Oppo Camp OTHER CLUB Trade and F/A Discussion

[Knightmare]

The existing clubs dictate how the setup operates which represents a twofold challenge:

1: They’ll only mandate a maximum number of players that can be “raided” which is likely to be 2 and at best 3.

2. The players need to agree to leave and honestly without a dump truck full of money on their doorstep who’s leaving a good team to play for a new franchise in Tasmania?

If the aim is to pad out a squad for Tasmania with senior experience then the AFL needs to implement a marquee strategy whereby the initial contract of any player recruited from another club sits outside the salary cap (limited to say 5 years, but limits applied like 3 on 5 years 4 on 4 years etc.). That will allow them to build a very strong core, but the flip side is that the reward for the existing clubs needs to be sufficient and I’d suggest pre-draft access similar to the Hogan, O’Meara, Martin and Crouch “mini draft”. For instance Adelaide lose Laird to the Tasmanian franchise post 2022 and get pre-draft access to Lemmey.

No draft concessions for Tasmania aside from the first pick in each round. The marquee contracts also allow them to recruit hard in their second year if the initial contracts are right.

In a future YouTube video if/when talks around Tasmania heat up I'll consider I'll propose on there the model that should be created.

Some of my very early ideas circulating in my mind include plucking opposition leadership group pieces, plucking Tasmanian's on opposition lists, some other opposition talents and going heavy on state leaguers including state leaguers in older age groups as there are a lot of 24-30 year old mature agers who can be best-22 players at AFL level.

Of course there would still need to be a core of good early draft picks, but I'd be looking for that more suitable age demographic and group of established players to actually enable those new draftees coming in to develop successfully.

I'm interested in what you think GWS should have done differently. I think they've built themselves well. A bit better drafting and coaching and they would have dominated.

Should have gone more heavily into mature age recruits to help balance the club's list mid-late/rookie draft. That was the big miss, and the form of recruiting GWS have largely neglected to their determent, particularly as a club that isn't necessarily going to be a destination for opposition players.

I'd also have gone heavier on established veteran leaders and established players earlier - including moving a lot of those picks for opposition players - and again target opposition players with a direct view towards filling those list holes. Though partial credit for GWS with some of their opposition talent ID good, but still greater aggression towards this approach and sooner would have been beneficial.

 

[sr36]

In a future YouTube video if/when talks around Tasmania heat up I'll consider I'll propose on there the model that should be created.

Some of my very early ideas circulating in my mind include plucking opposition leadership group pieces, plucking Tasmanian's on opposition lists, some other opposition talents and going heavy on state leaguers including state leaguers in older age groups as there are a lot of 24-30 year old mature agers who can be best-22 players at AFL level

Should have gone more heavily into mature age recruits to help balance the club's list mid-late/rookie draft. That was the big miss, and the form of recruiting GWS have largely neglected to their determent, particularly as a club that isn't necessarily going to be a destination for opposition players.

I'd also have gone heavier on established veteran leaders and established players earlier - including moving a lot of those picks for opposition players - and again target opposition players with a direct view towards filling those list holes. Though partial credit for GWS with some of their opposition talent ID good, but still greater aggression towards this approach and sooner would have been beneficial.

I think you may have slipped into fantasy football mode and forgotten that it's the player's choice. I think they tried and mostly succeeded in those things. Probably should have taken a couple more mature state league players and a couple more Dean Brogans, but generally did really well.

 

[Knightmare]

I think you may have slipped into fantasy football mode and forgotten that it's the player's choice. I think they tried and mostly succeeded in those things. Probably should have taken a couple more mature state league players and a couple more Dean Brogans, but generally did really well.

If players are unwilling to move and they're contracted, then there is no move.

For a Tasmania example. Perhaps one Tasmanian can be secured from each club (and if the player doesn't want to go, then the next best Tasmanian can be picked and so on). There may also be the optionality where if a club doesn't have a Tasmanian, that might mean that the Tasmanian club have access to some other combination of players eg. those who played at least half of their games in the club's state league side are all available (must have played at least 10 that season) and one of them (if the player agrees to sign with Tasmania) can as an alternative. I've also as a leadership concept considered taking guys who have been in the leadership group of clubs over the past five seasons and having those players available in a similar way as again another alternative, and maybe there are some past or present leaders of clubs who may be open to moving. Ultimately, they're the types of opposition players I'd love to see them get access to.

I'd like even if players are contracted for these players to be available to make the choice to move and either continue their existing contract or sign a new one upon moving.

Then maybe they also have first access during free agency, getting to talk to players a day early and being able to sign x5 players outside the salary cap to ensure genuine good opposition talent is secured.

