Do the equalisation methods need tweaking?

[Pugz89]

Well, piss off free agency for starters.

Given players are nominating a club every time they get traded, there i hardly a need for it anymore anyway. Few years back, a player simply asked to be traded, which meant there was a chance that they may end up at a club they dont want, now, that is very, very unlikely.

 

[Abomination]

Seriously, what is the point of free agency or reducing the years of service limit when players just nominate their new clubs after 1 or 2 years from being drafted? An absolute farce and the AFL do nothing.

I've got zero doubts the next step for the AFLPA will be demanding the salary cap be eradicated.

 

[NathanMX]

Free agency rewards the disloyal. Do you really want people like that at your club? Nick Riewoldt was offered overs many times and never contemplated leaving us because he was loyal. Goddard could have stayed and earnt the extra year with on field performance but took the guaranteed extra dollars.

Who would you rather have at your club? Rather not have merchant mercenaries at my club who are looking just to see out their first contract then move on. Strength through loyalty is our motto and in 100 years Brendon Goddard will be irrelevant but people like Robert Harvey, Lenny Hayes and Nick Riewoldt won't be.

 

[TheTrademark]

I reckon that when players don't get paid market rate and take unders to keep a group together, the salary cap fails.

If you play gf/finals, each player in the 22 should get a 20k-50k increase in salary for say 3 years. This forces a player or two out of the top clubs into the lower clubs and moves teams up and down the ladder much more quickly. The salary cap becomes more of an immediate issue and all the clubs will work harder to lock juniors in to contract and develop them and then evens the comp again.

I know there a flaws in this but it makes the salary cap more relevant.

 

[NathanMX]

I reckon that when players don't get paid market rate and take unders to keep a group together, the salary cap fails.

If you play gf/finals, each player in the 22 should get a 20k-50k increase in salary for say 3 years. This forces a player or two out of the top clubs into the lower clubs and moves teams up and down the ladder much more quickly. The salary cap becomes more of an immediate issue and all the clubs will work harder to lock juniors in to contract and develop them and then evens the comp again.

I know there a flaws in this but it makes the salary cap more relevant.

Don't clubs already have to delist a certain number of players anyway? They would simply incorporate the increases into those players.

 

[TheTrademark]

Don't clubs already have to delist a certain number of players anyway? They would simply incorporate the increases into those players.

I meant the $20-50k to be paid to each player that actually plays in the finals ie best 22.

As in a $440k increase in top player payments for each finals series to the top 22 players. So you either drop a top 22 player or kill your depth and gamble no injuries.

(I dont know the best number the money should be that keeps it within reason but still has the effect desired)

 

[NathanMX]

I meant the $20-50k to be paid to each player that actually plays in the finals ie best 22.

(I dont know the best number the money should be that keeps it within reason but still has the effect desired)

Still rather not have disloyal people at my club, so if my players wanna go to the Hawks or your club feel free. The players who will be remembered here are Harvey, Loewe, Riewoldt, Hayes, Burke, not Goddard and Ball.

 

[TheTrademark]

Still rather not have disloyal people at my club, so if my players wanna go to the Hawks or your club feel free. The players who will be remembered here are Harvey, Loewe, Riewoldt, Hayes, Burke, not Goddard and Ball.

I agree. With players having so much power to determine teams that they are traded to and free agency, it makes teams in a bit more power too. it does risk teams trading team favourites though...

 

[NathanMX]

I agree. With players having so much power to determine teams that they are traded to and free agency, it makes teams in a bit more power too. it does risk teams trading team favourites though...

I know your fans would respect people like Hannebery, Jack, Goodes and even far back to Paul Kelly more then people like Kurt Tippett because those guys would have got bigger money offers too like ours and refused them. So the favourites generally stay unless they wanna leave but some are bolted to the club and never would have left no matter the offer like Roo for us and Goodesy and Kelly for you

 

[TheTrademark]

Only have to look at the members' response in Roos vs Wallace for coach in 2003. Clubs do love their own... (but i know some supporters would like success at any cost too.(we do think lockett was one of ours though...haha))

 

[The King!]

