15.4%: Why North should receive expansion-style concessions

[kreuze_missile]

I’m supportive of concessions for clubs that actually contribute to the sport, such as West Coast.

North made their own bed, now they can sleep in it. And if they eventually go the way of Fitzroy then so be it. Personally, I think their exit from the AFL is long overdue.

 

[kreuze_missile]

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.

Honestly, it wouldn’t help. They’d probably all want to leave just like Horne-Francis.

 

[Saints43]

Honestly, it wouldn’t help. They’d probably all want to leave just like Horne-Francis.

Players leave clubs when they're down.
You should know that.

 

[kreuze_missile]

Players leave clubs when they're down.
You should know that.

Keep an eye out for my 2026 match reports on the $1.8 million dollar man and his $900k son-of-the-list-manager mate.

I expect I’ll get a more enjoyment from writing them than you’ll get from reading them.

 

[Makeshift Park]

Honestly, it wouldn’t help. They’d probably all want to leave just like Horne-Francis.

If you're right, then he wouldn't have been the only good player we've had to trade out during our historically awful run for the past six years.

The overwhelming list problem has been acquiring and developing talent, not keeping them.

 

[Saints43]

Keep an eye out for my 2026 match reports on the $1.8 million dollar man and his $900k son-of-the-list-manager mate.

I expect I’ll get a more enjoyment from writing them than you’ll get from reading them.

Get Reidy to email them to me.

 

[kreuze_missile]

If you're right, then he wouldn't have been the only good player we've had to trade out during our historically awful run for the past six years.

You have other good players?

 

[Makeshift Park]

You have other good players?

Someone's still having a hard time processing the events of round 15 I see.

Its okay, I'm sure you'll move through the denial stage to anger and depression soon enough.

 

[Piggy Smalls]

Keep an eye out for my 2026 match reports on the $1.8 million dollar man and his $900k son-of-the-list-manager mate.

I expect I’ll get a more enjoyment from writing them than you’ll get from reading them.

As long as you continue to over rate Carlton players I'll still enjoy them.

 

[Dark Eagle 9]

Were they not already considering merging the club in 96?

Kangaroos should have gone up to the GC for sure.

All they really have at the moment is the best emblem.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

Were they not already considering merging the club in 96?

Kangaroos should have gone up to the GC for sure.

All they really have at the moment is the best emblem.

North tried to merge with Fitzroy.

The rest of the league blocked it.

 

[Cmarsh]

They've just made another grand final. What's the problem?

 

[thejester]

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.

Torn on this. On the one hand, I think we have to start acknowledging that there are limits to what the AFL can do, and that pulling the same two levers can only have a limited impact. Clubs that are bad for a sustained period are usually that way because they can't recruit or develop players; just giving them more draft picks or salary cap room doesn't solve that problem.

On the other hand, I wonder if in a decade we'll look back and acknowledge that COVID impacted the game in certain ways and the North were uniquely positioned to suffer from that. They've been picking in drafts either directly impacted or in which the player pool appears reduced because of funding cuts to youth development. Time will tell I guess.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

Torn on this. On the one hand, I think we have to start acknowledging that there are limits to what the AFL can do, and that pulling the same two levers can only have a limited impact. Clubs that are bad for a sustained period are usually that way because they can't recruit or develop players; just giving them more draft picks or salary cap room doesn't solve that problem.

On the other hand, I wonder if in a decade we'll look back and acknowledge that COVID impacted the game in certain ways and the North were uniquely positioned to suffer from that. They've been picking in drafts either directly impacted or in which the player pool appears reduced because of funding cuts to youth development. Time will tell I guess.

When I checked the numbers I was staggered. The sport was wild and unchecked without any equalisation for nearly 100 years.

Yet this North era is the 5th worst of all time over the 6-year period.

No matter what’s caused it, it’s a level of uncompetitiveness that is completely without precedent. The AFL need to fix it now, somehow.

