Opinion Competitive balance - The AFL's most divisive topic

[Obeanie1]

Wow. Ok everyone.

We can stop. Garry Lyon has the solution.

The bottom 5 or 6 play off to win the #1 draft pick.

Yep, all good.

So last year for example The Eagles wouldnt have held it as no way would they have beaten anyone. Now Garry even talked about 2025, instead of the 18th team who won 1 game getting pick 1 the 14th team would if they won the final round against a fellow bottom 6 club. Anyone want to guess which club that would have been in 2025? Yep, you guessed it. Melbourne. Under Garry's new system his old club woukd have got pick 1. Because they were better than the 5 teams under them.

Not sure what that would have meant for the compo pick for the Eagles? Does that slide as well?

The question is. Is he serious or chasing clicks?

 

[The Feeder Club]

Wow. Ok everyone.

We can stop. Garry Lyon has the solution.

The bottom 5 or 6 play off to win the #1 draft pick.

Yep, all good.

So last year for example The Eagles wouldnt have held it as no way would they have beaten anyone. Now Garry even talked about 2025, instead of the 18th team who won 1 game getting pick 1 the 14th team would if they won the final round against a fellow bottom 6 club. Anyone want to guess which club that would have been in 2025? Yep, you guessed it. Melbourne. Under Garry's new system his old club woukd have got pick 1. Because they were better than the 5 teams under them.

Not sure what that would have meant for the compo pick for the Eagles? Does that slide as well?

The question is. Is he serious or chasing clicks?

I think that proposal has been around a while, it is part of the 6-6-6 fixture idea, namely that you play 17 games where every team plays each other, then divide the table into three groups of 6 that play one another, with each group playing for something
Top 6 - already guranteed finals, are playing off for top 2/4
Middle 6 - possible finalists, playing off for the remaining finals spots
Bottom 6 - can't make finals, play off for a shiny prize like a number 1 superpick before the draft starts

The whole concept kind of made sense once but it's been dead in the water since they moved to 23 games and a 19th team coming in

 

[WhyAmIHere]

Thats total BS.

You think the SA and WA clubs are ok with back to back premiers getting shovelled assistance every year without having to beg?

Do you think they are ok with the Suns list turning into the monster it is.

No. They arent happy mate. They arent ok with the AFL fixng the competition to favour teams they want to succeed.

And niether are the fans.

Your last comment about self interest applies to you and this view. You just want the club you support to keep benefiting from the gravey train of assistance for your club. Its turned the comp into a two tiered comp and a joke.

Good teams and lists dont need assistance. Not a dfficult concept.

You are in a thread described as a 'divisive topic' and you are offend someone has an opinion different to yours?

The SA clubs have been advocating for ways to address the competitive imbalances impacting them - being AFL controlled rather than member governed, the AFL Finals home ground advantage being offset a little by the extra home/away fixture at gather round, requests for Melbourne based games being played at the MCG rather then Docklands, etc.

The SA clubs have recognised the inequities within the AFL and try and address the ones that impact them the most - as is a core responsibility of their respective clubs. When new clubs enter the league, clubs are canvassed on the benefits to the competition, the benefits to individual clubs, the costs to the competition and the costs to individual clubs. All clubs and most supporters knew the northern expansion was a long time investment. All clubs knew the western expansion (particularly with Fremantle) would not require such long term investment. In a similar way, all clubs know the Tasmania investment will be short term - the case for a Tasmanian expansion is a strong one and if Tassie get their engagement correct they will have sustained support and long term competitiveness after initial, short term assistance.

My club has dipped very lightly in 'gravy train'. The SANFL conditions of our AFL entry were tough, the stadium arrangement with SANFL at west lakes was tough, the AFL 'assistance' in taking over governance when the SANFL conditions hamstrung our club (conditions the AFL supported), was tough. Port is not out of the woods yet but has campaigned to move to Adelaide Oval, experimented into accessing new markets in China, expanded community engagement through the community cup, let Port Adelaide associated players know they are always welcome home, expanded representation in the media, worked on financial security through the Alberton precinct, when players have requested trades home form Port been upfront and reasonable.

The Crows, as the socially aspirational and 'first' AFL club in the State had fewer obstacles but have also worked very hard at developing their own identity outside of the SANFL - as an entity unto themselves rather than a puppet for an archaic regime.

What gravy train?

