Analysis Cuts to Senior List Sizes

[Baygirl1977]

Afl has just released pay cuts ,


AFL player agents were briefed early on Wednesday afternoon regarding the changes.

Sources with knowledge of negotiations believe this deal is a win for players, who at one stage were facing a 15 to 20 per cent cut in salaries.

As first reported by foxfooty.com.au last Thursday, clubs will only be required to select a minimum of one player in December’s national draft, down from three.

Change in List Size numbers

2020 Total List Sizes: 38-47 | 2021 Total List Sizes: 37-44

2020 Primary List: 38-40 | 2021 Primary List: 36-38

2020 Cat A Rookies: 0-6 | 2021 Cat A Rookies: 0-6

2020 Cat B Rookies: 0-3 | 2021 Cat B Rookies: 0-2

 

[briztoon]

There have been rumours for a week now that the AFL are considering reducing list sizes to 35 players. No rookie list.

This was confirmed by Jimmy Bartel on The Age Real Footy podcast today.

I’ve no idea how clubs are to manage this, as this has not been discussed or reported on as yet.

Right, so who are your clubs keeping and delisting?

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

There have been rumours for a week now that the AFL are considering reducing list sizes to 35 players. No rookie list.

This was confirmed by Jimmy Bartel on The Age Real Footy podcast today.

I’ve no idea how clubs are to manage this, as this has not been discussed or reported on as yet.

Right, so who are your clubs keeping and delisting?

Every year, including rookies, about 14-18 players come out of contract. The players that the club doesn't think it needs in a list of 35 wont be offered a new contract. Its a blunt and straightforward as that, so 9 players and probably all Cat B rookies will be cut.

 

[eastfreo75]

There have been rumours for a week now that the AFL are considering reducing list sizes to 35 players. No rookie list.

This was confirmed by Jimmy Bartel on The Age Real Footy podcast today.

I’ve no idea how clubs are to manage this, as this has not been discussed or reported on as yet.

Right, so who are your clubs keeping and delisting?

Ok in the short term to reduce costs but long term not a great idea.

Eagles original squad was 35.

When injuries hit they had 17 fit players.

If you did go with that idea, you would need a mid season draft and a delisted free agency period all through the season.

In NBA, you have a squad of 17 active players plus up to 2 inactive players. Also, their are 10 day contracts.

AFL could have a 35 active list with 2 spots for long term injuries ie Carltons Kemp.

If a player retires in season or a player is waived, maybe a delisted free agent could fill this spot.

 

[TheGrizz]

There have been rumours for a week now that the AFL are considering reducing list sizes to 35 players. No rookie list.

This was confirmed by Jimmy Bartel on The Age Real Footy podcast today.

I’ve no idea how clubs are to manage this, as this has not been discussed or reported on as yet.

Right, so who are your clubs keeping and delisting?

35 is too little, though i think abolishing the Cat A rookie list is a good idea (i would keep the Cat B rookie list outside the main list though as it serves a good purpose).

Currently it is 38 (plus 6 rookies) to 40 (plus 4 rookies) senior listed players as a maximum.

I would abolish the Cat A rookie list and have 40 listed players as a maximum, with a minimum of 38 required to be filled by the SSP period in early march, and keep the mid season draft so teams could pick 1-2 players in case of injury.

If a team has a LTI or a retirement then special dispensation can be made by the AFL.

 

[briztoon]

Ok in the short term to reduce costs but long term not a great idea.

Eagles original squad was 35.

When injuries hit they had 17 fit players.

If you did go with that idea, you would need a mid season draft and a delisted free agency period all through the season.

In NBA, you have a squad of 17 active players plus up to 2 inactive players. Also, their are 10 day contracts.

AFL could have a 35 active list with 2 spots for long term injuries ie Carltons Kemp.

If a player retires in season or a player is waived, maybe a delisted free agent could fill this spot.

35 is too little, though i think abolishing the Cat A rookie list is a good idea (i would keep the Cat B rookie list outside the main list though as it serves a good purpose).

Currently it is 38 (plus 6 rookies) to 40 (plus 4 rookies) senior listed players as a maximum.

