List Sizes

[Markfs]

He isn't so terrible. But there was no reason to do it - we don't need to free a main list spot.


And there's a risk of doing it. If he does come good next year, he's automatically a free agent ala Schultz.

I disagree. I dont agree with keeping players on the list beyond a reasonable length of time on the basis that they might turn it around and make the club look like fools.

I think that argument could be used on ginnivan, who might mature up and adapt his slowness to the game like pendles has. There's a good chance that we will look stupid in the future. Gary Ablett snr was let go by hawthorn. They looked stupid in retrospect but they won a heap of premierships.

A free list spot gives an opportunity to another player to show their wares. The will kelly story is to me more about taking away the opportunity of another, as it is about his own failures.

 

[sr36]

I disagree. I dont agree with keeping players on the list beyond a reasonable length of time on the basis that they might turn it around and make the club look like fools.

I think that argument could be used on ginnivan, who might mature up and adapt his slowness to the game like pendles has. There's a good chance that we will look stupid in the future. Gary Ablett snr was let go by hawthorn. They looked stupid in retrospect but they won a heap of premierships.

A free list spot gives an opportunity to another player to show their wares. The will kelly story is to me more about taking away the opportunity of another, as it is about his own failures.

I agree with you. Delisting shouldn't be a consideration. The consideration should be whether the player is the best option to give a contract to. Delisting is just a consequence when the answer is no.

But you misunderstood what I was saying. Richards already has a contract, so the consideration is whether to move him to the rookie list or not. The mechanism to do that is delist and re-draft in the rookie draft. This year there's no reason to do that as we're not short on main list spots. And there's a potential negative consequence. If he performs well and we want to keep him, he becomes a DFA for the rest of his time with us.

 

[Markfs]

I agree with you. Delisting shouldn't be a consideration. The consideration should be whether the player is the best option to give a contract to. Delisting is just a consequence when the answer is no.

But you misunderstood what I was saying. Richards already has a contract, so the consideration is whether to move him to the rookie list or not. The mechanism to do that is delist and re-draft in the rookie draft. This year there's no reason to do that as we're not short on main list spots. And there's a potential negative consequence. If he performs well and we want to keep him, he becomes a DFA for the rest of his time with us.

As you know, I know little about these drafting rules. I said a few posts back that guys like richards shouldnt have 2 years to prove themselves. I like players getting supported but I would prefer to give 4 country footballers six months contracts just to see them in a professional environment. I have a sneaky feeling that recruiters are still reluctant to pick mature aged players who were either not up to it when they were 18 or were misjudged by the recruiters at that age. Simply put, I think a lot have gone through the cracks.

As to your specific point, if we delist richards and he does a schultz, then hallelujah... Even if he find another team without trading, then sobeit...at least we would get a season or two out of him.

If we have won a premiership by taking chances and not being gutless, then we should do the same with recruiting. Any opportunity to find another Markov should be taken, even if it means rejigging lists to artificially open up a spot. The wages are going up. It is becoming more professional at the rookie level. In the past, I felt sorry for them being dropped off a list at a moments notice, but thats modern football life these days.

 

[35Daicos]

Crazy that with all the interest in draft and trading etc that the AFL don’t publish the rules about list sizes, salary cap, etc in some easy to find place.

They're not that crazy! On the AFL website they have heaps of interesting stuff on this topic! It's been in the same spot for years, and it is easy to find. If you click on this button (top right corner) on the home page:

and scroll down a bit you'll see AFL Policies: AFL Policies & Terms

There's several .pdf files that cover the likes of drafting rules, list sizes and salary cap very thoroughly. The CBA file seems to have been updated quite recently. Keen fans should have a copy of those files handy at all times!

 

[Mollythedolly]

I think the other relevant fact that needs be here is the impact on salary cap.
The more players on the list, the lower the average wage potentially paid to players.
BUT
The first $90k* of a Rookies wage sits outside the salary cap. (If someone can be bothered to fact check my memory, that’d be great).
I think there’s also a different pay scale for Rookies as well which also affects cap management.

