'Destination clubs' - Fallout the AFL didn't see coming?

[Lavender Bushranger]

I do credit the recent AFL management for their efforts to 'even up' the comp.

However the free agency thing I think is backfiring.

Aside from keeping the AFLPA happy, the intention and/or expectation was that combined with the salary cap, Free Agency would help the lower clubs improve faster.

The theory was that because they had a rubbish list, they'd have more salary cap space available to pinch these free agents from the top clubs that were bursting with talent.

However it seems to be doing the opposite.

In the past decade, plenty of guys leave for 'success', over money! Which is pretty much the precise opposite of what the AFL wanted and anticipated!

But I don't think that's the biggest issue. The new problem that the AFL faces, is the new concept of 'destination clubs'.

And the reason this is such an issue, is because it's been caused directly by the AFL's 'maximisation' policy.

By giving the Essendon's and Collingwood's handouts every year and 'maximising' the AFL's product by turning these clubs into mega-clubs - they've inadvertently made them destination clubs for players.

Players will take less money, to get to play on ANZAC Day.
Players will take less money to play in 'blockbuster' games on the MCG every second week.

Even this season, with the AFL playing the Semi Final in front of 95000 fans at Richmond's home ground - instead of in front of 30k in Geelong, the AFL are not only handing Richmond an advantage on game day, they're handing them a major advantage for future trade periods over smaller clubs by creating this 'destination club' culture.

If I was a player, and could choose to play on Sunday afternoon at Docklands in front of 30k people, or in a primetime slot at the G every week in front of 60k I know what I'd choose.

And it's becoming the new major factor in attracting talent to your club.


Unfortunately though, not all clubs are offered the same opportunity in this regard, due to the AFL's maximisation model.

How can smaller clubs expect to compete in this regard?


Discuss....

 

[Starburns_]

I guess the OP hasn't been listening to Tex Walker, Lever abandoned success for money...

 

[Football Tragic]

I do credit the recent AFL management for their efforts to 'even up' the comp.

However the free agency thing I think is backfiring.

Aside from keeping the AFLPA happy, the intention and/or expectation was that combined with the salary cap, Free Agency would help the lower clubs improve faster.

The theory was that because they had a rubbish list, they'd have more salary cap space available to pinch these free agents from the top clubs that were bursting with talent.

However it seems to be doing the opposite.

In the past decade, plenty of guys leave for 'success', over money! Which is pretty much the precise opposite of what the AFL wanted and anticipated!

But I don't think that's the biggest issue. The new problem that the AFL faces, is the new concept of 'destination clubs'.

And the reason this is such an issue, is because it's been caused directly by the AFL's 'maximisation' policy.

By giving the Essendon's and Collingwood's handouts every year and 'maximising' the AFL's product by turning these clubs into mega-clubs - they've inadvertently made them destination clubs for players.

Players will take less money, to get to play on ANZAC Day.
Players will take less money to play in 'blockbuster' games on the MCG every second week.

Even this season, with the AFL playing the Semi Final in front of 95000 fans at Richmond's home ground - instead of in front of 30k in Geelong, the AFL are not only handing Richmond an advantage on game day, they're handing them a major advantage for future trade periods over smaller clubs by creating this 'destination club' culture.

If I was a player, and could choose to play on Sunday afternoon at Docklands in front of 30k people, or in a primetime slot at the G every week in front of 60k I know what I'd choose.

And it's becoming the new major factor in attracting talent to your club.


Unfortunately though, not all clubs are offered the same opportunity in this regard, due to the AFL's maximisation model.

How can smaller clubs expect to compete in this regard?


Discuss....

Awesome isn't it

 

[PowerForGood]

Port Adelaide has done quite well the last few years
Pretty much kept our core and
Brought in Ryder, Dixon and now Rockliff last 3 years.

And we are a small club by AFL Collingwood / Richmond / Adelaide / West Coast standards.

Answer to your question for me: Make the football club a destination.