Just because a club has a good couple of on field years does not ensure continued competitiveness. West Coast are a strong club, with strong financials, they have recruited well, will get returning WA players, and will be competitive sooner rather than later as an example. St Kilda has recruited poorly, is not financially stable (with so much missed opportunity with the ill-fated move to Seaford), selling of home games diminishing its home ground advantage all clubs enjoy, player scandals etc have them in a vulnerable position of their own making. Brisbane were awful and exemplified by the 'go home 5' saga followed by the FA departure of ex-captain Tom Rockliff. Brisbane revamped their off-field team, including the non-football side. They developed a genuine 'foe' in Gold Coast. They actively reconnected with the 'Roy base in Victoria. Brisbane got some great academy and f/s players - but why didn't clubs do what Adelaide did to the Bulldogs with JUH and bid early on them forcing Brisbane to pay maximum cost for these players? West Coast did exactly that with Uwland and Dean and could have gone further with Patterson, Annable, and Kyle but overall made sure tied players cost closer to value than previous years.

There are mechanisms to ensure clubs pay closer to value than they have in the past, however many clubs have been reluctant to bid earlier - good to see Adelaide and WC doing this when they have limited tied players through academies.

I like the romance of football family dynasties, I like the drama when they collapse (like the Silvagni's and Carlton), I like brother playing together (like the Daicos boys or Burgoyne's at Port), I like when they play against each other (who could forget Allen kissing Glen!). Humans are social creatures and footballs reflect these social interactions.

If you want even, 'pure' competition go watch robot clone fighting or similar. Footy has nuance, unfairness, fairytales and drama.

I'd love my club to have more than 1 AFL flag, but I love the story of our first flag and can't wait for the story of the next one. Warts and all.

 

[Purple Suit]

My solution would be to use the draft to balanced lists and an enforced public salary cap / soft cap with transparent side deal info. Money is going up, time to open the books like grown-ups.

All free agent compo is removed. All first rounds of the draft are protected from everything - F/S, academies, everything. There are only ever 18 (soon to be 19) first round picks in the draft except when special assistance is given out or new club concessions. Happy for the AFL to judge the assistance behind closed doors but to be fair and only do it when it is extremely necessary.

I would also make every F/S, academy kid drafted in the first round for the past 10 years under the old rules an unrestricted free agent for life when they come out of contract. This try's to some what balance the very cheap draft cost they paid in the past.

 

[Mat Mann]

It's still about competition because the AFL doesn't want any club spending 15 years outside of the finals like we saw with the Suns prior to last year. While it is true that the AFL would obviously prefer the Suns to have some on field success to grow the game in QLD and avoid people questioning their existence, they certainly took their time when it came to stepping in to provide help. After 9 years of struggling on field, the 2019 priority pick that was handed to the Suns was given for the same reason that saw North and West Coast recently received early draft pick help via generous compensation picks that probably shouldn't have been considered band 1. It's because there was a long period of uncompetitiveness with all three of those clubs and the AFL determined that they needed more help in the form of high end draft access to speed up the list rebuilding process. It obviously worked with the Suns and we've already seen indications that both North and West Coast are going to be more competitive this year than they were last year.

I don't believe the AFL wants any club to spend a long period of time at the bottom of the ladder and history shows they will step in to help any club if they see them struggling to dig their way out of the hole in a timely manner. Look at Brisbane 10 years ago in 2016 - they had been stuck in the bottom 4 of the ladder for multiple years and hadn't played finals for 7 or 8 seasons so they asked for some help and the AFL gave them an end of first round priority pick (Berry) to go with their number 3 pick (McCluggage). The Lions were at a really low point 10 years ago and struggling to hang on to some of their high draft selections like number 2 pick Schache. Brisbane felt they needed help to dig their way out of the hole after close to a decade of struggling and the AFL helped them in their time of need. Just a few years later the Lions became highly competitive again and it was mission accomplished from the AFL's perspective.

