Do the equalisation methods need tweaking?

[Demonic Ascent]

You didnt answer the question.

Please tell me what else you need exactly to create a "fair competition where clubs are given the chance to succeed through equalisation of opportunity" ?

Bear in mind, we already have this in place:
Salary cap - prevents clubs from stockpiling depth & signing up all the best players

The salary cap is not pure nor regulated appropriately. COLA is being phased out but there are still 3rd party deals that some clubs benefit from more than others, there are also additional payments included in a clubs salary cap for promotional work (can't recall the name of them) and the new policy of allowing clubs to "bank" salary cap space over a 3 year period means it will be even more uneven than before. The salary floor of 95% is also an issue, particularly regarding FA but really for all player movement. The wooden spooner should not be forced to pay 95% of the salary of the premier.

National draft - fair distribution of young player talent

The draft is compromised with academies and father son selections. It is also looking to be further compromised with the reintroduction of academy zones for all clubs. Initially clubs won't have priority access to players from these zones but this will change once the zones are implemented you can guarantee it.

Seeded fixtures - harder draws for top clubs, easier draws for bottom clubs

The fixture is one of the greatest sources of inequality. Seeded fixtures which are still open to manipulation to ensure some clubs get guaranteed home games against their crosstown rivals every single year. As an example, Melbourne has only hosted Carlton and Essendon once each over the last 7-8 years. The guaranteed games (like Queens Bday, ANZAC Day, Easter Monday etc) also create an issue as do the AFL scheduling certain clubs the majority of FTA prime time games. This has impacts not just in the short term in regards to reduced matchday and sponsorship revenue, but also in the longer term with some clubs hamstrung from expanding their supporter base compared to others who can consolidate and grow their suporter base. This has a snowball effect and leads to greater divisions between the "rich" and "poor" clubs.

Uneven free agency compo - bottom clubs gain an extra top 5 pick for losing a top line player, the top clubs receive pick 18, 19 or 20

This is one of the few equalisation measures the AFL has got right. In my view they need to make further changes to FA (such as reducing the qualifying period to put more players on the market, removing/lowering the salary floor) to ensure clubs who lose FA's are actually able to put the additional cap space to use.

Luxury tax on football spending - Rich clubs can't load up on players, nor can they load up on assistant coaches

I don't really agree with this "tax". There is enough money in the comp without forcing redistribution of funds through clubs. If the AFL implemented real equalisation measures particularly as it relates to the fixture, and stopped penalising clubs for stadium agreements signed by the AFL, there wouldn't be a need to tax some clubs to redistribute to others.

Equalised annual dividends from TV rights and merchandising - Melbourne would barely make a cracker for the AFL, yet they receive the same sized cheque as Collingwood

I'd like to see evidence of this. There is an annual dividend however it doesn't take into account all merchandising as some clubs make far more off merchandising than others. TV dividends should be shared equally, each club contributes 1/18th to the comp. This is not an "equalisation" measure, this is dividends to the clubs for competing in the competition.

Competitive Balance Fund - low rating clubs are given millions in compensation to offset the prime time blockbuster matches received by the "big four" - Melbourne receive this handout despite being guaranteed a home game vs Collingwood every year on the Queen's Birthday public holiday

Some clubs are given money through the disequal funding program - but it is nowhere near as much as you make out. For instance, Melbourne makes $4.8m more than Collingwood out of the AFL distributions over 2012-2016, so less than a million a year more. When taking into account both the short AND long term ramifications of the AFL's revenue maximisation policies in regards to the fixture and their stadium arrangements this compensation is wholly inadequate. You'll also note page 8 of the Disequalisation Funding booklet attached indicates Melbourne, Richmond, North, Saints and Dogs as the worst off from the AFL's stadium arrangements.

Queens Bday is one benefit Melbourne receives from the fixture and does not make up for the rest of our financially diabolical fixtures we get every year. I would gladly forego it in the interests of a fair fixture however it should be noted Melbourne are not the only ones who benefit from this game as Collingwood receives a standalone FTA game, another game at the MCG and profits from the game due to their arrangement with the MCG which sees them operate their social club and reserved seat memberships in the Ponsford stand for their away games.

So as you can see, there are are a number of things the AFL needs to do to create a "fair competition where clubs are given the chance to succeed through equalisation of opportunity" ?

 

[Demonic Ascent]

That's 11 teams in total in the entire comp that have been in a realistic position going into finals of winning the flag in the past 8 seasons. Which is more than the apparent average we are meant to be striving for if every team is meant to be able to win a flag once over a 18 (formerly 16) year period.

