Do the equalisation methods need tweaking?

[Demonic Ascent]

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.

Haha of course you do because it's set up to specifically advantage your club to the disadvantage of 14 other clubs. That is not equalisation, in fact it is the exact opposite.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

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

Therefore denting go home factor.

Why? If NSW academy players are drafted by a non-NSW clubs then the NSW clubs will have an opportunity to lure them back home if go-home factors are as strong as you say they are. And considering there's only 2 NSW clubs you have a far greater opportunity to get homesick players back compared to the Vic clubs who need to compete with 9 other clubs for a homesick players services.

 

[Colonial]

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.

Actually for clubs who have a very low ratio its very relivent

Means we have to pay overs to keep players at the club.

 

[Colonial]

Haha of course you do because it's set up to specifically advantage your club to the disadvantage of 14 other clubs. That is not equalisation, in fact it is the exact opposite.

Of course you think that way.
Without the academies you get equal access to the norths players and get the multitude of vic players wanting to go home to come to your club benefiting you.

 

[Colonial]

Why? If NSW academy players are drafted by a non-NSW clubs then the NSW clubs will have an opportunity to lure them back home if go-home factors are as strong as you say they are. And considering there's only 2 NSW clubs you have a far greater opportunity to get homesick players back compared to the Vic clubs who need to compete with 9 other clubs for a homesick players services.

We are doing you a favour. We take our academy players. Leaves more star kids from vic for you guys.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

Actually for clubs who have a very low ratio its very relivent

Means we have to pay overs to keep players at the club.

What are the respective ratios? And no its not really relevant, you may lose a WA player for instance back home but you gain a NSW player back assuming the ratios of home state players to clubs across the league per club are proportionate.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

Of course you think that way.
Without the academies you get equal access to the norths players.

That's right and that's the crux of the issue - equality across the comp. Equality of access to players across the draft. You want to limit that equality by giving priority access to players for some clubs just because if where they are based. Sydney hasn't had trouble retaining players or performing. Hell they got two of the biggest recruits over the last few years and have retained guys like Kennedy and Parker despite offers coming from other clubs. And if you listen to the Swans supporters it's got nothing to do with COLA either.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

We are doing you a favour. We take our academy players. Leaves more star kids from vic for you guys.

I'd rather have access to the best player available regardless of where they're from. You know, seeing as this is meant to be a professional competition and not some amateur country league and all.

 

[Prudster]

Of course you think that way.
Without the academies you get equal access to the norths players and get the multitude of vic players wanting to go home to come to your club benefiting you.

So what about a team like Sydney atm? They are not having issues with the go home factor, they are finding it pretty easy to lure players to them, and they are getting highly rated draft picks for far cheaper than most other teams can. Sydney are obviously a very well run club, but the fact is that while all these factors are going their way, it gives them a huge leg up over the rest of the competition.

 

[Colonial]

So what about a team like Sydney atm? They are not having issues with the go home factor, they are finding it pretty easy to lure players to them, and they are getting highly rated draft picks for far cheaper than most other teams can. Sydney are obviously a very well run club, but the fact is that while all these factors are going their way, it gives them a huge leg up over the rest of the competition.

So we should stop development just because it has worked for 2 players out of how many years again. Talk about jumping the shark.

Besides which. Without the cola to overpay stars the swans need nsw players.

 

[Prudster]

So we should stop development just because it has worked for 2 players out of how many years again. Talk about jumping the shark.

Besides which. Without the cola to overpay stars the swans need nsw players.

No, but we should consider that when a team is struggling and losing players to their home state, the academies provide a balancing force, and when a team is going well and losing nobody, the academies provide a competitive advantage over other clubs. This is an obvious flaw in the system, and could very well make a huge difference when it comes to Sydney dropping down the ladder, or Heeney/Mills likely being better than the pick 18/16 (or whatever they gave up) and keeping them in contention. Where Sydney is getting Mills, Hawthorn is getting a Burton. While draft picks are no guarantee, there's a reason one went at pick 3, and the other at pick 19, and it is giving Sydney an advantage over the clubs around them.