I would abolish the Cat A rookie list and have 40 listed players as a maximum, with a minimum of 38 required to be filled by the SSP period in early march, and keep the mid season draft so teams could pick 1-2 players in case of injury.

If a team has a LTI or a retirement then special dispensation can be made by the AFL.

Just to be clear guys, this is not my idea.

This is strongly being considered by the AFL, and was discussed by Jimmy Bartel who is now a GWS board director, on today’s Real Footy podcast with Jake Niall and Caroline Wilson.

 

[briztoon]

Every year, including rookies, about 14-18 players come out of contract. The players that the club doesn't think it needs in a list of 35 wont be offered a new contract. Its a blunt and straightforward as that, so 9 players and probably all Cat B rookies will be cut.

The Lions have 6 senior listed players and 5 rookies out of contract at the end of this year, from a 47 player list.

We also have 1 Cat A rookie and 2 Cat B rookies with contracts that expire in 2021.

To get down to 35 players, we will have to delist a contracted player.

To then go to the draft, we’re going to have to delist further contracted players.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

The Lions have 6 senior listed players and 5 rookies out of contract at the end of this year, from a 47 player list.

We also have 1 Cat A rookie and 2 Cat B rookies with contracts that expire in 2021.

To get down to 35 players, we will have to delist a contracted player.

To then go to the draft, we’re going to have to delist further contracted players.

You probably have the least players coming out of contract in 2020, because you would have the biggest and arguably best bunch of under 23 players in the league, who have been signed up on longer contracts.

They will have to then cut one, or more, of the older players 26+ and on the least amount to pay out

 

[briztoon]

You probably have the least players coming out of contract in 2020, because you would have the biggest and arguably best bunch of under 23 players in the league, who have been signed up on longer contracts.

They will have to then cut one, or more, of the older players 26+ and on the least amount to pay out

Gold Coast might have even more players signed up long term than us.

 

[Turbocat]

39 then 35 ... get cost down. Reduce the cap as well. They should consider 16 a side and 20 in total. They are going to have a truck load of debt to pay off.
If 35 is too little introduce a rule that allows top ups or something... there is no absolute..the afl makes its own rules.. and for the next 5 years I think a leaner afl will have to be the go.

 

[BigFatNorthFan]

As per Caro:

"Clubs have been told to expect to operate next season with playing lists of 35 and down to 30 by season 2022."

Link: https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl...rship-as-tough-times-hit-20200327-p54emm.html

So not just down to 35 but as few as 30 soon enough - assuming the proposal gets up.

The way I see it this would basically mean an AFL list is your best 22-25 and a handful of developing kids. Players who are there for depth get cut, kids who don't come on quick get cut, and clubs will presumably have something like a supplemental list where you can sign/cut players during the season to provide depth when you get injured.

It was already likely that there would be less money to go around for players after next broadcast deal and now with COVID recession coming that's certain to be the case. It seems like AFLPA will let depth players lose their jobs in order to make sure star players keeping making bank. Might work ok for them in the short term but the less opportunities there are to be on an AFL list, the less AFL-quality talent we have room to develop, starts the league moving backwards in terms of increasing the talent pool... perhaps only in the name of preserving the paycheques of guys already making $500k+.

 

[adammania9]

It's an extraordinary suggestion, another one that if followed through with will make it tough for me to continue being interested in a sport I'm falling out of love with.

 

[Chaisa]

30 on a list is crazy. The chances of having 9 or more absences at once is rather high. Even 35 is too few.

 

[Minidisc MD]

nah 35 seems good, it sounds harsher than it is but as someone above said it's basically abolishing rookies and three senior players.

no more Harley Bennell type signings and clubs will stop being smart arses with their "project player" drafting style.

you should be able to select say six more players throughout the season to cover injuries. mostly just short-term contracts that are mostly match payments.

these guys wouldn't be expected to give up their day job (it really was ludicrous for those mid-year rookies to get 50 grand for four months' work, then another 50 if they got cut) and would train less. thus, they would purely be utilised as they should. you're not going to pick up a state league player to flaunt the rules if he can only train with the group once a week, but if you don't have any more full-backs, well you don't have an option.

