Oppo Camp Non-Essendon Thread X

[Kong]

http://www.smh.com.au/afl/afl-news/...uld-have-mcdonalds-effect-20140115-30v6p.html

As an industry we should never be trying to create that. Yes, the players association are right that when you are recruited to a club, you are going to experience that club relative to the facilities and the location and the resources and the financial position they are in.

That's just the reality, otherwise we turn the AFL clubs into a group of McDonald's franchises, that all look the same but are located slightly down the road.

http://www.smh.com.au/afl/afl-news/...uld-have-mcdonalds-effect-20140115-30v6p.html

And then of course there's serial leech and kiss arse, Peter Gordon:

Western Bulldogs president Peter Gordon has said the discussion is not about curtailing big clubs but about ensuring the smaller clubs could compete economically.

 

[Jade]

I'm sure you had a point, but I forgot all about it when Emma Stone appeared.

 

[Drummer_19]

I'm sure you had a point, but I forgot all about it when Emma Stone appeared.

Yea I was just about to put a motion together that there should be some form of Emma stone involvement on all pages

 

[Jade]

Yea I was just about to put a motion together that there should be some form of Emma stone involvement on all pages

Seconded.

 

[Whispering_Jack]

Yea I was just about to put a motion together that there should be some form of Emma stone involvement on all pages

Yeah, let's all get Stoned

 

[Jade]

Yeah, let's all get Stoned

Boom Tish.

 

[Ben the Gooner]

Kudos Gary Pert.

The sooner we **** this mob off from AFL House, the better.

 

[Old Campaigner]

I disagree to a point. He has taken the extreme example of all the clubs being given the exact same amount of money and getting similar results, which would be boring. I think there is room for whatever equalization measures used to ensure cyclical success for all clubs and ensure that there is enough variation between them to not have them all looking the same. The last thing I want to see in the AFL is an EPL-like situation where the only interest for some clubs is whether or not they avoid relegation.

 

[GUMBLETRON]

I disagree to a point. He has taken the extreme example of all the clubs being given the exact same amount of money and getting similar results, which would be boring.

And entirely disregards the human element. You can hand a Watters the same footy department as a Lyon, even the same list, and he'll still ride it into the ground. If everyone has the same off-field material resources then the competitive element comes back to coaching, strategy, player development and list management. Pert's argument is essentially that the competition is somehow qualitatively richer because the ongoing position of the Norths and Footscrays reflects a proud history of tin-rattling, and that, frankly, is bollocks.

If you want to campaign against further equalisation, the arguments should be that the league as a whole is healthier when every club is self-sustaining, that 18 teams aren't necessary, and that history isn't sufficient justification for propping up failures. But what a guy like Pert should really be doing is pushing for the removal of the league-imposed structural inequalities - namely, the shitty stadium deals - to give smaller clubs a fighting chance at sorting their shit out before we look at anything else.

 

[Phone]

well at least he didn't talk about "volcanic off-season" this time

 

[Ben the Gooner]

I disagree to a point. He has taken the extreme example of all the clubs being given the exact same amount of money and getting similar results, which would be boring. I think there is room for whatever equalization measures used to ensure cyclical success for all clubs and ensure that there is enough variation between them to not have them all looking the same. The last thing I want to see in the AFL is an EPL-like situation where the only interest for some clubs is whether or not they avoid relegation.

We have a draft. It's always going to smooth out over the long term.

 

[eth-dog]

We have a draft. It's always going to smooth out over the long term.

Melbourne

 

[Ben the Gooner]

Melbourne

Played in a Grand Final only one year earlier than our last one, and won a final more recently than us.

 

[yaco55]

You could give any club an extra $10m to spend on their Footy Department, and I can assure clubs will spend it, even though it may serve no purpose.

 

[Old Campaigner]

Played in a Grand Final only one year earlier than our last one, and won a final more recently than us.

Wow you're right. Melbourne were never a basket case for the last 10 years and every chance to continue if it weren't for a massive injection of compensation from the AFL.

 

[Whispering_Jack]

Played in a Grand Final only one year earlier than our last one, and won a final more recently than us.

