Brisbane needs help

[Tuco]

I believe the recipe was changed a few years back to something that is drinkable. QLD is a mid-strength beer haven and ease of drinkability always trumps flavour or taste.

AFL fixtures should definitely have a home in QLD then.

 

[JeffDunne]

Who's been arguing for a retention allowance?

Have you read this thread?

As for financial assistance, the AFL effectively underwrites all your debt.

What more do you want?

 

[Lensen]

Who are the 10 first round picks they've lost to the "go home" factor? I've got it as 8:

Rory Hilton
Shane O'Bree
Des Headland
Jason Gram (50/50 given he had played 2 games in 2 years, but will include him)
Jared Polec
Patrick Karnezis
Billy Longer
Sam Docherty

So we've got 3 blokes 10-15 years ago, one who left arguably for more opportunity during a pretty bloody strong Lions era, and four who left when the club was a shambles.

Why did none of their top picks "go home" between Gram and Polec if it's a systemic issue that only a retention allowance can fix?

There are other first round picks that played at other clubs but didn't leave due to the "go home" factor
Cupido - traded whilst under contract
Brennan - went down the road
Spaanderman - delisted then popped up at WC 12 months later
Wood - traded to Collingwood, but is from SA
Clark - went to Melbourne, but is from WA
Henderson - traded for Fevola

 

[Despair]

As long as Brisbane continue to harbor rangas, children of the sun, blueys or whatever you want to call them they can continue to suffer.

Gingers are a blight on not only our game but all humanity.

 

[Dom PC]

As long as Brisbane continue to harbor rangas, children of the sun, blueys or whatever you want to call them they can continue to suffer.

Gingers are a blight on not only our game but all humanity.

Jeez your lucky Adam Goodes isn't a red head. God only knows what could have happened.

 

[Lion for Life]

Who are the 10 first round picks they've lost to the "go home" factor? I've got it as 8:

Rory Hilton
Shane O'Bree
Des Headland
Jason Gram (50/50 given he had played 2 games in 2 years, but will include him)
Jared Polec
Patrick Karnezis
Billy Longer
Sam Docherty

So we've got 3 blokes 10-15 years ago, one who left arguably for more opportunity during a pretty bloody strong Lions era, and four who left when the club was a shambles.

Why did none of their top picks "go home" between Gram and Polec if it's a systemic issue that only a retention allowance can fix?

There are other first round picks that played at other clubs but didn't leave due to the "go home" factor
Cupido - traded whilst under contract
Brennan - went down the road
Spaanderman - delisted then popped up at WC 12 months later
Wood - traded to Collingwood, but is from SA
Clark - went to Melbourne, but is from WA
Henderson - traded for Fevola

Don't forget to throw in "Bucks" prior to the merger for good measure. Look, the problem is there no matter which way it's presented the numbers don't lie.

Personally i think the biggest problem here is that rookie players have the ability to nominate which clubs they want to be traded, it's s a real problem because we generally aren't able to test the market to get the absolute best possible return for our investment.
Take away that ability until they qualify for free agency and open us to trading the player to whichever club can best suit our needs on exchange as well as make them think twice about requesting that trade knowing they may not get to go where they want.

 

[master bate]

Don't forget to throw in "Bucks" prior to the merger for good measure. Look, the problem is there no matter which way it's presented the numbers don't lie.

Personally i think the biggest problem here is that rookie players have the ability to nominate which clubs they want to be traded, it's s a real problem because we generally aren't able to test the market to get the absolute best possible return for our investment.
Take away that ability until they qualify for free agency and open us to trading the player to whichever club can best suit our needs on exchange as well as make them think twice about requesting that trade knowing they may not get to go where they want.

I agree. 2 years isn't enough of a reward for drafting a guy. It's why I said earlier that first round picks should have 4 year deals and 2nd round picks 3 year deals as a start with club options on the final years.