If St Kilda had bottomed out and spent 5+ years on the bottom of the ladder like the teams listed above then the AFL would have stepped in to help them as well. However, the Saints played finals in 2023 and haven't finished below 12th since before COVID so they haven't bottomed out in a way that would allow them to gain access to the high end draft picks that they desire and their F/S + NGA programs haven't delivered any top end picks, either. I think St Kilda got caught in no man's land and kept recruiting in a way that prevented them from bottoming out, but also not well enough to jump into the finals for a sustained period. FWIW I think Essendon also found themselves stuck in no man's land for similar reasons and it appears we're only just now seeing the Bombers bottom out, which will probably be a good thing in the long run because they should get access to high end draft picks that will allow them to build their way back to being a finals team. If they spend long enough towards the bottom of the ladder, then we'll very likely see them requesting a priority pick from the AFL just like the other teams that have struggling in the long periods of time in the last 15 years.

so much wild speculation here its crazy. It's just as easy to say GCS have never actually had to work hard for anything and when their initial concessions failed, they went sooking to HQ for more.
The AFL sent in an administrator to take over the running of Brisbane; whatever was done there was done with the full backing of the AFL.

"If we bottomed out" The reality was the AFL had their feet on our throat and weren't given the time to do a bottom-out rebuild, Not that we've done things sucessfully so far, but we've traded and worked hard with our lot, 2 AA club captains off the rookie list, Marshall as well, lost a pick 1 to concussion, an AA sqaud defender to heart issues, worked hard 2 make finels and not once allowed to host 1 at oour home venue........ just last year we had to pay exhorbitant amounts to attrct and retainm layers, are roundly criticised for it, why, because or natural pick 7 becomes poick 13 on draft night................

remember when St Kilda and Melbourne had NGA kids in the top 5-10 of the draft, we were denied access to them, one of them is playing for you..................
Essendon, will finish close to the bottom, will cede picks to clubs higher than them because of priority access.

bugger it all off, North got more value from drafting and losing JHF than they would have if they just didn't pick him

St Kilda has recruited poorly, is not financially stable (with so much missed opportunity with the ill-fated move to Seaford), selling of home games diminishing its home ground advantage all clubs enjoy, player scandals etc have them in a vulnerable position of their own making

Our financials, nothing to do with the backdoor deal the AFL did with the stadium to screw over North, Dogs and Saints, all who have sold games elsewhere to try and recover some revenue, remember when the AFL got involved with AO for the betterment of the SA teams, we the AFL did the opposite to these 3 clubs, for near 20 years...............

I love how it's always St Kilda's doing why they were/are poor, but it's other reasons, other clubs, notably our friends up north, have been bad.

Priority Picks, even tho there were issues with that system, is a better system than we have now.

 

[Bostonian]

**** the Gold Coast and GWS off and then a large amount of talented southern state players will be released back into the wider pool which reverses the dilution of talent in the league.

 

[GC2015]

You cannot seriously believe that the three year package of draft concessions, academy pre-signings and rookie list waivers is something they would hand to any team who hadn’t made finals for 9 years. It is not within the realms of comparison with what North or West Coast received.

I wasn't suggesting the 2019 rescue package that the Suns received was comparable to what North or West Coast have received recently, In fact, I was suggesting the opposite - that every team requires varying degrees of support to climb out of the hole when they find themselves towards the bottom of the ladder for a long period of time. That's essentially the whole point of the AFL acknowledging the need for 'competitive balance' because if they treated every club the exact same way then it would very likely end up like the English Premier League where the wealthiest clubs win pretty much every year. We've already seen that back when teams like Essendon & Carlton used to win the flag regularly and teams like St Kilda & Melbourne languished at the bottom of the ladder for decades. The AFL doesn't want that again. They want the league to be cyclical and every team to have a realistic chance of building a premiership list and to do that they have to treat clubs differently.

remember when St Kilda and Melbourne had NGA kids in the top 5-10 of the draft, we were denied access to them

...

bugger it all off

Doesn't this just prove that the NGAs do work when it comes to delivering many different clubs high end talent? Pick 7 Cam Mackenzie came through St Kilda's NGA zone and pick 5 Mac Andrew came through Melbourne's zone. I understand the disappointment that comes to those associated with those clubs because they weren't able to access that high end draft talent because the AFL made a kneejerk reaction to the NGA criticisms at the time, but it still shows that those NGA zones are capable of producing high end draftees.

Just like the Bulldogs' NGA zone did with pick 1 Jamarra Ugle-Hagan, North's NGA zone did with pick 8 Tarryn Thomas, Freo's NGA zone did with pick 9 Liam Henry and will likely do again this year with predicted top 15 pick Lucas Robinson, Collingwood's NGA zone did with pick 13 Isaac Quaynor, Essendon's NGA zone did with pick 13 Isaac Kako, Port Adelaide's NGA zone did with pick 16 Lachie Jones and is about to again with 2025 pick 2 Dougie Cochrane + 2026 pick 1 Zemes Pilot. Give it enough time and I'm sure every club is going to get a lick of the ice cream when it comes to their NGA zone producing high end draft talent. The incentive is there for clubs to put money into their NGA because the reward is lucrative high end draft access that every club wants.