Free agency rewards the disloyal. Do you really want people like that at your club? Nick Riewoldt was offered overs many times and never contemplated leaving us because he was loyal. Goddard could have stayed and earnt the extra year with on field performance but took the guaranteed extra dollars.

Who would you rather have at your club? Rather not have merchant mercenaries at my club who are looking just to see out their first contract then move on. Strength through loyalty is our motto and in 100 years Brendon Goddard will be irrelevant but people like Robert Harvey, Lenny Hayes and Nick Riewoldt won't be.

Id rather have whoever wins us a flag

I think Nick Riewoldt is a superstar and loyal, but those guys you list never delivered a flag

Wouldnt you rather recruit whoever you need to win?

 

[NathanMX]

Id rather have whoever wins us a flag

I think Nick Riewoldt is a superstar and loyal, but those guys you list never delivered a flag

Wouldnt you rather recruit whoever you need to win?

Nah Robert Harvey and Nick Riewoldt just as big to me as Darrel Baldock was, just like I think Paul Kelly would be as respected by your fans and club as any premiership player you have too

 

[Kwality]

I'm not disputing any of that, was just pointing out that your examples weren't really relevant. You referred to Brisbane and Geelong's success during periods when "there was a salary cap and a draft" as if to make the point that dominance will occur even when strict equalisation measures are in place. I was just showing that those measures were compromised then as now so we have never really had an uncompromised competition.

Time it was recognised where the equalisation is used, i.e pumping up the $s of the Melbourne clubs* - to quote one of our (self) esteemed posters, who undelines clearly my point:
Its an uneven fixture that allows the rich clubs in Melbourne to get richer and keeps the small clubs small.
http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threa...-next-team-s-be.1108497/page-24#post-42029053

* the equalisation payments will not be clarified in the Annual Reports of the recipients ... their fans will fall for the PR pieces suggesting their club made a profit.

Here is the tweak, get the clubs that benefit from the FIXture (see The Wookies comments above), those who profit to pay the equalisation - free loading on WA fans is hardly equalisation, its free loading at the expense of development of the game.

Oh the inequity .....

 

[Demonic Ascent]

Time it was recognised where the equalisation is used, i.e pumping up the $s of the Melbourne clubs* - to quote one of our (self) esteemed posters, who undelines clearly my point:
Its an uneven fixture that allows the rich clubs in Melbourne to get richer and keeps the small clubs small.
http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threa...-next-team-s-be.1108497/page-24#post-42029053

* the equalisation payments will not be clarified in the Annual Reports of the recipients ... their fans will fall for the PR pieces suggesting their club made a profit.

Here is the tweak, get the clubs that benefit from the FIXture (see The Wookies comments above), those who profit to pay the equalisation - free loading on WA fans is hardly equalisation, its free loading at the expense of development of the game.

Oh the inequity .....

OK - and what does any of that have to do with my post that you quoted?

 

[Kwality]

OK - and what does any of that have to do with my post that you quoted?

Quite so nic ...

 

[Snoref]

COLA has allowed you to lure players like Franklin and Tippett, Academy has already given you Heeney, will get Mills this year. Teams that end up in the top 4 don't need or deserve a leg up on the other teams trying to catch them.

And what priority access to Hawthorn??? We traded for Hodge thank you very much!!

 

[Lemma]

I just don't like how Sydney and Brisbane get two bites of the cherry with Academy and FS. They should get one or the other.

 

[Pessimistic]

I reckon that when players don't get paid market rate and take unders to keep a group together, the salary cap fails.

If you play gf/finals, each player in the 22 should get a 20k-50k increase in salary for say 3 years. This forces a player or two out of the top clubs into the lower clubs and moves teams up and down the ladder much more quickly. The salary cap becomes more of an immediate issue and all the clubs will work harder to lock juniors in to contract and develop them and then evens the comp again.

