Do the equalisation methods need tweaking?

[mfcrox]

We also lost Buddy to free agency and got pick 18.
If you lost your best player and got pick 18 you'd be on the bottom for another 10 years.
Do your research before sprouting crap.

What's that got to do with anything? Because you have an entire squad playing for unders, you can well and truly cover someone like Franklin as was shown.

Were you under compensated for losing Franklin, hell yes... but as the last two years have shown, it has barely impacted you.

You see the world from the top of your throne, and that is well and good... however, when you're a bottom team that see's Hawthorn get Frawley and still keep their first round draft pick in the same draft, it is like what the hell!?

 

[Prudster]

FA compensation confines clubs to rebuilding. Instead of possibly keeping onto a player, the lure of compensation means they let that FA go to a challenger. It creates a two tiered competition.

The problem with this is that it takes 8 years for players to become a free agent. How many clubs don't make finals, or don't show promise of making finals over an 8 year span? Can you really argue against players wanting out after 8 years of suffering through that?

 

[Mick39]

The problem with this is that it takes 8 years for players to become a free agent. How many clubs don't make finals, or don't show promise of making finals over an 8 year span? Can you really argue against players wanting out after 8 years of suffering through that?

Goddard is a good example. He played in finals & grand finals at St. Kilda. When he was due to become a FA, they effectively pushed him out the door because that helped their rebuild by getting a high pick.

The reason there is FA compensation is because the AFL are scared the lower tier clubs will be r*ped and pillaged by the bigger clubs. Compensation though is confining clubs to rebuild through that carrot and they themselves can't get FA's because compensation is diluted if they bring in a FA.

 

[Rob]

Give struggling teams a supplementary list that they can add players prior to the rookie draft which is paid for by their normal cap.

Eg every year you miss finals you get an extra space on your sup list if you want up to say 8. If Melbourne has 12 players outside their normal list and are turning over 8-10 while hawthorn has just 4 rookies turning over 1-2 it gives them a much better chance at finding a player or two without providing huge incentive to tank.

I'd tweak that a bit and just allow unlimited list numbers. The restraint is the salary cap. If your cap can only fit 35 players then so be it. If it can fit 50 then you can have 50.

What that should do is allow the weaker clubs a larger list - they no longer have to play their spud players big dollars and can instead draft more kids, increasing the likelihood of finding decent players.

 

[Bluelegs]

Two teams need to be culled. The standard of football is getting worse every year.

GWS and Gold Coast. Redraft all their players. It's where all this mess started.

 

[Mick39]

GWS and Gold Coast. Redraft all their players. It's where all this mess started.

Agreed. Just too many clubs and the talent base can't sustain 18 clubs.

Would anyone care if GWS or GC were no longer in the AFL?

 

[Demonic Ascent]

What you're saying is a complete nonsense.

Is this the same melbourne that is so hard up on its salary cap after affording its star studded playing list that it is reputed to be offering Dangerfield over a million a season.

Melbourne did not want Frawley there, they wanted the compensation pick his leaving would bring. Why were melbourne unable to match the Hawthorn offer which was modest at 2.2m over 4 years and was dubious as to whether it should have been band 1 compensation but the AFL was always going to engineer a priority pick for melbourne. Yea, that's right they choose not to match the offer.

Read the post again and understand the rules before spouting off rubbish.

Melbourne were unable to match the offer for Frawley because Frawley was classified as an Unrestricted Free Agent by the AFL.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

FA compensation confines clubs to rebuilding. Instead of possibly keeping onto a player, the lure of compensation means they let that FA go to a challenger. It creates a two tiered competition.

Come on, players who decide to are going to leave whether there is compo attached or not. You can't tell me that compo is the reason clubs can't hold on to FA's. Look at Dangerfield, Adelaide will likely match the Geelong offer but he's already out the door. Without the compo it would be a greater split into a 2-tier competition. Melbourne would have lost Frawley last year regardless but getting the pick that landed us Brayshaw as compensation gives us a better chance of climbing up the ladder sooner than if we lost him for nothing.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

Give struggling teams a supplementary list that they can add players prior to the rookie draft which is paid for by their normal cap.

Eg every year you miss finals you get an extra space on your sup list if you want up to say 8. If Melbourne has 12 players outside their normal list and are turning over 8-10 while hawthorn has just 4 rookies turning over 1-2 it gives them a much better chance at finding a player or two without providing huge incentive to tank.

I'd tweak that a bit and just allow unlimited list numbers. The restraint is the salary cap. If your cap can only fit 35 players then so be it. If it can fit 50 then you can have 50.

What that should do is allow the weaker clubs a larger list - they no longer have to play their spud players big dollars and can instead draft more kids, increasing the likelihood of finding decent players.