I love how it's always St Kilda's doing why they were/are poor, but it's other reasons, other clubs, notably our friends up north, have been bad.

Well... whose fault is it that St Kilda chose to draft Paddy McCartin with pick 1 in 2014 when Christian Petracca had been the hot favourite all year to be taken with the first selection? The AFL can't force clubs to make the right decision on draft night. Would drafting Petracca instead of McCartin have changed St Kilda's fortunes over the last decade? We'll never know, but I'm inclined to think the answer is yes knowing how both careers have turned out to date.

I'm sure Brisbane wouldn't have selected Josh Schache with their no.2 pick in 2015 if they could do it all over again. They would've drafted a player like pick 4 Clayton Oliver and that may have seen them shoot up the ladder earlier. That's definitely Brisbane's fault for drafting a bust. It's not just a St Kilda thing to make a bad decision and then cop criticism for it.

 

[Art Vandelay_]

My solution would be to use the draft to balanced lists and an enforced public salary cap / soft cap with transparent side deal info. Money is going up, time to open the books like grown-ups.

All free agent compo is removed. All first rounds of the draft are protected from everything - F/S, academies, everything. There are only ever 18 (soon to be 19) first round picks in the draft except when special assistance is given out or new club concessions. Happy for the AFL to judge the assistance behind closed doors but to be fair and only do it when it is extremely necessary.

I would also make every F/S, academy kid drafted in the first round for the past 10 years under the old rules an unrestricted free agent for life when they come out of contract. This try's to some what balance the very cheap draft cost they paid in the past.

What's your profession? How much do you earn? and how much does your wife earn?

What... You think it's none of my business and you won't tell me.
Precisely. Nor should AFL players salaries be public knowledge.

FA Comp will never go, clubs would revolt if they lost players from free as a struggling club. And the AFLPA will not allow FA to go away. Best to just accept it.

 

[ReturningHawk]

I wasn't suggesting the 2019 rescue package that the Suns received was comparable to what North or West Coast have received recently, In fact, I was suggesting the opposite - that every team requires varying degrees of support to climb out of the hole when they find themselves towards the bottom of the ladder for a long period of time. That's essentially the whole point of the AFL acknowledging the need for 'competitive balance' because if they treated every club the exact same way then it would very likely end up like the English Premier League where the wealthiest clubs win pretty much every year. We've already seen that back when teams like Essendon & Carlton used to win the flag regularly and teams like St Kilda & Melbourne languished at the bottom of the ladder for decades. The AFL doesn't want that again. They want the league to be cyclical and every team to have a realistic chance of building a premiership list and to do that they have to treat clubs differently.

We’re not talking about “varying degrees”, we’re talking orders of magnitude. Nine years without finals, 5 years of bottom 4 finishes. It’s no different to North Melbourne’s record over the last 9 years. There’s no question of North receiving 3 years of first round draft picks, an academy in NT and an ability to pre-sign academy players.

Most of what you’re saying is reasonable but you still seem to be under the misapprehension that this package was designed to make GC competitive. It was designed to make GC as strong as possible so the AFL could promote the team, attract fans and stop burning a hold in their pocket. It worked.

 

[Obeanie1]

I think that proposal has been around a while, it is part of the 6-6-6 fixture idea, namely that you play 17 games where every team plays each other, then divide the table into three groups of 6 that play one another, with each group playing for something
Top 6 - already guranteed finals, are playing off for top 2/4
Middle 6 - possible finalists, playing off for the remaining finals spots
Bottom 6 - can't make finals, play off for a shiny prize like a number 1 superpick before the draft starts

The whole concept kind of made sense once but it's been dead in the water since they moved to 23 games and a 19th team coming in

How does it make sense the team that finishid last with 1 win, plays off for pick 1 and loses pick 1.

Because they are the worse. team in the comp.......by the stretch of the Flemington straight.

And instead the 6th worse team "wins" pick 1 finishing on 8 wins and normally gets pick 6.....before other compo.

And then go from 8 wins to playing finals after landing the best kid

How in Gods name is that equalisation?

The Harley Reid draft year proved clubs dont tank. Well some clubs dont.