Ultimately the key to making certainly as a bare minimum one from each AFL side available and ensuring from season one it's a competitive group. And these are among some example steps I'd be considering with good opposition talent alongside in combination with good state league talent the kind of foundation rather than a heavy concentration of 18 year olds a much more suitable environment to develop a competitive list, strong culture and environment where any youth brought in, in subsequent years can develop to a suitable standard.

With a new club, I'd be looking for a low concentration of players through the draft. If they have pick 1+2 for a couple of years, then they just have whatever picks would be equivalent of their draft position. Or if they're given some large hand of picks, I'd be mandating that all but probably two be required to be involved in trades. So it depends if you prefer that kind of approach v a more compensation based model where the other clubs have less of a say but the contracted/uncontracted players instead have that opportunity to choose.

 

[sr36]

If players are unwilling to move and they're contracted, then there is no move.

For a Tasmania example. Perhaps one Tasmanian can be secured from each club (and if the player doesn't want to go, then the next best Tasmanian can be picked and so on). There may also be the optionality where if a club doesn't have a Tasmanian, that might mean that the Tasmanian club have access to some other combination of players eg. those who played at least half of their games in the club's state league side are all available (must have played at least 10 that season) and one of them (if the player agrees to sign with Tasmania) can as an alternative. I've also as a leadership concept considered taking guys who have been in the leadership group of clubs over the past five seasons and having those players available in a similar way as again another alternative, and maybe there are some past or present leaders of clubs who may be open to moving. Ultimately, they're the types of opposition players I'd love to see them get access to.

I'd like even if players are contracted for these players to be available to make the choice to move and either continue their existing contract or sign a new one upon moving.

Then maybe they also have first access during free agency, getting to talk to players a day early and being able to sign x5 players outside the salary cap to ensure genuine good opposition talent is secured.

Ultimately the key to making certainly as a bare minimum one from each AFL side available and ensuring from season one it's a competitive group. And these are among some example steps I'd be considering with good opposition talent alongside in combination with good state league talent the kind of foundation rather than a heavy concentration of 18 year olds a much more suitable environment to develop a competitive list, strong culture and environment where any youth brought in, in subsequent years can develop to a suitable standard.

With a new club, I'd be looking for a low concentration of players through the draft. If they have pick 1+2 for a couple of years, then they just have whatever picks would be equivalent of their draft position. Or if they're given some large hand of picks, I'd be mandating that all but probably two be required to be involved in trades. So it depends if you prefer that kind of approach v a more compensation based model where the other clubs have less of a say but the contracted/uncontracted players instead have that opportunity to choose.

When Mihocek says no, they end up with Chugg? One more day of FA access? Clubs woo them for ages before the FA window opens.

That sounds like the Fremantle opening model - which the AFL learnt from.

Getting enough quality players to be competitive immediately isn't going to happen without a ridiculously large cash roll and salary cap, which is why the AFL accepted that they were going to be terrible for years and gave them a heap of draft picks so they'd be good once those picks matured.

 

[Scodog10]

In a future YouTube video if/when talks around Tasmania heat up I'll consider I'll propose on there the model that should be created.

Some of my very early ideas circulating in my mind include plucking opposition leadership group pieces, plucking Tasmanian's on opposition lists, some other opposition talents and going heavy on state leaguers including state leaguers in older age groups as there are a lot of 24-30 year old mature agers who can be best-22 players at AFL level.

Of course there would still need to be a core of good early draft picks, but I'd be looking for that more suitable age demographic and group of established players to actually enable those new draftees coming in to develop successfully.

Are you able to elaborate on this “plucking” you refer to? IMO, it completely ignores the need for the player to want to go down there. If I’m in my prime playing in a good environment there’s no way I’m leaving to live in Tasmania where I’m training in single digit temperatures daily and giving up the lifestyle on offer in any other capital city (bar Adelaide).

Considering the whole premise of how these expansions clubs failed was their inability to lure mature age talent how is Tasmania going to be more attractive than Western Sydney or GC? Unfortunately the only way it works is if the AFL pivots to not requiring the players approval to execute a move which will have the flow on effect of the AFL being at the mercy of the AFLPA or as I suggested Tasmania is allowed to throw money never seen in the AFL at players.

I know you love video game type fantasy moves in an AFL context (you’re hypothetical deal on pick 2 in the 2018 draft will be etched in my mind forever), but stepping back into the real world with consequences and politics what you’re proposing won’t work.

 

[Scodog10]

With drafting, I just think that like us, they missed the boat on the increased importance of pace.

IDK, losing Shiel and Treloar probably wasn’t factored into their list profile when they were there or thereabouts. They beat Richmond with Treloar and a fit Shiel in the second half of the 2017 PF. They also perform a helluva lot better with them two and Coniglio in the 2019 GF…

FWIW considering you brought it up which picks did you think they erred on in choosing ball winning/ size over pace?