I'd like to be able to force trades but for guys out of contract I can't see how that can work unless you give the club they are leaving the opportunity to match the new contract from a side the player wants to go to if a trade is worked out.

The WA and SA clubs are probably the ones who get the best deals of players leaving. At least when guys go back to Victoria you have 10 clubs and whilst this notion of picking clubs does kill the bidding a bit you're still going to get an offer from a club who really wants the player not just one who will take him because he's going cheap.

 

[FuManchu]

The Age listed "homesickness" and my recollections would say the same..

It's more subtle these days. Prior to that it was just blatent. You would know if you followed Anthony Rocca's and Buckley's arrivals at your club closely.

Buckley was hilarious. He refused to play in a non traditional state despite being zoned to the bears in 92. He opted to play an extra year in the SANFL rather than go. Then he did a deal with the Bears where he would play with them for one year on the condition they traded him after one season. Draft tampering? Of course not

I'm sure Eddie had no complaints about that fiasco.

These days it's much less overt. But it gets out pretty quickly during trade periods when a player euphemistically 'asks for a release'. Perhaps you've read about a few?

There were a number of off field welfare issues where the club weren't up to scratch with looking after these young blokes.

You really got to let go of your Eddie phobia. He doesn't make the decisions. He voices an opinion, funnily enough, just as you and I do. I'm sure the AFL don't dit there waiting on his every word. In fact, I'm sure they ignore most of what he says.

 

[Tuco]

Don't forget to throw in "Bucks" prior to the merger for good measure. Look, the problem is there no matter which way it's presented the numbers don't lie.

Personally i think the biggest problem here is that rookie players have the ability to nominate which clubs they want to be traded, it's s a real problem because we generally aren't able to test the market to get the absolute best possible return for our investment.
Take away that ability until they qualify for free agency and open us to trading the player to whichever club can best suit our needs on exchange as well as make them think twice about requesting that trade knowing they may not get to go where they want.

Retention is a concern.

But retention allowances are politically dead in the water. So what's the solution?

You cannot restrict individual players' right to leave a club when their contract is over.

And you cannot extend Rookie contracts to tie them to lists for longer as this will add dead weight to the cap which the clubs will hate, plus the players might object to this limitation.

But perhaps the solution is through the AFL creating a market of trading compensations that specifically covers the scenario of a club losing a player they have taken straight from the national draft.

Ie: if you draft a player in the National Draft, and they are your clubs 1st or second pick for example, then the rules would require a premium befitting a top 20 pick in return.

If the Lions, or Bulldogs, or the Pies are losing a 1st round pick player who they selected as a 10 year prospect then that's unavoidable. But at least the club picking that player up should be required to offer substantial offsets.

Just a thought.

 

[Tuco]

There were a number of off field welfare issues where the club weren't up to scratch with looking after these young blokes.

You really got to let go of your Eddie phobia. He doesn't make the decisions. He voices an opinion, funnily enough, just as you and I do. I'm sure the AFL don't dit there waiting on his every word. In fact, I'm sure they ignore most of what he says.

Which is why Eddie was on the Equalisation Committee I guess? Because as the President of the competitions' largest club his viewpoints aren't noteworthy?

Look it's not an Eddie issue. He's raised his head over the parapet a bit in the media the last few weeks, and if I've potted him it was only because it was topical. If he voices an opinion I agree with, I back him to the hilt. Been a while, but I'm sure it's happened. I'm sure if we go back over the years I've defended his role in the industry a few times.

Really I just used a Collingwood example as you are a prominent Collingwood poster, and your President has had a fair bit to say lately that's all.

 

[FuManchu]

Which is why Eddie was on the Equalisation Committee I guess? Because as the President of the competitions' largest club his viewpoints aren't noteworthy?

Look it's not an Eddie issue. He's raised his head over the parapet a bit in the media the last few weeks, and if I've potted him it was only because it was topical. If he voices an opinion I agree with, I back him to the hilt. Been a while, but I'm sure it's happened. I'm sure if we go back over the years I've defended his role in the industry a few times.

