Do the equalisation methods need tweaking?

[Furn2]

Less competition for sponsors? Say what?
Oh and you would get better investment in melbourne being an aussie rules strong hold

Yes multinationals such a coca-cola amital have less player choice in which to market their products in large population cities with less teams giving players more financial opportunity.

 

[PunkyHawkster]

The NRL seems to have a more even competition.

No skill required, only muscles

 

[Demonic Ascent]

You can believe it or not.

The facts are the AFL does believe and as such we have academies.

Keep on crying about it if you wish.

What facts? You still haven't provided any.

No one's crying, simply having a discussion around some inequities in the competition using reason and logic. If you take someone with a different opinion to you asking you to verify your opinions with facts as crying that says more about you and your opinions than it does about the other person.

FWIW, my position is that this is a professional competition and should be treated as such. There are a number of policies here and there which compromise the competitive nature of the competition and they should be removed to provide a clean, fair and equal competition (in terms of both on and off-field inequities). Even the AFL themselves state that the draft is a key pillar of equalisation yet they allow compromises such as the academies, father-son nominations etc

My distaste for the academies isn't necessarily what they are now, although I think there are issues with that, but what they will become down the track with all clubs given development zones and subsequently priority access to the best kids from their academies every year. We will in effect nullify the equalising element of the draft and the competition will devolve further into haves/have nots and the same issues that sprung up during the "zone" years of the V/AFL will recur. This is the main issue, that the discussion on equalisation was hijacked by Collingwood, Hawthorn and to an extent WCE to move away from real equalisation and target the academies/COLA (which were of less concern to those who were adversely impacted by the AFL's longstanding "revenue maximisation" policies) and shift the agenda towards providing them with the same competitive advantages provided to the northern clubs.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

The reason there's no reasoning that will satisfy me is that Sydney is a club contending for premierships while adding top 3 draft picks to their lists for a well below market price. It's providing a much bigger advantage than F/S has provided over a two year period for probably any club. Like i said, i'm all for supporting the growth of the NSW/QLD markets, but this support should not be providing massive on field advantages to a few select clubs.

The other issue is that due to the AFL's new bidding system, clubs are able to use their early picks to trade in something and then have a bunch of later picks chucked in to add to their bidding tally effectively giving clubs a double hit at it. Previously father-son bidding was done prior to trade week so clubs couldn't trade out and early pick and then only be left with later picks to use for bidding. They need to at least change the structure of the bidding system back to what it was so if someone has the number 5 pick and a top 3 rated academy pick they need to use that no. 5 pick instead of trading it out for a player and picks 37, 38, 39 etc

 

[Demonic Ascent]

Bullshit

Easy to say for a heartland club

So if a Queensland club loses players it's location but if a Vic based club loses players its culture?

If Brisbane are at such a disadvantage with recruiting/retaining players how come they were able to land Beams, Christensen and Robinson last off season?

 

[DaVillaBlues]

So if a Queensland club loses players it's location but if a Vic based club loses players its culture?

If Brisbane are at such a disadvantage with recruiting/retaining players how come they were able to land Beams, Christensen and Robinson last off season?

LOL, Brisbane paid overs for Beams, and Robinson was delisted by Carlton and no one else except Richmond showed interest in picking him up

 

[Demonic Ascent]

LOL, Brisbane paid overs for Beams, and Robinson was delisted by Carlton and no one else except Richmond showed interest in picking him up

Beams nominated Brisbane as his club of choice from a long way out, the issue with what they paid for him was solely down to the Pies demands.

Robinson I'll give you but they also traded in Christensen last year and Tom Bell this year.

Not exactly struggling to lure players to their club.

 

[swiftdog]

I think Sydney have paid more for Mills than most people realise. First off, yes, they might have used mid-range draft picks (33, 36, 37 and 43) but no club is given all those draft picks so need to make moves to actually get those picks. The only one of these picks that they had pre-trade week was pick 33. They lost Craig Bird and pick 14 for 36, 37 and 43.

Resultant OUT: Bird, 14, 33, or in points values (1724 pts + Bird)
Resultant IN: Mills (pick 3), Leonardis (51) (2493 pts, putting Bird's value at around pick 24/25)

Admittedly, they did do very well to turn Bird and 14 into 36, 37 and 43 but I guess the Carlisle situation helped (can't blame a club for being opportunistic) and have likely come out in front. But they did lose a decent player, first round pick and second round pick for a highly-rated youngster a significant downgrade in the draft. In hindsight, this trade period for the Swans will be based on whether Mills lives up to the hype or not.

Regardless, this trade period has shown that trades can be done to mutually benefit more clubs easier than ever, seemingly a rarity in the AFL. Clubs with an academy are happy to stockpile mid-draft picks and give up better picks to do-so, that's certainly a win-win for all involved. The complaining makes little sense.

 

[juddy_Like]

Until we build a better ratio of home grown players we will continue to.