 

[manicpie]

Are you able to elaborate on this “plucking” you refer to? IMO, it completely ignores the need for the player to want to go down there. If I’m in my prime playing in a good environment there’s no way I’m leaving to live in Tasmania where I’m training in single digit temperatures daily and giving up the lifestyle on offer in any other capital city (bar Adelaide).

Considering the whole premise of how these expansions clubs failed was their inability to lure mature age talent how is Tasmania going to be more attractive than Western Sydney or GC? Unfortunately the only way it works is if the AFL pivots to not requiring the players approval to execute a move which will have the flow on effect of the AFL being at the mercy of the AFLPA or as I suggested Tasmania is allowed to throw money never seen in the AFL at players.

I know you love video game type fantasy moves in an AFL context (you’re hypothetical deal on pick 2 in the 2018 draft will be etched in my mind forever), but stepping back into the real world with consequences and politics what you’re proposing won’t work.

Tassie isn't as cold as you think, their winter is no worse than ours, unless you live in the mountains or right by the sea. What does every other state have that's so different to living in tassie? I think you'll find that there is a whole lot of suiters if the money is right

 

[Knightmare]

When Mihocek says no, they end up with Chugg? One more day of FA access? Clubs woo them for ages before the FA window opens.

That sounds like the Fremantle opening model - which the AFL learnt from.

Getting enough quality players to be competitive immediately isn't going to happen without a ridiculously large cash roll and salary cap, which is why the AFL accepted that they were going to be terrible for years and gave them a heap of draft picks so they'd be good once those picks matured.

No requirement to be forced into picking a Tasmanian from each team, it would just be one among a few options of types they could secure. It could be as an option of either taking a willing Tasmanian or one of another classification type.

A view towards having an enlarged salary cap is precisely what I would be looking at to ensure there is a sizable core of good established players added. And they need to be given substantial opportunities to add those very good footballers. I'd be looking to ensure x18 good opposition players as a minimum starting point are added as a starting point, and maybe a few others could be secured as free agents. Even with that many good players, even if on paper it looks like a best in the competition level team, it's still going to take time to build chemistry and build a winning culture, but having those pieces in place from season one is the best way to get things moving rapidly in that direction.

Are you able to elaborate on this “plucking” you refer to? IMO, it completely ignores the need for the player to want to go down there. If I’m in my prime playing in a good environment there’s no way I’m leaving to live in Tasmania where I’m training in single digit temperatures daily and giving up the lifestyle on offer in any other capital city (bar Adelaide).

Considering the whole premise of how these expansions clubs failed was their inability to lure mature age talent how is Tasmania going to be more attractive than Western Sydney or GC? Unfortunately the only way it works is if the AFL pivots to not requiring the players approval to execute a move which will have the flow on effect of the AFL being at the mercy of the AFLPA or as I suggested Tasmania is allowed to throw money never seen in the AFL at players.

I know you love video game type fantasy moves in an AFL context (you’re hypothetical deal on pick 2 in the 2018 draft will be etched in my mind forever), but stepping back into the real world with consequences and politics what you’re proposing won’t work.

I did elaborate on the term 'plucking' with that question already asked.

There is no moving players who don't want to move. And if there are no players under a certain classification who want to go or who a Tasmanian side would want, then there could be a different type that gets taken instead.

Another alternative I haven't brought up is having each club pick 5 players who are 'unavailable to secure' and have Tasmania have free rein over securing any one remaining players they like from each list. eg. If Collingwood lists Grundy/Moore/N.Daicos/De Goey/Maynard as the five untouchables. Maybe Quaynor is the guy Tasmania would choose. And from there a system could be implemented whereby if Quaynor wants to stay with Collingwood, Collingwood have to essentially trade to get him back by working out a deal that works for Tasmania including players willing to move and picks. Under that system though the key would be having some kind of rule in place to ensure Tasmania end up with established footballers as part of such a deal, as again, the most important thing for them is ensuring they aren't left with picks as Gold Coast and GWS alike were.

 

[sr36]

IDK, losing Shiel and Treloar probably wasn’t factored into their list profile when they were there or thereabouts. They beat Richmond with Treloar and a fit Shiel in the second half of the 2017 PF. They also perform a helluva lot better with them two and Coniglio in the 2019 GF…

FWIW considering you brought it up which picks did you think they erred on in choosing ball winning/ size over pace?

I'm not sure about individual picks, but in general, if you've got a shortage of pacy flankers, there's a fair chance that you haven't weighted pace highly enough in your recruitment criteria, or have been too stringent in your approach to taking best available and not factored in the variety of roles needed to be a great team. But overall I think they did well and built a very good team. A little bit better recruiting and coaching and they probably would have notched up a couple of flags. A little bit more luck and they'd probably have one.