Really I just used a Collingwood example as you are a prominent Collingwood poster, and your President has had a fair bit to say lately that's all.

You'd pot him if he came out squarely against domestic violence. You and millions of others can't stand that he has an effective voice as a club president. And he was invited onto that committee as he was one of a few that stood to lose. So it's only right that he and Newbold have a say in how they stand to lose.

I really wonder if the mindless masses, if they could have their way, would limit our memberships. Because they are a huge source of revenue as well. And it seems the low aspirational clubs are more about curtailing the well run club 's hard won success than they are about getting their own clubs off their arses. The tall poppy syndrome is alive and well in the AFL.

When Collingwood were Shyte in the 90s, the AFL didn't save us. We saved ourselves.

 

[Tuco]

You'd pot him if he came out squarely against domestic violence. You and millions of others can't stand that he has an effective voice as a club president. And he was invited onto that committee as he was one of a few that stood to lose. So it's only right that he and Newbold have a say in how they stand to lose.

I really wonder if the mindless masses, if they could have their way, would limit our memberships. Because they are a huge source of revenue as well. And it seems the low aspirational clubs are more about curtailing the well run club 's hard won success than they are about getting their own clubs off their arses. The tall poppy syndrome is alive and well in the AFL.

When Collingwood were Shyte in the 90s, the AFL didn't save us. We saved ourselves.

I'd pot him if he came out against domestic violence? On what grounds? You're making no sense. You are derailing this thread. This isn't about Collingwood. It's about Brisbane, and possible solutions that would not be to the detriment of the League as a whole.

It's only tall poppy syndrome if you attack someone simply for being successful, BTW. If I've ever potted Eddie it was never for that.

It is not tall poppy syndrome to disagree with someone's viewpoint, or in the case of the Equalisation debate, if you disagree with elements of a policy someone helped to draft personally.

 

[FuManchu]

I'd pot him if he came out against domestic violence? On what grounds? You're making no sense. You are derailing this thread. This isn't about Collingwood. It's about Brisbane, and possible solutions that would not be to the detriment of the League as a whole.

It's only tall poppy syndrome if you attack someone simply for being successful, BTW. If I've ever potted Eddie it was never for that.

It is not tall poppy syndrome to disagree with someone's viewpoint, or in the case of the Equalisation debate, if you disagree with elements of a policy someone helped to draft personally.

You want it both ways. You want equalisation which then means decreased profits for the game, for the league. But you also want increased revenues from the game which means equality in certain aspects will never be achieved.

How about you choose the most palatable and accept that with that choice comes consequences.

 

[Scotland]

And you cannot extend Rookie contracts to tie them to lists for longer as this will add dead weight to the cap which the clubs will hate, plus the players might object to this limitation.

Draftees are required to sign 2 year contracts. There is nothing stopping clubs from offering them contract extensions beyond 2 years, just not less than. Jesse Hogan and Jack Martin are on longer term deals.

But perhaps the solution is through the AFL creating a market of trading compensations that specifically covers the scenario of a club losing a player they have taken straight from the national draft.

Ie: if you draft a player in the National Draft, and they are your clubs 1st or second pick for example, then the rules would require a premium befitting a top 20 pick in return.

If the Lions, or Bulldogs, or the Pies are losing a 1st round pick player who they selected as a 10 year prospect then that's unavoidable. But at least the club picking that player up should be required to offer substantial offsets.

Just a thought.

Brisbane drafted Elliot Yeo with pick 30 and got pick 28 in a trade two years later. Fair/unfair? We had what he cost so were able to pay it.

Brisbane drafted Jared Polec with pick 5 and effectively got picks 21 and 22. Fair/unfair? Port finished top 6 and didn't have a top 5 pick, and if they had one they would not have traded it for Polec.

 

[Purple Suit]

Draftees are required to sign 2 year contracts. There is nothing stopping clubs from offering them contract extensions beyond 2 years, just not less than. Jesse Hogan and Jack Martin are on longer term deals.

