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

[MC Extra Dollop]

How would lowering the salary cap help with retaining profits didn't thirteen clubs make a loss and then the others if you make more money have to give it to the s**t clubs anyway


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

I'm comparing it to overseas sports where some teams were terrible for literally decades and the owners just paid the bare minimum, let any talented free agent walk and ended up running at a profit because the franchise ran on the smell of an oily tag and people would still come along to watch the stars on the away team.

The LA Clippers ran like this for years and closer to home, people might be surprised that before being taken over, Melbourne Heart was one of very few A-League clubs to not run at a loss.

 

[Carringbush2010]

But why are they 'big clubs'?

Largely because of the AFL's maximisation model.

Huge crowds, prime time slots, MCG, Blockbusters.

And that my friend is a result of 100 + years of history for those clubs, that's why you have your so called maximisation model - bums on seats is the goal not an even competition because that would be impossible

 

[demondavey]

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.

I've tipped you for the flag next year. Add Motlop and Watts and you'll be pretty close I'd say. Watts will be great in a new environment.

 

[Carringbush2010]

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....

I wouldn't exactly call Collingwood a destination club right now, certainly not as much as in the halcyon years

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

I bet the state government wish it was the AFL's half a billion spent

But I think this adds to my view.

I think that due largely to external triggers (the government and/or the AFL setting up the Adelaide Oval) Port have been able to create this 'big occasion' vibe around their club.

A big chunk was their own doing, but the opportunity arose through external support.

And that my friend is a result of 100 + years of history for those clubs, that's why you have your so called maximisation model - bums on seats is the goal not an even competition because that would be impossible

Absolutely agree.

And I don't necessarily object to it.


However if, as I suspect, a trend is surfacing where players choose these 'big clubs' not because they're better clubs than others necessarily - but because they get the 'big games' every second week due to the AFL's fixturing, then I think this will very quickly become a big issue for the AFL.

 

[Scorpus]

Remove the salary floor and crap clubs would probably have a lot more money to spend, making bigger free agency plays possible

 

[tigernsw]

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....

Grow some balls

 

[demondavey]

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.

Whilst I agree with your comments from a capacity perspective, I disagree that the GF must always be played at the MCG. For a truly national competition there must be equal representation of GF venues across the country, but each state needs to have a stadium with capacity like the MCG does.

I see a potential issue right now in developing states, NSW and QLD, but think that Adelaide and Perth need big capacity stadiums. It needs to become like the NFL where the super bowl is rotated, and stadiums allow big crowds.

 

[demondavey]

Happy to be wrong.
I have know idea what anyone offered him in terms of $$$ but I'd expect it was a lot. If Adelaide didn't offer big coin then perhaps they didn't rate him that high and to get two first rounders is a good trade.
Let's conclude; Lever left for money and not to a 'destination club'.

I think Melbourne will change that mindset once we play finals regularly or win a flag.

 

[demondavey]

Isn't he getting like 800k as a 22 year old 2nd tall defender?

Yes. He is also worth the investment though. We have a pretty decent backline and Lever will be allowed to play as he plays, he won't be lumbered with a power forward each week and can intercept, run, create and be damaging.

 

[demondavey]

So what's your point if you're not?

He doesn't have to complain to make a point

 

[demondavey]

Agreed. It's been interesting to see Port work first on keeping their core and then using that stability to attract.

2018 premiers. Bookmark it now.

 

[demondavey]

Unfortunately that's a fact of life. Some towns are more appealing to live in. Some schools more appealing to go to for example.

Unappealing clubs need to work harder to make themselves more appealing. Culture is more important than natural talent. Good people make good clubs. Get the right people in and players want to stay. You can see how much the vibe around the Lions has changed simply by getting Noble and Fagan there.

Yes I agree having access to the biggest games is a draw card for bigger clubs but most would prefer the opportunity to win a flag than play on Anzac Day. Get the culture right, get good people in the right roles and the rest will follow

Agree. Culture is critical. Someone mentioned Geelong at the start of this century, pretty much a basket case. Then 2004 they started playing finals again, and 2007 they started a foundation of achieving success every year. Top 4 regulars since last flag as well.

Roos did a stellar job organising Sydney, and they've become a very consistent Finals performer since 2003. Played in 5 GF since 05 winning 2.

Hawthorn? Well they speak for themselves. Good recruiting in the 01 and 04 draft, as well as as good selections late in the draft in other years and also trading.

Melbourne definitely has a better feel about it now I think, Port have a pretty decent list, and Adelaide have always been a side thereabouts re finals.

Culture is critical. You can see why Brisbane has started playing better, Fagan has been a breath off fresh air, and now Luke Hodge will join them to provide some pretty valuable experience and insight.

 

[Carringbush2010]

But I think this adds to my view.