This is very much a hindsight criticism as it needed to involve recruiters successfully predicting the way the game was heading. I think GWS, like most teams, didn't get their criteria or selections right regarding pace.

 

[Knightmare]

IDK, losing Shiel and Treloar probably wasn’t factored into their list profile when they were there or thereabouts. They beat Richmond with Treloar and a fit Shiel in the second half of the 2017 PF. They also perform a helluva lot better with them two and Coniglio in the 2019 GF…

FWIW considering you brought it up which picks did you think they erred on in choosing ball winning/ size over pace?

The problem under the so many pick model is with all those high draft talents and all of the same age. Their contracts all end at the same time and they'll all request money their team won't be able to pay them all, so you get the revolving door of talent and as per GC/GWS they're a recruiting group for rival clubs while at the same time not being an environment suitable for the development of young footballers to get the most out of themselves.

 

[sr36]

No requirement to be forced into picking a Tasmanian from each team, it would just be one among a few options of types they could secure. It could be as an option of either taking a willing Tasmanian or one of another classification type.

A view towards having an enlarged salary cap is precisely what I would be looking at to ensure there is a sizable core of good established players added. And they need to be given substantial opportunities to add those very good footballers. I'd be looking to ensure x18 good opposition players as a minimum starting point are added as a starting point, and maybe a few others could be secured as free agents. Even with that many good players, even if on paper it looks like a best in the competition level team, it's still going to take time to build chemistry and build a winning culture, but having those pieces in place from season one is the best way to get things moving rapidly in that direction.

No requirement to be forced into picking a Tasmanian from each team, it would just be one among a few options of types they could secure. It could be as an option of either taking a willing Tasmanian or one of another classification type.

A view towards having an enlarged salary cap is precisely what I would be looking at to ensure there is a sizable core of good established players added. And they need to be given substantial opportunities to add those very good footballers. I'd be looking to ensure x18 good opposition players as a minimum starting point are added as a starting point, and maybe a few others could be secured as free agents. Even with that many good players, even if on paper it looks like a best in the competition level team, it's still going to take time to build chemistry and build a winning culture, but having those pieces in place from season one is the best way to get things moving rapidly in that direction.



I did elaborate on the term 'plucking' with that question already asked.

There is no moving players who don't want to move. And if there are no players under a certain classification who want to go or who a Tasmanian side would want, then there could be a different type that gets taken instead.

Another alternative I haven't brought up is having each club pick 5 players who are 'unavailable to secure' and have Tasmania have free rein over securing any one remaining players they like from each list. eg. If Collingwood lists Grundy/Moore/N.Daicos/De Goey/Maynard as the five untouchables. Maybe Quaynor is the guy Tasmania would choose. And from there a system could be implemented whereby if Quaynor wants to stay with Collingwood, Collingwood have to essentially trade to get him back by working out a deal that works for Tasmania including players willing to move and picks. Under that system though the key would be having some kind of rule in place to ensure Tasmania end up with established footballers as part of such a deal, as again, the most important thing for them is ensuring they aren't left with picks as Gold Coast and GWS alike were.

I think you're underestimating the difficulty of poaching players and how difficult all of the new clubs have found it.

As well as giving an enormous amount of extra cap to them, as the only real pull is going to be getting paid a heap more, you'd probably also need to do another unexpected covid style crippling of club's caps, so they'd be desperate to offload players like we were last year.

 

[VinnieB]

Gold Coast have fundamentally been unable to build because they've been unable to attract meaningful talent or veteran leadership at any point. Without those ingredients, young talent isn't developing. And we've seen it with the results: Swallow, Martin or O'Meara develop as players who were seen as the best from their respective drafts. Hearing someone say they're the best in their drafts today would be laughable. On others who should have been stars. We haven't seen Sam Day become anything meaningful, we haven't seen Lukosius or Rankine develop, or even Sam Flanders yet. Bennell came out of the blocks but then stalled with injuries and off-field issues playing a part in that. Rowell came out with a huge year 1 start but last year was a shadow of himself. That's not to say there haven't been success stories, but when you've got these names not becoming superstars of the competition, when anyone who saw any of them as juniors would project them to become stars and many of them superstars, it is deeply concerning. Why would a Lukosius or Rankine want to stay at a club that has to date been unable to meaningfully develop them? That have above average incidences of injuries? That don't have a core of veteran leaders or established players? And that secure late/rookie draft the recycled players who shouldn't be on AFL lists while delisting or trading for a late pick stars (Jarryd Lyons/Hugh Greenwood as key delists among the most egregious).

GWS managed to turn things around upon Shane Mumford (the midfield stood taller with him as enforcer through there) and the defence sured up with Heath Shaw leading, and Shaw enjoyed it because he could run the show completely and direct everyone around without rebuttal. They're still a recruiting ground because their list is awfully unbalanced and has too many duplicates, but at least in their case they're competitive enough where you're not going to have the bulk of your core wanting out all at once.

