Equalisation in the AFL

[gbatman]

The draft isn't working.
The NRL system doesn't have a lottery, doesn't have zoning, doesn't have any of the concoctions we have and yet year after year another team wins their premiership, whatever it is called. Winfield Cup or whatever.
That system of the NRL hopefully would see more chance of a Carlton flag.

AFL and NRL are different games! 13 players on the field compared to 18. 17 in a side compared to 22. The more players on the field and in the team the less of an impact one player has. The more players on a team/field the more you have to bring in, hence the longer it takes.

The way I see it, the AFL don't want teams to have an advantage because of big spending on their football departments compared to others. Why should teams have an advantage because their recruiter is not as good. You're always going to have an advantage but with such limited opportunity for really bad sides to take top talent.

You want to fix a side like Brisbane, you allow them access to a good number of young talent, not just pick one and pick 19 and so forth. You want Hawthorn to not win 3, 4 or 5 flags in a row, you make their picks really low while they are up. It's so bloody simple.

 

[mediumsizered]

Not sure the AFL works to the 'more chance of Carlton winning a flag' ethos.

And therein lies the problem with the current system.

 

[footyfan1978]

People truly believe that Carlton didn't believe in "using the draft" up until a few years ago.
This is the media lie spun to ensure we blame it all on Carlton for their misfortune.

We only believed in "topping up" through trades is the common misconception that the media tell us. We don't "rebuild" we just buy in new players, yada, yada, yada.

Those myths and stories have be put forward over the years in press but we all know that is just to sell papers.
Not sure why you worry about the press too much. All that matters is what our actual club does and make no mistake no matter the spin the press put on, the truth is we have not as a club truly embraced building a strong list via the system that has been in place well over two decades now.

The fact is that up until the penalties for salary cap cheating Carlton was generally competitive whether or not "we embraced the draft"

I'm not sure you really looked deep into this but trust me, if you take the time to look at the nucleus of when we were a premiership contender you will find the bulk of the guns in the team at the time were via systems that existed before all the drafts and salary cap system took over.
When we were a chance of winning a premiership it was mainly due to guns like SOS, Braddles, Kouta, Ratten etc etc.
None of those guys were drafted. All via under 19's system of when clubs had zones, or simply buying players with cash like Bradley from SANFL.
Kernahan of 1995 was via same system, Hanna via under 19's, Sexton under 19's no doubt, Peter Dean, Christou , Fraser Brown etc etc. Madden from Essendon, Spalding from Melbourne, Rice from St.Kilda. The test of embracing the new systems that had been in place a decade by then was after the guys like Sticks, Braddles, Diesel and SOS moved close to retirement or into retirement. There is no evidence anywhere of a strategy of re-creating or maintaining a strong list we already had created from previous systems in place. Yeah, we had draft picks like all clubs and got a few good ones at times like McKay and Camporeale but a strategy of list management and evolving the list over long period? Sorry mate there was zero. In fact in reality Elliott seems to have not even taken most of new system seriously.
So yeah, you are totally right we were generally competitive to around the period of the salary cap hefty penalties but that was because we had a strong chore of guns that did not come from the drafting era. If you think we as a club had embraced the new era of drafting and salary caps fully, you are sadly not taking a good hard look of what went on and did not go on during a time we should have been devising a strategy to work out how to get really good at list development through drafting. I honestly believe it is only since Silvagni was appointed to be the head of it all that we actually have truly shown we have now embraced what needs to be done to create and then maintain a really strong list.

I am excited at the challenge before us of not just getting good at it, but being brilliant at it.
We are starting from a long way back because of the mess that has been allowed to only see our list splutter and decline for so long.
You are kidding yourself if you think the AFL are going to remove the draft and salary cap systems.
You either embrace it and get good at it or become the systems sad examples of being pathetic at it.

 

[harmesy 37]

Those myths and stories have be put forward over the years in press but we all know that is just to sell papers.
Not sure why you worry about the press too much. All that matters is what our actual club does and make no mistake no matter the spin the press put on, the truth is we have not as a club truly embraced building a strong list via the system that has been in place well over two decades now.