Fair point.

Brisbane should ask all draftee's if they will be prepared to sign contract extensions straight away. My guess is most would say yes and probably do it very soon but the club probably doesn't want to commit in case they are a bust. By the time they figure it out, the player probably has a fair idea what they are worth and where they can go if they want to.

 

[Scotland]

If I was a highly rated draftee I probably wouldn't want to sign for more than two years, especially on the base salary. You'd hate to finish your first two years and be hating it and know you're stuck somewhere for another year or two.

I know they're struggling currently but I reckon going to Brisbane would be pretty cool. Nice wearher, away from the fishbowl of Perth, away from the scrutiny of Melbourne etc. That being said I've never moved there as an 18 year old so I might hate it and want to return to WA - who knows.

 

[Tuco]

Draftees are required to sign 2 year contracts. There is nothing stopping clubs from offering them contract extensions beyond 2 years, just not less than. Jesse Hogan and Jack Martin are on longer term deals.

I think the point is that Rookies really are a punt. Longer contracts aren't really an option. The player may suffer if he can't adjust to his new team and fails get a game thus stunting his chances at a full career, and the club may suffer if they sign a 4 year deal for a kid that plays three career games.

Brisbane drafted Elliot Yeo with pick 30 and got pick 28 in a trade two years later. Fair/unfair? We had what he cost so were able to pay it.

Brisbane drafted Jared Polec with pick 5 and effectively got picks 21 and 22. Fair/unfair? Port finished top 6 and didn't have a top 5 pick, and if they had one they would not have traded it for Polec.

I would suggest no special compensation is actually required for any player taken above 20 in the draft initially. For mind, it'd be more about protecting the top ten picks that clubs need to survive and thrive. Yeo above is fine.

Polec got to Port in a complicated three way trade involving no top ten picks. I understand the value of top 25 picks to high finishing clubs. And I want to be clear that Port didn't screw Brisbane as such.

But this doesn't diminish the fact that a team playing finals managed to take a developed, top 5 pick player (who should be a 10 year player) off a cellar dweller, in return for two picks outside of the top 20.

If Port was required to offer a top 10 pick to replace the pick 5 originally used this would be less of an issue for me. In fact, it would make it easier for the Lions to get him to the club of his choice. No need to arrange crazy three way deals to scamble a result over the line. Just take Polec's request to get to Adelaide straight to them and get full value.

 

[cammo78]

Draftees are required to sign 2 year contracts. There is nothing stopping clubs from offering them contract extensions beyond 2 years, just not less than. Jesse Hogan and Jack Martin are on longer term deals.



Brisbane drafted Elliot Yeo with pick 30 and got pick 28 in a trade two years later. Fair/unfair? We had what he cost so were able to pay it.

Brisbane drafted Jared Polec with pick 5 and effectively got picks 21 and 22. Fair/unfair? Port finished top 6 and didn't have a top 5 pick, and if they had one they would not have traded it for Polec.

That trade is only a loss for Brisbane on the basis of what Polec's been able to achieve at Port.

On exposed form in Brisbane, that's fair market value, perhaps even a little overs.

Which speaks to one of two things - either Brisbane's development or Polec's endeavour. Or a combination thereof.

 

[Viceregal]

One thing I have difficulty fathoming...

Young man gets offered 150k to play in Brisbane where he gets a nicer climate and the opportunity to walk down the street without anyone knowing who he is.
Young man gets offered 150k to play in Melbourne where he gets to hang with mates, spend time with his family and where girls recognise him from a distance and hanker for his company and greater opportunities to parley his career into a life-setting up success.

Many / most would find option two somewhat more attractive.

In order to offset the extra value inherent in option two the Lions have to pay (for ease of calculation) 10% more than they otherwise would have in order to keep them.

Effectively this would mean that Brisbane's money is only worth 90% of Richmond's or Hawthorn's etc money.