 

[Toump Ass]

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

They system is broke

Its not perfect but I think it's pretty good.
Oscar Allen is one of WCs best players, so a first round pick for losing him is ok. The fact it landed at pick 3 is what it is.

 

[kaiserchief13]

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

Its not just impacting that club though. Teams dont play everyone twice, so teams who face these poor teams twice get a huge undeserved advantage

 

[Dirty Bird]

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

its why im mad re cochrane
team trades away its future. backfires in face. begs for access to good player. get it

 

[Freomaniac]

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

Good point. North Melbournes rebuild has been interesting. They got some good kids but it has been flawed

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

If you're right, then he wouldn't have been the only good player we've had to trade out during our historically awful run for the past six years.

The overwhelming list problem has been acquiring and developing talent, not keeping them.

Acquiring is particularly hard for small clubs. Free agency works a lot better for the larger clubs. St Kilda got players in this year, but have overpaid a lot and need to be pushing for a flag in two years (while they overspend the cap thanks to the "banking" rules) or will likely have a lot of players walk. Its probably worth it though, barring incredible luck it may be the only way for small clubs to creat a short window.

Draft concessions, etc, simply should not exist. Never should have done, outside start-up clubs.

 

[Obeanie1]

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.

What did that PP end up eventually? Pick 26?

Wow......what a massive leg up. Shamefull. So unfair.

Pick 2 slid to pick4......to give the Suns and Blues a leg up, Blue to cash in again next year early.

In the mean time Gold Coast land 4 x 1st rounders and the premiers a top 5 mid.

And the 2 x wooden spooners get.............pick 26.

How can anyone complain when the team finishing last gets less assistance than the mob who won the comp back to back and other teams playing finals?

 

[Obeanie1]

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

Should teams winning back to back flags keep getting assistance?

 

[Obeanie1]

Acquiring is particularly hard for small clubs. Free agency works a lot better for the larger clubs. St Kilda got players in this year, but have overpaid a lot and need to be pushing for a flag in two years (while they overspend the cap thanks to the "banking" rules) or will likely have a lot of players walk. Its probably worth it though, barring incredible luck it may be the only way for small clubs to creat a short window.

Draft concessions, etc, simply should not exist. Never should have done, outside start-up clubs.

 

[Mat Mann]

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.




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.

unless they fix the NGA/F-S/Academy issues, maybe they need to bring back a priority pick system, maybe not 1st rounders, maybe 2nd/ end of 2nd rounders for terms similar to where PP's ended ( <3 games p/y over 2 years). The AFL has a problem it seems reluctant to address.

But I agree. Administration plays a bigger role in rebuilds than extra picks. We were terribly run, UNTIL we made the decision to sack Ratten. Many scoff at Ross, but he(along with Bassat (President)) has transformed the club from head to toe. Admin and a club's ability to fund their programs plays a bigger part than picks imo.

Acquiring is particularly hard for small clubs. Free agency works a lot better for the larger clubs. St Kilda got players in this year, but have overpaid a lot and need to be pushing for a flag in two years (while they overspend the cap thanks to the "banking" rules) or will likely have a lot of players walk. Its probably worth it though, barring incredible luck it may be the only way for small clubs to creat a short window.

Draft concessions, etc, simply should not exist. Never should have done, outside start-up clubs.

It's much more nuanced than that; at no time has the club said that "the time is now" or anything along those lines. It's always been that we want to contend, and the phrase " launch from a position of strength" has been the overriding message coming from the club for the last 3 years. So whether these players propel us to a flag is not the measuring stick; it's whether these players propel us into a position to contend, to enable that strength to utilse the mechanisms that other clubs use ( F/A ) have better players want to come, etc...

Should teams winning back to back flags keep getting assistance?

not just back to back, but one of, if not the most successful club of the last 25 years

 

[Toump Ass]

I like the old priority pick system.

Win 4 games over two seasons get a real nice pick.

Personally I don't think teams would tank anymore. They've seen what tanking did to Melbourne and Carlton, if a team wants to try that again good luck to them.

 

[LETSGOKANGAS]

AFL is the most compromised sport in the world.