I'm not sure you really looked deep into this but trust me, if you take the time to look at the nucleus of when we were a premiership contender you will find the bulk of the guns in the team at the time were via systems that existed before all the drafts and salary cap system took over.
When we were a chance of winning a premiership it was mainly due to guns like SOS, Braddles, Kouta, Ratten etc etc.
None of those guys were drafted. All via under 19's system of when clubs had zones, or simply buying players with cash like Bradley from SANFL.


I am excited at the challenge before us of not just getting good at it, but being brilliant at it.
We are starting from a long way back because of the mess that has been allowed to only see our list splutter and decline for so long.
You are kidding yourself if you think the AFL are going to remove the draft and salary cap systems.
You either embrace it and get good at it or become the systems sad examples of being pathetic at it.

I understand what you are saying, but "embracing the draft" is a cliché.

Carlton - as with all other clubs - had two options
1) get players from the draft
2) trade to get established players.

All clubs in varying formats have done this. The media like to tell us that Carlton kept ignoring "young talent" and kept trying to "top up" and that is why it is in the predicament it is.

This is nonsense.
Hawthorn has "topped up" with Burgyone, etc from other clubs.
Hawthorn has gone to the draft too.

The assumption is that Carlton if they had an option of young talent or topping up always chose "topping up". This is the bit that is inaccurate.

If your team starts off as 10%-20% worse than any other team it is a long way back whether you use trading or drafting.
Picking Kreuzer at pick 1 would have appeared a wise choice at the time...he was a Morrish Medallist, he was strong etc.
Now he is carrying injuries, and has generally struggled to fulfil his promise. Is that Carlton's fault?
The media would like to assume it is. They should have been wiser with their picks. Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

 

[Iamcarlton]

AFL and NRL are different games! 13 players on the field compared to 18. 17 in a side compared to 22. The more players on the field and in the team the less of an impact one player has. The more players on a team/field the more you have to bring in, hence the longer it takes.

The way I see it, the AFL don't want teams to have an advantage because of big spending on their football departments compared to others. Why should teams have an advantage because their recruiter is not as good. You're always going to have an advantage but with such limited opportunity for really bad sides to take top talent.

You want to fix a side like Brisbane, you allow them access to a good number of young talent, not just pick one and pick 19 and so forth. You want Hawthorn to not win 3, 4 or 5 flags in a row, you make their picks really low while they are up. It's so bloody simple.

Not sure throwing extra picks at Brisbane is going to do anything when they can't hold onto their players . Player retention is the biggest problem with teams like Brisbane and Carlton.
I'm sure brisi would love docherty and yeo right now and a number of others . And we all know the players we've lost I'm sure Waite Betts and Henderson in his rightful full back position would be handy at the moment . Get your recruiting right hit your later picks with good players ala geelong how many early picks have they had , develop your players correctly and a team will prosper . Nothing wrong with the Draft .

 

[Windhover]

Not sure throwing extra picks at Brisbane is going to do anything when they can't hold onto their players . Player retention is the biggest problem with teams like Brisbane and Carlton.
I'm sure brisi would love docherty and yeo right now and a number of others . And we all know the players we've lost I'm sure Waite Betts and Henderson in his rightful full back position would be handy at the moment . Get your recruiting right hit your later picks with good players ala geelong how many early picks have they had , develop your players correctly and a team will prosper . Nothing wrong with the Draft .

I do not see player retention at Carlton as a problem at all. If players are leaving Carlton (as they have) it is a symptom of a very real problem. In the case of those players you mention plus Laidler, Yarran, Bell and Garlett we can all have theories as to the identity of the problem (as I certainly do). There have been sufficient changes at the Club since last year that IMO the cause of the player non-retention policy has been addressed. It is therefore not profitable to rake over old coals. But if Caz wants to up and leave "to get better opportunities" spin it however you like it, it would not be a good sign.

Brisbane clearly do have a player retention problem that is structural and based on geography. On ABC radio yesterday one of the commentators before our game suggested perhaps all clubs get say an extra $50K salary cap relief for each player recruited to the club from interstate. Since Brisbane are likely to have most interstate players this will advantage them over most other clubs, but in a way that is fair across the competition.

