Remove this Banner Ad

St Kilda President Andrew Bassat tees off on the AFL draft system, specifically father/son and the Northern Academies

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

That’s such a good comparison I’m glad you brought it up.

Lions were a rabble off field when the back office did all that complaining. Then we fixed that. As soon as the adults entered the room the club stopped complaining and began fixing. And here we are.

St Kilda should take note.

I think this misses the point.

Any club can be a rabble, regardless of how much help the AFL gives you. Essendon is a perfect example.

But turning it around is far easier when the AFL is supporting you commercially. Big games. Primetime fixtures. etc.


But not all clubs have the same ceiling in terms of being able to thrive. The deck is stacked differently for different clubs.

Getting a few key things right, is nowhere near enough for a club like St Kilda to thrive. They need to get absolutely everything right, and even then, they're still miles behind the historically big clubs.
And they'd need to get everything absolutely right for 20 years straight to maintain any momentum.

St Kilda have been relatively successful in the modern era, due to the AFL system of equalisation.
The whole point of the AFL system is that clubs have their ups, then they have their downs. This allowed clubs like St Kilda to have their moments on-field.

But the biggest issue with the AFL's equalisation is that the way the deck is stacked, not all clubs have the massive downs that they're supposed to have.
They still get their primetime fixtures when they suck which facilitates them signing gun players. They've still got their home grounds. So their downs are mere blips, which allows them to bounce back quickly.

St Kilda doesn't have that. Like the model is supposed to do, when they have their downs, they're down. That's the way the system is designed to work - and when you don't get the leg up that big clubs get, it works very well. And any momentum gained from their ups is lost very quickly as they run around at Docklands at 4pm on a Sunday arvo against North.


And this is why the Father-Son rule is such rubbish. The system is stacked against smaller clubs enough as it is - why throw in another way to allow a club in their 'up' phase to stay up longer, or a ub in their 'down' phase to fast track it?

Let the uncompromised Draft and salary cap do their thing.

It still won't address the commercial inequalities that the big clubs benefit from, but it will at least tip the scales slightly back towards a fairer and more even comp.
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

So what the actual **** is this campaigner bitching about? They get WAY more than he was ever going to be worth in a trade.

It's almost like there a video that people can watch and actually find out what he said.
 
Your first paragraph is the point of my post, dopey.
They don't build their financial success. The league administration builds their financial success even if they're shithouse onfield for a quarter of a century.
You’re ignoring the fact St Kilda are one of the most financially aided clubs in the league.
 
What a load of nonsense.

The big clubs are big, because the AFL makes them big.

Small clubs are small, because the AFL

You are speaking so much shit.

I can only assume you're playing devil's advocate when posting this rubbish, and you don't actually believe it?
The AFL would want all clubs to be big organisations, it makes them more money, so for you to think they decide who gets to be a big club, or they make clubs bigger or smaller is laughable.
 
You’re ignoring the fact St Kilda are one of the most financially aided clubs in the league.
The AFL would want all clubs to be big organisations, it makes them more money, so for you to think they decide who gets to be a big club, or they make clubs bigger or smaller is laughable.
Are you thick?

The AFL preference the income provided by continually showcasing the larger clubs (prime time matches). Distributions of larger amounts to smaller clubs is compensation for them not having marquee time slots.

If the AFL was equatable, each team would play games equally in each time slot and double ups wouldn't be continually given to big clubs against each other. That way smaller teams could start to command more when it comes to drawing new members and importantly, sponsors. Sponsors want to be in front of as many eyes as possible.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

The AFL would want all clubs to be big organisations, it makes them more money, so for you to think they decide who gets to be a big club, or they make clubs bigger or smaller is laughable.
Of course they'd want that - but it's not possible.

Footy fans are not an infinite resource. Especially in Victoria.
 
Too embarrassed to say anything in the Battle trade thread after all your posturing, hey?
Nah got thread banned, so all you saints fans can like and quote my posts, kinda sad and desperate, Like your club

that’s a pox post wishing Josh well after not inviting him to the BNF, your club looks like a jaded ex trying to save face

still won’t pick 8th on draft night, my statements hold true
 
It's all just delaying the inevitable.Too many clubs in Melbourne and I say that as an old ,very old,Fitzroy supporter.
Question...

Why would the AFL get rid of, or relocate a Vic club unless they could replace the revenue with something else?

Where would they get the extra TV money from having 1 less game per week?
Where would they get the 60-70k members from?
Where would they get the 30k attendances from each week?

Etc. etc.


Personally I'd prefer the game to be more national than it is - but there's no way in hell that the AFL are going to chop off revenue streams just for a laugh.
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

"BUT JOSH LIED TO US AND TOLD US HE WAS STAYING AND COST US FIRST ROUND COMPO THATS WHY WE DIDNT INVITE HIM TO THE BNF"

Sooking does get you somewhere

How any hawks supporter can accuse any club of sooking after Sam Mitchell's performance in his press conference after losing the final to Port is beyond me. Absolutely embarrassing.
 
Are you thick?

The AFL preference the income provided by continually showcasing the larger clubs (prime time matches). Distributions of larger amounts to smaller clubs is compensation for them not having marquee time slots.

If the AFL was equatable, each team would play games equally in each time slot and double ups wouldn't be continually given to big clubs against each other. That way smaller teams could start to command more when it comes to drawing new members and importantly, sponsors. Sponsors want to be in front of as many eyes as possible.
You realise a lot of these marquee time slots are kept because they’ve been there for a long time and make the afl a lot of money, why change something if it’s working, why fix something that ain’t broken, from a financial business perspective.

It’s St Kildas job and other clubs jobs to build their own marquee games, Friday night and prime time slots outside of the big (Kings birthday, Anzac Day, Easter Monday) clashes, do get thrown around.

Also double ups aren’t done for financial gain and are done for fairness of the competition, so a voided argument as such.

But as you said St Kilda is financially aided by the AFL and one of the highest, so the complaints it’s the AFLs fault is a victim mentality comparatively to other clubs.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

St Kilda President Andrew Bassat tees off on the AFL draft system, specifically father/son and the Northern Academies

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top