L_W_P
@peteplatinum on Instagram
Won't happen. No way the AFLPA allow 20% of their members to be out of a job like that.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Exactly. They have given up more than anything expected this year. Numbers will slightly drop at the most. At least 40 on list is how I see it. No such thing as a rookie anymore as it means nothing anyway. Keep the category picks. There are some obvious outs. If it drops by 4 or 5 it shouldn’t be an issue. We won’t need to lose anyone we don’t want to lose.Won't happen. No way the AFLPA allow 20% of their members to be out of a job like that.
I know we love to speculate but this is a very premature discussion based on a set of circumstances which are no longer relevant.
When the first discussions about the need for list reductions started, it was because the league were looking at a very dire set of circumstances with the distinct possibility of no season and a $500M shortfall in revenue from Channel 7.
That hasn't happened, looks like they will get an almost complete season this year, they have now renegotiated with Channel 7 which will spread the impact out till 2024.
Probably still see some reduction in lists (maybe 3 to 5) with a slight cut to all existing contracts. The biggest cut will be to the soft cap but the AFL was looking at ways to do that anyway.
Its still the end of development players.
If its a 35 man list , surely you can't force the clubs to delist players to take a gamble on a 3rd round 18 year old.
Like i said, maybe the drafting age needs to be higher as well.
I can probably count the number of ruckmen and KP forwards and backs drafted in the last decade who were effective in the first 2 years without takinig my shoes off.
ok but if we cannot get victorian members into the games next year, the afl will nearly fall apart
Apparently the main benefit of the rookie list is that it is lower pay and a 1 year contract so allows clubs to take a free swing at more risky players that wouldn't normally get drafted.Exactly. They have given up more than anything expected this year. Numbers will slightly drop at the most. At least 40 on list is how I see it. No such thing as a rookie anymore as it means nothing anyway. Keep the category picks. There are some obvious outs. If it drops by 4 or 5 it shouldn’t be an issue. We won’t need to lose anyone we don’t want to lose.
Article in the AFL website suggests its looking like 38 players plus 2 rookies as the most likely scenario next year.
35 on a list? Clubs brace for cuts but complications loom
The AFL and AFLPA start discussions on potentially revising the CBAwww.afl.com.au
Means we would need to cut at least 8 from the current list due to the current drafting requirement (there is discussions the AFL could reduce the draft requirement down from 3 players)
Looking at those out of contract, I'd expect we delist
Langlands
Mayo
Austin
Brown (retired)
Parker
Clavarino
Other players out of contract who could be in trouble if list spots become tight
Marsh, Lonie, Hind, Phillips, Abbott and Bell.
Also the question on if Geary will play on again next year.
We have enough players OOC that we won't have any issue making the required list cuts.
We will have to get creative to find some back up key defenders in the off season along with our need for mids.
If the AFL stopped kowtowing to Murdoch and developed their own streaming platform, instead of selling the rights to foxtel, then they’d have a very solid revenue stream.
They could charge anywhere between 100-300 per season, depending on the quality of broadcast and additional content, whilst also reaping full advertising revenue.
It wouldn’t replace the revenue from fully attended games, but would be better than the current situation.
I wouldn't be surprised if the AFL/AFLPA will allow for paying out contracts as a way of managing the change but based on current contract arrangements I'd be thinking that Mayo, Brown, Phillips and Austin as the definite de-listings that get us down to 40.Article in the AFL website suggests its looking like 38 players plus 2 rookies as the most likely scenario next year.
35 on a list? Clubs brace for cuts but complications loom
The AFL and AFLPA start discussions on potentially revising the CBAwww.afl.com.au
Means we would need to cut at least 8 from the current list due to the current drafting requirement (there is discussions the AFL could reduce the draft requirement down from 3 players)
Looking at those out of contract, I'd expect we delist
Langlands
Mayo
Austin
Brown (retired)
Parker
Clavarino
Other players out of contract who could be in trouble if list spots become tight
Marsh, Lonie, Hind, Phillips, Abbott and Bell.
Also the question on if Geary will play on again next year.
We have enough players OOC that we won't have any issue making the required list cuts.
We will have to get creative to find some back up key defenders in the off season along with our need for mids.
And why should it. Do normal employment industries go to those with a job and say if you accept huge pays and the ones you have suggested are huge then we can keep more people Maybe they do ask but my guess is 99% would say no. I certainly would. No idea why people think the afl should be different to anyone else. We are all in it for ourselves in the end.and if the high end $ players accepted sqay 25% less and the lower end players accepted say accept 10% less pay $ there would be no need for a reducton in the number of players. but in the in the end each player is in it for themselves and not the whole game
take our team
brad hill said ok for the good of the game i will accept $400k per year. and the 1 year players accepted 80$ 2nd year players accepted $100k ,3rd - 4th year players accepted $150 k and so on.
It won't happen
For that sort of money people would expect a service like the MLB or NFL provide. The AFL simply don’t have the resources.They could charge anywhere between 100-300 per season, depending on the quality of broadcast and additional content, whilst also reaping full advertising revenue.
Pretty sure they're talking about taking a couple of years at least to get to 35.
We can easily lose 3 or 4 per year without any impact on contracts or depth.
And why should it. Do normal employment industries go to those with a job and say if you accept huge pays and the ones you have suggested are huge then we can keep more people Maybe they do ask but my guess is 99% would say no. I certainly would. No idea why people think the afl should be different to anyone else. We are all in it for ourselves in the end.