This doesn't make sense - because the "average" should be 1/16 success rate doesn't mean that 11/16 finishing top 6 is a greater rate of success when only one or two of them have actually won the flag.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

I thought jeff White was one also. Seem to remember early 2000s Melbourne would alternate good and woeful years.

Jeff White was picked by Freo, Melbourne then traded for him.

We did alternate good and bad but only received a PP in 2003. We also lost draft picks in 1999 as a result of dobbing ourselves in for salary cap breaches.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

But you just said previous that every club should have a base 0f equality to start from. The northern clubs dont have this without the academies.

The base of equality is equal access to players through the draft (something the academies prohibit) and an equal salary cap to pay those players. Receiving special priority pick access to players who live in your area just because of the location of your club is not "equality of opportunity", in fact it is the exact opposite to equality. It is treating one group of clubs different to another group of clubs which is the antithesis of equalisation.

 

[Colonial]

The base of equality is equal access to players through the draft (something the academies prohibit) and an equal salary cap to pay those players. Receiving special priority pick access to players who live in your area just because of the location of your club is not "equality of opportunity", in fact it is the exact opposite to equality. It is treating one group of clubs different to another group of clubs which is the antithesis of equalisation.

But it isnt equal access. With the ratio of home based players the traditional clubs have compared to the northern clubs.

Its great to say an even draft but when the players bolt to their home state the moment they get the chance it shows how unequal it is.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

Easy to say when your state lives and breathes the game. No go home factor..

In the past few years GWS has managed to lure Ryan Griffen, Shane Mumford, Steve Johnson, Joel Patfull, Dylan Addison, Heath Shaw, Josh Hunt (not to mention luring Scully and Ward). Doesn't seem like they have any huge issue getting players to go there.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

But it isnt equal access. With the ratio of home based players the traditional clubs have compared to the northern clubs.

Its great to say an even draft but when the players bolt to their home state the moment they get the chance it shows how unequal it is.

That's a player retention issue, not a draft issue. Giving some clubs priority picks over others compromises the draft, whether that is priority picks for poor performance, father-son or academies. The bigger issue is that the AFL will expand these academies to all clubs meaning clubs in traditional locations will begin gaining priority access to players from their academies.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

Without the academies Hopper and Kennedy wouldn't even be playing footy, or at least not to such a high standard. I'd rather see them playing the game even if it is to GWS' advantage than not playing at all.

No one is saying they should get rid of the academies, but they should be run by the AFL and clubs shouldn't have priority access to those players.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

Everyone is working under the same rules the rules state if based in the north you get academies. To boost the playing numbers and juniors.
And to also curb go home factor.

They can still retain the academies, just have them run by the AFL and no priority access to clubs. Then you have the benefit of luring them home after their first contract if the go home factor is so strong. Considering there are only two clubs in NSW, compared to 10 in Vic, the ratio probably isn't as dramatic as you'd like to make out.

 

[Colonial]

They can still retain the academies, just have them run by the AFL and no priority access to clubs. Then you have the benefit of luring them home after their first contract if the go home factor is so strong. Considering there are only two clubs in NSW, compared to 10 in Vic, the ratio probably isn't as dramatic as you'd like to make out.

Its easy to show. Whats the ratio of home state players at each club. Think it shows the northern clubs are slaughtered.

 

[cryptor]

This doesn't make sense - because the "average" should be 1/16 success rate doesn't mean that 11/16 finishing top 6 is a greater rate of success when only one or two of them have actually won the flag.

Equalising the rate at which teams win flags no longer makes it a competition. It just becomes a big, long 18 year wait for your number to come up again. It's no longer a sport at that point.

It might sound biased coming from a Hawthorn supporter given our recent success but I much prefer the idea of knowing that over a certain period of time that my club will be a good chance of playing finals and that if my club has done a good enough job of recruiting and coming up with a good game plan that my team might win a flag or two or more.

And again as I've pointed out most every team has had a chance at contesting a finals series in the last 8 years. And if you look at the ones that haven't been there very often you will see a lot of problems with their management - notably with senior coaching appointments (eg. Hird, Voss, Malthouse) and allegations of tanking.

 

[Prudster]

Its easy to show. Whats the ratio of home state players at each club. Think it shows the northern clubs are slaughtered.

So why not have the AFL run the academies with no priority access to certain clubs?

 

[Colonial]

So why not have the AFL run the academies with no priority access to certain clubs?

And that gets the home grown ratio up for the northern clubs how again?

 

[Prudster]

And that gets the home grown ratio up for the northern clubs how again?

