent.

Similarly, I reckon there is a lot to be gained for AFL clubs, and local competitions, if the zoning system were to be brought back.

Thoughts?

 

[McCartney5]

Well how do you plan to do it??

Are you going to split Victoria into 10 parts.. doesn't sound fair does it seeing Brisbane and Sydney would have a whole state to themselves

Or could the Kangaroos pick Canberra?

explain please

 

[Portia]

Quite simply it wouldn't work, because it would heavily favour WA and SA clubs.

Victoria provides 50% of players in the AFL...they have over 50% of the clubs.

NSW & QLD really provide bugger alll...maybe enough for one decent zone pick each, but 2 or 3 would be lucky.

SA & WA each produce about 17% of players....around 3 squads for SA, a bit less for WA....so SA & WA clubs would rip it up with those priority zones.

Also, there's the St Kilda factor...........it doesn't take much for a kid to move to the Carlton zone to avoid being picked up by a club like St Kilda (or for an Eagles fan to avoid Freo, etc), which is part of the reason why the draft came up in the first place..........


You could probably get away with one priority signing per club (from anywhere in Australia, if the player wanted to play for the club, or just wanted to know where they were going), and then draft the rest, I guess....but in equal access zoning, NSW & QLD would get caned if it was on a large scale.

 

[hilly]

I think if it were to happen Olmy we would have the age-old problem of certain clubs, and I won't embarrass Carlton by naming them, paying off families to move to their zone when junior looked like becoming a reasonable player

 

[sabre_ac]

God how sweet would that be

Simon black
Hay
Gasper
Jackovich
Matera
Kerr
etc would already be on our list

Polack
Sampi
would be automatically drafted

Sweeeeeeetttt

 

[hilly]

Originally posted by sabre_ac
God how sweet would that be

Simon black
Hay
Gasper
Jackovich
Matera
Kerr
etc would already be on our list

Or West Coast's

 

[Portia]

Actually sabre, they would have been on your list, but you would have already traded them for Simon Fletcher, Murray Vance. Michael Stevens, Tim Elliott and Troy Luff

 

[Satay Mat]

I like the idea.

I would work if you did not over-engineer it.

Instead of giving each club a zone just make it home state. Give Tassie and Riverina to Victoria and each club can select one player from their home state. The order of the draft will be in recverse ladder position.

You then won't get clubs getting kids to move as they may not get them anyway


Satay Mat

 

[Portia]

Flaw with the last suggestion:

If 10 victorian clubs still have their own little draft anyway, whats the point of zoning? Zoning is really to encourage a geographical support base and recruiting resource......if the zone is a whole state, it doesn't solve anything for Victorian clubs at all.....a player from a given area still has at best a 10% chance of going where they want, compared to 100% for a QLDer or 50% for a WAer.

 

[Olmy]

The problems with "unfair" zones could be alleviated. You wouldn't necessarily allow clubs from S.A., and W.A. the entire state to work with, but rather, appropriate sections that are decided upon by the club(s).

Similarly, in states like N.S.W. and Qld, the likelyhood of an entire state full of top-line footballers is very minimal at this stage.

Of course, there will always be problems, but that is no different to 'any' system.

It's pretty clear that the AFL are serious about going ahead with the preferential draft treatment for the Lions and Swans, so this would be one way of helping to even out the balance.

We are not talking about replacing the entire draft here, only having a draft before the national draft, in order to give clubs a chance to draft players from a particular zone that they have developed. As said earlier, it could be coupled with the father-son picks, and then all of this business with preferential picks could be out of the way, before the national draft even begins.

In this day and age, the reasons for players not wanting to play for the club they are zoned to, are diminished. Clubs seem to be copping with player payments, and similarly, the level of professionalism is high at almost every AFL club.

Similarly, if an AFL club were to have a significant input into a particular local area (and this would occur, with zoning), you can bet that clubs would be pretty keen for their players to aspire to play with that particular AFL team, in order to keep their invovlement in the area. With this in mind, local clubs wouldn't want to lose players to other zones. Similarly, if a club has zoned an area for long enough, you will tend to find that people from that area will support that club.