 

[Iamcarlton]

Was more talking about Carlton as past tenths and yes Brisbane currently but using us a an example as well . Do hope we have addressed our retention issues time will tell but seems we may well have . With free agency coming in and it seems that it's a bit easier for players to leave their clubs if they so desire , I feel for us its most likely smart practice to be recruiting as we did last year more Victorian home grown lads . Than looking interstate with the go home factor more in play nowadays .

 

[gbatman]

Not sure throwing extra picks at Brisbane is going to do anything when they can't hold onto their players . Player retention is the biggest problem with teams like Brisbane and Carlton.
I'm sure brisi would love docherty and yeo right now and a number of others . And we all know the players we've lost I'm sure Waite Betts and Henderson in his rightful full back position would be handy at the moment . Get your recruiting right hit your later picks with good players ala geelong how many early picks have they had , develop your players correctly and a team will prosper . Nothing wrong with the Draft .

They will be down there for a long time with the current system. They need to get a lot of players in there in a short period of time to get them up quicker so they are a bit more appealing, the player retention problem needs to come internally. They have had just as much problem with player retention as us which is why they need extra picks to find good players that will both stay and make them a competitive side. GWS have just as bigger problem with player retention but they have had the picks and the players to manage it.

You don't help clubs who are stuck down the bottom for what ever reason by being tough on them. We were lucky, we had trade bait and still do but sides who don't aren't going to be helped by the system in place.

We'll be fine we actually traded so we ended up with similar picks to what we would have had if the system I suggested was in place and this will get us going sooner. Brisbane don't seem to have that ability, they are likely to go through the same rebuilding path as Melbourne which we don't want to see.

Not sure how you can be unsure extra picks wouldn't help Brisbane, it's straight forward that it would. MAybe they should just give up and fold if they can't be helped...

 

[Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods]

How about the first round consisting of the bottom 8 teams picking twice? Second round then involves all 18 teams, either in ladder order, or reverse ladder order, which is then continued into the 3rd round.
Only way a top 8 team can draft in the first round is by trading into it.

 

[gbatman]

How about the first round consisting of the bottom 8 teams picking twice? Second round then involves all 18 teams, either in ladder order, or reverse ladder order, which is then continued into the 3rd round.
Only way a top 8 team can draft in the first round is by trading into it.

I don't think the bottom half of the top 8 should be restricted, these clubs aren't powerhouses, they are up and comers and should be encouraged to become contenders. I think that system may actually help the top 4 by holding back the up and comers.

 

[Iamcarlton]

Then so be it Brisbane only 12 years ago were playing in their 4th conscutive grand final . Swings and roundabouts if they can fix their retention problem recruit and develop well then their time will come again . Melbourne are a perfect example of why not to give extra picks totally poor recruiting and development that they are only just getting it right now . Both of these sides as well as us only have themselves to blame .

 

[Gethelred]

Considering that I seem to be in the significant minority here - I voted yes in the poll - and most of the discussion in here is how equalisation is failing, I would like to share the way I see the situation, because I think equalisation in the AFL is working, provided you make certain allowances.

Firstly, the AFL is a business, and it protects its interests first beyond all else; thus, you see a side like Sydney, that simply cannot do what Melbourne has done over the last five/ten years and survive financially receive the COLA and GWS their overblown academy. You have a poorly run side in Brisbane about to be propped up, and GC not far away from it; the AFL looks to expand its brand, and to make itself the dominant sport in Australia, of course they would proffer aid to teams in difficult areas.

Hawthorn, and to a certain extent Geelong, got very lucky that their eras of success coincided with the addition of the expansion clubs. The talent drain that caused stopped sides that were ascending but were not quite good enough to truly challenge - us, West Coast, Richmond, Essendon - from improving their lists incrementally as time progresses. Sure, you can point to poor drafting - Kane Lucas, anyone? - but it helps to have a talent pool undiluted by GWS having selected the best 16/17 year olds prior to their draft years. This leads Geelong/Hawthorn to unopposed premierships, with the only other option being Sydney, who have a greater capacity to maintain their position in the eight due to the combination of the COLA, which allowed them to retain talent, and their academy, which allows them to bring in and foster talent free of the draft.