Well you see, once the number of home grown players is up to an acceptable level, those clubs have the opportunity to draft them just as WA/SA/VIC clubs have the opportunity to draft players from their state.

 

[Colonial]

Well you see, once the number of home grown players is up to an acceptable level, those clubs have the opportunity to draft them just as WA/SA/VIC clubs have the opportunity to draft players from their state.

Once again its a traditional heartland oyt there. The north isnt.

Sooo Nah. I prefer the way the AFL is allowing it to happen now.

 

[Prudster]

Once again its a traditional heartland oyt there. The north isnt.

Sooo Nah. I prefer the way the AFL is allowing it to happen now.

So the only way the academies can succeed at increasing the number of players coming from these states is if they have exclusive access to them?

 

[Colonial]

So the only way the academies can succeed at increasing the number of players coming from these states is if they have exclusive access to them?

Its actually about increasing the numbers of players from these states playing for clubs in those states.

Therefore denting go home factor.

 

[Prudster]

Its actually about increasing the numbers of players from these states playing for clubs in those states.

Therefore denting go home factor.

No but work with me here for a minute. So if GWS are running the academy, the numbers are increasing. If the AFL run the academy, will the numbers not also be increasing

 

[juddy_Like]

2 GWS academy kids went to Port last year. Wagner went to North this year at Pick 43. A few more like Chol are a chance of filtering through in the rookie draft this year too.

Academies are working. It was only last year that they had the first high profile pick, as they grow even more will filter throw to other clubs.

GWS and us missed finals and had plenty of extra picks because of players leaving to utilise for bidding - there's the reason they could gain a few decent prospects this draft - it's not because the system makes it impossible for other clubs to get players. If Sydney had another top prospect for example they'd have to let him go or risk going into serious deficit next year which would effect the retention of a solid prospect then instead.

Agreed on all fronts as I live in Sydney and see all the arguments against first hand. I'm not saying we shouldn't have them.

What I'm saying is that you have an advantage in which 14 other clubs do not directly benefit from. West Coast for example do not get direct access to remote indigenous kids from the Kimberly even though we pump money and resources into the region.

On top of the advantage of the academies, you have an incentive in the 20% discount. Isn't the incentive already the exclusive access to draft the kid you know better than any other team in the comp?

The perfect example is Jacob Hopper.

 

[Colonial]

No but work with me here for a minute. So if GWS are running the academy, the numbers are increasing. If the AFL run the academy, will the numbers not also be increasing

In the AFL as a whole maybe. (They used to run something similar)
But they wouldnt increase at the level they are now.

 

[Colonial]

Agreed on all fronts as I live in Sydney and see all the arguments against first hand. I'm not saying we shouldn't have them.

What I'm saying is that you have an advantage in which 14 other clubs do not directly benefit from. West Coast for example do not get direct access to remote indigenous kids from the Kimberly even though we pump money and resources into the region.

On top of the advantage of the academies, you have an incentive in the 20% discount. Isn't the incentive already the exclusive access to draft the kid you know better than any other team in the comp?

The perfect example is Jacob Hopper.

If you didnt notice. There was no exclusive.

 

[Prudster]

In the AFL as a whole maybe. (They used to run something similar)
But they wouldnt increase at the level they are now.

So the one and only reason that numbers are increasing is because certain clubs have exclusive access as a result of paying for the academies?

 

[juddy_Like]

If you didnt notice. There was no exclusive.

Call it what you will but if I had final say on where a kid played , I'll be pretty chuffed too.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

Its easy to show. Whats the ratio of home state players at each club. Think it shows the northern clubs are slaughtered.

Show it then.

Nb. Home state players at each club is irrelevant - its should be home state players in the AFL as a ratio to each club.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

Equalising the rate at which teams win flags no longer makes it a competition. It just becomes a big, long 18 year wait for your number to come up again. It's no longer a sport at that point.

It might sound biased coming from a Hawthorn supporter given our recent success but I much prefer the idea of knowing that over a certain period of time that my club will be a good chance of playing finals and that if my club has done a good enough job of recruiting and coming up with a good game plan that my team might win a flag or two or more.

And again as I've pointed out most every team has had a chance at contesting a finals series in the last 8 years. And if you look at the ones that haven't been there very often you will see a lot of problems with their management - notably with senior coaching appointments (eg. Hird, Voss, Malthouse) and allegations of tanking.

I'm not saying that every club should win a flag every 18 years, just that the way you've measured success is off. Finishing top 6 doesn't mean your close to competing for a flag - Carlton finished top 6 in 2013. Even top 4, North was top 4 the last 2 years but I think they're still a fair way off the flag.