So, theoretically, 4 Rookies extends the cap by $360k to be spent on them.

* just updated from $80>90k based on SEN article.

Exactly. Can pay rookies whatever they/we negotiate. Cox was apparently on ~$140k when he signed on, we’ll above the mandated minimum. Checkers had the full quota of years on the rookie list and would have been on a significant salary after the first year of his rookie salary. The salient point is the $80-90k outside TPP per player. With 4 rookies, that’s $320-360k, goes up to $480-540k with the full quota of 6 rookies. That’s the majority of the salary for a player like McStay.

 

[sr36]

As you know, I know little about these drafting rules. I said a few posts back that guys like richards shouldnt have 2 years to prove themselves. I like players getting supported but I would prefer to give 4 country footballers six months contracts just to see them in a professional environment. I have a sneaky feeling that recruiters are still reluctant to pick mature aged players who were either not up to it when they were 18 or were misjudged by the recruiters at that age. Simply put, I think a lot have gone through the cracks.

As to your specific point, if we delist richards and he does a schultz, then hallelujah... Even if he find another team without trading, then sobeit...at least we would get a season or two out of him.

If we have won a premiership by taking chances and not being gutless, then we should do the same with recruiting. Any opportunity to find another Markov should be taken, even if it means rejigging lists to artificially open up a spot. The wages are going up. It is becoming more professional at the rookie level. In the past, I felt sorry for them being dropped off a list at a moments notice, but thats modern football life these days.

I'd assume that the club would prefer to have everyone train with us over preseason before contracting them, but the reality is there's a draft, and whether the kid is 18 or 21 if another club is interested in drafting them you don't get the opportunity to wait until they've been at the club to get a better sense of whether they're more likely to make it. I don't get why it seems to be a bigger deal when it's a mature age kid who gets the two years rather than someone like Murley, Draper, MacMahon.

 

[Markfs]

I'd assume that the club would prefer to have everyone train with us over preseason before contracting them, but the reality is there's a draft, and whether the kid is 18 or 21 if another club is interested in drafting them you don't get the opportunity to wait until they've been at the club to get a better sense of whether they're more likely to make it. I don't get why it seems to be a bigger deal when it's a mature age kid who gets the two years rather than someone like Murley, Draper, MacMahon.

well i think it's a bigger deal - not by a long way - for two reasons. 1. They're older and I think the drafting industry seems to focus on the kids, and 2. I think recruiters seem to discount players when they have been overlooked previously.

I'd like to free up the ability to recruit mature aged players not only for the players advantage but also for the club's advantage to give them a try and get to the next one. There's probably an argument that at 17/18 kids need a couple of years to settle down. If someone is early 20s, you dont have to give players like richards a couple of years.

If someone is 23 and living in the country, for example, then they've probably nominated for drafts previously, so every club has had an opportunity, then I think a club should be able to go out and just bring them in and play them in the VFL and if they perform, play them in the AFL. If the player wants a 2 year contract to go through the process, then ask the next guy.

As I said to mollymeldrum, I'd just like to see mature players get more access. thats how i feel. if you like the current system sobeit...

 

[sr36]

well i think it's a bigger deal - not by a long way - for two reasons. 1. They're older and I think the drafting industry seems to focus on the kids, and 2. I think recruiters seem to discount players when they have been overlooked previously.

I'd like to free up the ability to recruit mature aged players not only for the players advantage but also for the club's advantage to give them a try and get to the next one. There's probably an argument that at 17/18 kids need a couple of years to settle down. If someone is early 20s, you dont have to give players like richards a couple of years.

If someone is 23 and living in the country, for example, then they've probably nominated for drafts previously, so every club has had an opportunity, then I think a club should be able to go out and just bring them in and play them in the VFL and if they perform, play them in the AFL. If the player wants a 2 year contract to go through the process, then ask the next guy.

As I said to mollymeldrum, I'd just like to see mature players get more access. thats how i feel. if you like the current system sobeit...