Nice in theory however the talent pool is already stretched too thin - you are assuming there are enough professional standard players that teams will be able to top up to 45-50 players. Melbourne as an example had at least 5 players on their list this year who weren't AFL standard (and that's probably being generous). If we can't even fill our primary list with professional standard players what is the point of extra/supplementary listed players?

 

[HairyO]

i don't buy the whole 'there are too many clubs so the talent pool is spread too thin'. all the clubs are going to the same place to get players. that's an argument for the quality of the game overall, not any possible disparity in talent between clubs.

One of the big problems is GWS have 10 players who are top 20 or 30 picks running around kicking 30 goals a week in the NEAFL because they cant get in to the 1sts.

So much talent has been taken by GWS and GCS it has made it incredibly hard for the rebuilding teams.

Top teams like Hawthorn only need 1 or 2 players a year so only really need 1 Draftee to pay off, and can trade or FA 1 player a year as well.

That said, some clubs are just terribly run - and that has nothing to do with any rules the AFL introduces. A stable club where the Board, Management, Coaching staff, and Players are all in agreement is automatically in with a better chance than a poorly run club.

Hawthorn have had both, and the difference on-field is stark.

Clarko was a big part of turning things around. With Dunstall's backing he made the club change a lot of things.

 

[FlowersByIrene]

Double draft picks for the bottom 10 in the first round. Order determined by lottery NBA style.
Means the top 8 teams don't get access to the 10-18th best players in the country, means teams in the bottom ten get two player sin the top 20 automatically. It should make teams rises and falls quicker.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Equiliastion will take years to work its way thru the system.

You had the cap and draft in 2001-03 and Brisbane won 3 flags in a row and played in a 4th GF the next year. You had the cap and draft between 2007 and 2011 and Geelong won 3 flags and played in 4 GFs.

Free agency has nothing to do with equalisation - its stops the AFLPA running to the court about a restraint of trade. Its helping the better clubs at the moment.

Tell me which items announced June last year had any real impact in 2015 on equalisation??? All these measure had SFA effect. And they will have that impact for the next few years. The AFL might be un happy that the Hawks won but bad luck. Introducing 2 new teams has made equalisation harder but you cant tell the AFL that. The teams that had multiple good drafting years say between 2003 and 2009 and hung onto to their top drafted players are dominated now.

AFL statement: Competitive Balance Policy
AFL statement June 4, 2014 4:09 PM
The AFL today released its Competitive Balance Policy to the 18 Clubs, with six key recommendations to be phased in from the 2015 and 2016 seasons.
.....
The new model will reinforce existing competitive balance measures under the rules which include:

§ The National Draft for the distribution of player talent;
§ Total player payments & additional service agreements with players, to ensure Clubs all pay their players a similar amount;
§ Distribution of AFL funds across the 18 Clubs generated by competition broadcast rights, sponsorship and licensing;
§ The Club Future Fund; and
§ The gate levy on adult match day attendees.
.......
The new competitive balance measures consist of six key elements:

1. Move toward a ‘pure’ salary cap – phase out Cost of Living Allowance and Veterans Allowance by 2017 to move toward a more equitable salary cap for all Clubs; replace the current Cost of Living Allowance for the Sydney Swans and GWS Giants with a rental subsidy for each player on below average player payments. The rental subsidy to be paid direct to players by the AFL;
2. Increase payments to players – affordable increases in payments to players;
3. Greater control on football cost growth – curb industry football cost inflation through the introduction of a soft cap on non-player football expenditure. Clubs can continue to spend what they like on their football departments, but any spend over the soft cap will be subject to a luxury tax;
4. Enhanced revenue sharing – augment the existing Gate Levy by adjusting existing AFL Club distributions based on a measure of relative Club income for years 2015 and 2016; the reduction in AFL Club distributions to some clubs will be capped at $500,000 in 2015 and 2016 – but note Clubs retain all revenue they generate themselves;
5. Continue Supplemental / Discretionary funds – compensate smaller clubs for structural inequities – allocate uncommitted Club Future Fund monies to smaller Clubs;
6. Stronger accountability and performance management – help smaller Clubs which benefit from increased distributions from the AFL to improve performance, grow revenues and to be accountable for delivering on key targets.