 

[TigersMan4]

Im sure richmond wasnt a destination club for the 37 years prior to this year.
We literally had nathan brown sign and thats it.

If smaller clubs built a culture and performed, they too would be considered a destination club - ala sydney.

Would they rather win in front of 30k at etihad or lose in front of 60k at the g?

I think there is a whole other side to it too. What about the preassure and scrutiny the player is under at a club like richmond or collingwood? Ty Vickery was broken by it.

 

[marty36]

Port Adelaide has done quite well the last few years
Pretty much kept our core and
Brought in Ryder, Dixon and now Rockliff last 3 years.

And we are a small club by AFL Collingwood / Richmond / Adelaide / West Coast standards.

Answer to your question for me: Make the football club a destination.

Esier to offer reasonable bucks to good honest players

Coudl it become a destination for the superstars liek Dusty, Buddy, Ablet,

Danger is the only one that left for reasonable $$ but he left for Moggs Creek and that aint anywhere close to anyone but Geelong

I think talking destination is a little overated I have no doubt if Carlton had offered more we may have seen Rockliff go there its all in the timing of the offer

 

[Football Tragic]

I do credit the recent AFL management for their efforts to 'even up' the comp.

However the free agency thing I think is backfiring.

Aside from keeping the AFLPA happy, the intention and/or expectation was that combined with the salary cap, Free Agency would help the lower clubs improve faster.

The theory was that because they had a rubbish list, they'd have more salary cap space available to pinch these free agents from the top clubs that were bursting with talent.

However it seems to be doing the opposite.

In the past decade, plenty of guys leave for 'success', over money! Which is pretty much the precise opposite of what the AFL wanted and anticipated!

But I don't think that's the biggest issue. The new problem that the AFL faces, is the new concept of 'destination clubs'.

And the reason this is such an issue, is because it's been caused directly by the AFL's 'maximisation' policy.

By giving the Essendon's and Collingwood's handouts every year and 'maximising' the AFL's product by turning these clubs into mega-clubs - they've inadvertently made them destination clubs for players.

Players will take less money, to get to play on ANZAC Day.
Players will take less money to play in 'blockbuster' games on the MCG every second week.

Even this season, with the AFL playing the Semi Final in front of 95000 fans at Richmond's home ground - instead of in front of 30k in Geelong, the AFL are not only handing Richmond an advantage on game day, they're handing them a major advantage for future trade periods over smaller clubs by creating this 'destination club' culture.

If I was a player, and could choose to play on Sunday afternoon at Docklands in front of 30k people, or in a primetime slot at the G every week in front of 60k I know what I'd choose.

And it's becoming the new major factor in attracting talent to your club.


Unfortunately though, not all clubs are offered the same opportunity in this regard, due to the AFL's maximisation model.

How can smaller clubs expect to compete in this regard?


Discuss....

You can't have a completely level playing field in the Competition unless every fan base is the same size, everyone plays at the same ground every week and every team has the same players. There will always be inequality because of team success and marketability. The AFL want to get as much publicity, money and excitement generated around their product as possible. The thing that makes it such a Huge Business is how much people are emotionally invested in the sport and therefore financially invested.

Players, just the same as supporters, want to be part of something bigger than themselves, something exciting. No one can depute that the attraction of playing in front of huge crowds is not a massive motivation for players and being part of those loud armies is not a thrilling experience.

I don't know how you could stop that other than what the AFL is doing. Success builds excitement which in turn builds support. If teams are successful then players want to be part of that. As soon as GWS and Gold Coast begin to win flag, you'll find very few players leaving them. Until then, of course the big successful clubs are going to be more attractive.

 

[Ancient Tiger]

Even this season, with the AFL playing the Semi Final in front of 95000 fans at Richmond's home ground - instead of in front of 30k in Geelong, the AFL are not only handing Richmond an advantage on game day, they're handing them a major advantage for future trade periods over smaller clubs by creating this 'destination club' culture.

For the one billionth time.....

