Footy Dept. Cap & 3rd party deals

[Haggis McHaggis]

I'm sick to death of every equalisation discussion turning into a discussion about property value in Sydney vs Melbourne. Likewise, I'm sick of it turning into people bleating about Kurt Tippett. So many of these conversations claim to be about the wider debate on equalisation, but invariably turn into narrow, circular shit fights.

IMO the issues in the topic are key to the debate, and the fact that certain rich clubs have said they would fight against a cap, in any form, speaks loudly to how much of an advantage those clubs believe the extra spend affords them.

If it was universally acknowledged at the recent presidents gathering that all clubs being able to spend 100% of the player salary cap was crucial, how could that logic not then extend to acknowledging that a level playing field for footy dept's, and 3rd party arrangements, would also be critical to bringing about genuine equality across the competition?

I see a lot of people attacking one club, much as they did when the Lions were successful, and ignoring the bigger picture, largely because it suits their affiliation to do so. I find it amusing that Brisbanes recruiting zone was reduced from 100km from Brisbane to 50km as part of the hysterical whinging after our 3peat. Ironically amusing, in that it was solely motivated by the spectre of another quality forward joining a strong team.

History repeats, and the same fear spurs the same people to run the same campaign all over again (minus Sheeds, now he's on the other side). During that period our captain was offered a lucrative deal with ch9 on top of a contract at Collingwood. During that period we lost more players to startups than Collingwood, despite relative ladder position. During that time Collingwood won a flag & still managed to bring in Luke Ball, without losing any top line players. During that period Port Adelaide's premiership coaching group was decimated by poaching. During that period, Collingwood's president threatened to financially crucify Melbourne for grabbing a coach. During that period, despite all this, we are expected to believe that a club that did all that was at a disadvantage.. that the only thing really making life hard for the Doggies, North, etc. was Sydney's COLA, GC & GWS.

If the COLA is to be removed, it should not be done as a knee jerk reaction to a flag & a bunch of people sooking about the possibility that a gun forward could help bring the club in question another one.

If the issue of equalisation is to be genuinely addressed, all of these issues, and no doubt more, need to be thoroughly explored & addressed together. To do otherwise would simply remove a perceived threat to the rich clubs that would end up entrenching the divide that spurred the debate in the first place.

 

[Rustin Cohle]

Jolly and Ball were brought in before we won a flag... And we are able to retain players because we had a large number of retirements and delistings of older players in 2010.

 

[Haggis McHaggis]

No need to assail us with that vile thing. I would think the chronology of the events referred to were common knowledge. I referred to a wider time period as a whole. I was not attempting to insinuate Ball was picked up after winning a flag.

 

[Haggis McHaggis]

Wow, a Dawson pic & a couple of people trying to pass off poor ordering of a sentence as a genuine attempt to rewrite history. Good to see you lads add real value to the debate..

 

[jerry springer]

Collingwoods coaching group has been completely decimated by poaching at the worst possible times.On the eve of final(s). We have just had to suck it up and focus on the job. Our loss has been other football dept's gains.

 

[jerry springer]

For the uneducated we have lost over the past 5 years

Alan Richardson
Guy Mckenna
B.Scott (August 09 just before finals)
Gavin Brown
Mark Neeld (2 weeks before 2011 grand Final)
And Ive probably forgot someone

3 current senior coaches and 2 very respected assistants.That hurts a football dept more than anything.

Before 2010 we were known as a team of battlers with no superstars,we were lucky(???) enough to have multiple retirees from 07-10(Buckley,Rocca,Licuria,Clement,Obree etc) and lost Josh Fraser to the Gold Coast(suckers).These players took up a huge chunk of our salary cap and so we were able to keep players like Swan,Pendles and Cloke however now we are feeling the pinch(and rightly so).We have lost wellingham to the WCE and Dawes to Melbourne and there is a fair chance we will lose Thomas in the off-season.We managed however to be smart in trading and these short term losses may turn into long term gains.

Thats just the way of football these days.No use making excuses or asking for hand-outs you just have to adapt and move on

 

[GoTheSwannies]

Losing part of your coaching staff to a head coach position has nothing to do with money or equalisation, it's simply about career progression and shouldn't really enter the argument

 

[mark121]

Collingwoods coaching group has been completely decimated by poaching at the worst possible times.On the eve of final(s). We have just had to suck it up and focus on the job. Our loss has been other football dept's gains.

This probably isn't the place to ask but did Collingwood make the right decision to remove coaches from their employment as soon as they showed a desire to coach at a different team the next year. They would have been contracted to Collingwood until the end of the season and i expect they would have been profesional enough to give 100% till then.

I would have excluded them from meetings about the draft, trade and future planning but they still would have kept their other regular duties till the end of the year.