Do I think the AFL is an even playing field? Absolutely not. Do I think that we were ****ed over by the AFL over the salary cap? Of course we were. It is due to how far we fell that the AFL is completely unwilling to permit Essendon to explode, regardless of how much they deserve it, and it is clearly in their own benefit to do so. It feels like an immense injustice to us to watch other clubs - Brisbane, Melbourne - get bailed out of their financial woes, because we were so strong that the AFL made an example of us and smashed us hard; it seems deeply unfair that some clubs - GWS, Sydney - get a leg up because the competition needs to grow, and yes it is unfair.

But for me, the equalisation of the AFL is working, exactly how it is intended: (or rather, will be once the talent is properly rebalanced between clubs; ten years down the road, when the ripples of the leg up that GC and GWS have gotten have faded somewhat) to protect the AFL, to insulate the clubs from undue hardship or insolvency, and to assure success to all clubs by the AFL's definition of success.

 

[harmesy 37]

Considering that I seem to be in the significant minority here - I voted yes in the poll - and most of the discussion in here is how equalisation is failing, I would like to share the way I see the situation, because I think equalisation in the AFL is working, provided you make certain allowances.



But for me, the equalisation of the AFL is working, exactly how it is intended: (or rather, will be once the talent is properly rebalanced between clubs; ten years down the road, when the ripples of the leg up that GC and GWS have gotten have faded somewhat) to protect the AFL, to insulate the clubs from undue hardship or insolvency, and to assure success to all clubs by the AFL's definition of success.

I agree with 95% of your post. The last paragraph I don't think is correct though for me, as I don't believe equalisation is working. Otherwise why is Hawthorn about to win their 4th premiership in a row?
Why has Geelong won 3 and Sydney 2 and Brisbane 3 in a row?

The statistics prove it isn't working.

And what makes it worse has a lot to do with poor decision making from head office. Not just free agency, but their policies on assistance, on financially stifling some clubs and not others, father-son rule changes and on and on it goes. So many poor decisions that keep changing the goal posts.


The draft isn't working either. Trading isn't working as it benefits the strong clubs. I mean does anyone truly believe that Lake with pick 27 was a fair trade for pick 21 and 41? Why can such a trade go through? as Lake was going to go no matter what as he wanted premierships and Footscray had to accept the crumbs of the offer or nothing. If there was no draft one could force Hawthorn to give more in a trade than just two crumby picks.



In the draft - one good player out of the top 20 young kids isn't going to turn around a team. There are at least 19 other good young players of a similar quality going to other clubs.

Priority picks or whatever would be needed if they genuinely want to turn around sinking ships, but it is too late to try that again. Just get rid of the whole system of drafting

It is clear that the NRL model appears better if "equalisation" truly is the aim.


Another point - Why on hell did they introduce free agency when Hawthorn was in the middle of their period of domination? This is yet another example of the AFL trying to infiltrate the decision making of players and clubs.

The NRL don't have free agency, they don't have equalisation policies, they don't have compensation picks, etc ...they don't need them as they don't have a draft - which promotes inequities.

And why does Melbourne get compensated and other clubs don't?


The solution? get rid of the draft. and introduce full scale trading. That way you take it out of the hands of AFL head office manipulation.

 

[Coops93]

The draft isn't working either. Trading isn't working as it benefits the strong clubs. I mean does anyone truly believe that Lake with pick 27 was a fair trade for pick 21 and 41? Why can such a trade go through? as Lake was going to go no matter what as he wanted premierships and Footscray had to accept the crumbs of the offer or nothing. If there was no draft one could force Hawthorn to give more in a trade than just two crumby picks.

An interesting point you bring up. I've long agreed with this statement. Why do clubs often get bent over by players because they've decided they want to join a certain club? Surely the dogs could have just said no, and accepted a better trade from elsewhere? Why is it because Lake said he wants to go to the Hawks they only deal with them and accept a rubbish offer instead of sending him to another club who actually offers something decent?