And look at a relatively wealthy club like Richmond who have little success. My guess would be that they would have averaged being in the top 30-40% for spending in the footy department over the last 10 years. Same with Carlton who are not a minnow club. Fremantle have very high revenues and have only just made their first grand final. All the money in the world can't stop bad management making bad decisions...

 

[baz_machine]

And look at a relatively wealthy club like Richmond who have little success. My guess would be that they would have averaged being in the top 30-40% for spending in the footy department over the last 10 years. Same with Carlton who are not a minnow club. Fremantle have very high revenues and have only just made their first grand final. All the money in the world can't stop bad management making bad decisions...

Fred Goodwin likes this

 

[Ben the Gooner]

Wow you're right. Melbourne were never a basket case for the last 10 years and every chance to continue if it weren't for a massive injection of compensation from the AFL.

Can barely afford balls for training, yet they're just as good on-field over the last 13 years as the second richest club. It's almost as if we have enough equalisation already.

 

[bomberman500]

And look at a relatively wealthy club like Richmond who have little success. My guess would be that they would have averaged being in the top 30-40% for spending in the footy department over the last 10 years. Same with Carlton who are not a minnow club. Fremantle have very high revenues and have only just made their first grand final. All the money in the world can't stop bad management making bad decisions...

Everyone has poor periods with management. Our drafting in the early-mid 2000's was pretty average, which put us in the wilderness for a few years.
The youth policy that melbourne introduced really kicked them while they were down, its all good to focus on the next generation but the pushed so many experienced clubmen out the door who would have been instrumental in the development of the young players, Cameron Bruce, James Mcdonald to name two.
Then they went and named two 20 year olds as captains...

The draft is a decent enough measure for equalisation but with the incorporation of free agency imo it will slowly drift towards the american (especially NBA) style of Big name players going to already stacked teams for Premierships, or going to a big name team for better endorsement opportunities

Big teams will only ever be down for a short time while the small teams could spend the better part of a decade building into a competative team in future

 

[Phone]

hi this is where i say for the sake of equalisation teams should be allowed to trade future draft picks to encourage more trading for players who are known in the AFL as opposed to being skinny 18yo kids who have never played against kids older than them. if you say "but but but but what if they trade a draft pick for a bad player" i will kill you.

The draft is a decent enough measure for equalisation but with the incorporation of free agency imo it will slowly drift towards the american (especially NBA) style of Big name players going to already stacked teams for Premierships, or going to a big name team for better endorsement opportunities

that's a really bad example imo. We have a (mostly) hard salary cap, where (almost) every team has the same salary cap and where (almost) every team pays 100% of the cap or near to. In NA leagues, they are either soft salary caps (the Lakers can easily blow past the actual cap and get those star players) or teams that make no attempt to get anywhere near the cap (see NHL: http://capgeek.com/). I don't really think it'll go down that path unless we go down a path where 'rich' teams are always the ones competing for premierships and 'poor' teams are always down near the bottom, in which the stars are going to the competing teams, who happen to be the rich teams. in the AFL, every team is capable of being the team that offers a contract to a player that they can't say no to in the AFL. (See: Dogs/Crameri)

For me, the main problem with our Free Agency is simply that 8 years service at one club is out of the reach for many players. That is, our free agency almost only serves the stars unless you get delisted, which i think is bad . (and also the 8 years service at one club really pisses me off)

 

[bomberman500]

that's a really bad example imo. We have a (mostly) hard salary cap, where (almost) every team has the same salary cap and where (almost) every team pays 100% of the cap or near to. In NA leagues, they are either soft salary caps (the Lakers can easily blow past the actual cap and get those star players) or teams that make no attempt to get anywhere near the cap (see NHL: http://capgeek.com/). I don't really think it'll go down that path unless we go down a path where 'rich' teams are always the ones competing for premierships and 'poor' teams are always down near the bottom, in which the stars are going to the competing teams, who happen to be the rich teams. in the AFL, every team is capable of being the team that offers a contract to a player that they can't say no to in the AFL. (See: Dogs/Crameri)

