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

 

[Kwality]

If the total salary cap is reduced by 28%, easy solution is that every contract is reduced by 28%.

I know it’s just not that easy, but I’m surprised it’s not been discussed more in the media.

Cutting the bottom 5 players and rookies off a list isn’t going to save clubs $3m. Maybe somewhere between $1m to $1.5m.

Great theory, what about the contract in place .....

 

[eth-dog]

& if they decide to walk?

The AFL have enforced it. Not the clubs decision

 

[Kwality]

The AFL have enforced it. Not the clubs decision

The AFL can whistle dixie IF any player enforces their contract, UNLESS there is a clause covering this unforseeable circumstance. Not saying it will happen ... player managers are supposed to act in the best interest of the client, as we have seen happen in Rugby Union over recent days.

 

[briztoon]

Great theory, what about the contract in place .....

That’s what I meant. All current contracts.

 

[Mego Red]

That’s what I meant. All current contracts.

I am pretty sure the reason industries have unions is so that things like contracts have to be honoured?

 

[Kwality]

That’s what I meant. All current contracts.

The AFLPA are in a tough spot, whats more important, the number of members or the current contracts?

 

[kreglze]

The AFLPA are in a tough spot, whats more important, the number of members or the current contracts?

This will be a test for the AFLPA, do they want to represent the big players on big contracts and not having their contracts cut? Or do they represent the players down to totem poll who are OOC and with a reduction of a salary cap will be less likely to get further opportunities in the AFL if current contracts must be observed in full?

 

[Pure_Ownage]

Anybody saying the cut to 35 will be gradual is kidding themselves. It's a cost cutting method, pure and simple. A stupid one (Why not say, enforce a 10% decrease for every club's top 5 paid players? Keeps list sizes full and we won't have players ridiculously overpaid).

It means speculative players aren't taken, beanpole key position players are unlikely, players with raw attributes unlikely to be taken. Take out the Category A rookie list, take away the "only one Irish player on the Cat B" rule and reduce the playing list to 40 is the best way to handle it.

because while cutting the top end not the list sizes is the fairer call I can't see the more powerful players in the game and the AFLPA agreeing to it.

 

[Kwality]

because while cutting the top end not the list sizes is the fairer call I can't see the more powerful players in the game and the AFLPA agreeing to it.

My view is that the AFL is supposed to be an elite competition but its not ... too many players not up to it, SO less is better.

 

[The 747]

The AFLPA are in a tough spot, whats more important, the number of members or the current contracts?

Whatever the AFL tells them is the most important since the AFL funds them.

 

[Kwality]

Whatever the AFL tells them is the most important since the AFL funds them.

Some players will go where the money is ....

 

[briztoon]

The AFLPA are in a tough spot, whats more important, the number of members or the current contracts?

What I found interesting was a comment made on the Real Footy podcast by Jake Niall.

Most sporting player associations around the world, are funded by the players, i.e a small percentage of each player contract goes to the players association, to fund their governance, union lawyers, post career mental health organisation, etc.

But not the AFLPA. That’s directly funded by the AFL.

So one bargaining chip the AFL might have, is “right, we’ll give you xyz, but from the next EBA, you fund yourself”.

I would like to see what happens if the AFLPA sticks to its guns about the AFL disclosing its full revenue and balance sheet.

 

[Kwality]

What I found interesting was a comment made on the Real Footy podcast by Jake Niall.

Most sporting player associations around the world, are funded by the players, i.e a small percentage of each player contract goes to the players association, to fund their governance, union lawyers, post career mental health organisation, etc.

But not the AFLPA. That’s directly funded by the AFL.

So one bargaining chip the AFL might have, is “right, we’ll give you xyz, but from the next EBA, you fund yourself”.

I would like to see what happens if the AFLPA sticks to its guns about the AFL disclosing its full revenue and balance sheet.

If cricket is any example:

In an email seen by The Weekend Australian, cricket’s head body predicts a drop of up to 80 per cent in what it calls “match revenues” even if India does tour.

The players’ association has reacted angrily to the email, which was sent on Wednesday and which lays out the organisation’s estimate that cricket revenue — which determines player payments — will fall by over 40 per cent in 2020-21 and a significant amount in 2021-22. The Australian Cricketers Association told members on Thursday that the projections “do not appear to be reasonable or consistent with an obligation of good faith”.

NoCookies | The Australian

www.theaustralian.com.au

IF I were a player I'd prefer to pay my own way.

 

[briztoon]

If cricket is any example:

...

IF I were a player I'd prefer to pay my own way.

In what sense?

 

[TheLastCall]

If teams get their list size cut to 35, they should also raise the draft age to 19.
Cutting 90 players is a draft. Or if the teams need 3 spots on their lists to draft that’s potentate 144 players cut across the competition.

Between players and rookies that is a lot of players. Increase the draft age makes a lot of sense, this year provided the perfect chance to do it.

 

[The Nostradamus]

Get rid of rookie lists and rookie drafts

Then the year after bring the list down to 35

 

[kreglze]

As this goes on I can see a cut being gradual, 40 players and no rookies this year then eventually ending up at that 35 number that seems to be mentioned everywhere.

 

[footyfan1978]

If teams get their list size cut to 35, they should also raise the draft age to 19.

It's not going to happen. Restraint of trade is often brought up if this was strictly brought in.