That alone could have helped Brisbane over the years through the mass player exodus. They've accepted pittance for the talent they've offloaded. Heck, we only traded pick 33 for Docherty when only 1 season earlier Brisbane drafted him with pick 12. How is that an acceptable trade for Brisbane?

Is there a rule where the player has final say on where they get traded, is that why this keeps happening?

 

[Gethelred]

I agree with 95% of your post. The last paragraph I don't think is correct though for me, as I don't believe equalisation is working. Otherwise why is Hawthorn about to win their 4th premiership in a row?
Why has Geelong won 3 and Sydney 2 and Brisbane 3 in a row?

The statistics prove it isn't working.

And what makes it worse has a lot to do with poor decision making from head office. Not just free agency, but their policies on assistance, on financially stifling some clubs and not others, father-son rule changes and on and on it goes. So many poor decisions that keep changing the goal posts.


The draft isn't working either. Trading isn't working as it benefits the strong clubs. I mean does anyone truly believe that Lake with pick 27 was a fair trade for pick 21 and 41? Why can such a trade go through? as Lake was going to go no matter what as he wanted premierships and Footscray had to accept the crumbs of the offer or nothing. If there was no draft one could force Hawthorn to give more in a trade than just two crumby picks.



In the draft - one good player out of the top 20 young kids isn't going to turn around a team. There are at least 19 other good young players of a similar quality going to other clubs.

Priority picks or whatever would be needed if they genuinely want to turn around sinking ships, but it is too late to try that again. Just get rid of the whole system of drafting

It is clear that the NRL model appears better if "equalisation" truly is the aim.


Another point - Why on hell did they introduce free agency when Hawthorn was in the middle of their period of domination? This is yet another example of the AFL trying to infiltrate the decision making of players and clubs.

The NRL don't have free agency, they don't have equalisation policies, they don't have compensation picks, etc ...they don't need them as they don't have a draft - which promotes inequities.

And why does Melbourne get compensated and other clubs don't?


The solution? get rid of the draft. and introduce full scale trading. That way you take it out of the hands of AFL head office manipulation.

I'm not familiar with the NRL; don't follow rugby. Having read the last few pages, you've said more or less the same thing three or four times, and while what you say has merit, I think there's a bit in there that needs examining.

Firstly, do you really think that moving to a no draft system will benefit all the clubs across the competition? I cannot speak for the NRL or the long term, but in the short to medium term clubs like West Coast, Fremantle, Sydney, Brisbane and GC would suffer incredibly via the lack of local talent on display to recruiters. Victoria and South Australia supply the majority of AFL level players, so these clubs would have to maintain recruiters in victoria permanently, which in and of itself is a financial strain on the clubs. West Coast could take it; do you think Brisbane could?

Second, the open season on uncontracted players in an no draft situation does not offer any impediment to stop successful clubs approaching the best youth with the best offer. If the money was enough to entice players to any club in any situation, why then do the entire Hawthorn lineup sacrifice money for glory? Geelong, prior to getting Dangerfield, had a policy that no-one would get more than Selwood, which allowed them to create a team where the highest paid also did the most, on and off the field. While you say that the statistics prove that the draft has failed, I would instead say that player trading rules and free agency are too lenient, and that has created the situation where monster sides like Sydney and Hawthorn dominate.

There are several examples from your comment that I'd like to examine. Firstly, you stated, using the Brian Lake trade as an example, that Trading isn't working as it benefits the strong clubs. This is simply not true, and is an oversimplification. Trading is an interplay of relationships between three groups; the players and their managers, the original club, and the destination club. You then have the status of contract, which details where the power between each party lies. If the contract is current, then the player - as it were - has little to no bargaining power, and hasn't since a legal case in the nineties (forget what it was called, I think McNamarra v Hawthorn) which used restraint of trade legislation to bar a player from playing with another club whilst contracted. Yes, you'll have situations like Yarrans and possibly Cam McCarthy, but those situations are rare, because playing hardball or trying to stiff your opposite number across the trade table creates difficulty for future trades. And, unlike most other professional sports across the world, we don't see many captains traded, and we see many more single club players than other sports. Johnson left Geelong because he was pushed; Mumford left Sydney because he was pushed. While I think that the inclusion of free agency has skewed the balance between the players and the clubs significantly, trading benefits everyone. Swings and roundabouts.