 

[Colonial]

No, but we should consider that when a team is struggling and losing players to their home state, the academies provide a balancing force, and when a team is going well and losing nobody, the academies provide a competitive advantage over other clubs. This is an obvious flaw in the system, and could very well make a huge difference when it comes to Sydney dropping down the ladder, or Heeney/Mills likely being better than the pick 18/16 (or whatever they gave up) and keeping them in contention. Where Sydney is getting Mills, Hawthorn is getting a Burton. While draft picks are no guarantee, there's a reason one went at pick 3, and the other at pick 19, and it is giving Sydney an advantage over the clubs around them.

You mean like advantages that big deals like tassie is for hawthorn compared to what other clubs can get?

 

[HODGEYROAD]

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 :-/

Bad example considering we lost the best forward of this generation through free agency.

 

[Prudster]

You mean like advantages that big deals like tassie is for hawthorn compared to what other clubs can get?

You mean the partnership we've been nurturing for over a decade? Correct me if i'm wrong, but several clubs played in Tassie, but only Hawthorn have stuck it out, even when we no longer needed them and could have justified leaving while we won 4 flags. But tell me, is Canberra a huge advantage for GWS? Or NZ for Saint Kilda? All clubs have opportunities to sell games, some clubs just put more into it and that commitment is returned in spades.

But you're going off topic here. How can you justify an on field advantage when Sydney aren't losing anybody?

 

[Colonial]

You mean the partnership we've been nurturing for over a decade? Correct me if i'm wrong, but several clubs played in Tassie, but only Hawthorn have stuck it out, even when we no longer needed them and could have justified leaving while we won 4 flags. But tell me, is Canberra a huge advantage for GWS? Or NZ for Saint Kilda? All clubs have opportunities to sell games, some clubs just put more into it and that commitment is returned in spades.

But you're going off topic here. How can you justify an on field advantage when Sydney aren't losing anybody?

The partnership youve been nurturing? Like how the Swans have been and more with the academy?

An advantage is an advantage wether off field or on.

 

[mfcrox]

Bad example considering we lost the best forward of this generation through free agency.

You could have matched the bid... you chose not to, so that is your problem. Melbourne for example lost Frawley, and had no chance to match bids because he was unrestricted; then he ends up at Hawthorn who gave up nothing for an All Australian defender, PLUS were able to keep draft picks that they would once upon a time they would have needed to trade for a player of that calibre.

Anyway, I have said it 1000 times already... the system is a joke. I am sick of replying to this thread.

 

[cryptor]

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.

Yes, I agree, just because you're top 4/6 doesn't mean you're as good a chance to win the flag as a top 4/6 team from other years or even in that current year. The point is that the team is within striking distance and something of a chance. North supporters this year might not have thought they would win the flag but there was enough there for them to have genuine hope that if things fell their way they might get there. They've also got more than a reasonable chance again in 2016. In hindsight if their current era ends without a flag they might get angry and call foul but right now in the moment there is enough belief and they've got a decent chance.

This is all equalisation should be achieving. Hope and a reasonably good chance of winning a flag within an 18 year period. Some will have less chances and others more due to a wide combination of factors that are the subject to a wide degree of luck (drafting for example) as well as the prowess of those in charge of the club at the time. Hawthorn have suffered some lean times as well in the past couple decades on and off the field due to who has been at the helm. We're fortunate that the stars have aligned with our coach, presidents and CEOs being very good at their jobs during this period. Melbourne on the other hand have been unlucky to have off field heads who have allegedly instructed a past coach to tank games for picks and that they've appointed coaches who either weren't the right fit or weren't given the right support (though things look to be finally turning).

 

[Prudster]

The partnership youve been nurturing? Like how the Swans have been and more with the academy?

An advantage is an advantage wether off field or on.

No, an on field advantage is a far greater advantage than an off field advantage. This is especially true when you consider we are getting about 3 million for four games in Tassie, and are now paying over a million in equalisation tax. So our sacrifice is now going into other clubs coffers.

But once again, this doesn't address the Sydney advantage. Consider for a moment the Western Bulldogs. If the Western Bulldogs were in the top 4, then Sydney would be getting an on field advantage through their academies, and the Bulldogs get nothing.

