15.4%: Why North should receive expansion-style concessions

[Bunk Moreland]

During the draft I've been thinking about concessions / priority picks. Like (I suspect) most people, I'm pretty much against them, and find the fact the West Coast have been handed them absolutely absurd.

What is more absurd, however, is the lack of concessions given to North. They have zero draft concessions this year (admittedly after having some in recent years). This led me down a bit of a path to see if North's performances are actually not as bad as I'm thinking.

And I was wrong... they're much, much worse.

The state of North is an enormous issue for the league, by far the #1 issue I think.

Over the past six years, North has won 20/130 games. That's a 15.4% win record.

How does that stack up? Well when people talk about teams going poorly, you'll inevitably hear "the worst team since Fitzroy". Or even comparisons to expansion clubs... the Bad New Bears, or Gold Coast and GWS when they were more-or-less Under 18 teams playing in the AFL. But none of these "bad" teams have been anything like North Melbourne.

In the entire history of the VFL / AFL - 129 season going back to 1897 - there is only FOUR teams that have ever had a worse win-rate over a comparable six-year period

1. St Kilda 1897 - 1902
2.0% (2/99)
St Kilda were the last side admitted to the VFL and were woefully unprepared to compete. They lost their first 48 games and over their first six seasons, won just two games.

2. North Melbourne 1926-1931
9.3% (10/108)
After a relatively successful first year in the league in 1925, North went through a very tough run. High player turnover and the effects of the Great Depression hit the club hard over an extended period

3. Fitzroy 1963 - 1968
12.7% (14/110)
Fitzroy in the 60s were a mess, with appalling conditions at Brunswick St before being homeless for a period - making it nigh-on impossible for them to recruit.

4. St Kilda 1943 - 1948
15.2% (16/105)
The period known as "the lean years" in St Kilda history, when they were forced out of their home ground as the Junction Oval was commandeered by government for the war effort.

5. North Melbourne 2020 - 2025
15.4% (20/130)

You can forget all the talk about expansion teams, Fitzroy, the Bears and other disastrous teams. North are worse than all of them by a stretch, and the worst performed club in 60 years... since well back before equalisation measures were introduced.

So what does it mean? I reckon this shows that North aren't just your average team going through a poor run. This is an all-time disaster and absolutely unprecedented in anything approaching modern, equalised footy.

Personally I'd be all for North being given some significant concessions in terms of draft and salary cap. Expansion clubs get them, and North are clearly in a worse spot. I've got no probably with teams having lean spells, but this has gone beyond that. Having one club so absolutely uncompetitive over such a long period affects the whole league and the money coming in from TV for all.

Perhaps this is the time to look at it. The league went through two lots of concessions at once for Gold Coast and GWS, perhaps North and Tassie could get them at the same time too.

And yes I'm well aware there'll be all the same nuffy calls about "fold them!", "relocate them!"... which is pointless, that's not going to happen, the league and the TV deal are predicated on the current number of teams so they're not going anywhere - they're required to bring the TV money in.

 

[kane249]

• One end-of-first round selection in the 2023 AFL Draft (currently pick 19)
• Two end-of-first round selections in the 2024 AFL Draft (currently picks 19 and 20)
• The continuation of the club’s ability to have two additional rookie list spots in season 2024 (also had it in 2023)
• The AFL has given the Kangaroos a second-round pick and third-round pick for 2023 on the proviso they are traded for at least one player, as well as granting the Roos two extra list spots
• Compensation of pick 3 for Ben McKay
  32

  Ben Mckay

  Age

  27

  Ht

  202cm

  Wt

  104kg

  Pos.

  Def

  Career

  Season

  Last 5

  D

  7.5

  2star

  K

  3.7

  1star

  HB

  3.8

  3star

  M

  2.7

  3star

  T

  1.7

  4star

  MG

  77.2

  1star

  D

  7.5

  2star

  K

  4.5

  2star

  HB

  3.0

  2star

  M

  2.5

  3star

  T

  1.5

  2star

  MG

  88.5

  2star

  D

  7.0

  2star

  K

  3.4

  2star

  HB

  3.6

  3star

  M

  2.4

  3star

  T

  2.0

  4star

  MG

  67.8

  1star

How much more they going to get? It's a development / poor draft selction that's been their problem, not what they've been given

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

How many top 3 picks have they had access to over the last 5-10 years? How many top 10 picks do they have on their list?

I think you're part of the way there. They need help but not with extra picks or kids.

Clarkson, who once took less money to make sure Buddy, Lewis and Roughead had the right development, needs to revisit his thoughts on how you get the best out of a young list.

Development, Development, Development.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

• One end-of-first round selection in the 2023 AFL Draft (currently pick 19)
• Two end-of-first round selections in the 2024 AFL Draft (currently picks 19 and 20)
• The continuation of the club’s ability to have two additional rookie list spots in season 2024 (also had it in 2023)
• The AFL has given the Kangaroos a second-round pick and third-round pick for 2023 on the proviso they are traded for at least one player, as well as granting the Roos two extra list spots
• Compensation of pick 3 for Ben McKay

How much more they going to get? It's a development / poor draft selction that's been their problem, not what they've been given

I’d argue they need multiple first round picks and an expanded salary cap. Similar to an expansion club.