On the average, it's unlikely that people would take the huge step of moving house in order to align their child with a particular club. It may happen on the off-chance, but hardly something you'd expect every year.

 

[Satay Mat]

think outside the box Porthos...

Give Tassie to one club Hawthorn
Riverina to North
Western Country Vic to Geelong
Northern Country Vic to Essendon
Eastern Country Vic to St Kilda

Then Divide Melbourne in 5 and away you go !....you can eliminate poaching by basing it on leagues rather than residential (ie the player playing in the Bellarine league goes to Geelong).

The problem for the AFL is that the draft is a restraint of trade. Clubs are the employers of players and imagine a situation where you left school only to be told you had to go and work for Co. A...because they had drafted you.

It relies on illegalrules which bind players and clubs to the system....if you want to participate you must agree to the system....but it is still illegal. It would not take much for a legal chalenge and the whole stack of cards comes down.

Best to act now before that happens


Satay Mat

 

[sabre_ac]

Originally posted by hilly


Or West Coast's

No all those players are from the Fremantle area

 

[McCartney5]

no it is still not fair to Victorian clubs..

what if players in Victoria all come from one area?? that team gets them all.. it's just ridiculous..

Anything for Sydney and Brisbane to get a little extra from the AFL though I guess

 

[sportsfan7]

Originally posted by Satay Mat
I like the idea.

I would work if you did not over-engineer it.

Instead of giving each club a zone just make it home state. Give Tassie and Riverina to Victoria and each club can select one player from their home state. The order of the draft will be in recverse ladder position.

You then won't get clubs getting kids to move as they may not get them anyway


Satay Mat

And who gets the NT??

Porthos is right though. A shared Zone would not encourage development resources.

 

[Satay Mat]

Port.



Satay Mat

 

[Olmy]

Originally posted by McCartney5
no it is still not fair to Victorian clubs..

what if players in Victoria all come from one area?? that team gets them all.. it's just ridiculous..

Anything for Sydney and Brisbane to get a little extra from the AFL though I guess

Try thinking before you post.

As mentioned earlier, this would even out the preferential treatment supposedly given to the Lions and Swans.

It would be giving ALL clubs a chance to develop a particular zone.

As for saying that all the good players would come from one area, well, you surely can't believe that with any conviction?


Since when, have all the good players come from one specific area anyway? Pfft! Even if one year, an area had an exceptional group of players, it is never going to last for longer than one season.

In any regard, if clubs were serious about their area, they would be resourceful and DEVELOP it, to ensure that talented players were being brought up through the ranks.

No club is going to let its zone go to waste.

In any regard, there is still the national draft, after the zoning draft, which would operate as it does now.

 

[Dan26]

I don't like the idea of zoning.

Even if the zones were split evenly, allowing each club access to a similar population, in principle I believe it is wrong.

This is not State Of Origin. It is club football. All 16 clubs should have access to all players regardless of where they are from. If you represent your state, you cannot chop and change teams. If you represent your club you can chop and change. That's one of the realities of club football.

Look at it this way: If zoining is introduced, and clubs then, at the end of each year trade players to other clubs, then what was the point of the zoning in the first place? What's the point having it, if players can then be traded to a club that uses a different zone?

No, I'm sorry, but the current system, in principle is the best - it just needs some tweaking. All 16 clubs should be able to have access to any player, and be able to select that player based on their position in the draft. This is a national club competiton, not State Of Origin.

 

[Roylion]

The idea of limited zoning has some merit, but overall I'm in favor of retaining the draft, as it exists at the moment. Any draft picks due to zoning perhaps should be done as part of the second round of the drafting in the same manner as Brisbane and Sydney currently do.

If limited zoning was to be introduced, this is how it MIGHT work.

Each drafted player due to zoning, must have played for a VFL, SANFL, WAFL, QAFL, TSFL or SFL or Victorian TAC Cup side. Each AFL club then identifies with that zone and assists in developing grass roots football in that geographical area. Brisbane and Sydney would get a wider geographical area than just the QAFL and SFL due to their overall poorer standard.