Correct. The afl need to stick to what they do best and that’s provide the content and leave it up what streaming services do best and that’s show the content.For that sort of money people would expect a service like the MLB or NFL provide. The AFL simply don’t have the resources.
That’s completely different to asking those to take permanent cuts. The players have already done what you have said others did. I bet none would do it for the good of others over a longer period of timeYep, in corporate a lot of people's contracts were redone post GFC. Executive wages were pushed down for a while and now worse than before again. A lot of middle tier people were forced to take less than their contracts to keep jobs.
So we have 13 players not in the 22.
Backup/developing full back. ( 2 player )
Backup ruckman. Developing ruckman. ( 2 players )
Backup tall forward. Developing tall forward. ( 2 players )
Depth Midfielders. 3 Developing midfielders. ( 5 players )
Depth/Developing defender. ( 1 )
Depth/Developing small forward. (1)
That's crap you are choosing between being competitive now or being competitive some time in the future.
It just sucks to high hell and favours the teams who already have well developed teams and makes it harder for teams who are trying to rebuild.
It means we don't take a punt with a Ryan Marshall.
It means we don't have Josh Bruce and Tim Membrey when our number 1 draft pick gets concussed.
It means if you have issues like Robbo , its "Piss of mate go back in the draft when you fix your ticker " Someone does their ACL , so long, can't carry you.
Essentially it means you need to nail every draft pick you make. If they aren't playing year 1 , off they go. Bad luck for players like Paton, who weren't ready right away . ( More often or not its the 3rd year when a normal sized player makes his mark, talls longer ).
If they really want to do this, then i think they also need to put back the age of the draft. 20YO to get into the draft. 18 year olds are too much of a lottery.
And give the teams the choice to draft or hold onto their current players. Why be forced to delist a decent player to draft some kid who is a long shot in the 3rd round.
So our team/list would look something like.
Paton Howard Coffield : Marsh :Clavarino
Wilkie Carlisle Clark : Savage : Connolly
Hill Jones Billings : Sinclair Phillips : Byrnes
Membrey Butler Battle : Parker : Mayo
Kent King Hind : Lonie
Marshall , Steele, Gresham : Abbott Dunstan: Bell
Ross , Long, Phillps Bytel
---------------------------
Austen Not available enough to take up a precious list spot.
Roberton : Possibly he could be a good player again but have to be ruthless.
Joyce : Progressing well for a young guy with only a few years in the game. No more Irish rookies. Can't carry them.
McKenzie : Not good enough.
Alabakis : Tallest guy in footy, but no more list room for long term development players.
Langlands : Shows good signs , only 21 , can't take this long to develop any more.
Hannebery : Not available enough.
Ryder : If we can get several more years from Abbot, then we need to let Ryder go.
Geary : We need backup in our defence, its either Jarryn or Savage.
Webster : His spot has been taken by Wilkie, or Clark or Coffield. Not reliable.
So the afl have one bad year and they’re broke??? How too heavy are they??? Has the till been tickled????
It just doesn’t add up.
If they had to much in the bank clubs and supporters would be whinging you are a non profit organisation so why so much in the bank. It adds up unless you were able to see a year that hasn’t happened ever in the afl history Look at other sports and see how much better we are going than them.So the afl have one bad year and they’re broke??? How too heavy are they??? Has the till been tickled????
It just doesn’t add up.
They are a lot better off than most comps and I reckon they are overcompensating to make sure that if things aren't much better next year (ie limited crowds, additional costs etc etc) they will still survive.They spent all their money on buying back Docklands and have a lot of money that goes into development.
I think you're over estimating the power of the ALFPA. At the end of the day it's head office that will dictate the model, and the PA will seek the best deal within that framework.I wouldn't be surprised if the AFL and AFLPA get together and negotiate down all contacts to keep close to a full squad or have a couple of players as "rookies" that play in reserve but get paid minimal money and match payments for any AFL games. The PA won't want less players.
I'm going to express a couple of left field options here, that may well be at play with this move in reducing player lists on the bigger AFL stage rather than at club level.
1. Reduced playing lists will immediately lead to a number of [supposedly] AFL players available to make up 2 additional teams. An immediately competent Tasmanian AFL team and either an additional W.A. team or a Northern Australian team could be made from the 180 players let go. This would then make it a 20 team comp.
2. THe AFL becomes a 15 or 16 aside competition. [5-5-5, 15 aside has one less back, mid and forward, 6-4-6, 16 aside has 2 less mids]
3. Reduced number of interchange/replacement players
In practice this would mean that all the machinations here on which players are kept and those who are needed for depth become a relatively non issue when only a "best 18" is required rather than a "best 22". IE 15 on the ground and 3 interchanges/replacements.
The effect of the reduction in playing numbers down to 35 would be cancelled out.
The outcome of only needing a "best 18" is a 20% reduction in playing personnel required, and a huge saving in player payments for individual clubs. Then there's saving everywhere else as a consequence as well. Fewer coaches required, uniforms, medical expenses, even rolls of strapping and training footballs.
Would the game change as we know it?
Probably, but not that much. There would be less on field congestion and fast teams would become even faster.
Would we watch?
Absolutely because we'd all still want to see the Saint win!