You could have matched the bid... you chose not to, so that is your problem. Melbourne for example lost Frawley, and had no chance to match bids because he was unrestricted; then he ends up at Hawthorn who gave up nothing for an All Australian defender, PLUS were able to keep draft picks that they would once upon a time they would have needed to trade for a player of that calibre.

Anyway, I have said it 1000 times already... the system is a joke. I am sick of replying to this thread.

We were able to keep the draft picks we should have given for Frawley? Do you think we would have gotten more, or less, for Franklin than we would have given up for Frawley? Seems to me in this scenario, Sydney won by getting Franklin for free, Melbourne won by getting big overs for Frawley, and Hawthorn lost by getting **** all for Franklin, and in turn giving up nothing for Frawley. Since Franklin >>> Frawley + pick 18, that's a loss in my books.

 

[HODGEYROAD]

You could have matched the bid... you chose not to, so that is your problem. Melbourne for example lost Frawley, and had no chance to match bids because he was unrestricted; then he ends up at Hawthorn who gave up nothing for an All Australian defender, PLUS were able to keep draft picks that they would once upon a time they would have needed to trade for a player of that calibre.

Anyway, I have said it 1000 times already... the system is a joke. I am sick of replying to this thread.

You got compensated with a no 3 draft selection which is more than you probably would have received in a trade so I wouldn't complain and also tough to match a bid when the other side has a higher salary cap than yours.... Reality is Free agency has not strengthened Hawthorn so that was a bad example... Im not saying Free agency is right though.

 

[HODGEYROAD]

No, an on field advantage is a far greater advantage than an off field advantage. This is especially true when you consider we are getting about 3 million for four games in Tassie, and are now paying over a million in equalisation tax. So our sacrifice is now going into other clubs coffers.

But once again, this doesn't address the Sydney advantage. Consider for a moment the Western Bulldogs. If the Western Bulldogs were in the top 4, then Sydney would be getting an on field advantage through their academies, and the Bulldogs get nothing.



We were able to keep the draft picks we should have given for Frawley? Do you think we would have gotten more, or less, for Franklin than we would have given up for Frawley? Seems to me in this scenario, Sydney won by getting Franklin for free, Melbourne won by getting big overs for Frawley, and Hawthorn lost by getting **** all for Franklin, and in turn giving up nothing for Frawley. Since Franklin >>> Frawley + pick 18, that's a loss in my books.

Exactly on the open market Buddy would be worth Frawley and a top 10 pick comfortably...

 

[juddy_Like]

So if the northern clubs lost priority access to the academy kids, would it stop Australian rules football in NSW/Qld?

 

[Komrade_Tiger]

Well, why dont they go for the middle ground - the Academy club gets priority access to the player they NOMINATE from that crop of academy kids and the rest are into the draft as normal as in open season on the rest
Obviously the clubs will choose who they rate as the highest/best kid so they are still getting a return on investment whilst growing the player base as is the main goal

 

[Mat Mann]

the bidding system is the way to go, unfortunately its in the games interest that some of these NSW/QLD kids stay in home state to help promote,

but,

Sydney getting Mills @ 3 for 33, 36, 37 and 43 is a rort and needs addressing asap. There isn't a club alive that would cash in those picks for #3. EVER.
points system needs addressing.

 

[Kwality]

What are the respective ratios? And no its not really relevant, you may lose a WA player for instance back home but you gain a NSW player back assuming the ratios of home state players to clubs across the league per club are proportionate.

What a load of rubbish & you do/should know it nic, WA & SA contribute a surplus to the player pool, so does Tas & NT - tell us about Vic, do they take more than they contribute?

 

[Kwality]

the bidding system is the way to go, unfortunately its in the games interest that some of these NSW/QLD kids stay in home state to help promote,

but,

Sydney getting Mills @ 3 for 33, 36, 37 and 43 is a rort and needs addressing asap. There isn't a club alive that would cash in those picks for #3. EVER.
points system needs addressing.

Its called growing the game, its good for the game.