 

[banzai]

If the game is so broke we need lists of 30 we may as well just call it off now. That would be taking over 200 players out. Surely several clubs would go before a move like that.

 

[Mt Isa Mustang]

You probably have the least players coming out of contract in 2020, because you would have the biggest and arguably best bunch of under 23 players in the league, who have been signed up on longer contracts.

They will have to then cut one, or more, of the older players 26+ and on the least amount to pay out

GC have very few out of contract.
We signed 25 players to extensions / new contracts in the past 12 months.

 

[TheGrizz]

Just to be clear guys, this is not my idea.

This is strongly being considered by the AFL, and was discussed by Jimmy Bartel who is now a GWS board director, on today’s Real Footy podcast with Jake Niall and Caroline Wilson.

Yeah i know, i was just throwing out an idea as i think 35 is too skinny.

 

[eastfreo75]

Just to be clear guys, this is not my idea.

This is strongly being considered by the AFL, and was discussed by Jimmy Bartel who is now a GWS board director, on today’s Real Footy podcast with Jake Niall and Caroline Wilson.

I never thought it was your idea.

Even if you agree with it, all good. We all have different views.

 

[eastfreo75]

30 on a list is crazy. The chances of having 9 or more absences at once is rather high. Even 35 is too few.

Totally agree.

It takes 3-5 years for a player to make AFL standard.

Squad of 30 you only have a few development players.

No club would want to develop talls especially rucks.

In 5 years AFL standard would drop off.

 

[Pykie]

People need to stop freaking out.

More than likely moves towards an NBA 2-way contract and waiver style system.

30 maximum guaranteed contracted players.

Then a pool of players in the state leagues or a national B league or local leagues that can be signed as short term (I'm talking 10 day contracts, or longer if needed) injury replacements. Teams are able to drop and replace players right throughout the season out of this pool with no restriction other than the list sizes and total salary cap allowances. You may see a certain player (like a decent reserve ruckman) play for multiple teams in a single season.

Player movement is going to increase 20 fold if we move to lower list sizes. Will more than likely increase volatility in the ladder, which is good for the competition. Teams shouldn't be rooted to the bottom/top in a draft system for decades like Carlton/Melbourne (to an extent) have. Our current systems are generally broken compared to most other major sporting competitions running a draft system.


It will emphasize value in the top end of the draft, with the likely draft number potentially increasing, with those getting selected outside the top 30 or so likely to be on non-guaranteed contracts, where clubs might have recruiting rights over players for a period of time, clubs will have rights to be able to play them in pre-season games etc, before deciding to sign them on guaranteed contracts or drop them to state leagues, or drop a contracted players to waivers, in which they are free agents and go back to developing in the state leagues.


The AFL and clubs want to move away from the financial drain of developing young kids for 2-4 years before they are ready. It's not just salary cap wastage, it's all the resources that also go into it. I had read the stat previously and can't remember the exact figure, but excluding salary a single player costs a few hundred thousand in resource overheads per season.

It's likely however, that the standard in the league drops slightly, as players instead of being developed in a full professional environment in their first few years, develop at the amateur level, so fitness and strength & conditioning average levels are likely drop in quality of players in their early 20's.

 

[eastfreo75]

People need to stop freaking out.

More than likely moves towards an NBA waiver style system.

30 maximum fixed contracted players.

Then a pool of players in the state leagues or a national B league or local leagues that can be signed as short term (I'm talking 10 day contracts, or longer if needed) injury replacements. Teams are able to drop and replace players right throughout the season out of this pool.

Player movement is going to increase 20 fold if we move to lower list sizes. Will more than likely increase volatility in the ladder, which is good for the competition. Teams shouldn't be rooted to the bottom/top in a draft system for decades like Carlton/Melbourne (to an extent) have. Our current systems are generally broken compared to most other major sporting competitions running a draft system.


It will emphasise value in the top end of the draft, with the likely draft number potentially increasing, with those getting selected outside the top 30 or so likely to be on non-guarenteed contracts, where clubs might have recruiting rights over players for a period of time in which they are developing in the state leagues.


The AFL and clubs want to move away from the financial drain of developing young kids for 2-4 years before they are ready. It's not just salary cap wastage, it's all the resources that also go into it.