 

[The Feeder Club]

How does it make sense tye teamthat f8nish3d last with 1 win, plays off for pick 1 and loses pick 1.

Because they are the worseteam in the comp.......by thestretch oftheFpemington straight.

And instead the 6th worse team "wins" pick 1 finishing on 8 wins and normally gets pick 6..

THEN with other BS compo etc they should have got pick 10, but won pick 1.

How in Gods name is that equalisation?

The Harley Reid draft year proved clubs dont tank. Well some clubs dont.

Because the concept was an attempt to make the whole fixture better, not an attempt to help the 18th team. You're looking at it through the wrong lens
Under the proposed fixture change the bottom six teams after 17 rounds were ruled out of finals and you had to give those teams something to play for in the last five rounds of the season that made it competitive. The team that finished 18th would still get pick 2, now they could win an extra early pick
Don't feel so aggreived about it, it was a discussion for another time before the 19th team was approved, it's dead in the water but it was quite a neat idea to improve a fixture that is screwed.

 

[Obeanie1]

Because the concept was an attempt to make the whole fixture better, not an attempt to help the 18th team. You're looking at it through the wrong lens
Under the proposed fixture change the bottom six teams after 17 rounds were ruled out of finals and you had to give those teams something to play for in the last five rounds of the season that made it competitive. The team that finished 18th would still get pick 2, now they could win an extra early pick
Don't feel so aggreived about it, it was a discussion for another time before the 19th team was approved, it's dead in the water but it was quite a neat idea to improve a fixture that is screwed.

They can play for a PP then.

Not taking pick 1 off the team struggling to get off the bottom.

And Im aggrieved because it was a dumb, Vic centric proposal that helps clubs who dont fully bottom out and finish 13th. And shafts the teams struggling to rebuild who do need to bottom out.

Just another gimick to sell TVrights deals that errodes the competitive balance even more.

 

[GC2015]

We’re not talking about “varying degrees”, we’re talking orders of magnitude. Nine years without finals, 5 years of bottom 4 finishes. It’s no different to North Melbourne’s record over the last 9 years. There’s no question of North receiving 3 years of first round draft picks, an academy in NT and an ability to pre-sign academy players.

Most of what you’re saying is reasonable but you still seem to be under the misapprehension that this package was designed to make GC competitive. It was designed to make GC as strong as possible so the AFL could promote the team, attract fans and stop burning a hold in their pocket. It worked.

Your bolded theory falls apart for me when you look at how long the AFL waited to give the Suns help. It was pretty obvious from 2015 onward that the Suns weren't going to play finals any time soon and kept bleeding high quality players year after year - 2015: Dixon, Bennell, 2016: Prestia, O'Meara, 2017: Ablett, Saad, 2018: Lynch, May, 2019: Ah Chee, Martin. IMO the AFL would've stepped in earlier if they were as motivated to stop burning a hole in their pocket as you say. They waited until the Suns hit absolute rock bottom to hand them a priority pick after 9 years of struggling.

I do agree that North Melbourne's on field perofrmances in the last 9 years were similar to the Suns' first 9 years in the competition, but this is also where the 27 separate 'competitive balance' projects come into play because North have inherent advantages that the Suns don't have like historircal factors that open doors to access F/S players like Blakey, Archer and Scott in the last 10 years. I know they didn't get Blakey, but they still were afforded the opportunity to convince him to join the club. The Suns don't have that and won't have that for at least another decade.

So you really have to consider everything that comes into play in terms of a club's ability to dig themselves out of the hole. No two clubs are the same.

 

[ReturningHawk]

Your bolded theory falls apart for me when you look at how long the AFL waited to give the Suns help.

It’s not a theory. The league did everything in its power to create a dominant team who could attract star coaches as players. 7 years later, it’s a reality.

It was pretty obvious from 2015 onward that the Suns weren't going to play finals any time soon and kept bleeding high quality players year after year - 2015: Dixon, Bennell, 2016: Prestia, O'Meara, 2017: Ablett, Saad, 2018: Lynch, May, 2019: Ah Chee, Martin. IMO the AFL would've stepped in earlier if they were as motivated to stop burning a hole in their pocket as you say. They waited until the Suns hit absolute rock bottom to hand them a priority pick after 9 years of struggling.

I don’t understand. Should priority picks and rescue packages be handed out before a team hits rock bottom?