Self serving vic fans better get used to it as it wont change for a while

I thought the idea was to build a premiership list and not a list full of local heroes so Joe Blows can cheer them on.


You're not fooling anyone mate. Everyone knows the AFL needs the new expansion clubs to win a premiership and until than, the rules will be very generous under the so-called "growing the game" banner.

 

[juddy_Like]

I think Sydney have paid more for Mills than most people realise. First off, yes, they might have used mid-range draft picks (33, 36, 37 and 43) but no club is given all those draft picks so need to make moves to actually get those picks. The only one of these picks that they had pre-trade week was pick 33. They lost Craig Bird and pick 14 for 36, 37 and 43.

Resultant OUT: Bird, 14, 33, or in points values (1724 pts + Bird)
Resultant IN: Mills (pick 3), Leonardis (51) (2493 pts, putting Bird's value at around pick 24/25)

Admittedly, they did do very well to turn Bird and 14 into 36, 37 and 43 but I guess the Carlisle situation helped (can't blame a club for being opportunistic) and have likely come out in front. But they did lose a decent player, first round pick and second round pick for a highly-rated youngster a significant downgrade in the draft. In hindsight, this trade period for the Swans will be based on whether Mills lives up to the hype or not.

Regardless, this trade period has shown that trades can be done to mutually benefit more clubs easier than ever, seemingly a rarity in the AFL. Clubs with an academy are happy to stockpile mid-draft picks and give up better picks to do-so, that's certainly a win-win for all involved. The complaining makes little sense.

Fair points. But Bird was always going to be moved on to give games to Mills, Heaney, Rose, etc as their midfield is already stacked with Jack, Hannebery, Kennedy, Parker, etc.

Also.... Cap room.


What most are pissed off about is that Pick 3 doesn't come very often. You either have to go through a hellish year (finish 3rd bottom) or trade out serious currency (we'll put the minimum as pre-coke Carlisle) who couldn't get Pick 5 himself. Sydney achieved this (rightly or wrongly) without giving up either (two years in a row).

 

[Gohawthorn13]

You can't base equalisation methods on where teams finish because your not allowing for people doing a good job compared to continued incompetence, equalisation is so teams have as close to as equally possible means of building for a premiership if they are continually unable to do that its they're resposibility it's not kindergarten we dont

 

[Gohawthorn13]

You can't base equalisation methods on where teams finish because your not allowing for people doing a good job compared to continued incompetence, equalisation is so teams have as close to as equally possible means of building for a premiership if they are continually unable to do that its they're resposibility it's not kindergarten we dont

Hand out premierships evenly they are earned sorry about broken sentence accidentally hit post button

 

[kneecapper]

Fair points. But Bird was always going to be moved on to give games to Mills, Heaney, Rose, etc as their midfield is already stacked with Jack, Hannebery, Kennedy, Parker, etc.

Also.... Cap room.


What most are pissed off about is that Pick 3 doesn't come very often. You either have to go through a hellish year (finish 3rd bottom) or trade out serious currency (we'll put the minimum as pre-coke Carlisle) who couldn't get Pick 5 himself. Sydney achieved this (rightly or wrongly) without giving up either (two years in a row).

You're missing the bigger picture. Not only did we give up picks of equivalent historical value (we can debate that system separately) but neither Heeney or Mills would have been available to pick AT ALL if not for the Swans Academy, in which the club has invested millions. In many ways the club is far more deserving and has "given up" far more than some mismanaged basketcase that Steve Bradburys itself into a good draft position.

 

[Gohawthorn13]

You're missing the bigger picture. Not only did we give up picks of equivalent historical value (we can debate that system separately) but neither Heeney or Mills would have been available to pick AT ALL if not for the Swans Academy, in which the club has invested millions. In many ways the club is far more deserving and has "given up" far more than some mismanaged basketcase that Steve Bradburys itself into a good draft position.

I like the fact the interstate teams can get academy players as long as they pay the draft price but I like the fact that cola is going needs to be even across the board.

 

[juddy_Like]

You're missing the bigger picture. Not only did we give up picks of equivalent historical value (we can debate that system separately) but neither Heeney or Mills would have been available to pick AT ALL if not for the Swans Academy, in which the club has invested millions. In many ways the club is far more deserving and has "given up" far more than some mismanaged basketcase that Steve Bradburys itself into a good draft position.

I'm all for the Swans academy as everyone can see the bigger picture there. It's no different to say the Eagles partnership with BhP and the kids of far north WA (except we don't have access to them).

But would the academy or the entire afl comp (it is a competition after-all) be any worse if it was say 'the Swans academy powered by the afl'. By all means use the swans, Giants, etc as branding and essentially have everything the same. Just send the bill to afl house as after-all, it is afl that is trying to grow the game right?

 

[Prudster]

You're missing the bigger picture. Not only did we give up picks of equivalent historical value (we can debate that system separately) but neither Heeney or Mills would have been available to pick AT ALL if not for the Swans Academy, in which the club has invested millions. In many ways the club is far more deserving and has "given up" far more than some mismanaged basketcase that Steve Bradburys itself into a good draft position.

