Equalisation in the AFL

[harmesy 37]

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.


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.

I agree with all you are saying.

AFL management is REACTIVE and interferes in a piece-meal arrangement.

They make changes once it is staring them in the face, and after the horse has bolted.

eg Hawthorn and their Tasmanian deal. Actually they haven't done anything to limit the power of Hawthorn through this specially negotiated deal, but just are hoping that once Burgoyne, Mitchell etc retire equalisation will miraculously appear. One way they could limit the power of Hawthorn is to force them to play home matches at Docklands. They force Melbourne to move their home matches- why not Hawthorn?

When the AFL fiddles it affects the bottom or middle tiered teams, but not the top teams.

Eg this so called equalisation tax. Did they really take on powerful interests such as Collingwood or Hawthorn? No, because they are too powerful.


The solution is to take the opportunities for the AFL to fiddle (and cause more problems) out of their hands. That is why the NRL non-drafting system is better.

We are being told to rely on a rebuild, but really it won't happen. Carlton in 3 years time might get up to 8th or even 7th, but really it is all about premierships and the same teams win premierships year after year after year.

I just don't believe in the draft system. It is flawed and the bottom teams are not progressing to be able to challenge for flags.

 

[harmesy 37]

Trading is not equitable.

How can anyone think this is a fair trade? Dangerfield for pick 9 and some ineffective fringe player Dean Gore, and some other rubbish pick way back in the 60s or whatever.


Yet we have to accept that Geelong gets the better deal, as Dangerfield was going to go anyway.

Trades in future (WITHOUT A DRAFT) should be more equitable.

So Geelong would have had to have given up a Josh Caddy if they get a Dangerfield.

Using the draft as a form of trading isn't working, as it nearly always benefits the strong clubs.

Can anyone think of a trade Hawthorn has lost out on in recent years? and keep in mind when you are a strong club you can trade from a position of strength.

 

[gbatman]

I don't think the AFL should fiddle with the clubs financially. I think Hawthorn having good deals with Tasmania is fair game. As for Collingwood being financially strong, well good on them. Teams who are strong off the field will naturally become strong off the field.

The drafting system could be good but fact of the matter is, it doesn't suit the game, it's made it too hard and too long for clubs to rebuild. Some have succeeded but too many have failed. Quite simple, make it easy for clubs to rebuild and difficult for the top clubs to find talent and the rest will take care of itself.

 

[footyfan1978]

I just don't believe in the draft system.

This is very clear.

 

[Coops93]

Bumping this because I think it's really showing this off season.

Jaeger O'Maera is leaving a club that has paid hundreds of thousands (excluding salary) on him for a perennial premiership contender. GC can't do anything about it except take what Hawthorn give for him or get nothing by walking him to the draft. Tom Mitchell has decided he wants to play for Hawthorn as well, nothing anyone can do about it.

Suddenly Zach Tuohy and Brett Deledio want to play for Geelong.

How many players have been linked to Collingwood? A powerhouse club, down the ladder but always a massive destination.

Bryce Gibbs wants to move to Adelaide (admittedly for personal reasons, but still leaving a club in rebuild for a club that should at least have been top 2 last season if they didn't choke).

The top 4 players moving this off season will be moving to Geelong and Hawthorn, the most successful teams of the last decade. And the other going to an underachieving top 6 team.

I like the ideas that John Brown and Michaelangelo Rucci suggested. Give the clubs back some power because right now players can move wherever they want, regardless of what are more and more becoming meaningless contracts. Gold Coast should absolutely be able to say "Ok Jaeger, you want to move to Melbourne? Fine. But we're going to get the best deal for you. Not 14 and an average player because that's the best Hawthorn can do. We're going to send you to Essendon, because they offered us pick 1 and a second round pick next year and a player as a sweetener. That's what helps us get some return on the MASSIVE investment we made in you only for you to burn us."

 

[slashin_velvet]

We're moving to the realm of US sports where players move regularly, but the AFLPA has granted the players too much power. A player should be able to request a trade, but if the clubs cannot come up with a fair deal, that player should be available to any club.

Understand when players would prefer to move closer to home, however equalization will not work if powerful clubs can trade in genuine talent without losing something of quality.

 

[Coops93]

We're moving to the realm of US sports where players move regularly, but the AFLPA has granted the players too much power. A player should be able to request a trade, but if the clubs cannot come up with a fair deal, that player should be available to any club.

Understand when players would prefer to move closer to home, however equalization will not work if powerful clubs can trade in genuine talent without losing something of quality.

Agree. Clubs need to be able to act in there best interests as well. At the moment players hold all the power in these situations.

 

[Quazza]

We're moving to the realm of US sports where players move regularly, but the AFLPA has granted the players too much power. A player should be able to request a trade, but if the clubs cannot come up with a fair deal, that player should be available to any club.

definitely agree - the players here now have way too much power

the big difference is that in the US, teams can send a player wherever they like (unless they have a no trade clause in their contracts - generally only the elite get that) and without consent. Players don't get a say. "Oh, I'd like a trade to Celtics please" Ummm no, you'll go to where we get the best deal

 

[Golden Tonsils]

Has anyone figured out why North got compo for Wells and we didn't for Waite?

 

[Schrempfian]

Has anyone figured out why North got compo for Wells and we didn't for Waite?

the $$$

 

[slashin_velvet]

the $$$

and contract length.

2 years @ 400 = 800k
3 years @ 600 = 1,800k

 

[chipzac]

Every team gets 2 draft picks in just the first round (all other rounds back to 1 pick) according to the position they finish on the ladder.
Pretty sure that would even up the competition quickly.

 

[2ndeffort]

I remember a long time ago at Uni learning economics. All of the fundamentals made sense as long as people acted rationally within the confines and assumptions of the ruleset. When you see players accepting a lower salary to get to the club of their choice, or existing players rejigging their salaries to get a needed player in, these measures all undermine the logic that the equalization rules were built on. All I will say is that the Premier League is way ahead of all of this, there aren't any equalization rules it is dog eat dog and last year the little dog won. There's always a way, you just need to find it, most of the Bulldogs team weren't early draft picks handed out through preferential draft concessions.

 

[GapInIkonPark]

Surely equalisation doesn't mean that Adelaide, Geelong and GWS - 3 clubs that will continue to play finals for the foreseeable future - can pick off Gibbs, Tuohy and pick 5 for ... inadequate compensation which does not enable Carlton to rise up the ladder and compete to play finals ... it is the sense of entitlement of Adelaide, Geelong and GWS that is upsetting ..

and how is it that GWS can have more salary commitments for 2017 than it has salary cap?