I do agree that North Melbourne's on field perofrmances in the last 9 years were similar to the Suns' first 9 years in the competition, but this is also where the 27 separate 'competitive balance' projects come into play because North have inherent advantages that the Suns don't have like historircal factors that open doors to access F/S players like Blakey, Archer and Scott in the last 10 years. I know they didn't get Blakey, but they still were afforded the opportunity to convince him to join the club. The Suns don't have that and won't have that for at least another decade.

COME OOOOON! North have their father son zoned by a Northern academy, and you’re calling it an example of an advantage North Melbourne holds over Northern teams?

I’m sure if you get in touch with them they’ll happily exchange Scott (still on the list?) and Archer for any of your academy talent from the last 3 years.

So you really have to consider everything that comes into play in terms of a club's ability to dig themselves out of the hole. No two clubs are the same.

Clubs are pretty similar actually. GC have been given an armchair ride compared to every other team who’ve been in the doldrums, but that’s ok with me. They need success to exist. All I’m asking you to do is admit it.

 

[Elixuh]

You know the academy for Brisbane and GCS(Sydney and GWS as well) is completely different to the academies for the rest of the comp?

Speaks volumes that those northern clubs have taken more academy kids in the last 3 years than all of the Vic clubs combined in the entirety of the time it's existed(NGA programs), probably more than the 16 other clubs combined.
Taking a 100% eligibility rate and comparing it to another system that is probably closer to 5% (and that's generous) eligibility rate is wild.

You should be asking why the Adelaide clubs aren't agitating for a fairer system? Adelaide certainly were upset when they didn't get JUH, They were affected by f/s and academy picks.

Hilarious that St Kilda is consistently told to get better, but GCS struggles and they're given unprecedented concessions, can you tell me what concessions or favoritism the most unsuccessful football club in the camp has been given?

I don't want favoritism; I want a system that doesn't favor others, we trade for players to improve, we are ridiculed, we draft, and keep falling behind sides already in the 8 in the order. Somehow, that's our fault because our natural pick is diluted.

Brisbane are the most successful club in recent history, how many more turns do they need?

NGAs have historically been an ancestry dot com test which is why they were removed. There was no developing of talent.

Northern academies have developed talent in areas where there was historically next to no talent coming out of those regions.

Your arguments are of someone who is chronically listening to SEN Melbourne. You don’t want equality you want Saints equality.

 

[ReturningHawk]

NGAs have historically been an ancestry dot com test which is why they were removed. There was no developing of talent.

Northern academies have developed talent in areas where there was historically next to no talent coming out of those regions.

Your arguments are of someone who is chronically listening to SEN Melbourne. You don’t want equality you want Saints equality.

Have the Lions been getting away with far more than a fair share, or are the Saints just chronic whiners because they’re not successful?

Column A, column B.

 

[Elixuh]

Have the Lions been getting away with far more than a fair share, or are the Saints just chronic whiners because they’re not successful?

Column A, column B.

The mechanism we have rorted to be successful in the last few years has been father son not academies.

If people are getting mad about the academy players - almost all of who are late picks and over agers than at a point that’s on them.

 

[L_W_P]

No chance it's a fair playing field.

The Suns beat Freo in a final.

Freo come away from the off season with one first round pick while the Suns banked FOUR players before Freo's selection (including 2 in the top 5) and still had assets to trade for Christian Petracca

3

Christian Petracca

Age

30

Ht

187cm

Wt

94kg

Pos.

M/F

Career

Season

Last 5

D

19.4

5star

K

9.5

4star

HB

9.8

5star

M

3.5

4star

T

3.0

5star

CL

2.5

4star

D

24.4

5star

K

10.4

4star

HB

14.0

5star

M

3.5

3star

T

3.6

4star

CL

3.4

4star

D

19.0

5star

K

7.8

3star

HB

11.2

5star

M

3.0

3star

T

3.8

5star

CL

2.0

4star

.

How are teams like Freo meant to maintain their top 4 hopes against that sort of imbalance?

We banished priority picks because they were deemed so advantageous teams could tank to get them but through F/S, Northern Academy and NGA system we are giving teams the opportunity to dip into top end talent, even when they are already high on the ladder.

It was bullshit when the Dogs got JUH. It was bullshit when the Pies got Naicos. It's still bullshit now.

My solution would be that Academy or F/S players can't be matched if taken in the first round. They get the standard 3 year contract PLUS up to two years of club options, meaning they can be locked in for up to 5 years.

