sr36
TheBrownDog
I keep hearing this sort of stuff, but Sydney and Brissy still look to me like net gainers from recruitment over the last 20 years. Brissy had that go home patch but have more than compensated since. And I've got no idea what Sydney fans are on about.You don't need an academy if you can recruit/ draft out of your own backyard.
You are not paying a premium to keep interstate players 'Happy ' being away from home. How many players do Collingwood etc lose to the return home factor compared to Northern clubs. Collingwood weren't at the top when they had treloar returning. Carlton weren't at the top when they were getting gws players or nearly getting papley or docherty or all the other names they have. Losing players to go home is far more prominent than any other measure if list losses. Equality is never going to be Equal.
MCG grand finals. Days afforded to particular clubs.
The outrage would be massive from the traditional football states if they were drafting and developing top end talent ,only to see them walk just before their prime at a discounted draft pick exchange ..
Carlton's poaching? The rumoured contracts were always huge, but they had a shit enough list that they could afford it because they were a bottom club - it's how the salary cap helps equalise things and gets teams moving off the bottom.
The big net losers over that time - two start up clubs and a club from a traditional footy state. Where's Freos equalising draft concessions - they're actually a club that gets smacked by poaching. Perhaps an extra top 10 pick every couple of years, regardless of ladder position? Brisbane and Sydney? Line up what you've recruited against what you've lost.
Last edited:






