Increase salary cap to $15-20 million. With predictions of players reaching the million dollar a year threshold in upcoming years, wouldn't be bad for clubs paying their top players a bit more to retain them.
-
Mobile App Discontinued
Due to a number of factors, support for the current BigFooty mobile app has been discontinued. Your BigFooty login will no longer work on the Tapatalk or the BigFooty App - which is based on Tapatalk.
Apologies for any inconvenience. We will try to find a replacement.
Do the equalisation methods need tweaking?
- Thread starter legend166
- Start date
- Tagged users None
🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.
It's not like Collingwood have never lost players to other clubs. Who cares you lose someone who is 27 and can replace him with a top line 18 year old. Or you could on trade pick 3 to get another mature defender or sign another free agent
Strapping Young Lad
Moderator
- Apr 19, 2006
- 105,835
- 276,771
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
- Other Teams
- Storm, Spurs, Socceroos
- Moderator
- #253
No, we have a player who is sick and tired of playing in a mediocre side, who doesn't renew his contract and looks for a new home.
Similar to many thousands of employees who view seek. Daily.
Clubs need to take some responsibility for players who want to test FA, and stop blaming the players for wanting a fresh start.
P.s. It's one player, so maybe wait until it happens multiple times before declaring FA is broken.
One player?
We have lost Jared Rivers, Brent Moloney, Colin Sylvia, and James Frawley (who were all starting 18 players at the time they left). All went to teams that were well and truly above us (three went to top-4 teams). Yes, hindsight says we got rid of some deadwood there, but that doesn't matter.
Whilst we we were fairly well compensated for 2 of those players (Sylvia = Vince; Frawley = Bradshaw), it still doesn't take away from the fact that top-4 sides are stealing starting 18 players away from bottom teams; albeit without having to give up anything via trade.
Let's look at Hawthorn getting Frawley for example... you gave up NOTHING for him, when once upon a time you would have to give up a first rounder at minimum via a trade. Instead, you get him for nothing via free agency, AND still keep your first round draft pick. Yup, seems fair :-/
Log in to remove this Banner Ad
Strapping Young Lad
Moderator
- Apr 19, 2006
- 105,835
- 276,771
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
- Other Teams
- Storm, Spurs, Socceroos
- Moderator
- #255
You keep saying these players were stolen. Fact is, they chose to leave.
The review should be targeting why the club is losing players, not who they end up playing for.
Well, you don't have to be a Rhodes Scholar to work out why they left. They were starved of success. Simple. Is that Melbourne's fault? Yes... however, why should they be allowed to walk straight to the premiers without the premiers giving up anything? Remember what this thread is about... EQUALISATION.
One of the premises that the AFL mentioned upon introducing free agency was 'It will help struggling clubs get players from stronger clubs'... well, no, it doesn't.
On paper it should, but when you have clubs having to pay a minimum of 90-95% of the salary cap, it means there is very little difference between what a struggling club and a strong club can offer a free agent... so, you see free agents picking clubs more likely to have immediate success.
The system is flawed... you just can't see it because your club is one of the one's that reap the rewards from it's flawed nature.
Strapping Young Lad
Moderator
- Apr 19, 2006
- 105,835
- 276,771
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
- Other Teams
- Storm, Spurs, Socceroos
- Moderator
- #257
Don't worry, I remember what this thread is about. It's about Hawthorn going against the odds and winning 3 flags in a row, and it's a big whinge from clubs supporters who don't have their house in order, but who think they should be able to win a flag anyway.
Equalisation is largely rubbish.
This is a competition, it is business.
There should be no compensation for players leaving via FA and clubs should be held to account to the decisions that their boards make.
Does anyone really want to follow a comp where teams just take turns winning flags, and every time a club wins a flag they are then given restrictions so that they can't win another one? What a joke of a sport that would be.
- Oct 6, 2013
- 9,139
- 6,332
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
- Other Teams
- Sixers, Exers, GWS Womens
Right. Because we have benefited from Suckling, Franklin, Young, Murphy and Ellis leaving. Sure.
- Feb 11, 2009
- 28,079
- 35,083
- AFL Club
- Geelong
- Other Teams
- #rompingwins
On this, the problem is clubs and their supporters have been warped (to a degree) by the whole concept of equalisation and perversely by the utter domination of just four clubs in the past 15 years. They hear supporters of these successful clubs talking about their lists and players and for some reason automatically think it applies to theirs too. It doesn't. False expectations appear and when they aren't delivered on tantrums ensue.
Just listening to the bigfooty podcast, for example, supporters of clubs like Carlton and the Dees overrate their list something fierce and think that because of equalisation they will automatically jump up the ladder with all the amazing draft picks they get. Not going to happen. Look at the clubs on the bottom of the ladder and look at their boards and how they are run... then compare it to Hawks and Cats and if you still don't agree - look at how Richmond flew up the ladder when they finally got a good management team in place.
Anyway, we all know that equalisation is about making sure Geelong and Hawthorn are equal. That's it
Is non AFL states struggling to keep supporters that surprising.I also remember seeing the AFL boss say the Swans can't have everyone after giving them a 2 year trade ban.
- Mar 2, 2015
- 19,401
- 35,186
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
LOL
Correction: the standard of Geelong's football has gotten worse every year.
Hawthorn, Sydney and Fremantle have maintained their strength.
West Coast, North, Richmond, Adelaide, GWS and the Bulldogs have all improved over the past couple of years. So too have St Kilda and Melbourne when you consider how abysmal they were in 2013.
Port suffered a bit of a hiccup in 2015 and had few key players injured. I'm pretty sure they'll bounce back in 2016. You could almost put Gold Coast in the same category - they were on the improve until last year's debacle.
Basically it's Geelong, Collingwood, Brisbane, Essendon and Carlton who have slid backwards over the past couple of years. They've all let go of a number of experienced players and turned their lists over. All five clubs are in transition and they're rebuilding to various degrees - some of them seem to be doing a better job of it than others.
EVERY AFL coach says that footy improves about 10% every year and if you stagnate & stay the same, other teams will overtake you. But a few Geelong fans are stuck in this deluded fantasy-land that AFL footy was superior when their club was on top. They seem to think the premiership has suddenly become easier to win than ever before now the Cats have dropped out of contention. LOL!!!
Geelong had a great team for the best part of 10 years, but now they're just a shadow of what they once were. But this doesn't mean that the whole competition has gone backwards and footy sucks. I can understand that you're no longer entertained, but you'll eventually get over it.
It's an absolute myth that AFL footy has a finite talent pool and we've exhausted the supply. The game (more than ever before) has become all about developing players to carry out the coaches' tactics and counter the opposition's. The teams with the best systems (attacking & defensive) and who execute their skills and gameplan under pressure are the teams who succeed.
Individual player talent is the single most overrated thing in football… Everyone on here craps about it endlessly, comparing player X to player Y, Top 50 lists, etc.. But it all means jack shit. It's irrelevant to who wins the flag. You could start up another club tomorrow - With the best coaching and the best on/off field support, they would quickly overtake half the teams on the AFL ladder. In five years, they'd be up in the Top 4.
Last edited:
- Mar 23, 2007
- 34,931
- 23,549
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
- Other Teams
- Man U, Canucks and 49ers
It takes five years to turn a side around and you will never change that a player winning flags is prepared to take a pay cut for one playing at a rubbish club.
There is too much equalisation and hand outs for mine.
All COLA, ambassadorial payments, FIXture to help the Swans, etc should go.
If you are a poorly run club, why should the system be rigged to give you success?
There is too much equalisation and hand outs for mine.
All COLA, ambassadorial payments, FIXture to help the Swans, etc should go.
If you are a poorly run club, why should the system be rigged to give you success?
threenewpadlocks
Brownlow Medallist
The salary floor is the big one for me.
The AFL requires you to pay 95% of the salary floor.
The salary cap is about $10 million (a bit more actually, but for the sake of simplicity).
That means, for the sake of simplicity, that the theoretical bottom team only has 500k to throw at a hypothetical "gun" free agent because that's all the cap room they have. As we all know, OOC/FA players who are among the best in the league get more than that when changing clubs and signing a new contract.
An extreme example could be a young, rising non-finals team could have 95% this year, and then 95% next year with players retiring/new contracts getting offset by increasing the contracts of the young, improving players. But then you could have a premiership team have two or three high-priced retirees and all of a sudden their 100% cap drops down to say 90% cap and they have the money to throw at a James Frawley esque free agent even though they just won the flag - more than the bottom team, which means that the system is fundamentally flawed.
The whole idea that the maximum "cap room" that even the worst team in the league is less than a typical "max" contract for a FA is extremely restrictive in terms of equalisation. If that team can't manage to "dump" any salary (or can only dump salary by trading out actual, other talented players), they might miss out on any given year's "hot" FA/OOC player, even though they're the bottom team in the league, and generally (not always, I accept that), be paying their players less and have more cap room.
The whole 95% thing wasn't a problem when player movement was less common and FA didn't exist so the concept of "cap room" was less important - before FA, the 95% rule had its purposes, like to make tanking harder and as a different form of equalisation to make teams actually by default have a better team. But it's been made redundant with the introduction of FA and all it does is benefit the top teams.
The AFL requires you to pay 95% of the salary floor.
The salary cap is about $10 million (a bit more actually, but for the sake of simplicity).
That means, for the sake of simplicity, that the theoretical bottom team only has 500k to throw at a hypothetical "gun" free agent because that's all the cap room they have. As we all know, OOC/FA players who are among the best in the league get more than that when changing clubs and signing a new contract.
An extreme example could be a young, rising non-finals team could have 95% this year, and then 95% next year with players retiring/new contracts getting offset by increasing the contracts of the young, improving players. But then you could have a premiership team have two or three high-priced retirees and all of a sudden their 100% cap drops down to say 90% cap and they have the money to throw at a James Frawley esque free agent even though they just won the flag - more than the bottom team, which means that the system is fundamentally flawed.
The whole idea that the maximum "cap room" that even the worst team in the league is less than a typical "max" contract for a FA is extremely restrictive in terms of equalisation. If that team can't manage to "dump" any salary (or can only dump salary by trading out actual, other talented players), they might miss out on any given year's "hot" FA/OOC player, even though they're the bottom team in the league, and generally (not always, I accept that), be paying their players less and have more cap room.
The whole 95% thing wasn't a problem when player movement was less common and FA didn't exist so the concept of "cap room" was less important - before FA, the 95% rule had its purposes, like to make tanking harder and as a different form of equalisation to make teams actually by default have a better team. But it's been made redundant with the introduction of FA and all it does is benefit the top teams.
Free agency is not an equalisation measure, it was promoted by the AFLPA with no compensation, BUT the AFL needed to keep its nose front & centre in every deal, SNAFU .... consistently poorly run clubs just an excuse.
Doesn't seem money is a big driver of free agency, its success, see Frawley. Money is not an excuse for bad list management.
- Feb 21, 2006
- 22,307
- 21,940
- AFL Club
- Melbourne
- Other Teams
- Turtles NYJets Celtics Fake Sports
There's always going to be clubs down the bottom who will be more susceptible to losing players. FA makes that easier, and easier for clubs at the top to poach them. Those who found themselves at the bottom when FA was introduced are caught in a bit of a cycle where losing players means they can't get better which means they lose players which means they can't get better etc. This occurred at the same time as these clubs felt the brunt of the expansion drafts the most as well meaning the majority of top end talent went to the expansion clubs rather than those at the bottom of the ladder so there was a double whammy effect.
- Feb 21, 2006
- 22,307
- 21,940
- AFL Club
- Melbourne
- Other Teams
- Turtles NYJets Celtics Fake Sports
This is a huge issue with FA, the other is the FA qualifying period means there are so few FA on the market every year and even fewer that are worth the bottom clubs pursuing. A bottom club isn't going to spend big on a FA in his late-20's unless they are an out and out superstar as it is not going tobe of any benefit to them in the longer term.
- Feb 21, 2006
- 22,307
- 21,940
- AFL Club
- Melbourne
- Other Teams
- Turtles NYJets Celtics Fake Sports
Equalisation is equalisation of opportunity, not outcome. No one is begrudging the Hawks their flags so you can get that chip off your shoulder.
- Feb 21, 2006
- 22,307
- 21,940
- AFL Club
- Melbourne
- Other Teams
- Turtles NYJets Celtics Fake Sports
Those things aren't equalisation, they are in fact the exact opposite. And they don't just apply to the Swans or even just the NSW/QLD clubs.
But if a premiership team has two or three high priced retirees, that should be a huge hit to their ability to win premierships. The only reason Hawthorn could afford Frawley is because we lost the best forward in the game and got better, even before Frawley joined us. There is no equalisation measure that can account for a team improving after losing their highly paid, once in a generation forward. Teams simply aren't supposed to get better when they free up 700-800k of salary cap space.
I agree that there shouldn't be such a high salary cap floor, but it likely wouldn't make much difference. Maybe some players would take significantly bigger offers to go to a poor club, but most clubs don't seem to want to put in a huge offer, and for good reason.
Eh, you could easily point to Dale Thomas, and say money was a huge factor. Or Betts with other factors. Even Franklin with wanting to be out of Melbourne and be with his GF, as well as the huge financial offer in front of him.
No equalisation measure can account for terribly run teams. I mean, who can blame Frawley for wanting out of Melbourne? 8 years he was there, and not even a sniff of finals. Christ, i'd be wanting to go to the team who can get me to finals and give me a good chance of a flag too!
🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.
Yeah, you and I both know that because we are supporters of a club getting shafted by this system. Captain Hawthorn just says it is 'bad housekeeping' though.
I'll admit they have done well, but their dynasty is built on the fact that they happened to peak at a time where it was so hard for everyone else (including other contenders) to build a real premiership challenge because of the concessions that Gold Coast and Greater Western Sydney had.
No coincidence that only a handful of teams have been genuine challengers/ premiership winners in the last decade
Strapping Young Lad
Moderator
- Apr 19, 2006
- 105,835
- 276,771
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
- Other Teams
- Storm, Spurs, Socceroos
- Moderator
- #271
Right, so Hawthorn were the only club who were able to trade and draft when the two northern sides entered?
What a load of bullocks.
Funnily enough, I can't remember Hawthorn selecting Jesse Hogan in the mini-draft, as a consequence of GC and GWS joining the comp?
The reason Melbourne and other strugglers are where they are because they are poorly run. End of story.
So you deny that Melbourne of the last 10 years have been one of the worst run teams of recent history? Frawley had not even a sniff of playing finals in his 8 years there. He suffered through nearly a new coach every year, and even with the messiah, Paul Roos, Melbourne still look a long way off doing anything.
Is it really a coincidence that the teams who have been unbelievably mismanaged for years are the ones losing players year after year (whether by free agency or trade)? Teams like Melbourne are feeling the aftereffects of a decade of mismanagement, don't blame the teams who benefit from that just because they are run with even a small amount of competence.
cryptor
Brownlow Medallist
- May 11, 2008
- 26,925
- 74,708
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
Port Adelaide and Bulldogs have made giant leaps out of mediocrity in recent seasons. St Kilda looks likely too.
It's only these perpetually mismanaged clubs like Melbourne and Brisbane that seem unable to pick themselves up.
The management of Hawthorn both at board level and amongst the football department is way more responsible for our success than free agency or compromised drafts.
It's only these perpetually mismanaged clubs like Melbourne and Brisbane that seem unable to pick themselves up.
The management of Hawthorn both at board level and amongst the football department is way more responsible for our success than free agency or compromised drafts.
I am not saying this is a Melbourne-only issue... it is a competition-wide issue. Disregard the facts that I barrack for Melbourne... I know our boardroom has been A LOT of the problem in the last decade, and we finally have some stability there.
Just look at facts. In the last decade of football (2015-2005), the Grand Final has been contested by only 8 teams (or half the competition, disregarding GC & GWS):
Hawthorn - 5x
Sydney - 4x
Geelong - 4x
West Coast - 3x
Collingwood - 2x
St. Kilda - 2x
Fremantle - 1x
Port Adelaide - 1x
In the decade prior (2004-1994), the Grand Final was contested by 12 teams (or 50% more teams than the 2005-2015 decade):
Brisbane - 4x
North Melbourne - 3x
Adelaide - 2x
Essendon - 2x
Carlton - 2x
Collingwood - 2x
Geelong - 2x
West Coast - 1x
Port Adelaide - 1x
St. Kilda - 1x
Sydney - 1x
Melbourne - 1x
Can you see the difference there??? If you can't see the problem with that, then you're just blind to what is around you as you sit atop your Hawthorn premiers throne. There is something wrong with EQUALISATION in football... and the stats prove it. We are heading towards an EPL system where the grand finals are contested by only the same 5-6 teams year in-year out.
It is more than just a 'having the house in order' issue... because if that is your argument, it seems like only 8 teams out of 18 have had their 'house in order' during the last decade, because they've been the only teams to play in grand finals
Just look at facts. In the last decade of football (2015-2005), the Grand Final has been contested by only 8 teams (or half the competition, disregarding GC & GWS):
Hawthorn - 5x
Sydney - 4x
Geelong - 4x
West Coast - 3x
Collingwood - 2x
St. Kilda - 2x
Fremantle - 1x
Port Adelaide - 1x
In the decade prior (2004-1994), the Grand Final was contested by 12 teams (or 50% more teams than the 2005-2015 decade):
Brisbane - 4x
North Melbourne - 3x
Adelaide - 2x
Essendon - 2x
Carlton - 2x
Collingwood - 2x
Geelong - 2x
West Coast - 1x
Port Adelaide - 1x
St. Kilda - 1x
Sydney - 1x
Melbourne - 1x
Can you see the difference there??? If you can't see the problem with that, then you're just blind to what is around you as you sit atop your Hawthorn premiers throne. There is something wrong with EQUALISATION in football... and the stats prove it. We are heading towards an EPL system where the grand finals are contested by only the same 5-6 teams year in-year out.
It is more than just a 'having the house in order' issue... because if that is your argument, it seems like only 8 teams out of 18 have had their 'house in order' during the last decade, because they've been the only teams to play in grand finals
You are trying to use statistics as some sort of proof, but your sample size is far too small to be relevant. Even with a perfect equalisation system, you could still end up with a situation where two clubs win three flags in a short amount of time, resulting in a slightly skewed number of teams who made the grand final. Even with a perfect system, mismanaged clubs would still come nowhere close to making a grand final.
I'm not saying equalisation is perfect, because it certainly isn't, but you are completely ignoring that it takes years to build a premiership winning team. The core of Hawthorn and Geelong's team's were built before they rose up the ladder, and before their finances got to the level they are now, and before many of the current equalisation measures were even brought in. Rather than making knee jerk changes every year, perhaps we should stop, build up our sample size, and actually see what effect each change is actually having.
I think a key team to look at in all of this is West Coast. Why have West Coast managed to make a GF with almost none of their 2006 team still around? How have they managed to completely turn over their list, when teams like Melbourne have not even come close? An equalisation system cannot overcome the sheer incompetence of clubs. Melbourne should in theory have a better team than WC, based on draft picks, etc., yet they are not even close. Sure, WC have had some players request a trade to them, but the reality is that even with equal or more opportunity, some clubs will be more successful than others, especially when the measure is as limited as whether they made a GF.
And for that matter, how an earth is 'made a grand final' the metric for measuring success? Just because the Western Bulldogs, or North haven't made a GF, doesn't mean their PF's aren't worth something, or show that they were close, but not quite good enough. Add in things like the addition of GWS/GC, Essendon's off field issues, and other short term issues, there are factors that have impacted these statistics which should not be taken into consideration when building a long term equalisation system.
Similar threads