The AFL have ALWAYS played there finals between two Victorian clubs at the MCG. They have never played them at KP. Even as early as last year, Geelong played Hawthorn at the MCG despite finishing ahead of them on the ladder.

There was no fuss made whatsoever. None. Why is that? Why now whinge because it was Richmond and not Hawthorn?

With a combined membership of over 120,000 people, why would you only allow 34,000 to see the game live? Ridiculous.

The grand final is always going to be played at the MCG. If you cannot win there then you better design a team and game style that suits the ground because unless you do, you'll never win a flag. It is that obvious. Everyone knows this. Instead of complaining about the way things are, just go out and fix your own team's issues to overcome this hurdle because it will always be there.

Simple.

 

[BTs Nana]

Is this actually a thing?

Does anyone actually want to join those clubs for anything but money?

 

[Bokonon_]

Im sure richmond wasnt a destination club for the 37 years prior to this year.
We literally had nathan brown sign and thats it.

If smaller clubs built a culture and performed, they too would be considered a destination club - ala sydney.

Would they rather win in front of 30k at etihad or lose in front of 60k at the g?

I think there is a whole other side to it too. What about the preassure and scrutiny the player is under at a club like richmond or collingwood? Ty Vickery was broken by it.

I've said before I think long term clubs like ours will appeal to players who want to be left alone outside of football and just focus on their game.

Clubs like yours will appeal to players who enjoy the fame and the spotlight.

Neither is wrong but I think think we'll end up with different personalities prevalent. Our clubs are probably at opposite ends of the spectrum. We both have the same cap though.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

You can't have a completely level playing field in the Competition unless every fan base is the same size, everyone plays at the same ground every week and every team has the same players. There will always be inequality because of team success and marketability. The AFL want to get as much publicity, money and excitement generated around their product as possible. The thing that makes it such a Huge Business is how much people are emotionally invested in the sport and therefore financially invested.

Players, just the same as supporters, want to be part of something bigger than themselves, something exciting. No one can depute that the attraction of playing in front of huge crowds is not a massive motivation for players and being part of those loud armies is not a thrilling experience.

I don't know how you could stop that other than what the AFL is doing. Success builds excitement which in turn builds support. If teams are successful then players want to be part of that. As soon as GWS and Gold Coast begin to win flag, you'll find very few players leaving them. Until then, of course the big successful clubs are going to be more attractive.

But why are they 'big clubs'?

Largely because of the AFL's maximisation model.

Huge crowds, prime time slots, MCG, Blockbusters.

Not all clubs actually get handed the fixtures that the 'big clubs' get handed.


Don't get me wrong, the maximisation model is realistically the reason there are still 9 Melbourne clubs and we get to watch every game live at shiny big stadiums - so it does have its benefits.

However now that we find players choosing these clubs because of their fixtures over smaller clubs that aren't given the same opportunities, the AFL has a problem on its hands.

 

[lionsrules]

Not sure how the smaller clubs can try and be a destination club. I for one would have loved if the Lions didn't have to pay 95% of the bank and pay pleb players crap tons of money only for them to get their heads bigger than an elephant.
In saying that though, I remember seeing Port Adelaide turn things around and am quite impressed with how they have done it. Covering seats with tarps to then re-signing Boak and having a group of players that genuinely want to play for each other. Then probably since their 2014 prelim appearance try and plug the leaky boat with a few more quality signings AND still have space in the cap. Good going hate you for 2004 but credit where credit is due.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

With a combined membership of over 120,000 people, why would you only allow 34,000 to see the game live?

Ummm, I don't know, maybe because of the integrity of a sporting competition?

 

[Ancient Tiger]

Ummm, I don't know, maybe because of the integrity of a sporting competition?

Absolute rubbish. Geelong play Hawthorn at the MCG and actually request it for Easter Monday. Somehow they do not worry about integrity there.

 

[Snake_Baker]

Discuss....

"Destination club" is a bullshit throw away buzz word utilised by "AFL commentators" that can't be bothered to do any proper research (i.e. 98% of them)

It is not a quantifiable concept.