Brisbane were until Luke Hodge joined losing talent continually also and were awful, and now they're one of the competition's best.

Gold Coast can be given as many early picks as they want, but picks aren't what create winning teams.



Bucks taking charge in 2023?

They'd love Clarkson if he's willing. The advantage for the Suns if he joins on is he would because he is so well respected he would be able to bring in his own staff, and really attract quality up there to help start transforming them.

Not sure if Buckley were to join Gold Coast how much would change even if he were hired.

That's the biggest project in the competition to turn around.

Clarkson needs to go there. No question about it.
And also, for someone who has achieved what Clarkson has, what better opportunity to really show you are the best coach of all time?

 

[sr36]

The problem under the so many pick model is with all those high draft talents and all of the same age. Their contracts all end at the same time and they'll all request money their team won't be able to pay them all, so you get the revolving door of talent and as per GC/GWS they're a recruiting group for rival clubs while at the same time not being an environment suitable for the development of young footballers to get the most out of themselves.

I don't understand why you think that the GWS model was flawed. They've built a good team and a club with character in a short period of time. A bit more luck or better recruiting and coaching and they would have dominated rather than just being good.

I think your model will involve more of a revolving door than GWS have had. Expat firms have an enormous flux of employees in and out. Heaps do their two or three year contract, bank a lot of money and then move back to their previous city. Extra money may draw people for a couple of years, but when we're talking about high salary earners, with alternate options - it often doesn't keep them. What keeps them is the place itself or greater career opportunities. I don't see why a cashed up Tassie club would be particularly different from an expat firm in that regard.

Tassie doesn't really have cities. Its just got regional towns. There just isn't a huge number of players produced by these towns that will be desperate to return. Or others who will stay, even if the much bigger salary cap is ongoing. Hobart has a population of 200,000. How many keen to return footballers come from Hobart?

I think any Tassie club will struggle with player retention for that reason alone, and building a club there isn't a good idea.

 

[Knightmare]

I think you're underestimating the difficulty of poaching players and how difficult all of the new clubs have found it.

As well as giving an enormous amount of extra cap to them, as the only real pull is going to be getting paid a heap more, you'd probably also need to do another unexpected covid style crippling of club's caps, so they'd be desperate to offload players like we were last year.

I completely understand how difficult it is for new clubs to recruit rival players. I've seen it with GWS and to an even greater extent Gold Coast.

That's precisely why I would force the issue and ensure there is a way to secure players from all club lists, even aside from any free agents. Tasmanian's and those who aren't regular best-22 players are the types most likely to want to move.

Clarkson needs to go there. No question about it.
And also, for someone who has achieved what Clarkson has, what better opportunity to really show you are the best coach of all time?

It would be the ultimate challenge and legacy play.

If Tasmania launch a team, given that Hawthorn connection he had there, I suspect that would be what he favours. If no Tasmania team launch, Gold Coast would be a great challenge and he's the best man for the job.

 

[sr36]

I completely understand how difficult it is for new clubs to recruit rival players. I've seen it with GWS and to an even greater extent Gold Coast.

That's precisely why I would force the issue and ensure there is a way to secure players from all club lists, even aside from any free agents. Tasmanian's and those who aren't regular best-22 players are the types most likely to want to move.

The Freo start up model, chosen by the AFL was undoubtedly the most botched and didn't give them much of a chance. What you're proposing is pretty much their start up model, which the AFL learnt from and did well to move away from.

 

[Knightmare]

I don't understand why you think that the GWS model was flawed. They've built a good team and a club with character in a short period of time. A bit more luck or better recruiting and coaching and they would have dominated rather than just being good.

I think your model will involve more of a revolving door than GWS have had. Expat firms have an enormous flux of employees in and out. Heaps do their two or three year contract, bank a lot of money and then move back to their previous city. Extra money may draw people for a couple of years, but when we're talking about high salary earners - it often doesn't keep them. I don't see why a cashed up Tassie club would be particularly different from an expat firm in that regard. As Tassie doesn't really have cities. Its just got regional towns. There just isn't a huge number of players produced by these towns that will be desperate to return.

I think any Tassie club will struggle with player retention for that reason alone, and building a club there isn't a good idea.

1. Lack of immediate success. GWS were uncompetitive until Mumford and Shaw were added. That's no way to build a fanbase from basic.

2. When building a team, you fundamentally want to be able to retain your players as a first priority. That's demoralising for a team and fanbase alike to be bleeding talent year on year and it doesn't enable a team to build the chemistry to build a winning team or maximise the list talent. GWS have been a recruiting ground of talent where club recruiters would have been wise watching GWS at AFL level and their reserves side to a greater extent than any one junior club. Jeremy Cameron, Adam Treloar, Dylan Shiel, Jack Steele, Taylor Adams, Devon Smith, Zac Williams, Rory Lobb, Adam Tomlinson, Nathan Wilson. You can make up a team that is stronger than GWS' current side with guys who have left.