The old retention allowance added 10% to what the Lion's could pay if they needed to taking it to 110% real money but effectively 100% of AFL/VFL money.

So the allowance allowed the team to compete and it did. It managed to parlay some great players and coach into a unique experience and despite winning those three years they were never actually the top team in the comp ... they were just better at getting to and winning at the pointy end of the season.

You could easily make a case that Port Adelaide had a better team (based on minor premierships) but it is flags that we remember and count and seem to care far more about.

If it made it fair (ie balanced out the inequality), and allowed us to compete (which we did), then why was it such a problem except insofar as we fought too hard and competed too well and perhaps offended the wrong people/powers?

 

[cammo78]

One thing I have difficulty fathoming...

Young man gets offered 150k to play in Brisbane where he gets a nicer climate and the opportunity to walk down the street without anyone knowing who he is.
Young man gets offered 150k to play in Melbourne where he gets to hang with mates, spend time with his family and where girls recognise him from a distance and hanker for his company and greater opportunities to parley his career into a life-setting up success.

Many / most would find option two somewhat more attractive.

In order to offset the extra value inherent in option two the Lions have to pay (for ease of calculation) 10% more than they otherwise would have in order to keep them.

Effectively this would mean that Brisbane's money is only worth 90% of Richmond's or Hawthorn's etc money.

The old retention allowance added 10% to what the Lion's could pay if they needed to taking it to 110% real money but effectively 100% of AFL/VFL money.

So the allowance allowed the team to compete and it did. It managed to parlay some great players and coach into a unique experience and despite winning those three years they were never actually the top team in the comp ... they were just better at getting to and winning at the pointy end of the season.

You could easily make a case that Port Adelaide had a better team (based on minor premierships) but it is flags that we remember and count and seem to care far more about.

If it made it fair (ie balanced out the inequality), and allowed us to compete (which we did), then why was it such a problem except insofar as we fought too hard and competed too well and perhaps offended the wrong people/powers?

Your point is far too simplistic. And is identical to the argument against the Sydney Cost Of Living Allowance.

The facts are that these bonuses are not used to keep the blokes on "small" wages of $150-$300k from going elsewhere for the same money.

They are used to pay superstars already on massive coin even more to stop them chasing big money offers elsewhere or to entice them from other clubs on big money.

Meaning there's even less for the young, lower paid blokes.

In principle - your idea has merit. It's just not applied like that by the club(s) that get (got) it.

 

[master bate]

Draftees are required to sign 2 year contracts. There is nothing stopping clubs from offering them contract extensions beyond 2 years, just not less than. Jesse Hogan and Jack Martin are on longer term deals.

Brisbane drafted Elliot Yeo with pick 30 and got pick 28 in a trade two years later. Fair/unfair? We had what he cost so were able to pay it.

Brisbane drafted Jared Polec with pick 5 and effectively got picks 21 and 22. Fair/unfair? Port finished top 6 and didn't have a top 5 pick, and if they had one they would not have traded it for Polec.

Hogan and Martin were both on 3 year deals when they were mini-drafted to allow for the first year as a 17 year old and then the standard 2 years. Martin extended. Hogan is rumoured to be extending soon. But the 3 years compared to 2 when they couldn't play year 1 is hardly significant.

On available form you got a bargain with Yeo. Forget what he was drafted it's irrelevant. On talent he showed at Brisbane he showed height, speed, athleticism and skill. There's the opportunity cost that with every pick 28 you might freak a Darling or Fyfe but most clubs would settle in one second for a player of Yeo's quality at pick 28 knowing he's already had some development. You're first pick was too high but 28 was pretty low and Freo didn't have anything great to offer either and so Yeo nominated West Coast knowing it would have to be pick 28 or PSD. There's an advantage there because it's highly unlikely any player at West Coast will ever want to return to Brisbane based simply on how rare it is a QLD kid gets drafted to West Coast.