The option is already there. During preseason we will probably sign a couple of players - it can be basically anyone who has previously nominated for a draft and isn't on a list at the time - we only have to sign them for a season (about 6 months really).

The automatic 2 year contract is only regarding the draft - but they have to get past other teams in the draft in order for us to sign them - so sometimes we'll draft them instead, in which case they get a 2 year contract. There was supposedly other interest in Richards and we were keen enough to draft him.

 

[Markfs]

The option is already there. During preseason we will probably sign a couple of players - it can be basically anyone who has previously nominated for a draft and isn't on a list at the time - we only have to sign them for a season (about 6 months really).

The automatic 2 year contract is only regarding the draft - but they have to get past other teams in the draft in order for us to sign them - so sometimes we'll draft them instead, in which case they get a 2 year contract. There was supposedly other interest in Richards and we were keen enough to draft him.

it's too restrictive. If richards had nominated 5 years ago and he was overlooked then it should be open slather. It's ridiculous to me that we had to treat him like an 18 year old who the recruiting industry hadnt seen before.

People keep saying that they want to see the best players available and then they talk about introducing a midyear trade for players who have already been in the system. So technically we could see Cripps get traded midyear and play for us in the finals. To me that is major. I dont like it. It goes to the fabric of the game and yet there are other restrictions that could be removed and allow player freedom without such an impact.

We continue to restrict mature players who are playing in the minor leagues because clubs cant manipulate things to get them on the list or all the other permutations. If Joe Richards had bobbed up two years ago and the blues went out and signed him and played him the next week, then I would say good on em. If there is a maximum list size then the formula is restrictive enough.

If you want to take it to the limit, I'd argue that I'd be happy for the eagles last year to throw everyone on their list out (paying out contracts) and get a new set of players in from the WAFL or whatever. They can still only use the max players. They are still governed by the salary cap. Do we need all the other rules?

One of the problems of course is the players union wanting min contract length....and unions will always act for those within the system.

 

[sam_e]

Crazy that with all the interest in draft and trading etc that the AFL don’t publish the rules about list sizes, salary cap, etc in some easy to find place.

It's all set out in detailed glory per AFL RULES 2023 ...

• pg 38 /section 5: List Sizes
• pg 186 / App 1: List Sizes
• pg 104 / section 28: Total Player Payments

Ps: pour a sherry, it's a cracking read!

https://resources.afl.com.au/afl/document/2023/03/01/b34247f1-8c79-46ae-b564-586716a46bfc/Amended-AFL-Rules-effective-28-February-2023.pdf

 

[Jen2310]

It's all set out in detailed glory per AFL RULES 2023 ...

• pg 38 /section 5: List Sizes
• pg 186 / App 1: List Sizes
• pg 104 / section 28: Total Player Payments

Ps: pour a sherry, it's a cracking read!

https://resources.afl.com.au/afl/document/2023/03/01/b34247f1-8c79-46ae-b564-586716a46bfc/Amended-AFL-Rules-effective-28-February-2023.pdf

"Team Each Club shall field one Team in the AFL Competition"
Why stop at one Maybe there can be alternative teams, one does one half, and the other, the 2nd half. Saves some energy

 

[sideswipe]

it's too restrictive. If richards had nominated 5 years ago and he was overlooked then it should be open slather. It's ridiculous to me that we had to treat him like an 18 year old who the recruiting industry hadnt seen before.

People keep saying that they want to see the best players available and then they talk about introducing a midyear trade for players who have already been in the system. So technically we could see Cripps get traded midyear and play for us in the finals. To me that is major. I dont like it. It goes to the fabric of the game and yet there are other restrictions that could be removed and allow player freedom without such an impact.

We continue to restrict mature players who are playing in the minor leagues because clubs cant manipulate things to get them on the list or all the other permutations. If Joe Richards had bobbed up two years ago and the blues went out and signed him and played him the next week, then I would say good on em. If there is a maximum list size then the formula is restrictive enough.

If you want to take it to the limit, I'd argue that I'd be happy for the eagles last year to throw everyone on their list out (paying out contracts) and get a new set of players in from the WAFL or whatever. They can still only use the max players. They are still governed by the salary cap. Do we need all the other rules?