You also said "what makes it worse has a lot to do with poor decision making from head office." I really would have thought that the AFL's position on equalisation was rather clear, albeit muddled due to the media. They aren't in this to create a truly equal competition at all. They are there, primarily, to protect the brand. Therefore, at least with regards to equalisation, their setup makes complete sense; they provide startup clubs with financial and draft based aid to hopefully earn supporter with success for the team in their area; they financially assist clubs like Melbourne and Nth Melbourne, whilst subtly or overtly telling them to play in Tasmania or the Northern Territory. They grant Sydney concessions to ensure that they are always either contending or on the edge of contending, to make them stay relevant.

And finally, I thought I'd explained how Geelong, Hawthorn and Sydney have dominated the competition. The inclusion of GC and GWS drained the talent coming through the draft, which halted teams who were on the rise in 2009-10; Collingwood, Carlton, Essendon, WB, Richmond. Geelong then sought to trade out/retire players who were too old, and their youth hasn't quite come on as much as they would have hoped, while Hawthorn, instead of dipping into the draft, used their draft selections to get the cream - Hill, Birtchell - on the outside, knowing that they could get structural selections via trade; Hale for ruck/forward, Gibson as a third man up/intercept marker, Lake to play on the monsters, Gunston as a third tall. They had the bones of their side already, and the lack of real contenders rising around them meant that all those sides who could have contended over the next five years to today never made the grade, leaving them only opposed by Sydney, who aren't allowed to bottom out.

I'm not averse to changing the system a bit. I think that the bottom three sides should get two selections inside the first round, because most of the time they'll need it. But the system you advocate as working - that without a draft at all - would create superclubs, where talent is earmarked as early as sixteen, and they are groomed into playing for one side. Hawthorn would win another four flags, and would be in a similar situation to Sydney, because just as soon as talent left it would be replaced.

 

[BlueJet]

Equalisation doesn't mean limiting who wins the comp so much as preventing the richest from simply purchasing the trophy, Real Madrid/New York Yankees style.

Sent from my SM-N915G using Tapatalk

 

[footyfan1978]

I understand what you are saying, but "embracing the draft" is a cliché.

It is, but it sums up we have not had a strategy of embracing creating a strong list through drafting.
The media may put some bullshit spin on it like Carlton do not believe in drafting which clearly is nonsense but it also is nonsense to suggest we embraced the system. We only just got a strategy for the system put in place three decades ago.

 

[footyfan1978]

Equalisation doesn't mean limiting who wins the comp so much as preventing the richest from simply purchasing the trophy, Real Madrid/New York Yankees style.

It seems like some here do not get the origins of why it was brought in.


Hawthorn in 1980's were getting players like Buckenara, Ken Judge, Lester-Smith, Platten, Jarman and others from interstate.
North had gotten Cable, Blight, Krakouer brothers, Glendinning, Abernethy, Kelly, Hodgeman etc etc.
Essendon were getting Buhagiar, Otway, Leon Baker, Duckworth, Antrobus, Greg Anderson etc from interstate.
Carlton were getting Klomp, Maylin, Ken Hunter, Bosustow, Ditchburn, Ralph, Dorotich, Kernahan, Bradley, Motley and Naley from interstate.
We were the best at it and Essendon and Hawthorn not far behind.
Basically most of others clubs were going broke trying to keep up.
The last real off season of it was when we got all Bradley, Sticks and Motley and Swans brought Greg Williams, Toohey and Bolton from Geelong,
Neagle from Essendon and Gerard Healy from Melbourne. Swans after not winning a premiership with that lot also nearly went bankrupt a few years on.