They’re worse than an expansion club. Why do we give them concessions? Because they need to be competitive.

The historical context is jaw-dropping. This ain’t some club going through a rough patch. It’s much more serious than that an a massive problem when you need a competitive league.

 

[kane249]

I’d argue they need multiple first round picks and an expanded salary cap. Similar to an expansion club.

So far they've had 4 extra first round picks come their way I'm aware of. The 3 the AFL handed them and the one that got generated when they lost McKay.

Consider also the top 6 picks in this years draft
Duursma
Uwland (academy)
Dean (father son)
CDT (Compensation)
Patterson (academy)
Annable (academy)

How compromised is that? You are suggesting add to it and making it worse.

 

[boncer34]

You immediately lose credibility when you include compensation picks as hand outs.

 

[kane249]

You immediately lose credibility when you include compensation picks as hand outs.

Is Ben McKay worth pick 3? Oscar Allen pick 2?

The system is broke

 

[bungalow_bill]

Is Ben McKay worth pick 3? Oscar Allen pick 2?

They system is broke

Agree de-facto priority picks. North have enough talent to work with. And shot themselves in the foot by trading out of the top 5 this year.

 

[archereleven]

I don't think we should get any more compensation picks.

The AFL had their chance to hand over something meaningful, but instead we got picks we had to trade, picks with caveats(at the AFLs 'discretion') - so once again, had to trade etc etc

The AFL have already made their intentions clear that West Coast will be bigger beneficiaries than North - end of 1st they can do as they please with + 4 extra list spots for 3 years compared to our 2 extra list spots.

NM - last final 2016, last flag 1999
WC - last final 2019, last flag 2018

We can't attract any half decent players in their prime and WC get players via go home factor every year and yet most punters think their compensation is fair and equitable.

Anyone who believes the AFL wants actual equalisation should have a good hard look at what they do, not what they say.

FWIW, I didn't want any PPs to start with and we would be no worse off had we received nothing imo.

 

[Supreme_Chancellor]

Agree de-facto priority picks. North have enough talent to work with. And shot themselves in the foot by trading out of the top 5 this year.

I'm pretty content with Dovaston, Thredgold and Whitlock right now tbh.

 

[jwikked]

If North want to land decent players, at least give them a place to park when they go to training. It's insane they don't have parking for the players.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

Agree de-facto priority picks. North have enough talent to work with. And shot themselves in the foot by trading out of the top 5 this year.

Can talk about the reasons all we want. And perhaps concessions would have to come with some sort of personnel shakeup.

But this is beyond just a bad patch or a bottoming out. No club has performed this poorly for this long for 60 years.

I don’t care about North being shit, but permanently uncompetitive and without hope? That’s not good for the game. The whole league will suffer.

They need an expansion-style reset.

Maybe it’s not just the picks, but a pile of sign-on cash outside the cap like Tassie are getting. Something to force fundamental change.

 

[bradfisher14]

Nah

 

[LordLucifer]

Clubs who make poor management decisions should not be rewardedfor their ineptness, they should be made to dig their way out of the mire.

 

[1990crow]

North shouldn't be in the league.

 

[go_the_dockers]

If we made 2 clubs from North, Melbourne, Bulldogs and St Kilda the comp would be stronger.

 

[Golumless]

4. St Kilda 1943 - 1948
15.2% (16/105)
The period known as "the lean years" in St Kilda history, when they were forced out of their home ground as the Junction Oval was commandeered by government for the war effort.

That is, by far, the single most depressing sentence I have ever read on bigfooty.

 

[Shane Heard]

You can blame Carey and Kelli for all of it.

The entire fabric of the club was torn to shreds after their shenanigans were exposed.

It’s still torn now because they never recovered from it all.

 

[Shane Heard]

That is, by far, the single most depressing sentence I have ever read on bigfooty.

Meanwhile Essendon thrived because most of their squad was made up of public servants, teachers, firefighters and other services and were exempt from enlistment.

 

[Piggy Smalls]

During the draft I've been thinking about concessions / priority picks. Like (I suspect) most people, I'm pretty much against them, and find the fact the West Coast have been handed them absolutely absurd.

What is more absurd, however, is the lack of concessions given to North. They have zero draft concessions this year (admittedly after having some in recent years). This led me down a bit of a path to see if North's performances are actually not as bad as I'm thinking.

And I was wrong... they're much, much worse.

The state of North is an enormous issue for the league, by far the #1 issue I think.

Over the past six years, North has won 20/130 games. That's a 15.4% win record.

How does that stack up? Well when people talk about teams going poorly, you'll inevitably hear "the worst team since Fitzroy". Or even comparisons to expansion clubs... the Bad New Bears, or Gold Coast and GWS when they were more-or-less Under 18 teams playing in the AFL. But none of these "bad" teams have been anything like North Melbourne.