So it MIGHT (I repeat MIGHT) go something along these general lines, where clubs get priority access to ONE player from their "zone" in return for giving up a second round draft pick (roughly Picks 17-33), in exactly the same way as Brisbane and Sydney currently get.

Adelaide: Norwood, Glenelg, North Adelaide, Sturt, Northern Territory,

Brisbane - QAFL (including Southport) All divisions of the South Queensland League and Junior Football Leagues in South East Queensland

Carlton - Bendigo Diggers, Bendigo Pioneers (Vic U/18), Eastern Ranges (Vic U/18)

Collingwood - Williamstown, Northern Knights (Vic U/18),

Essendon - Northern Bullants, Calder Cannons (Vic U/18)

Fremantle - East Fremantle, South Fremantle, Claremont, Peel Thunder, (Lower placed club that year gets Subiaco for that year)

Geelong - North Ballarat, Geelong Falcons (Vic U/18)

Hawthorn - Box Hill, TFL, Tassie Mariners (Vic U/18),

Kangaroos - Murray Kangaroos, NSW/ACT Rams, (Vic U/18),

Melbourne - Sandringham, Sandringham Dragons (Vic U/18), ,

Port Adelaide - Port Adelaide Magpies, South Adelaide, Woodville-West Torrens, Central District, West Adelaide,

Richmond - Coburg, Gippsland Power (Vic U/18)

St Kilda - Springvale, Frankston, Dandenong Stingrays (Vic U/18),

Sydney - SFL, the Football Association in Sydney, the Black Diamond League in Newcastle and the Central Coast, the South Coast League from Wollongong to Nowra and all Sydney Junior Football Associations. Port Melbourne in the VFL,

West Coast: Perth, East Perth, Swan Districts, West Perth, (Lower placed club that year gets Subiaco for that year)

Western Bulldogs: Werribee, Western Jets (Vic U/18), ,

Some of these might be a little unequal, so might require further tinkering.

To be eligible for the draft you would have to have played in these leagues, including reserves, juniors etc. These zones would only apply for ONE second round draft pick (which perhaps could be nominated before the draft). Otherwise everything else is open slather and drafts can be made by any club from any competition as is the current situation.

This is the only way I can see a limited zoning system working within the guidelines of the current draft. However as said before I prefer the existing system.

 

[Pessimistic]

Originally posted by sabre_ac
God how sweet would that be

Simon black
Hay
Gasper
Jackovich
Matera
Kerr
etc would already be on our list

Polack
Sampi
would be automatically drafted

Sweeeeeeetttt

Freo would have missed most of these even with a zone.

 

[PC28]

And we would have picked up Matthew Lloyd...

 

[Dave]

Originally posted by Satay Mat
Instead of giving each club a zone just make it home state.

Surprise

 

[barry]

Firstly, the AFL is (and should be) responsible for all development. It should no longer be the responsibility of the clubs.
Its far better to have an Australia wide strategy than a number of small regional ones.

Therefore that completely negates the need for clubs to have zones, and therefore recruit from zones.

As far as players not playing for their favourite clubs. Tough. If I was a bank teller, and I had banked with Westpac all my life, it wouldnt be the end of the world if I had to work for the NAB.

Moving young kids interstate is a little more tricky, but they are 18, so only mummy's-boys would complain about moving at that age.

The draft a fantastic tool. The envy of every other comp. Keep it.

 

[Dave]

Originally posted by Olmy
As for saying that all the good players would come from one area, well, you surely can't believe that with any conviction?

Why not, history suggests that it does happen.

 

[Rooboy 96]

Originally posted by Dan25
the current system, in principle is the best - it just needs some tweaking. All 16 clubs should be able to have access to any player, and be able to select that player based on their position in the draft. This is a national club competiton, not State Of Origin.

I think a little less tweaking is what is really required...

 

[Portia]

Using the bank analogy....

If I've got a choice of working at any bank, because I'm a **** hot Economics grad with honours.....why shouldn't I be able to work at a bank that I like?

Why should I, an Economics grad with first class honours, be forced to work for a bank thats got poor organization, and is about to go under?

I always thought that the rule of life was that if you're good at what you do, you get more choices.