For me, the main problem with our Free Agency is simply that 8 years service at one club is out of the reach for many players. That is, our free agency almost only serves the stars unless you get delisted, which i think is bad . (and also the 8 years service at one club really pisses me off)

Not entirely sure how the luxury tax works (if its just the money over the soft cap) but FA aquisitions in the NBA cant go over the soft cap, you can re-sign current players with bird rights that go over the cap which is a really good idea imo, hence why the lakers are gutting their roster to make room for Kevin Love... but thats another story

Id like to see something similar in the AFL, (bird rights) or a reward for staying loyal.
Lets just say FA kicks in after 8 years, so players can chase the money then.
If the AFL put something in that says after 10 years service at the one club 20% of the contract falls outside the salary cap and every years after that a further 5% falls outside the cap.

Would help stop the process of dumping experienced 'loved' players for younger 'youth development'
I mean, the AFL does have the veterens list but thats only 2 players

 

[GUMBLETRON]

I mean, the AFL does have the veterens list but thats only 2 players

Not any more, you now get an extra 1.2% cap for each player with ten years' service.

http://www.afl.com.au/afl-hq/the-afl-explained/veteran-players

 

[Fletched]

How annoying is that "AFL Australias shame" page there should be some sort of combined bigfooty effort which everyone reports the page to try and make facebook remove it

 

[baz_machine]

Not any more, you now get an extra 1.2% cap for each player with ten years' service.

http://www.afl.com.au/afl-hq/the-afl-explained/veteran-players

so do we get 2.4% extra cap for fletch?

 

[Tas]

And look at a relatively wealthy club like Richmond who have little success. My guess would be that they would have averaged being in the top 30-40% for spending in the footy department over the last 10 years. Same with Carlton who are not a minnow club. Fremantle have very high revenues and have only just made their first grand final. All the money in the world can't stop bad management making bad decisions...

Most of the wealthy clubs have been on their knees at various points in time, Richmond is only around because the AFL became guarantors for the bank and guaranteed future revenue, they extended this to other clubs after helping Richmond. Carlton were insolvent at one point and needed a big loan from the AFL, Collingwood was on it's knees prior to Eddie. Bombers I think is the only club that hasn't hit the skids hard.

I think the problem we have is with non-football revenue. If you take out the pokie money and the other non-football revenue you would have relatively modest variance from the richest club to the poorest club, however, non-football revenue is impacting how clubs perform. I believe there are diminishing returns from spending more money on the football department, however, in terms of development having greater access to resources can significantly improve the development process.

I think the main difference between my club and say Collingwood is in terms of the resources available to commit to the development of juniors, they have more people and more resources to focus on youth development and while I don't think Collingwood's youth is a better quality than ours, I do believe they get their younger players up to speed a lot quicker than we do.

I do not want to see AFL becoming an off-field contest, especially when the AFL make it easier for richer clubs to maximise their football revenue and hinder the poorer clubs from maximising theirs. AFL should be viable with football revenue.

Equalisation shouldn't be about dolling out handouts, it should be looking to correct the major problems in terms of football revenue inequity and the biggest problem we have is with the stadium situation in Melbourne. Both MCC and Docklands are guaranteed games and attendance levels, they are under no obligation to compete for access to the games or have to negotiate with clubs to get access to the games.

This restraint on trade makes it extremely difficult for the poorer clubs who are told by the AFL they must play games at whatever stadium and usually against the worst drawing opposition at the worst timeslots. This doesn't give these clubs the resources to compete in a competition of generation non-football assets and deriving non-football revenue.

There is no point having things like drafts, salary caps and the like if you are not going to have a level playing field, clubs who do not have the resources to invest in the development of their players rarely get the most out of their youth. It is also about providing young players more equal opportunity to get the most out of their career.

AFL needs to address inequalities like stadium deals and they should limit the use of non-football revenue spent on football department. Clubs should keep all their non-football revenue, but that revenue should go into the long-term financial security of their football club rather than create a spending war where resources are wasted in the search for minor advantage, resources which could be used to secure the future of the clubs instead.