The more I think about, the 35 list call is unlikely to happen. You can save costs by paying players less via drop in salary cap to whatever game can afford.
Either way, this will be decided more towards end of winter than now.

One of things I heard Wayne Campbell say recently was if lists did get cut to 35 it is a big drop in standard if all that is left for GWS and Swans players to go back to is local Sydney suburban footy. Those clubs push to keep a reserve team so that also means lists of 35 do not suit them.
Their push towards an Eastern AFL seems to have more momentum than cutting back on lists themselves.
The players association it not just going to accept list cuts to 35 easily too, so I think it is less and less likely the more pros and cons brought out.

 

[Demon in Hell]

Will clubs still need to make 3 picks each year in the National Draft if list sizes decrease to 35?

You would think this number would have to decrease also, possibly making round 4 and 5 draft picks obsolete (or worthless).

 

[eastfreo75]

Will clubs still need to make 3 picks each year in the National Draft if list sizes decrease to 35?

You would think this number would have to decrease also, possibly making round 4 and 5 draft picks obsolete (or worthless).

Commonsense would reduce it to 2 ongoing and maybe 1 for the next two years.

 

[The Nostradamus]

Yep 3 round drafts going forward makes sense

The comp will be more elite, less speculative picks - high production players

 

[TheLastCall]

It's not going to happen. Restraint of trade is often brought up if this was strictly brought in.

The more I think about, the 35 list call is unlikely to happen. You can save costs by paying players less via drop in salary cap to whatever game can afford.
Either way, this will be decided more towards end of winter than now.

One of things I heard Wayne Campbell say recently was if lists did get cut to 35 it is a big drop in standard if all that is left for GWS and Swans players to go back to is local Sydney suburban footy. Those clubs push to keep a reserve team so that also means lists of 35 do not suit them.
Their push towards an Eastern AFL seems to have more momentum than cutting back on lists themselves.
The players association it not just going to accept list cuts to 35 easily too, so I think it is less and less likely the more pros and cons brought out.

Restraint of trade is bollocks. You could argue that with the cut off date they have now.

The will of AFL not there. When they introduced the age limit to 18 there was resistance.

Reducing pressure off the 17 year olds in high school would be better. Having player have a full year of the second tier comp would better for the players and the comp.

This year is probably the only year they could do it.

They could raise the age 6 months this year and another 6 month next. Drop team list to 38 next year and 35 the year after.

Reduced drafts would soften the blow.

 

[Docker82]

We’ve got to be careful here imo.

Last year only four clubs didn’t use 35 players or more - all four (Geelong, Hawthorn, West Coast, Western Bulldogs) used 34. Hawthorn had a Brownlow medalist sit out the season. Bulldogs had Picken retire early and Boyd retire for mental health.

I see Richmond for example have 3-4 players on their rookie list that are inside their best 30. There’s other examples around the league of guys who are best 30 being kept on the rookie list for an extra season. There’s also countless examples of guys getting demoted to the rookie list to essentially fulfil the last year of their contract and be delisted. Getting rid of the Category A rookie list will eliminate this from happening. Getting rid of the Category B rookie list would essentially eliminate opportunities for Irishmen and guys from other sports. It’d be a big loss imo.

The best thing for the game imo would be 40 man senior lists with one or two spots available for what are currently known as Category B rookies for 2021, down to 38 for 2021 and Cat Bs for 2022. Any more cuts than that and we’re pushing the limits imo. The AFL and it’s top players may just need to be less greedy and except they’ll make a little less money for a few years.

 

[briztoon]

If teams get their list size cut to 35, they should also raise the draft age to 19.
Cutting 90 players is a draft. Or if the teams need 3 spots on their lists to draft that’s potentate 144 players cut across the competition.

Between players and rookies that is a lot of players. Increase the draft age makes a lot of sense, this year provided the perfect chance to do it.

Really. If I (as a Lions fan with no say in the matter) didn’t have to worry about contracts, I could cut our list back to 35 pretty easy.

At a push, I could get it to 32, to take 3 picks at the draft.

Clubs would need to change the type of players they draft.

And many players would have to realise they might need to spend 3 or 4 years in the VFL, SANFL or WAFL before being drafted.

 

[eastfreo75]

We’ve got to be careful here imo.

Last year only four clubs didn’t use 35 players or more - all four (Geelong, Hawthorn, West Coast, Western Bulldogs) used 34. Hawthorn had a Brownlow medalist sit out the season. Bulldogs had Picken retire early and Boyd retire for mental health.

I see Richmond for example have 3-4 players on their rookie list that are inside their best 30. There’s other examples around the league of guys who are best 30 being kept on the rookie list for an extra season. There’s also countless examples of guys getting demoted to the rookie list to essentially fulfil the last year of their contract and be delisted. Getting rid of the Category A rookie list will eliminate this from happening. Getting rid of the Category B rookie list would essentially eliminate opportunities for Irishmen and guys from other sports. It’d be a big loss imo.

The best thing for the game imo would be 40 man senior lists with one or two spots available for what are currently known as Category B rookies for 2021, down to 38 for 2021 and Cat Bs for 2022. Any more cuts than that and we’re pushing the limits imo. The AFL and it’s top players may just need to be less greedy and except they’ll make a little less money for a few years.

I totally agree with you.

The writing is on the wall and the top players want to minimise the damage for themselves.

Size of 35 is way too small for me.

West Coast in their year had only 35 players. At one stage they had only 16 fit players.