It's likely however, that the standard in the league drops slightly, as players instead of being developed in a full professional environment in their first few years, develop at the amateur level.

NBA have 5 players on the court with 7 on the bench.

Yet, they 17 active players and 2 inactive players.

They have rights to drafted players for 4 years, even if they are playing overseas.

30 main list is totally unmanageable.

 

[Pykie]

NBA have 5 players on the court with 7 on the bench.

Yet, they 17 active players and 2 inactive players.

They have rights to drafted players for 4 years, even if they are playing overseas.

30 main list is totally unmanageable.

They also have 30 teams and play 82 game seasons. The list sizes are as much fatigue and injury management for back to back games as anything.

It's obviously going to be tweaked to suit the AFL.

But if 30 man lists is a legitimate consideration, teams aren't going to be just left with 30 players to chose from, more than a few teams each season barely have enough fit players on current list sizes at any point in time to field the 22.


If we draft 80 odd players each year currently, I could see that being striped back to 30-40, with the remainder each year signing 2 way contracts to a national conferenced reserves league or a rejigged state league system.

Players are then able to be drawn on at any point for replacements or waiving injured or bad performing players back into this pool.


The issue I see, is match fitness for the 8 players that miss out each week in an ideal world. The reserves league in this scenario would be for 2 way contracted players and the developing u/23 players across the country, rather than match fitness for week to week AFL teams guaranteed contracted players.


It would be a radical change to our traditional seniors/reserves system.

 

[TheLastCall]

If they reduced the team list for next year I’d suggest they’d increase the recruiting age to 19. Perfect time to do it.

 

[briztoon]

I never thought it was your idea.

Even if you agree with it, all good. We all have different views.

I don’t agree with it either. I’d prefer a the current model, minus the Cat B rookies.

I could understand cutting back to a 40 player senior list, with no rookie list.

But I’m also pragmatic, once someone says “these are the new rules”, I don’t see the point in arguing against the changes, as fans.

I’d sooner discuss, how the changes affect list composition and strategies, affect on trading and drafting, the U18 competition, supplementary players, etc.

 

[eastfreo75]

They also have 30 teams and play 82 game seasons. The list sizes are as much fatigue and injury management for back to back games as anything.

It's obviously going to be tweaked to suit the AFL.

But if 30 man lists is a legitimate consideration, teams aren't going to be just left with 30 players to chose from, more than a few teams each season barely have enough fit players on current list sizes at any point in time to field the 22.


If we draft 80 odd players each year currently, I could see that being striped back to 30-40, with the remainder each year signing 2 way contracts to a national conferenced reserves league or a rejigged state league system.

Players are then able to be drawn on at any point for replacements or waiving injured or bad performing players back into this pool.


The issue I see, is match fitness for the 8 players that miss out each week in an ideal world. The reserves league in this scenario would be for 2 way contracted players and the developing u/23 players across the country, rather than match fitness for week to week AFL teams guaranteed contracted players.


It would be a radical change to our traditional seniors/reserves system.

How much do you about basketball?

That’s not a criticism, just to know so we have a good dialogue.

Defensive principles don’t change much between teams and players can in and learn them fairly quickly.

Most teams will have multiple ways to defend the on ball screens. When a player moves they know straight away what to do.

Offensively most NBA run simple plays or patterns and therefore multiple players can come and know what to do straight away.

Not sure if AFL can fill in and do well straight away structurally wise.

 

[eastfreo75]

I don’t agree with it either. I’d prefer a the current model, minus the Cat B rookies.

I could understand cutting back to a 40 player senior list, with no rookie list.

But I’m also pragmatic, once someone says “these are the new rules”, I don’t see the point in arguing against the changes, as fans.

I’d sooner discuss, how the changes affect list composition and strategies, affect on trading and drafting, the U18 competition, supplementary players, etc.

List management will be brutal.

Long term injured players or players who may take a while to develop just will be cut sooner.

The second tier competition will get better as more players will stay in system for their chance.

Drafting wise it will devalue the draft and teams may only want to draft 2 players.

Third round picks won’t be worth much and first rounders will be expected to play straight away.