/thread.

 

[falcons2]

I think destination club is just one of those 'footy speak'/'media phrases. All season we hear how clubs are going to build there list and it gets to trade week and we find its all hot air.

So far we have 4 trades only. One club gets one/loses one, six others only one move. 11 clubs - nothing
Rockcliff moves for finals success, Trengove, Impey and Smith all for more game time/position opportunity. Nothing here about destination club at all.

 

[Hawker55]

Not sure how the smaller clubs can try and be a destination club. I for one would have loved if the Lions didn't have to pay 95% of the bank and pay pleb players crap tons of money only for them to get their heads bigger than an elephant.
In saying that though, I remember seeing Port Adelaide turn things around and am quite impressed with how they have done it. Covering seats with tarps to then re-signing Boak and having a group of players that genuinely want to play for each other. Then probably since their 2014 prelim appearance try and plug the leaky boat with a few more quality signings AND still have space in the cap. Good going hate you for 2004 but credit where credit is due.

Success. Or at least a plan for success that looks to be working - it's not easy but it can be done. I do feel for the Queensland clubs though as you're having to convince players to buy into a long term project which is hard to achieve with a bunch of young blokes who don't really know each other well.

 

[Luv_our_club]

If you want to be an attractive club then:

- Get a good coach like Fagan who cares about the players.

- Get a good group of young talent together., like Demons.

- Don't be a dick, like Tex.


Collingwood have been a destination club my whole life. How many flags did Nathan Buckley win?

 

[Milanista28]

Gold Coast Suns could become a destination club, Being rich and living in up there in a beach side apartment would be a great lifestyle.

 

[telsor]

But why are they 'big clubs'?

Largely because of the AFL's maximisation model.

Huge crowds, prime time slots, MCG, Blockbusters.

Not all clubs actually get handed the fixtures that the 'big clubs' get handed.

I think you've got that backwards.

Clubs were given those fixtures because they were big already.

The AFL do it so they can make enough money to pay for clubs like yours.

 

[Tyler Hodges]

The only clubs that have real issues are/will be the non AFL dominant states.

Freo/Wce will now have the most advanced sporting venue in the Southern Hemisphere to draw crowds

Adelaide/Port are both very healthy clubs with an awesome refurbished stadium. Melbourne is the hub of footy and as long as any of the vic sides manage their lists well enough they will have their supporters.
There should never have been 2 NSW or QLD sides. They will never be a destination club, you can built a 200k capacity state of the art stadium, get Dusty, Danger, Fyfe Lynch for free and still never be a destination club.

Way it is.

 

[falcons2]

Left out Lever. I've heard Melbourne called lots of things but never a destination club.

Not sure why he moved. It wasn't money, success or opportunity. Maybe just to be in Melbourne.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

I think you've got that backwards.

Clubs were given those fixtures because they were big already.

The AFL do it so they can make enough money to pay for clubs like yours.

Absolutely. That was the concept behind the maximisation model. Take advantage of big clubs, and make them 'mega-clubs' and as a result increase overall revenue for the game. The theory being that a big rich game, will be able to 'prop up' all the clubs. Trickle down economics anyone??

But as per above, I have no real issue with it as I do believe the positives are there. It's killed the integrity of the competition completely, however it could be argues that the competition would probably only include 5 or 6 clubs if the model hadn't have been introduced.


However now we're starting to see a genuine pattern of these big clubs becoming 'destination clubs' due to their crowd sizes and ANZAC Day, Dreamtime at the G, Away finals at the G etc. it's causing an issue that is counter productive to other measures that the AFL had introduced to even up the comp.

 

[MarcusP2]

Left out Lever. I've heard Melbourne called lots of things but never a destination club.

Not sure why he moved. It wasn't money, success or opportunity. Maybe just to be in Melbourne.

I'm sure that was a factor (as it is in every move).

 

[JayJ20]

Lol this is the first time in so long that a quality player nominated us