In the entire history of the VFL / AFL - 129 season going back to 1897 - there is only FOUR teams that have ever had a worse win-rate over a comparable six-year period

1. St Kilda 1897 - 1902
2.0% (2/99)
St Kilda were the last side admitted to the VFL and were woefully unprepared to compete. They lost their first 48 games and over their first six seasons, won just two games.

2. North Melbourne 1926-1931
9.3% (10/108)
After a relatively successful first year in the league in 1925, North went through a very tough run. High player turnover and the effects of the Great Depression hit the club hard over an extended period

3. Fitzroy 1963 - 1968
12.7% (14/110)
Fitzroy in the 60s were a mess, with appalling conditions at Brunswick St before being homeless for a period - making it nigh-on impossible for them to recruit.

4. St Kilda 1943 - 1948
15.2% (16/105)
The period known as "the lean years" in St Kilda history, when they were forced out of their home ground as the Junction Oval was commandeered by government for the war effort.

5. North Melbourne 2020 - 2025
15.4% (20/130)

You can forget all the talk about expansion teams, Fitzroy, the Bears and other disastrous teams. North are worse than all of them by a stretch, and the worst performed club in 60 years... since well back before equalisation measures were introduced.

So what does it mean? I reckon this shows that North aren't just your average team going through a poor run. This is an all-time disaster and absolutely unprecedented in anything approaching modern, equalised footy.

Personally I'd be all for North being given some significant concessions in terms of draft and salary cap. Expansion clubs get them, and North are clearly in a worse spot. I've got no probably with teams having lean spells, but this has gone beyond that. Having one club so absolutely uncompetitive over such a long period affects the whole league and the money coming in from TV for all.

Perhaps this is the time to look at it. The league went through two lots of concessions at once for Gold Coast and GWS, perhaps North and Tassie could get them at the same time too.

And yes I'm well aware there'll be all the same nuffy calls about "fold them!", "relocate them!"... which is pointless, that's not going to happen, the league and the TV deal are predicated on the current number of teams so they're not going anywhere - they're required to bring the TV money in.

They have to take some responsibility.

Mind boggling coaching appointments. Trading down 24 spots into this year's draft. Poor player development. There's a lot they could have done better.

 

[Saints43]

That is, by far, the single most depressing sentence I have ever read on bigfooty.

I suppose the crows were lucky not to be disrupted during WWII.

 

[boncer34]

Meanwhile Essendon thrived because most of their squad was made up of public servants, teachers, firefighters and other services and were exempt from enlistment.

Essendon only won 1 flag during WW2.

 

[daniel_4tw]

How about no?

I wish we played a comp with relegation. If you can’t cut it, then get out of the league.

NGA and F/S aside, they get the same draft picks as every other team. It’s up to them to improve. They started their rebuild at the same time of the Crows FWIW. Crows received no priority picks and none of the northern academy bullshit players etc. so it clearly can be done.

Obviously something isn’t working off field to have had so much talent go to their club only to disappoint. Have they sacked their president, development coaches, list managers? I’d start there.

I also don’t think Clarkson is the right coach - he’s a finisher not a rebuild coach. I actually think Hinkley would be an amazing coach for them. Was able to get the most out of his players at Port with a lean coaching budget, even if he wasn’t the best tactical coach going around.

Throwing more draft picks at them so young players can be under developed and play in losing games every week isn’t going to help anyone.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

They have to take some responsibility.

Mind boggling coaching appointments. Trading down 24 spots into this year's draft. Poor player development. There's a lot they could have done better.

I think they’re taking responsibility.

But I think it’s at the stage where major intervention is required. This has been the case right through AFL history. North are in a worse spot than any of them.

How about no?

I wish we played a comp with relegation. If you can’t cut it, then get out of the league.

NGA and F/S aside, they get the same draft picks as every other team. It’s up to them to improve. They started their rebuild at the same time of the Crows FWIW. Crows received no priority picks and none of the northern academy bullshit players etc. so it clearly can be done.

Obviously something isn’t working off field to have had so much talent go to their club only to disappoint. Have they sacked their president, development coaches, list managers? I’d start there.

I also don’t think Clarkson is the right coach - he’s a finisher not a rebuild coach. I actually think Hinkley would be an amazing coach for them. Was able to get the most out of his players at Port with a lean coaching budget, even if he wasn’t the best tactical coach going around.

Throwing more draft picks at them so young players can be under developed and play in losing games every week isn’t going to help anyone.

Perhaps it comes with a break from the soft cap and getting all the best development staff to North for a few years.

This isn’t anything new, the AFL had a big role in getting Barassi to Sydney, and Swann and Fagan to Brisbane, when the wheels had fallen off there.

The structure of the comp is such that having a club majorly uncompetitive for 7, 8, 9, 10 years is not good for anybody. It needs fixing.

 

[Makeshift Park]

The best concession for North would be for the AFL to do away with northern academies, NGAs, and father-sons so if we do finish near the bottom again, we can pick the best kid when its our turn.

Imagine if we had Jed Walter instead of Duursma, or Thilthorpe instead of Will Phillips.

Not saying that its an excuse for our performance in recent seasons, because its not, but it would be better for the league as a whole if teams at the bottom didn't face the prospect of a compromised draft, given that free agency mostly benefits the successful.