 

[McOrist]

I see a lot of people attacking one club, much as they did when the Lions were successful, and ignoring the bigger picture, largely because it suits their affiliation to do so. I find it amusing that Brisbanes recruiting zone was reduced from 100km from Brisbane to 50km as part of the hysterical whinging after our 3peat. Ironically amusing, in that it was solely motivated by the spectre of another quality forward joining a strong team.

History repeats, and the same fear spurs the same people to run the same campaign all over again (minus Sheeds, now he's on the other side). During that period our captain was offered a lucrative deal with ch9 on top of a contract at Collingwood. During that period we lost more players to startups than Collingwood, despite relative ladder position. During that time Collingwood won a flag & still managed to bring in Luke Ball, without losing any top line players. During that period Port Adelaide's premiership coaching group was decimated by poaching. During that period, Collingwood's president threatened to financially crucify Melbourne for grabbing a coach. During that period, despite all this, we are expected to believe that a club that did all that was at a disadvantage.. that the only thing really making life hard for the Doggies, North, etc. was Sydney's COLA, GC & GWS.

I agree.

 

[MarkT2]

I do not understand why advantage so often gets equated to a matter of equity these days. There are equitable and inequitable advantages in every aspect of life. There are plenty of instances where person A having more money than person B might be unfair. There are also a hell of a lot of cases where it is perfectly fair. It isn't a question of justice or equity if Franklin is a better player than Tippet.

It is an advantage to have more members. I am not a Hawthorn supporter but the fact they have more members than The Dogs is absolutely fair and due to their own great administration over most of the last 4 decades.

AFL equalisation is by and large not actually equalisation it is competition impeding and it is not at all about equity it is about aesthetics and marketing. Meanwhile the world’s most popular sport is possibly the most "inequitable" so the arguments are hard to sustain. So few teams win the major soccer comps that it remains the world’s most successful sporting code to the extent that their world cup is bigger than the Olympics.

Spending more money on a football department is an advantage. You can debate how much of an advantage but it has to be of some benefit unless you are poorly run in which case it will self adjust because the revenue & profit will not sustain the spending - see Carlton. The fact there is an advantage is simply a point. That does not mean it has to be prevented. Nor does a team have to be excluded from the draft because they already have built the best list.

 

[Haggis McHaggis]

Collingwoods coaching group has been completely decimated by poaching at the worst possible times.On the eve of final(s). We have just had to suck it up and focus on the job. Our loss has been other football dept's gains.

Indeed there has been natural attrition in your coaching department. Where the difference lays is in the ability to replace those people with real coaching talent. Port were left with a vacuum at the top end, and were never able to rebuild a group of similar quality. It was widely reported that they didn't have the means to attract a quality coach, even with the lure of a senior position.

Now we have an arrangement where the Doggies have 2 blokes coaching one day a week, unable to afford the same number of coaches, full time, of the wealthier clubs. Surely that has to have an impact on such a young, developing list.

During the stage you say your team were known as honest battlers, they had access to a good sized, well funded footy dept. that helped turn them into a premiership team.

 

[Haggis McHaggis]

I agree.

It's hard not to go back to that example when Eddie is the man that has run the argument against COLA & against capping footy dept spending. He has contradicted himself multiple times on the COLA. I am not attacking the Collingwood footy club. I am offering supporting examples that are addressing the chief antagonist when it comes to opposing genuine equalisation. I would not have Collingwood operate at any imposed disadvantage any more than I would have my own club. The whole point of my argument is that I would like to see genuine equalisation as the outcome of any action taken by the league, not simply the appeasement of one camp or another.

 

[RobertRichter]

Let's face it, the extra $600 k allowance Brisbane received was to ensure Brisbane were strong when the AFL were developing into SE QLD. Some 10 years later and we see they aren't as relevant as others in non football states and you can deduce that they were simply part of this marketing aim.

Forget capping football departments, you start by ensuring the salary cap is equal across the league.

That will be the biggest driver in ensuring equalisation.

If you were a supporter of a WB, St. Kilda & Melbourne, you would rightly ask why they have been waiting 40 years plus for a premiership when some clubs such as Sydney and Brisbane have been artificially assisted by the league to win one to achieve marketing aims.

 

[MarkT2]

It's hard not to go back to that example when Eddie is the man that has run the argument against COLA & against capping footy dept spending. He has contradicted himself multiple times on the COLA. I am not attacking the Collingwood footy club. I am offering supporting examples that are addressing the chief antagonist when it comes to opposing genuine equalisation. I would not have Collingwood operate at any imposed disadvantage any more than I would have my own club. The whole point of my argument is that I would like to see genuine equalisation as the outcome of any action taken by the league, not simply the appeasement of one camp or another.

COLA is not about equalistion it is the opposite. They are two different arguments and have nothing to do with each other. A few clubs on both sides of the fence have tried to link them for their own aims but the only real link is the marketing motivation.