One of the problems of course is the players union wanting min contract length....and unions will always act for those within the system.

Sorry, what are the restrictions that prevent clubs putting masses of senior players on their list? They can theoretically fill their boots at the rookie draft if so desired.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[The Phantom]

There used to be a distinction for a mature age rookie.
If memory serves me, this was a player over 23 years. At first, clubs were allowed 1, then 2.
But that was then deleted.
And clubs can now have all Rookies be of any age.
So I believe there is now no restriction.

Again, please feel free to fact check me.

 

[sideswipe]

There used to be a distinction for a mature age rookie.
If memory serves me, this was a player over 23 years. At first, clubs were allowed 1, then 2.
But that was then deleted.
And clubs can now have all Rookies be of any age.
So I believe there is now no restriction.

Again, please feel free to fact check me.

Mark just likes railing against injustice, whether real or imagined.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[sr36]

it's too restrictive. If richards had nominated 5 years ago and he was overlooked then it should be open slather. It's ridiculous to me that we had to treat him like an 18 year old who the recruiting industry hadnt seen before.

People keep saying that they want to see the best players available and then they talk about introducing a midyear trade for players who have already been in the system. So technically we could see Cripps get traded midyear and play for us in the finals. To me that is major. I dont like it. It goes to the fabric of the game and yet there are other restrictions that could be removed and allow player freedom without such an impact.

We continue to restrict mature players who are playing in the minor leagues because clubs cant manipulate things to get them on the list or all the other permutations. If Joe Richards had bobbed up two years ago and the blues went out and signed him and played him the next week, then I would say good on em. If there is a maximum list size then the formula is restrictive enough.

If you want to take it to the limit, I'd argue that I'd be happy for the eagles last year to throw everyone on their list out (paying out contracts) and get a new set of players in from the WAFL or whatever. They can still only use the max players. They are still governed by the salary cap. Do we need all the other rules?

One of the problems of course is the players union wanting min contract length....and unions will always act for those within the system.

They have actually moved towards what you want. However, your post shows the problem of being against the rules without knowing the rules ...

WCE can do what you want them to be able to do - in your taking it to the limit scenario.

The restrictions are: 1. List size. 2. There's a draft for equalisation. 3. They don't allow list changes throughout the season - except for rookie draft - which is about not stuffing around the state leagues too much by just pulling players willy nilly, but also to protect the draft equalisation in case someone suddenly arrives as an early pick midseason.

At the end of the season there's a window where you can sign any uncontracted previously delisted player you want.

After the draft, you can sign anyone who has previously nominated for a draft but is not on a list.

It's only the national draftees who get a 2 year contract.

Unless you want blokes to get 3 month contracts (no idea why a club would do that) what you're after is already in place, although in windows rather than all year round.

 

[Markfs]

Mark just likes railing against injustice, whether real or imagined.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

very perceptive wipey, this stuff is probably imagined. The real stuff involves children....

 

[Markfs]

They don't allow list changes throughout the season - except for rookie draft - which is about not stuffing around the state leagues too much by just pulling players willy nilly, but also to protect the draft equalisation in case someone suddenly arrives as an early pick midseason

if someone "suddenly arrives" and they've nominated for drafts previously then I dont see a problem with taking them. In fact, if a kid overlooks the draft for 5 years, I think teams should be able to take them at 23 directly. This might end up with accusations that clubs are squirreling away players for 5 years but I dont think a draftable footballer would avoid the draft just so that they could go to a particular team at 23.

I know about the protecting the state league stuff. It's a restriction of trade.

I realise that longterm contracts to marginal players is the main thing that is restricting list fluidity. We have jakob ryan for 3 more years, for example. West Coast has probably got a heap of players on contract when they dont deserve it.

I still think that the viewing public is missing out on players at the lower levels because of these restrictive systems.