Carlton won 81 and 82 premierships, Hawthron 1983 and Essendon 1984 and 85 premierships. By this time it was fairly clear Essendon, Hawthorn and Carlton were really starting to put a serious gap on the others via the old systems. Salary Cap and Drafts just starting out saved the league from us 3 all dominating the flags but more importantly stopped the crazy pursuit of other clubs spending money they simply could not afford to on bad choices. Carlton and Hawks played off in 1986 and 87 grand finals and no doubt Carlton would have in 1988 too if Johnston had not broken his ribs earlier in finals.
It only started to even out once Eagles, Brisbane and salary cap had stopped how strong Hawks and Carlton were getting. Essendon fell away a bit mainly through horror injuries in 1986.

 

[Keyza]

that is actually crap , ian collins chose to take a big up front payment to move games to the docklands

that said it was still way under's what we were offered to move their when the ground 1st opened !!

I'm sorry, I didn't realise we had a good deal.

 

[The Blue Baggers]

I'm sorry, I didn't realise we had a good deal.

yeah sorry did not mean to have a crack @ you

suspect greg swan knew but was just trying to get a better deal on game day

interestingly ian collins still sold out our home games for much less than the debt on the stands @ PP .... but that is another story !!

 

[Styxx]

A lot of Brisbane's issues are off field based and directly related to the AFL ignoring the warning signs whilst they were obsessed with setting up Gold Coast. They drafted well and lost most of them due to it.


Carlton's issues are completely different, we couldn't draft properly to save ourselves and had poor development procedures because something had to suffer to pay off the millions of debt we had that the AFL didn't care to assist with like they have with other clubs.

We got a lot right last offseason, two more of those will put us in a very good position moving forward.

 

[Windhover]

Considering that I seem to be in the significant minority here - I voted yes in the poll - and most of the discussion in here is how equalisation is failing, I would like to share the way I see the situation, because I think equalisation in the AFL is working, provided you make certain allowances.

Firstly, the AFL is a business,

Not in my opinion. It is a sport.

And equalisation "works" as a business model but not as a model for a sporting contest.

 

[Gethelred]

Not in my opinion. It is a sport.

And equalisation "works" as a business model but not as a model for a sporting contest.

Do you see the distinction as one worth making? I don't; the AFL is a business with the sport as the product to be consumed by us, the fans. And I'm not saying I necessarily see the sport like this. This is how the AFL sees things, and how equalisation is implemented backs this up.

 

[mikeythemoocow]

If the Comp was equal then every club should win a flag once over 18 years, so I think the equalisation should work is something like this

If a club hasn't won a flag for over 30 years, you revive a mid 2nd round priority pick, and this continues until they win a flag or reach 50 years without a premiership. At 50 years their priority pick moves from mid 2nd round to end of 1st round. Then if they don't win a flag by 70 years it move to mid 1st round pick, until they win a flag. If they get to 100 years they get booted out of the Comp in the ultimate relegation.

 

[gbatman]

I think equalisation isn't about all sides winning flags, it's about giving the bottom sides an opportunity to rebuild and get into finals quickly.

It does a lot of damage to clubs who are down the bottom for too long. They lose supporters and are financially hit hard whereas it's the opposite for clubs who are up the top. It's important for the sustainability of clubs that they aren't down the bottom too long. I actually think that it could mean less AFL compensation, bigger crowds, bigger interest as a whole for the AFL and its clubs if they are successfully lifted off the bottom much quicker.

Take Melbourne, though they haven't ever been a big supported club, they have been down that long that they would have lost followers and that means the implications of them being down for so long will be felt for years to come whereas Hawthorn will have gained supporters their strength in all regards will grow and continue to grow over the next 20 years.

The idea is right, the system had some merits 20/30 years ago but it's out of date and doesn't suit the modern game anymore. It's still not as bad as what a lottery system, open signing or zoning would be IMO.

I think, say for example the lions had picks 2, 16, 24 and 27 and we had 1, 15, 23 and 26 as I proposed earlier. There wouldn't be talks of the suggested long rebuilds (which don't work). There wouldn't be talks of needing compensation or wondering what to do with these teams who seem hopeless. This would actually get them going again and give them solid grounds to rebuild on and give them hope which means less players leaving etc.