This is the biggest issue. I'm fine with these clubs having exclusive access, but for a club contending for premierships to pick up two top 3 picks, they should have to pay out the arse to acquire them. In the same way that any other top club would not have access to top talent without giving up a lot.

Sydney don't deserve access or discounts to these players for paying some small amount to run the academies in the same way that WC and Freo don't deserve WA players because they essentially fund football in that state. Hawthorn pay money for equalisation, yet we don't deserve access to other clubs' players or resources. It's a competition first and foremost, just because the northern clubs are in a growth area doesn't mean they should get massive on field advantages for doing what many other clubs do for no benefit.

 

[Furn2]

The whole we invested millions so we deserve to get highly rated players argument just doesn't fly when the whole point of having a draft and cap is so teams with more resources can't use them to get better players.

If the Hawks offered Fyfes family $3mil a year for 5 years outside the cap don't we deserve him since we invested all those resources ?

So why can the swans or whoever spend money and get an advantage
?

 

[kneecapper]

I'm all for the Swans academy as everyone can see the bigger picture there. It's no different to say the Eagles partnership with BhP and the kids of far north WA (except we don't have access to them).

But would the academy or the entire afl comp (it is a competition after-all) be any worse if it was say 'the Swans academy powered by the afl'. By all means use the swans, Giants, etc as branding and essentially have everything the same. Just send the bill to afl house as after-all, it is afl that is trying to grow the game right?

That has already been tried and the AFL failed pretty badly. There's a very good reason why the AFL wants to hand off responsibility to local clubs to administer local talent programs.

The reality is that we finished 4th and, thanks to the new rules, ended up with just one pick under 50. If Mills turns out to be a dud (which happens) or does an ACL that's a huge price to have paid and a massive gamble on our future prospects in return for attempting to build the game in a state that, quite frankly, doesn't really give much of a crap about AFL.

 

[Prudster]

That has already been tried and the AFL failed pretty badly. There's a very good reason why the AFL wants to hand off responsibility to local clubs to administer local talent programs.

The reality is that we finished 4th and, thanks to the new rules, ended up with just one pick under 50. If Mills turns out to be a dud (which happens) or does an ACL that's a huge price to have paid and a massive gamble on our future prospects in return for attempting to build the game in a state that, quite frankly, doesn't really give much of a crap about AFL.

Yep the AFL handed it over because it kills two birds with one stone.

And the reality is that if it weren't for the academies you would have maybe two or three picks under 50, so if the top one doesn't work out, the other two are second and third rounders who probably won't make it anyway, especially not in a contending team who would much rather have 1 top draftee then several mid range ones. If Sydney don't think it was worth it, they wouldn't do it, they don't need some massive discount to convince them to take top 3 draft picks.

 

[kneecapper]

Yep the AFL handed it over because it kills two birds with one stone.

And the reality is that if it weren't for the academies you would have maybe two or three picks under 50, so if the top one doesn't work out, the other two are second and third rounders who probably won't make it anyway, especially not in a contending team who would much rather have 1 top draftee then several mid range ones. If Sydney don't think it was worth it, they wouldn't do it, they don't need some massive discount to convince them to take top 3 draft picks.

You're being pretty flippant about the potential value we're giving up. We've picked up some absolute gems with our 2nd and 3rd picks over the years - Parker, Hanners, Goodes just to name a few superstars. Potentially missing out on players like that going forward is a massive price to pay.

 

[Gohawthorn13]

You're being pretty flippant about the potential value we're giving up. We've picked up some absolute gems with our 2nd and 3rd picks over the years - Parker, Hanners, Goodes just to name a few superstars. Potentially missing out on players like that going forward is a massive price to pay.

I don't know why hawthorn and sydney supporters try to debate logically when they seem to always disagree on these topics.

 

[Colonial]

I thought the idea was to build a premiership list and not a list full of local heroes so Joe Blows can cheer them on.


You're not fooling anyone mate. Everyone knows the AFL needs the new expansion clubs to win a premiership and until than, the rules will be very generous under the so-called "growing the game" banner.

It is, for any club, to build a list to win a flag.
Aweful lot easier when we dont have players going home to be closer to mummy and daddy. Especially when over 95% of our list are from another state.

You want an equal comp well this helps that. Just because it helps the northern clubs balance out the inequity of being in non strong holds doesnt mean its unfair.
How many home derbies you guys get again?
How many home grown players in your team?
Wheres the gf held?

Now move along its obvious your stuck in the vfl era.

 

[mcgarnacle]

so are you saying you would prefer not to have priority access to NSW Academy players?

Swans in the past two drafts have landed two top three rated players / mids. It's cost them pick 17 and this year pick 36,37 and 39 in a weak draft.

And you thinks it's BS and a joke?

Cry us a river.

I see you both just ignored the point of the comment once you checked the club i support. BF at it's finest.