I know there a flaws in this but it makes the salary cap more relevant.

Hawthorn was discussed in this context. We did lose buddy which meant we raisedthe salary of other players

 

[Demonic Ascent]

Quite so nic ...

I seriously have no idea what you're talking about half the time. It's for the birds, man.

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

Why do the AFL continue to bang on about equalization when just about every system they have in place counter-acts any chance we have of achieving this? They think all they need to do is have some clubs contribute to a tax ... oops, I meant fund, some paying more than others, then their work is done. Typical AFL, so simplistic and so flawed.

The more the AFL works towards "equalization", the further they move away from it. How can you ever achieve equality when not all clubs are working under the same rules, salary caps, etc? When some clubs continue to work their backsides off when others just sit back and exist on AFL hand outs? When free agency allows players to play for the club of their choice? When clubs are allowed to use draft picks as bait at the trade table?

Let's face it. We will never achieve any form of equalization in the AFL because some clubs work harder than others, and always will.

 

[Seedsfan]

Fixing free agency would be a good start.

Right now you can be Hawthorn, and have a free agent come to your club and fill a void in your starting 18, and also keep the first round draft pick that once upon a time you would have had to trade away. So they get potentially two gun players for the cost of one.

That's fair :-/

Lol you got pick 3 for Frawley that was way more than he was worth so stop pretending you got the rough end of the stick

 

[GoTheSwannies]

The thing is. There are flaws with the system. But no system will ever be perfect.

The afl sets rules to try to achieve equalization but then clubs try to exploit the rules to gain an edge on the rest of the comp. You see it in all industries and it's difficult to counter.

The player movement is a real issue, and one that I don't like seeing, but the reality is they are human beings so there's a responsibility to ensure they're looked after. But it has swung too far in their favour. I particularly don't like seeing 2nd year players choosing their clubs of choice.

 

[Mitchell54]

Why do the AFL continue to bang on about equalization when just about every system they have in place counter-acts any chance we have of achieving this? They think all they need to do is have some clubs contribute to a tax ... oops, I meant fund, some paying more than others, then their work is done. Typical AFL, so simplistic and so flawed.

The more the AFL works towards "equalization", the further they move away from it. How can you ever achieve equality when not all clubs are working under the same rules, salary caps, etc? When some clubs continue to work their backsides off when others just sit back and exist on AFL hand outs? When free agency allows players to play for the club of their choice? When clubs are allowed to use draft picks as bait at the trade table?

Let's face it. We will never achieve any form of equalization in the AFL because some clubs work harder than others, and always will.

Put in any system the clubs with the better management(the clubs at the top end of the ladder usually) will make the best of it.

 

[GoTheSwannies]

Put in any system the clubs with the better management(the clubs at the top end of the ladder usually) will make the best of it.

Exactly. You have to think outside the square to see how you can best operate within the rules to achieve success. A poorly run club will lack the initiative and know how to make the most of their advantages and cover their disadvantages.

One of the issues is some clubs are more disadvantaged than other which makes their task tougher.

 

[mfcrox]

Lol you got pick 3 for Frawley that was way more than he was worth so stop pretending you got the rough end of the stick

I'm not saying we got the raw end of the stick... but cheers for commenting on something from about 2mths ago.

I'm happy with Brayshaw obviously, but I think the system is still flawed. You have the premiership team poaching experienced key players from bottom teams.

Yeah, we got Pick 3 out of it, but what happens if we had a real deficiency down back, and Frawley left? Free Agency compensates us with a draft pick to draft an 18yr old key back that will take 5yrs minimum to reach Frawley level.

The whole system is flawed... supporters from Hawthorn, Geelong, Sydney, and Collingwood just don't see it like that though, because you're not at the bottom and you're a 'destination' club for these free agents