How cost control on non-player football expenditure will work:

Implement a soft cap on non-player football expenditure set at:
• 2015 – projected industry average spend plus $500k
• 2016 – 2015 soft cap level plus CPI
• A luxury tax will be applied to spend above the soft cap:
- 2015 – 37.5%
- 2016 – 75%
• Luxury tax payments will be capped at $1m per Club per annum for 2015 and 2016
• Any cash impact for Clubs will be phased in with luxury tax on 2015 spend to be paid in 2016
• The soft cap and luxury tax rate will be reviewed for season 2017
• The decision to spend above the cap is at each Club’s discretion – but capped to ensure Clubs are not unfairly disadvantaged

How Total Player Payments will work under the revised competitive balance measures:

PHASED REFORM OF THE COST OF LIVING ALLOWANCE (COLA)
• Abolish COLA in its current form for season 2017 for both the Sydney Swans and GWS Giants
• COLA to be transitioned down over 2015 and 2016, taking into account existing contractual obligations so as to not unfairly disadvantage either Club and their contracted players
• New fixed accommodation subsidy to be introduced for newly contracted players (from season 2015) below a salary threshold to be determined, that will be paid directly by the AFL

PHASED REFORM OF THE VETERANS ALLOWANCE
• Current veterans allowance to be retained at $118k per eligible player in 2015 and 2016
• Agreement from AFLPA that the veterans allowance will be abolished from season 2017

INCREASED PAYMENTS TO PLAYERS
• Increase TPP by an additional $150,000 per Club in 2015 and in 2016 above already contracted amounts:
‒ 2015 – increase from $9.92m to $10.07m (+$150,000) [3% was built in with the opportunity to increase by more than 3%, this is an extra increase]
‒ 2016 – increase from $10.22m to 10.37m (+$150,000) [3% was built in with the opportunity to increase by more than 3%, this is an extra increase]
• TPP increases to be self-funded by larger Clubs and supported by increased revenue sharing for smaller Clubs

A NEW TPP BANKING MECHANISM
• Introduce a new TPP banking mechanism that allows Clubs to spend over 100% of the TPP and ASA limits (combined limit), if in any of the preceding two years the Club spent below 100% of the combined limit
• The permitted amount of overspend is commensurate with the level of underspend in the relevant preceding period - for instance, if a Club was $500k below the combined limit in 2015, they can spend up to $500k over the combined limits across 2016 and 2017
• The overspend amount in any given year permits a Club to spend up to a maximum of 105% of the combined limit in that year
• This mechanism is effective from season 2015 (as such any underspends in 2013 and/or 2014 can be recovered in 2015)
......
http://www.afl.com.au/news/2014-06-04/afl-statement-competitive-balance-policy

 

[Stephen2]

I can't take credit for this, but it's my favourite idea I've heard:

• Finalist get draft picks as normal (picks 11->18)
• Bottom 10, get picks given in order of Number of years since last made finals. This continues until they make the finals
  
• Possibly Priority Pick for teams not made finals for "x" years (5?)

No more tanking as it doesn't matter, and it's giving the most leg-up to the teams that are truly the worst overall.

And I love what people have said about doubling up on draft picks, e.g., 1+2, 3+4, 5+6 etc...

So Melbourne (are they the team with longest since finals?) will get picks 1+2 no matter what, until they make finals. Really doubles down on the roller coaster ride!

 

[Superstar swan]

The lions need a retention allowance of some sort. Young players leaving has become a joke for that club. Absolutely been smashed

 

[Demonic Ascent]

Equiliastion will take years to work its way thru the system.

You had the cap and draft in 2001-03 and Brisbane won 3 flags in a row and played in a 4th GF the next year. You had the cap and draft between 2007 and 2011 and Geelong won 3 flags and played in 4 GFs.

Except the salary cap and draft were compromised.

Brisbane had extra money in the salary cap.

Geelong had access to father son picks with late draft picks.

I'm not saying they should or should not have had those advantages but pointing to those two periods doesn't prove anything.

FWIW I love the father son rule but in the interests of equality would be willing to see it go to ensure a "pure" draft. Academy picks gone too. At the very least, if you are going to keep FS then the only clubs that should have Academy picks are those clubs too young to have any qualifying FS, so GWS & GC. Sydney, Brisbane etc don't need Academy picks.

 

[MagpieJo]

The lions need a retention allowance of some sort. Young players leaving has become a joke for that club. Absolutely been smashed

No

They had their advantage for long enough, allowed them to win three premierships in a row, in an effort to build support, support which should see them through the lean times (check out the figures when Richmond were seller dwellers, they still had more bums on seats than a lot of clubs when winning). Time to admit it is just not going to work. Remember reading the AFL admitted they cannot "allow" the swans to slip too far down the ladder, or they will lose support. That's not an equal competition, it's a propped up competition.

Notice Adelaide or west coast don't have that problem, or requirement for assistance?

 

[MagpieJo]

What's that got to do with anything? Because you have an entire squad playing for unders, you can well and truly cover someone like Franklin as was shown.

Were you under compensated for losing Franklin, hell yes... but as the last two years have shown, it has barely impacted you.