 

[sr36]

if someone "suddenly arrives" and they've nominated for drafts previously then I dont see a problem with taking them. In fact, if a kid overlooks the draft for 5 years, I think teams should be able to take them at 23 directly. This might end up with accusations that clubs are squirreling away players for 5 years but I dont think a draftable footballer would avoid the draft just so that they could go to a particular team at 23.

I know about the protecting the state league stuff. It's a restriction of trade.

I realise that longterm contracts to marginal players is the main thing that is restricting list fluidity. We have jakob ryan for 3 more years, for example. West Coast has probably got a heap of players on contract when they dont deserve it.

I still think that the viewing public is missing out on players at the lower levels because of these restrictive systems.

What you think you realise is wrong. Ultimately, als you seem to want quicker churn of the bottome of lists. It's not the rules that are stopping it, it's that clubs are more mature in their approach than you and back blokes in and give them some time to get up to speed. for instance Collingwood seem to choose 2 year de(or 18 month for midseason kids) to give the kid a chance to fully settle and show progress.

When a kid like Ryan gets an additional extension straight after the draft, it's because the club rates him and wants to lock him in. We're moving towards a situation where half players will be recruited through the draft with a locked in 2 years. But the other half can be added with a single season contract if that's what the club wants - but often the club wants to sign the player for longer.

 

[Markfs]

There used to be a distinction for a mature age rookie.
If memory serves me, this was a player over 23 years. At first, clubs were allowed 1, then 2.
But that was then deleted.
And clubs can now have all Rookies be of any age.
So I believe there is now no restriction.

Again, please feel free to fact check me.

This is a good point. We seem to have this drip drip approach to freeing up the system. People ask me technical question about particular rules. I dont know the rules. The anal types who love following the draft can know all the technical limitations etc. All I know is that the current system delivers a logjam.Clubs like North and West Coast drive themselves into a one-way street that takes them years to get out of.

And it's not just the system that's the problem. Snotty recruiting people refuse to admit that they make mistakes by overlooking players. I will admit that they are very good at identifying the best players. However, very good footballers still make it by sneaking through the cracks.....micocek, tom stewart, john noble.

people will see that tom stewart made a list in the traditional way and that shows it's operating. However, he nominated for a ton of drafts, as did Micocek, and the various restrictions made clubs incapable of giving him a try. Contract lengths, list sizes, salary caps, how many players you can take and when you can take them, stubborn recruiters, dads as CEOs......whatever it is.... the current system is allowing guys like will kelly 5 years on a list while capable footballers are playing suburban footy. That is my opinion and I dont know the rules. I have admitted that I dont know them. I dont understand modern footy and I dont understand gen x, y and z....

and if this is a stupid opinion, then haven't i come to the right place?

 

[Markfs]

What you think you realise is wrong. Ultimately, als you seem to want quicker churn of the bottome of lists. It's not the rules that are stopping it, it's that clubs are more mature in their approach than you and back blokes in and give them some time to get up to speed. for instance Collingwood seem to choose 2 year de(or 18 month for midseason kids) to give the kid a chance to fully settle and show progress.

When a kid like Ryan gets an additional extension straight after the draft, it's because the club rates him and wants to lock him in. We're moving towards a situation where half players will be recruited through the draft with a locked in 2 years. But the other half can be added with a single season contract if that's what the club wants - but often the club wants to sign the player for longer.

As I said in the previous post, I dont understand the brain patterns of gen x, y and z. Evidently they need kisses and cuddles and drugs etc to get them to play. Meanwhile there are people living in the real world at the coal face where they dont get that many hugs. I realise your opinion is the status quo and I might have had a similar opinion a few years back, but some of these youngsters who need all the hugs and kisses also need to know that life is two-way street. I'm sick of hearing people in the footy industry talk about how "blessed" that they are. I am blessed...i've been blessed. Honestly, a lot of this woke s**t is making me vomit. I think that there are guys outside the system who wouldnt mind a chance. There are a number of compounding issues that are making it difficult for capable players to play AFL footy.