If I was a highly rated draftee I probably wouldn't want to sign for more than two years, especially on the base salary. You'd hate to finish your first two years and be hating it and know you're stuck somewhere for another year or two.

I know they're struggling currently but I reckon going to Brisbane would be pretty cool. Nice wearher, away from the fishbowl of Perth, away from the scrutiny of Melbourne etc. That being said I've never moved there as an 18 year old so I might hate it and want to return to WA - who knows.

The kids might not like it but you'd still be willing to enter the draft wouldn't you? You'd make the 3rd year deal significantly more than the 1st and 2nd year base (both of which if you actually play games blow out with match payments to really decent numbers). And I'm sure clubs would try to accommodate those who are really truly home sick and have it affecting their football as they are better trading them whilst everyone remember the form that got them drafted instead of wallowing in the 2's playing poorly. Plus for every kid who's unhappy stuck somewhere there would be a kid getting a 3rd year he wouldn't have otherwise got.

 

[master bate]

One thing I have difficulty fathoming...

Young man gets offered 150k to play in Brisbane where he gets a nicer climate and the opportunity to walk down the street without anyone knowing who he is.
Young man gets offered 150k to play in Melbourne where he gets to hang with mates, spend time with his family and where girls recognise him from a distance and hanker for his company and greater opportunities to parley his career into a life-setting up success.

Many / most would find option two somewhat more attractive.

In order to offset the extra value inherent in option two the Lions have to pay (for ease of calculation) 10% more than they otherwise would have in order to keep them.

Effectively this would mean that Brisbane's money is only worth 90% of Richmond's or Hawthorn's etc money.

The old retention allowance added 10% to what the Lion's could pay if they needed to taking it to 110% real money but effectively 100% of AFL/VFL money.

So the allowance allowed the team to compete and it did. It managed to parlay some great players and coach into a unique experience and despite winning those three years they were never actually the top team in the comp ... they were just better at getting to and winning at the pointy end of the season.

You could easily make a case that Port Adelaide had a better team (based on minor premierships) but it is flags that we remember and count and seem to care far more about.

If it made it fair (ie balanced out the inequality), and allowed us to compete (which we did), then why was it such a problem except insofar as we fought too hard and competed too well and perhaps offended the wrong people/powers?

1. Where has this 10% figure come from. If people value their friends and family so highly and can't stay in contact with family and make new friends (when most AFL players friends are their fellow players anyway) then why would 10% change people's mind. If you are a 22 year old guy are you really going home to be near mum and your high school mates for 200k but staying at Brisbane for 220k? After tax income shrinks the gap anyway. I just don't believe it.

2. Your point about best team in the comp is just plain silly. The team who wins the grand final is the best team, that is the aim of an AFL season. You beat the bombers the first year and then after that you had a huge talent and experience edge on Collingwood and experience and talent in some ways over Port. You had the fab 4 midfield, Collingwood had what Buckley then good honest battlers in Burns and Licuria? You had Mal Michael, Leppa, Brown, Bradshaw and Lynch. A spine of that consistent talent will probably never be seen again besides for a current expansion side. Even Geelong had makeship key forwards in their 3 time premiership teams.

 

[mottrain]

As long as Brisbane continue to harbor rangas, children of the sun, blueys or whatever you want to call them they can continue to suffer.

Gingers are a blight on not only our game but all humanity.

 

[McCrann]

So you say that, yet they won 3 flags, but haven't made the finals in 9 years and struggle to get 20K to a game. So they were given the retention, had all the success, and now 10 years later are a basket case on and off the field. Sounds like a failure to me.

Not true. The Brisbane Lions have won a final more recently than Richmond, Essendon, Melbourne, Gold Coast or GWS (Never)!! In 2009!!

That's almost a third of the competition they've had more recent finals success than!!

 

[Football Pope]

Brisbane are above Saints on the ladder.

Port were as bad as both of them 2 years ago and no help was given to them.

...forget to take your memory tablets?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/06/30/3257859.htm?site=adelaide