- Nov 25, 2003
- 5,582
- 1,824
- AFL Club
- Brisbane Lions
- Other Teams
- Brisbane Lions THFC
John Blakey has been at the Swans since 2006. When you consider Nicks age, when it comes to AFL all he really would know is the Swans.
I don’t have an issue with it.
2018 Draft thread
- Thread starter dlanod
- Start date
- Tagged users None
John Blakey has been at the Swans since 2006. When you consider Nicks age, when it comes to AFL all he really would know is the Swans.
I don’t have an issue with it.
- Mar 13, 2013
- 2,891
- 4,169
- AFL Club
- Brisbane Lions
- Other Teams
- Bruins, Dodgers, Bulls, SEM Phoenix
Imagine the uproar from the poo and wee club if that happened
We've seen the positive effect the additions of ready to go best 22 calibre players e.g. Cameron, Bundy, Robinson, Hodge and Rayner have had on our club thus far in 2018. It'd be good to add another 3 or so for next year. In order to do this we'd obviously look towards the trade/FA period but I think we should definitely look at the mature aged prospects as well and target one aged in the 20-24 bracket who we think could make an immediate impact even if we need to use a top 30 pick on them. Tim Kelly and Liam Ryan were selected in the top 30 last year and have shown in their few matches that they are quality players capable of stepping straight into the AFL system.
Nunez
Premium Platinum
What an overeaction. We never lynch, just shout down.
Last edited:
- Aug 10, 2005
- 46,545
- 42,486
- AFL Club
- Brisbane Lions
Nunez
Premium Platinum
The combination of auto correct and lack of proof reading is killing me. Lol
Only when 3KZ is Football shouts.
- Aug 10, 2005
- 46,545
- 42,486
- AFL Club
- Brisbane Lions
I'd trade picks for lunch.
I don't think people get shouted down for suggesting trading picks. I think that people get shouted down because they suggest players that we're never, ever going to get. If you have an A-Grader, from Vic, in an SA team, with no links to QLD, then I'm sorry, they aren't coming here. Full stop. Brisbane won't cross their mind. I don't care if you load up the cash cart, they aren't coming here.
There's an article on AFL.com.au today talking about Tom Mitchell. He was wanted by a couple of clubs. Sydney offered him a contract. Hawthorn offered him a generous contract. Gold Coast offered him an even more generous contract. He didn't even consider them. The article included this fact, and just stated it as a given that he wouldn't want to go to QLD. There was, as there never is, analysis as to the fact that players routinely turn down more money in QLD to move to Vic/SA/WA. That's just the way it is, and the VFL are generally pleased by this.
DELIGHTED IN FACT
"Generally Pleased" was actually a direct quote:DELIGHTED IN FACT
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/a...g/news-story/d225fa24763969fdea3734b9a9a911f8
This was back when we were even more irrelevant than we are now...
Keays2myBeamas
All Australian
There is already a "cost of living interstate fee" essentially attached to the top of every contract for medium-high profile players that live interstate of where they grew up. The problem is - it exists inside the cap. It should be written into the rules and exist outside the cap. It could include draftee contracts - and would make draftees think twice about telling interstate clubs they don't want to be drafted. You stay in your home state, you get paid a little less. It might only be 3-5%, but that's enough to at least make players weigh things up, instead of just defaulting to rejecting offers from interstate.
This is one of the big reasons a mid-season trade period won't eventuate - because interstate clubs don't want it, because players won't move interstate mid-season.
It's a simple proposal: Interstate players: 95% of their salary is counted in the salary cap.
This is one of the big reasons a mid-season trade period won't eventuate - because interstate clubs don't want it, because players won't move interstate mid-season.
It's a simple proposal: Interstate players: 95% of their salary is counted in the salary cap.
- Dec 1, 2013
- 9,590
- 7,835
- AFL Club
- Brisbane Lions
Interesting you build up cap space etc because interstate will always be less than Melbourne due to payments they get outside of the cap e.g. media time and commercials etc. I find it absolutly ridiculous that they can get paid more, it should be that they don't get paid outside the cap and any involvement in the media or anything is volunteer. That way everything with money is equal among clubs
]
Fair point about shooting down people who suggest unattainable targets but I'm not really talking about that. What I mean is, by an example, many many people didn't want the deal done when they found out what we gave up for Charlie Cameron. And many people were demanding nothing less than 2x1st round picks for Schache.
If you were Tom Mitchell would you want to go to Gold Coast even for more money? When you look at it objectively even, they are about as big of a mess as you can get, a couple of promising weeks of form aside. Players turn down more money to come to QLD because the teams are bottom 4 and have been for years. Entrenched in bottom 4 in a Non-footy state. What is appealing about that?
AFL CEO Gillon McLachlan has stated as close to straight out as possible for someone in his position that he wants Tom Lynch for example to stay at GC and he also heavily implied that he will get $ to rep the game up here that he won't get down south. We are all free to our opinion but I don't think it's "VFL" bias or whatever you want to call it, we just aren't that appealing as footy clubs (Bris and GC) to come to at the moment.