You see the world from the top of your throne, and that is well and good... however, when you're a bottom team that see's Hawthorn get Frawley and still keep their first round draft pick in the same draft, it is like what the hell!?

Getting Frawley is fine but they should have to give up his worth at the draft table. The compensation to the team losing the player should not come from the AFL (ie all clubs suffer) it should come from the club getting the gain.

Father son is fairer, we had to give our first pic to ensure getting Moore. Free agency the way it is now will be the final nail in the coffin. It's bull shit.

 

[MarkT2]

The lions need a retention allowance of some sort. Young players leaving has become a joke for that club. Absolutely been smashed

According to Greg Swan they have more salary cap space than he has ever seen before. A retention allowance would not make any difference. They aren't leaving over money. They are leaving the club because of the club.

 

[nickrebellious]

The lions need a retention allowance of some sort. Young players leaving has become a joke for that club. Absolutely been smashed

Well they have the academy. They were able to bring in Beams and Christensen last year and got two bargains from the academy. This year they're set to lose Redden and Aish (bring in some guys as well) and get two discounts on academy players. The academy players have no chance of getting homesick either so I think they'll be okay.

 

[Bucking Beads]

The academies are great but it's only made it harder to obtain the homegrown talent with all of Eddie's whinging.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Except the salary cap and draft were compromised.

Brisbane had extra money in the salary cap.

Geelong had access to father son picks with late draft picks.

I'm not saying they should or should not have had those advantages but pointing to those two periods doesn't prove anything.

FWIW I love the father son rule but in the interests of equality would be willing to see it go to ensure a "pure" draft. Academy picks gone too. At the very least, if you are going to keep FS then the only clubs that should have Academy picks are those clubs too young to have any qualifying FS, so GWS & GC. Sydney, Brisbane etc don't need Academy picks.

The salary cap still has lots of holes in it exemptions ASA's 3rd part deals etc, and bidding for father sons still is being manipulated see Jay Viney in 2012 going at pick 26 or whatever it was because of the way the system worked instead of top 10 and Melbourne's first pick in that draft. So I go back to my fundamental point, it takes years for things to wash their way thru the AFL system and any tinkering or radical move will not see equalisation over night.

The AFL is on some socialistic, control freak, wet dream if it thinks it can mandate equality and have 10 premiers over the next 10 seasons. Sure try and make things more equal, but the cream will always rise to the top and dominate for several years at a time.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

The salary cap still has lots of holes in it exemptions ASA's 3rd part deals etc, and bidding for father sons still is being manipulated see Jay Viney in 2012 going at pick 26 or whatever it was because of the way the system worked instead of top 10 and Melbourne's first pick in that draft. So I go back to my fundamental point, it takes years for things to wash their way thru the AFL system and any tinkering or radical move will not see equalisation over night.

The AFL is on some socialistic, control freak, wet dream if it thinks it can mandate equality and have 10 premiers over the next 10 seasons. Sure try and make things more equal, but the cream will always rise to the top and dominate for several years at a time.

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.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

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.

But every draft and salary cap has been compromised with some exemptions, some greater than others, so thats why I used the generic line "there was a salary cap and a draft". Geelong's dominance didnt just rest on Ablett and Scarlett being father sons, but it helped. Hell Hawkins was a yo-yo player until that last quarter in 2011.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

But every draft and salary cap has been compromised with some exemptions, some greater than others, so thats why I used the generic line "there was a salary cap and a draft". Geelong's dominance didnt just rest on Ablett and Scarlett being father sons, but it helped. Hell Hawkins was a yo-yo player until that last quarter in 2011.

Geelong were able to get Hawkins with a late pick which allowed them to get Selwood in the same draft I believe? That was a massive advantage for them.

I think we're saying the same thing - my point is that we don't really know what effect true equalisation measures may have on the comp as they have never been implemented. I agree dynasties will still occur and I agree measures take years to roll through - was just picking up on your examples because I don't think they were correct.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Geelong were able to get Hawkins with a late pick which allowed them to get Selwood in the same draft I believe? That was a massive advantage for them.

I think we're saying the same thing - my point is that we don't really know what effect true equalisation measures may have on the comp as they have never been implemented. I agree dynasties will still occur and I agree measures take years to roll through - was just picking up on your examples because I don't think they were correct.

Well they are the only other examples of 4 GFs and 3 flags in a 4 or 5 year period, since 2000 when every footballer became a full time professional, and the AFL themselves sprouted during this time that the salary cap and draft was fundamental to the fairness of the competition and giving everyone the chance to win a flag. So if I'm wrong, then it is further proof the AFL was speaking shit in the past, and will get this wrong as well.