After that they get FA status.

If North wanna draft Naicos they can. They get up to five years to convince him to stay on, otherwise he can walk to the Pies if that's what he really wants.

If North don't think Naicos is worth the investment then they pass on him and take the next player but if they rate him the best available option then they should have the opportunity to draft him.

Same with QLD/NSW talent going home or NGA talents that love the club that supported them through the ranks.

West Coast wanna draft Ashcroft? Go for it. But you run the risk of him wanting to go to QLD in a few years time.

At least that way clubs get an cleaner opportunity to draft the best available talent, rather than relying on timing of genetics or the AFL needing to artificially elevate them.

 

[L_W_P]

I think that proposal has been around a while, it is part of the 6-6-6 fixture idea, namely that you play 17 games where every team plays each other, then divide the table into three groups of 6 that play one another, with each group playing for something
Top 6 - already guranteed finals, are playing off for top 2/4
Middle 6 - possible finalists, playing off for the remaining finals spots
Bottom 6 - can't make finals, play off for a shiny prize like a number 1 superpick before the draft starts

The whole concept kind of made sense once but it's been dead in the water since they moved to 23 games and a 19th team coming in

Doesn't work.

The logistical nightmare scenarios for home/away games would make a fixture on the run, virtually impossible.

Get to 20 teams.
19 games, playing everyone once
9 home, 9 away + Gather round (neutral)

Eg St Kilda -

Home vs
Lions
Swans
Crows
Eagles
Cats
Blues
Bombers
North
Dees

Away vs
Suns
Giants
Port
Freo
Tassie
Pies
Hawks
Tigers
Dogs

Gather Round vs
Canberra

The following year we reverse the fixture, play Canberra at home and the Dogs for Gather round.

Up to each club where they want their home games to be eg Dees selling games to Alice or the Suns to Darwin.

 

[Mat Mann]

NGAs have historically been an ancestry dot com test which is why they were removed. There was no developing of talent.

Northern academies have developed talent in areas where there was historically next to no talent coming out of those regions.

Your arguments are of someone who is chronically listening to SEN Melbourne. You don’t want equality you want Saints equality.

That'd be why 1/2 of them are father sons from other clubs........

 

[Yoda_]

People need to stop using the draft &/or fixture as a way of equalising, its simply to much of a gravy train for the AFL to actually do it right. We can lie to ourselves all we want but the real "equalisation" needs to be off field.

Supporting a club who has perennially had poor development, why not increase the soft cap tax for poor teams?
why cant additional list concessions be allowed? similar to what Brisbane got when they were poor and lost those top picks two years running? Give extra rookie spots? or give veterans list a shake up again and re introduce?

I dunno, the measures they pretend to use are simply not working thats all I know

 

[The Feeder Club]

The logistical nightmare scenarios for home/away games would make a fixture on the run, virtually impossible.

Get to 20 teams.
19 games, playing everyone once
9 home, 9 away + Gather round (neutral)

That argument went out the window with covid.
But as already stated, although it would have been a better fixture than the current one, it was dead as a concept as soon as the 19th team was sanctioned

 

[rye]

That'd be why 1/2 of them are father sons from other clubs........

interesting definition of half but saints fans these days do tend to have a loose relationship with reality

 

[Yoda_]

interesting definition of half but saints fans these days do tend to have a loose relationship with reality

Watched 3saint Kilda eligible father sons play on Friday night at Kinetic Stadium. Saints obviously dont care too much, they have a history of not taking a punt on these kids (or NGA's for that matter). Only the sure things they seem to bother with

 

[L_W_P]

People need to stop using the draft &/or fixture as a way of equalising, its simply to much of a gravy train for the AFL to actually do it right. We can lie to ourselves all we want but the real "equalisation" needs to be off field.

Supporting a club who has perennially had poor development, why not increase the soft cap tax for poor teams?
why cant additional list concessions be allowed? similar to what Brisbane got when they were poor and lost those top picks two years running? Give extra rookie spots? or give veterans list a shake up again and re introduce?

I dunno, the measures they pretend to use are simply not working thats all I know

Because Brisbane didn't only get the list concessions, they also got clear access to the players they rated in the draft while they were down the bottom of the ladder.

Imagine if Rayner and McLuggage were tied to the Hawks through FS or NGA and the Lions had to take the "next best" in Paddy Dow and Ben Ainsworth.

It's a pretty big drop if you don't get it right.