Fair point about shooting down people who suggest unattainable targets but I'm not really talking about that. What I mean is, by an example, many many people didn't want the deal done when they found out what we gave up for Charlie Cameron. And many people were demanding nothing less than 2x1st round picks for Schache.
If you were Tom Mitchell would you want to go to Gold Coast even for more money? When you look at it objectively even, they are about as big of a mess as you can get, a couple of promising weeks of form aside. Players turn down more money to come to QLD because the teams are bottom 4 and have been for years. Entrenched in bottom 4 in a Non-footy state. What is appealing about that?
AFL CEO Gillon McLachlan has stated as close to straight out as possible for someone in his position that he wants Tom Lynch for example to stay at GC and he also heavily implied that he will get $ to rep the game up here that he won't get down south. We are all free to our opinion but I don't think it's "VFL" bias or whatever you want to call it, we just aren't that appealing as footy clubs (Bris and GC) to come to at the moment.
Last edited:
winged1
Norm Smith Medallist
- Aug 30, 2013
- 5,281
- 6,529
- AFL Club
- Brisbane Lions
But then Teflon gil said it would be $50k which if Lynch was at say Collingwood how much would they pay him to be on the footy show, afl 360, mow Eddies lawn etc.
Token money offer to Lynch as I understand it. Backtracked after pressure from Eddie. Less than the ASA's Vic players regularly get. Actions more important than words though. Free Agency harms interstate teams. Wants more player movement despite it harming interstate teams. We had academies - he set up NGA's to take that advantage away. He's done realistically nothing to level the playing field. Yeah, we suck and that makes it harder to attract talent. But we suck in part because they've made it that way.
I was among those whinging about paying pick 12 for Cameron. Adelaide negotiated ruthlessly, and we compromised repeatedly, and ended up giving them exactly what they wanted. Realistically, if you take out Cameron's finals series, he was pretty average. He's done a lot better up here - I was concerned he'd suffer out of Betts' shadow, instead he's thrived. That's excellent, but at pick 12, I would've waited a year. Charlie didnt think he was worth it either. And even now, if you ask me if I'd rather Charlie Cameron or Darcy Fogarty, I think I'd still take Fogarty. Looks a real player, and that's not to understate how good Cameron's performed for us.
Schache, we gave him away for almost nothing. I expected value of a pick in the 10-12 range (even 2 years after pick 2 and locked in to contract). Not in the 20-25 range in a year we didnt rate for talent. I didn't, and don't remember, anyone wanting two first rounders. How's this for a stat - if you include the GH5, Aish and Schache, the trade we lost the most draft points on, the worst value of any homesick draftee we lost, was Schache. That's why a few of us werent happy with losing Schache.
Meanwhile, Ive seen suggestions we should target guys like Ollie Wines. And I laugh.
BrizzyBandit
Premium Platinum
- Apr 14, 2015
- 998
- 2,043
- AFL Club
- Brisbane Lions
Just so much here you're not taking into Account.
Our need for a CC type player in our list was desperate. When you have what you're looking for wanting to come to you.... You make sure it happens. Especially when you're Brisbane.
Who knows another year and Charlie may have changed his mind. Darcy Fogarty is turning out to be a player.... But was unproven at AFL level as all draftees are.
Proven gun who wants to come to you that fills a desperate need? Or risk another James Aish or worse another go home baby at 12? They made the right choice.
As for Shache.... He was damaged goods mentally, and showing little on field. He screwed us not playing the NEAFL final and showing everyone that he hated living in Brissy. Crying in interviews didn't help
This is victim mentality thinking - and in my opinion it's loser talk. The system is not stacked against us and if you look at the amount of help the AFL has given us including financially and with staffing, it has been significant.
It's Pick 12 or Cameron - it's not Fogarty or Cameron. Who would have known who we would have taken and whether they would turn out any good - draft picks are a massive unknown while we knew what we were getting with Cameron. Case in point - Schache. If you look at purely numbers he is a pick 2 with half decent stats if you pick the right ones but we all know stats don't tell the full story and he was busted.
Academies not a zero sum game - it's not a we win and they have to lose thing - it's not about giving our club an advantage per se, it's about getting more kids into the game in non-AFL areas. I looked up the NGA because I don't really follow this stuff and the emphasis is on getting more kids into the game from under represented areas/cultures. North appear to have rights on a top 10 kid from Tassie - have they not put a fair pit of effort into Tassie over the years? Has there not been a lot of discussion recently about how Tassie are under-represented?
Last edited:
Just to go through the important bits of this:
Our need for a CC type player in our list was desperate.
No it wasn't. We have him, and we aren't competing for a premiership. Ergo, we did not specifically need him this year. We'd be doing just as crap without him. All recruiting should be targeted to competing for a premiership. There's development and that sort of thing, sure, but in my mind, the difference between our team obtaining Cameron in 2017 trade period vs 2018 trade period was minor. I'm also interested to see how Barrett would've come along. Showed some promise and pressure but poor kicking in 2017. Funnily enough, Cameron showed some promise and pressure but poor kicking in 2017.
When you have what you're looking for wanting to come to you.... You make sure it happens. Especially when you're Brisbane.
Disagree. We, more than most, must trade smartly, and can't afford to overpay.