Isnt there something in the real world that you guys should be doing? I need to get to bunnings

 

[The Phantom]

This is a good point. We seem to have this drip drip approach to freeing up the system. People ask me technical question about particular rules. I dont know the rules. The anal types who love following the draft can know all the technical limitations etc. All I know is that the current system delivers a logjam.Clubs like North and West Coast drive themselves into a one-way street that takes them years to get out of.

And it's not just the system that's the problem. Snotty recruiting people refuse to admit that they make mistakes by overlooking players. I will admit that they are very good at identifying the best players. However, very good footballers still make it by sneaking through the cracks.....micocek, tom stewart, john noble.

people will see that tom stewart made a list in the traditional way and that shows it's operating. However, he nominated for a ton of drafts, as did Micocek, and the various restrictions made clubs incapable of giving him a try. Contract lengths, list sizes, salary caps, how many players you can take and when you can take them, stubborn recruiters, dads as CEOs......whatever it is.... the current system is allowing guys like will kelly 5 years on a list while capable footballers are playing suburban footy. That is my opinion and I dont know the rules. I have admitted that I dont know them. I dont understand modern footy and I dont understand gen x, y and z....

and if this is a stupid opinion, then haven't i come to the right place?

The fact is the draft and salary cap and soft cap are equalisation tools.

As such they reward mediocrity and worse and penalise success and high performance for clubs overall- not just on field.

There are too many parameters and the league bends them for the growth of itself in the form of expansion clubs whilst penalising the clubs who built the league.

If there’s a salary cap, do you really need a cap on player list size?
You need a rookie mechanism but not a rookie list.
Why limit player welfare and health within a soft cap?
Shouldn’t the draft be free of manipulation and have a lottery for bottom four picks?

Collingwood is prevented from it’s natural ascendancy through being forced to subsidise an afl welfare state.

 

[sideswipe]

The fact is the draft and salary cap and soft cap are equalisation tools.

As such they reward mediocrity and worse and penalise success and high performance for clubs overall- not just on field.

There are too many parameters and the league bends them for the growth of itself in the form of expansion clubs whilst penalising the clubs who built the league.

If there’s a salary cap, do you really need a cap on player list size?
You need a rookie mechanism but not a rookie list.
Why limit player welfare and health within a soft cap?
Shouldn’t the draft be free of manipulation and have a lottery for bottom four picks?

Collingwood is prevented from it’s natural ascendancy through being forced to subsidise an afl welfare state.

If we didn’t have equalisation measures, we would have clubs wallowing on the bottom for decades. Attendances would be down as well as tv ratings and the game would not be as enjoyable to watch. At the end of the day it is an entertainment product.

Players(the rational ones) want equalisation because it means more dough.

If that’s too hard a pill to swallow then may follow the ammos?


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[The Phantom]

If we didn’t have equalisation measures, we would have clubs wallowing on the bottom for decades. Attendances would be down as well as tv ratings and the game would not be as enjoyable to watch. At the end of the day it is an entertainment product.

Players(the rational ones) want equalisation because it means more dough.

If that’s too hard a pill to swallow then may follow the ammos?


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

We have too many equalisation measures.

Clubs are able to survive on welfare.
I’d like to see AFL mentor management or trial private ownership rather than compromise the draft.

 

[Markfs]

If we didn’t have equalisation measures, we would have clubs wallowing on the bottom for decades. Attendances would be down as well as tv ratings and the game would not be as enjoyable to watch. At the end of the day it is an entertainment product.

Players(the rational ones) want equalisation because it means more dough.

If that’s too hard a pill to swallow then may follow the ammos?


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

i dont know if it's possible to "equalise" the system in order to counter the stupidity of teams such as north melb.....or to counter the inflexibility and indecisiveness of teams like West Coast......but as you're born to rule, I'll just have to trust you.

 

[sideswipe]

i dont know if it's possible to "equalise" the system in order to counter the stupidity of teams such as north melb.....or to counter the inflexibility and indecisiveness of teams like West Coast......but as you're born to rule, I'll just have to trust you.

I think we worked out you need to school yourself on them thar rules before you question them.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app