3. Look at the career outcomes of those drafted by the Giants on average for their picks v other clubs. I've outdrafted GWS, and to a greater extent again Gold Coast when going through my power rankings directly against both clubs. And it's not like I have a recruiting department behind me, and I'm picking undrafted rookies and the same ones most years who don't get picked. That shouldn't be happening.

4. GWS on talent on paper had a period from 2014-2020 (my opinion) where on paper there is no better list but they've never been able to convert it into even one premiership. When they started, the projection was if they don't win at least three premierships with this group they've failed epically.

The Freo start up model chosen by the AFL was undoubtedly the most botched and didn't give them much of a chance. What you're proposing is pretty much their start up model, which the AFL learnt from and did well to move away from.

The key for a new team is ensuring on talent their talent on paper from day 1 is the competition's strongest to compensate for any lack of chemistry.

Fremantle on launch were too young. Their oldest player was aged 28 and only three aged 27 or older. That's inadequate from a veteran leadership perspective and doesn't give a team the chance to build or develop their youth. I'd be wanting guys who are 30+, genuine veteran leaders who have been part of those successful programs. Be it the Luke Hodge's, Trent Cotchin's, Joel Selwood's, Shannon Hurn's.

I would be much more aggressive in ensuring a competitive list from day 1 and would have far less 'foundation' players than Fremantle had.

 

[Scodog10]

I did elaborate on the term 'plucking' with that question already asked.

There is no moving players who don't want to move. And if there are no players under a certain classification who want to go or who a Tasmanian side would want, then there could be a different type that gets taken instead.

Another alternative I haven't brought up is having each club pick 5 players who are 'unavailable to secure' and have Tasmania have free rein over securing any one remaining players they like from each list. eg. If Collingwood lists Grundy/Moore/N.Daicos/De Goey/Maynard as the five untouchables. Maybe Quaynor is the guy Tasmania would choose. And from there a system could be implemented whereby if Quaynor wants to stay with Collingwood, Collingwood have to essentially trade to get him back by working out a deal that works for Tasmania including players willing to move and picks. Under that system though the key would be having some kind of rule in place to ensure Tasmania end up with established footballers as part of such a deal, as again, the most important thing for them is ensuring they aren't left with picks as Gold Coast and GWS alike were.

Which is? It’s all well and good to suggest there could be one, but what is the real world application which is why I asked for you to elaborate. I’ve presented my solution (money) in the form of marquee players. There’s zero chance the existing clubs agree to the “5 off limits” criteria when we’ve only just gotten past the impacts of the northern expansion. What role do the AFLPA play in that?

Tassie isn't as cold as you think, their winter is no worse than ours, unless you live in the mountains or right by the sea. What does every other state have that's so different to living in tassie? I think you'll find that there is a whole lot of suiters if the money is right

It’s consistently a couple of degrees colder each month. Are you comparing the night life of Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane to anywhere in Tassie? Sure if you’re a boomer it’s much of a muchness, but when you’re early to mid 20’s it’s a gaping difference. As I’ve said all through the discussion money will be the major factor, but unless the early concessions sit outside the cap it’s hard to imagine a scenario where good young players will freely choose Tasmania over their current club.

 

[manicpie]

Which is? It’s all well and good to suggest there could be one, but what is the real world application which is why I asked for you to elaborate. I’ve presented my solution (money) in the form of marquee players.

It’s consistently a couple of degrees colder each month. Are you comparing the night life of Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane to anywhere in Tassie? Sure if you’re a boomer it’s much of a muchness, but when you’re early to mid 20’s it’s a gaping difference. As I’ve said all through the discussion money will be the major factor, but unless the early concessions sit outside the cap it’s hard to imagine a scenario where good young players will freely choose Tasmania over their current club.

Absolutely, Launceston and hobart would offer equal to any other states. I wouldn't recruit a player who was after a great nightlife anyway, and most tend to shy away from such places. Yes, it will come down to money but not the nightlife as you suggest, lol, you need to go to tassie

 

[Scodog10]

I'm not sure about individual picks, but in general, if you've got a shortage of pacy flankers, there's a fair chance that you haven't weighted pace highly enough in your recruitment criteria, or have been too stringent in your approach to taking best available and not factored in the variety of roles needed to be a great team. But overall I think they did well and built a very good team. A little bit better recruiting and coaching and they probably would have notched up a couple of flags. A little bit more luck and they'd probably have one.