Who knows another year and Charlie may have changed his mind. Or risk another James Aish or worse another go home baby at 12?
Lumped these two together as they are very valid, and definitely possibilities. This is the downside to my argument. You risk losing Charlie, and you risk losing pick 12 (Fogarty - according to those at the draft night, he was high on our list).
Proven gun who wants to come to you that fills a desperate need?
I disagree with proven, and I disagree with gun (as well as desperate need mentioned above). He was a second string small forward with no experience taking the best defender, and no experience playing midfield. I'm thrilled with his performance since he's been here, but 3 good games doesn't make a gun. He may develop into one, but not put the cart before the horse.
As for Shache.... He was damaged goods mentally, and showing little on field. He screwed us not playing the NEAFL final and showing everyone that he hated living in Brissy. Crying in interviews didn't help
Not disagreeing with anything there. But that doesn't change the fact that we talked a bit game, and then caved at the first opportunity. As with trading for Cameron, we gave up everything and accepted dregs. For what we got back, there was minimal risk in keeping him, even if he lived in Victoria for a year. We got reamed in the Polec trade, we got reamed in the Docherty trade. We were compensated better in both of their trades.
Schache is damaged goods. Will only probably play a few more games before fading into obscurity to live out his days hanging off his mothers apron strings. We got a bargain for him.
I do believe the system is stacked against us, and you can call it loser talk, but I'm not a player - I'm allowed to comment on it. The AFL have given us some help. Agreed. Staffing - arguably. There's a reasonable chance that they were part of pitching to guys like Swann and Noble. Financial - no. This is a myth, and it's just wrong. The AFL receive the biggest slice of the AFL pie - the TV rights deal. They then distribute that to clubs. This is not a goodwill gesture. When people say "we're only afloat because the AFL keep us alive", they're right, but so is every single club in the country. Without TV rights payments, none would survive. Yes, we get a bit more. We are also an expansion market with one of the two worst stadium deals in the country, as has been widely reported this week (the other being Gold Coast). The AFL keep a surprisingly large percentage of the TV rights to themselves. Any time you see us recording a loss, take it with a grain of salt - it's not equitable and commercial - our largest portion of income is, and will always be, AFL distributions, being our portion of the TV rights deal. If they distribute just 20% of the rights to clubs, every club makes a loss. If they distribute 80% of the rights, every club makes a profit, including us. The AFL decide what our P&L looks like. We make a loss because the AFL want to pressure us to look for more income... Like pokies!
"Pick 12 or Cameron" vs "Fogarty or Cameron". Usually, I'd agree with you - you don't know who we'd have taken at that pick. Except that several people from this board have reported that Fogarty was revealed to be very high on our list. Also, we pay professionals to figure out who would be available at pick 12. Can't be certain of course, but they should have been aware that he was a decent shot to be there at pick 12. For "we knew what we were getting with Cameron", I'd argue that no, we didn't. As discussed above, I'm delighted with his performance, but he came here with unknown ability as a first small forward, and unknown abilities as a midfielder.
Since you ask what I think should be done to level the playing field, here's a start (I agree, if you're going to criticise a system, you'd better be prepared to put forward an alternative):
- All ASA's should be included in the salary cap. Extra payments available to players, but only in the most popular markets, and mostly the biggest clubs, makes the salary cap a farce, and disadvantages expansion clubs.
- Players should not be able to nominate a club for trading. They should be able to nominate an average salary amount, and I'd even say a state. If you get homesick and nominate to be traded to a Victorian club for no less than $400,000 a year, the club losing the player can negotiate a reasonable arms-length deal. Out-of-contract players nominating a club completely removes a club's ability to be reasonably compensated. The only situation where you don't have 2 clubs to negotiate with is where a player wants to go to your crosstown rival, in which case, there's no homesickness issue, they obviously like the area, they just don't like the club, and that's the club's fault.
- Free agency should either be scrapped, or should be adjusted so that the club gaining a player for free loses a draft pick. At around 80% of the players' worth (based on contract, etc). This would also be roughly what the club losing the player gets back, so it works out in the wash. Yes, it's pretty much trading. But the draft/trade system is based on clubs only being able to recruit with their existing list or draft picks. Free agency has been proven to benefit your big teams and your winning teams, and severely disadvantage your losing teams and your smaller teams.
Next Generation Academies are a ridiculous notion. Tasmania needs development, but yes, I strongly dispute that North have invested that much in Tasmanian youth football. Tarryn Thomas is likely to go for a pick higher than any player we've received through our academy, ever. And he'll funnel straight to North. As I understand it, he's been playing football for a while. Tasmania is a football state. Victoria is a football state. SA and WA are football states. The AFL could do more to bring in indigenous players and multicultural players in those states, sure, but giving clubs direct access to them is ridiculous. An indigenous kid living in Melbourne should not be able to be recruited by Carlton just because they ran a few clinics. A Greek kid living in Melbourne shouldn't be recruited to the Bulldogs just because he lived in the right area. I heard someone say Andy McGrath would've qualified as NGA as Canadian heritage. I don't know if it's true, but if it is, that's ludicrous.