I think that due largely to external triggers (the government and/or the AFL setting up the Adelaide Oval) Port have been able to create this 'big occasion' vibe around their club.

A big chunk was their own doing, but the opportunity arose through external support.

Absolutely agree.

And I don't necessarily object to it.


However if, as I suspect, a trend is surfacing where players choose these 'big clubs' not because they're better clubs than others necessarily - but because they get the 'big games' every second week due to the AFL's fixturing, then I think this will very quickly become a big issue for the AFL.

If you're saying that players only want to play for clubs who play big games then that would be a rather simplistic view, it'd be a combination of things and would differ from player to player. For mine it's success and money the biggest factors not big games

 

[Rob]

Remove the salary floor and crap clubs would probably have a lot more money to spend, making bigger free agency plays possible

I'm not sure about this. Surely crap clubs would be front loading their contracts to buggery, giving them massive warchests for future years. If they're not and paying their bog ordinary players big dollars over many years, then it means they're run by idiots.

 

[demondavey]

Players also want to play for clubs that have really good media and commercial exposure. They want to be seen in the media and in big games to bolster their profile for a career post footy.

Don't discount that either.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

If you're saying that players only want to play for clubs who play big games then that would be a rather simplistic view, it'd be a combination of things and would differ from player to player. For mine it's success and money the biggest factors not big games

My point is that money isn't as big a factor as the AFL presumed.

And that there is a trend surfacing, and in my opinion it will snowball to a degree, where 'big games' become the biggest factor for most players.

 

[PowerForGood]

2018 premiers. Bookmark it now.

Not likely. But thanks.

 

[marty36]

My point is that money isn't as big a factor as the AFL presumed.

And that there is a trend surfacing, and in my opinion it will snowball to a degree, where 'big games' become the biggest factor for most players.

Abolish the salary cap and where do you think destination clubs would be


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Racing line]

I think geelong will always be a destination club so long as we keep churning out good players from the falcons. Even then we get players like zac smith, zac tuhoy, jared rivers and even lids (we dodged a bullet there anyway) who arent from the region or even the state, so its partly our region and partly because we are a bloody good club.

I dont know how clubs like the qld and nsw ones are going to attract players. They dont have many come through and the ones that do are happy in traditional afl states or theyre frok country areas like reverina so going "home" wouldn't be to sydney.

At the end of the day sometimes its just not gonna be fair or even. Still i would expect clubs like port and crows to attract local players back but apart from the ballsed up gibbs effort last year when did they nab a high profile local? Probably scotty thompson or maybe sauce jacobs. Betts doesnt count because carlton shafted him and he practically begged them to stay before he moved on. Port land plenty though.

 

[Ancient Tiger]

Whilst I agree with your comments from a capacity perspective, I disagree that the GF must always be played at the MCG. For a truly national competition there must be equal representation of GF venues across the country, but each state needs to have a stadium with capacity like the MCG does.

I see a potential issue right now in developing states, NSW and QLD, but think that Adelaide and Perth need big capacity stadiums. It needs to become like the NFL where the super bowl is rotated, and stadiums allow big crowds.

I never said they must play the GF at the MCG BUT there is the small thing about a contractual obligation with the MCC which forces the AFL to play there. So as long as that is present, teams have to be prepared to have the personnel and game plan that suits the MCG. I also can't see them getting out of that obligation in future contracts as the MCC have them over a barrel in a way.

 

[Crankyhawk]

You've played one final at Kardinia park in 114 years.
Let it go

And that one was a mistake by the AFL. They need to own that it was an error and bar KP from ever getting finals until it has capacity equal to Etihad's. Or geelong can choose to leave competition. Whatever.

 

[Simon_Says]

EFA

Thats it, with our Melbourne Grammer Blazers, an pipes filled with smoke. Our Land Rovers w roof racks for our September snow trip

"Destination Club"

[/QUOTE]

 

[LeverPuller]

Pretty sure there is plenty they can do. Dreamtime at the 'G was the biggest drawing H&A fixture outside of ANZAC Day this year. A decade ago neither it nor Indigenous round existed. All it took was an idea from Sheedy and one Saturday night game (there's 40 a year of these), now it is a 70k+ game.

Also ANZAC eve was sitting there for 20 years after Essendon vs Collingwood started up before Richmond and Melbourne had a go at it.

Clubs just need to show some imagination and see what happens. Then again, perhaps not all clubs have the supporter bases capable of making the most of this...

Weirdly, it was actually 3rd...by literally one person.

ANZAC Day: 87,685
ANZAC Eve: 85,657
Dreamtime: 85,656

Doesn't really have much of a point, but figured it was a cool little stat.

 

[kranky al]

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.

Design a game plan to win on a ground you rarely play and even rarer play good clubs at.

Weve spent the last ten years playing melbourne there as cellar dwellers

Every other ground in australia bar the gabba is a heap skinnier.