This is very much a hindsight criticism as it needed to involve recruiters successfully predicting the way the game was heading. I think GWS, like most teams, didn't get their criteria or selections right regarding pace.

How much do you watch of the Giants? Cumming, Ash and Idun look as good if not better than any of our youngsters with all of them able to cover the ground well. I think it’s an unfair criticism personally.

 

[sr36]

1. Lack of immediate success. GWS were uncompetitive until Mumford and Shaw were added. That's no way to build a fanbase from basic.

2. When building a team, you fundamentally want to be able to retain your players as a first priority. That's demoralising for a team and fanbase alike to be bleeding talent year on year and it doesn't enable a team to build the chemistry to build a winning team or maximise the list talent. GWS have been a recruiting ground of talent where club recruiters would have been wise watching GWS at AFL level and their reserves side to a greater extent than any one junior club. Jeremy Cameron, Adam Treloar, Dylan Shiel, Jack Steele, Taylor Adams, Devon Smith, Zac Williams, Rory Lobb, Adam Tomlinson, Nathan Wilson. You can make up a team that is stronger than GWS' current side with guys who have left.

3. Look at the career outcomes of those drafted by the Giants on average for their picks v other clubs. I've outdrafted GWS, and to a greater extent again Gold Coast when going through my power rankings directly against both clubs. And it's not like I have a recruiting department behind me, and I'm picking undrafted rookies and the same ones most years who don't get picked. That shouldn't be happening.

4. GWS on talent on paper had a period from 2014-2020 (my opinion) where on paper there is no better list but they've never been able to convert it into even one premiership. When they started, the projection was if they don't win at least three premierships with this group they've failed epically.




The key for a new team is ensuring on talent their talent on paper from day 1 is the competition's strongest to compensate for any lack of chemistry.

Fremantle on launch were too young. Their oldest player was aged 28 and only three aged 27 or older. That's inadequate from a veteran leadership perspective and doesn't give a team the chance to build or develop their youth. I'd be wanting guys who are 30+, genuine veteran leaders who have been part of those successful programs. Be it the Luke Hodge's, Trent Cotchin's, Joel Selwood's, Shannon Hurn's.

I would be much more aggressive in ensuring a competitive list from day 1 and would have far less 'foundation' players than Fremantle had.

I think we're talking about two slightly different things. I'm talking about the model and the concessions that the AFL give them, whereas you're talking more about the decisions of the start up club. Obviously they're intertwined though.

In comparing GWS and a potential Tassie team, we're talking about two very different markets. I do agree that you want a Tassie team to be competitive from day one, as they'll arrive with a decent fanbase that you need to maintain. Whereas GWS arrived with no fanbase and need to build one. That wasn't going to be built from midtable mediocrity. It'll be built by a period of domination. I think the AFL concessions and GWS strategy was right for them, as it gave them a shot at a period of domination. A bit more luck, a bit better recruiting or coaching and they would have had one.

In terms of their recruiting and development, I can't actually see an issue with their player development, as I can't think of a single player who really blossomed and developed after leaving them and moving into a different program. Treloars progress has been pretty stagnant, ditto Shiel. Adams has improved a lot, but it was slow and standard. In his first couple of seasons with us, he was the same player who left their program. I don't think their recruiting was great, but not a start up strategy issue.

And as previously mentioned, I don't see why your proposed strategy is going to produce less players walking. I think it runs the risk of more walking, as you're only going to be pulling older players with money. You won't have as large a group of kids coming through together with shared experiences in their formative years to make them more committed to each other and the club

 

[sr36]

How much do you watch of the Giants? Cumming, Ash and Idun look as good if not better than any of our youngsters with all of them able to cover the ground well. I think it’s an unfair criticism personally.

I was referring to their earlier, not more recent drafting. I think they started to prioritise pace a couple of years before us. We only did this year. But both clubs were behind the trend setters.

 

[Scodog10]

Absolutely, Launceston and hobart would offer equal to any other states. I wouldn't recruit a player who was after a great nightlife anyway, and most tend to shy away from such places. Yes, it will come down to money but not the nightlife as you suggest, lol, you need to go to tassie

In other words anyone under 25 and they don’t they just go to places you or I wouldn’t frequent… Money will be the main factor, but when the money isn’t a factor (an issue without a marquee type rule) lifestyle will be huge and Tassie can’t compete with the mainland. Pass on coming to Tassie when I can spend time in QLD if I need a break.

In a practical sense Jamie Elliott. He would sit mid range on our list and let’s say he sits mid range in the Tasmanian recruiting push. Money won’t be a factor because he might get a little extra down there, but as a single guy living in the heart of Melbourne where he’s looked upon favourably by half the population wherever he goes he’s not moving to Tassie. Offer him a marquee spot though where he can earn double what Collingwood can offer and they’re a red hot chance.

