Opinion Is the AFL becoming an uneven competition?

Is the AFL becoming an uneven competition?


  • Total voters
    34

Remove this Banner Ad

I respect your opinion and point of view, but St Kilda were playing in a GF only 7 years ago? And 7 years ago the tigers were still in debt.
There’s definite merit to what you are saying, but then i look at some of the drafting and trading by the bottom teams and it’s pretty ordinary decision making.
I almost reckon if you have been in the bottom 6 for over a certain period of time, you shouldn’t be allowed to trade your first round draft picks for a certain period of time.
I know people will say sometimes you need to give up that first round pick to get a quality player, but geez, how has it worked out so far for the bottom teams doing that?
And if you alter free agency, then you have to alter the draft system. Because free agency was brought in as players don’t have a say in where they are drafted at the start of their career.
And keep in mind, sport at elite level has nothing to do with fairness or everyone wins a prize. And that should never be altered.


Sent from my iPad using righteous Bhodi manpower

Couldn’t we alter it so interstate sides can’t make the finals , lol.


Go Saints
 
While we have free agency without the destination club paying for the incoming player with draft picks or equivalent - we will have inequality.

The clubs who get a free agent in get a double dip - they get the player they want and they still have draft picks to nab a star recruit as well.

The club losing the player may get compensation but they lose in the deal (on average) and every other club loses.

The club who recruits the free agent wins.

And seeing that most free agents go from the less successful or less wealthy clubs to the more successful or wealthy clubs - the general trend is obvious.
Also means lower clubs drop down the order of drafting so triple dips. We lose pick three so that Richmond gets Lynch. It actually punishes every other team for Richmond’s gain for example.
 
Also means lower clubs drop down the order of drafting so triple dips. We lose pick three so that Richmond gets Lynch. It actually punishes every other team for Richmond’s gain for example.


True but the alternative is no comp. Probably the best way to go plus lowering the amount of years before becoming a FA. Then there are many more players in the pool.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

True but the alternative is no comp. Probably the best way to go plus lowering the amount of years before becoming a FA. Then there are many more players in the pool.
I think that still just makes the same issue, just means we can have their s**t players. A bit like bringing in more rabbits to fix the rabbit plague.
 
I think that still just makes the same issue, just means we can have their s**t players. A bit like bringing in more rabbits to fix the rabbit plague.


I don't think so. Its means there will players available to fill needs. If you need a ruck there might be 3 available. Same for a CHB and so on. Your draft picks keep their original positions and the SC stops sides just getting 5 big paying FA. Even this year it looks like more ordinary or poorer clubs are picking up some very good players.
 
True but the alternative is no comp. Probably the best way to go plus lowering the amount of years before becoming a FA. Then there are many more players in the pool.
I think that still just makes the same issue, just means we can have their s**t players. A bit like bringing in more rabbits to fix the rabbit plague.
 
... now to write that off as just bad mistakes is being ignorant. what bad mistake have st kilda made that mean they have not made finals?
For me it's the decision to go for talented youth over talented mature players. Brains and Pelican went for potential (but very young) stars over heart and soul gems.

At that time though it was a depleted pool. Not the time to go for youth.

We also made some poor selections and we haven't developed those guys well anyway.

We've had some success lately in luring free agents (delisted or otherwise). But looking at how many State League players have been shown to be immediately successful (and for 3-5 years) makes you wonder what could have been if we'd gone even harder for those mature bodies. :moustache:
 
Anyone who was around in the pre-draft and salary cap era would be comfortable that the comp is more even these days. Captain Blood 17's point about all AFL teams bar the newbies making the GF in the last 20 years is salient. The fact that most RL clubs have won a premiership in the same period is down to the more predictable nature of the game; it is less prone to vagaries of match-ups and game plan. The best team generally wins.
 
in 2016 there was one game between first and 7th in the AFL. Not much difference there. in that same year there was 6 games between 1st and 7th in the NRL. Amazing how you can find stats to suit any agenda.
Actually in 2016 in the AFL there were 2 games between first and 7th and 5 games between first and 8th. Close but no cigar.
 
Actually in 2016 in the AFL there were 2 games between first and 7th and 5 games between first and 8th. Close but no cigar.
Yes sorry looked at round 22. Point stands. It changes all the time. As I said heaps of games difference in the nrl that year. And you could use stats to show anything.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)


The AFL's six MCG tenant clubs have landed a multi-million windfall under a COVID-19 emergency deal struck between Australian Rules football and its premier stadium.

Collingwood, Melbourne, Richmond, Hawthorn, Carlton and Essendon will each receive home game payments estimated at between $150,000 and $200,000 per match for the remainder of the shortened season.

The complex deal, negotiated over the past fortnight between the MCC's Fox and AFL executive Travis Auld, now places pressure on head office to achieve a similar deal for its Marvel Stadium clubs St Kilda, North Melbourne and the Western Bulldogs. Essendon and Carlton, who split their home games between the two venues, would also benefit.
 
Bother the same deal, us playing games at Marvel were what allowed the AFL to buy the sodding stadium which in turn got the loan that stabilised the league. Give us more!
 
Bother the same deal, us playing games at Marvel were what allowed the AFL to buy the sodding stadium which in turn got the loan that stabilised the league. Give us more!
They do give us about 6 million more per year than about 8 other sides. The problem is the coronavirus this year. Everyone is getting the same.
 
Here's the rest of the article;

Fox told the clubs the unforeseen cash boost was in part a goodwill gesture from the stadium in tough times and one that underlined the spirit of the long-term agreement with the AFL and the MCG, which now runs until 2057.
Under the complex new arrangement the AFL will pay the MCG a significantly reduced ground management fee and the stadium in turn will forward the majority of that fee – about $6 million – to the home clubs.
The deal was predicated on the AFL's agreement to meet an albeit reduced rental commitment to the stadium on the condition that most of the money was then passed to the clubs. Generally the MCC receives money back from the AFL in a two-way deal dependent on attendance numbers and total matches, including finals.

Should the season continue without spectators, the MCG will receive no food and beverage revenue, with the AFL controlling and holding the rights to all advertising signage including the scoreboard.

Should state government restrictions ease to allow some members, corporates and general supporters back into the stadium the emergency deal would be revisited.

________________


Not sure what this actually has to do with the AFL. This is the MCG giving money to the six clubs that play at their venue.
 
How can the MCG fork out that sort of money for games with no supporters? I bet we will get a bill from Marvel Stadium for our games, talk about the rich getting richer...
Why would we get a bill. Why do people think the worst of everything happens to our club. No channel 7 games but no one mentions the first 5 are in Melbourne. Surely that’s better for winning. Watching a game on tv doesn’t help a side win.
 
How can the MCG fork out that sort of money for games with no supporters? I bet we will get a bill from Marvel Stadium for our games, talk about the rich getting richer...
MCC is still keeping the full rate for members this year. They've offered a 30% discount on next year for members (but only if they want it!) but they reasoned this year's fee covered last year's final series and the cricket.
 
Back
Top