 

[Knightmare]

Which is? It’s all well and good to suggest there could be one, but what is the real world application which is why I asked for you to elaborate. I’ve presented my solution (money) in the form of marquee players. There’s zero chance the existing clubs agree to the “5 off limits” criteria when we’ve only just gotten past the impacts of the northern expansion. What role do the AFLPA play in that?

It’s consistently a couple of degrees colder each month. Are you comparing the night life of Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane to anywhere in Tassie? Sure if you’re a boomer it’s much of a muchness, but when you’re early to mid 20’s it’s a gaping difference. As I’ve said all through the discussion money will be the major factor, but unless the early concessions sit outside the cap it’s hard to imagine a scenario where good young players will freely choose Tasmania over their current club.

Among the models I've considered include: 1 Tasmanian from each team (conditional on the player being of interest and open to moving - if not willing but of interest could be an option to make the club trade to get them back).

1 leadership group member current or from the past 5 years from each team with clubs being able to pick three untouchable leaders (again could be a gain possession of player situation where they can be traded back if they don't want to go).

Existing teams pick 5 untouchables and the new team can gain possession of any one player from each rival list - if the player wishes to remain, they can again be traded back if a deal can be agreed to.

There could be an opportunity where if a player has played more than half of their games in the state leagues and have played 10 or more games in the state leagues that year, they could be added straight onto their list (not including first or second year players), and again that trade back opportunity could be possible.

There could be an over 28s opportunity where if players are aged 28 or older, again same system, one from each club can be added, and if they don't want to go, they can be traded back.

Or there could be opportunities for the Tasmanian team to do some combination of these. Maybe because those outside the top-5 on opposition lists would be the most appealing options, maybe there is the choice between going with one of those, or any two from those other two categories.

There could be a five players outside the salary cap opportunity for free agents so that Tasmania could go more aggressively in picking up big names, and those names could be secured over a two year period.

If there is some combination of opportunities along those lines with priority access to state leaguers where they're forced to be added to the Tasmanian list rather than traded. Those kinds of measures help towards ensuring a healthier part of the list are established footballers.

I wouldn't be wanting more than probably 4 players from the u18s secured through the draft. I'd be very strong on forcing opposition talent and state leaguers to make up the bulk of the list and then some as rookies - though again I'd even with rookies be encouraging mature agers to be the focus given their higher hit rates.

The AFLPA and any grievances they may have would be largely irrelevant as clubs can still trade back any of the players they would have lost if the player doesn't want to go, and that would be on the clubs to find players/picks that would be satisfactory alternatives.

I'm not sure why the weather in Tasmania would be so troubling. It's not like you have everyone putting up their hand to move to WA or QLD out of complaint it's too cold everywhere else. With all the distance the footballers cover, playing in Tasmania and running around there would for some possibly be more comfortable conditions for match play and much more enjoyable for preseasons with Summer over there much easier to manage.

Tasmania and Hobart in particular in recent years has actually become a destination where a lot of Melbournians are making the move.

 

[TradeDraft]

Ex-AFL star’s bombshell claim Clarko is ‘telling free agents not to re-sign’ ahead of shock return

Ex-AFL star’s bombshell claim Clarko is ‘telling free agents not to re-sign’ ahead of shock return

www.foxsports.com.au

 

[Scodog10]

Among the models I've considered include: 1 Tasmanian from each team (conditional on the player being of interest and open to moving - if not willing but of interest could be an option to make the club trade to get them back).

1 leadership group member current or from the past 5 years from each team with clubs being able to pick three untouchable leaders (again could be a gain possession of player situation where they can be traded back if they don't want to go).

Existing teams pick 5 untouchables and the new team can gain possession of any one player from each rival list - if the player wishes to remain, they can again be traded back if a deal can be agreed to.

There could be an opportunity where if a player has played more than half of their games in the state leagues and have played 10 or more games in the state leagues that year, they could be added straight onto their list (not including first or second year players), and again that trade back opportunity could be possible.

There could be an over 28s opportunity where if players are aged 28 or older, again same system, one from each club can be added, and if they don't want to go, they can be traded back.

Or there could be opportunities for the Tasmanian team to do some combination of these. Maybe because those outside the top-5 on opposition lists would be the most appealing options, maybe there is the choice between going with one of those, or any two from those other two categories.

There could be a five players outside the salary cap opportunity for free agents so that Tasmania could go more aggressively in picking up big names, and those names could be secured over a two year period.

If there is some combination of opportunities along those lines with priority access to state leaguers where they're forced to be added to the Tasmanian list rather than traded. Those kinds of measures help towards ensuring a healthier part of the list are established footballers.

I wouldn't be wanting more than probably 4 players from the u18s secured through the draft. I'd be very strong on forcing opposition talent and state leaguers to make up the bulk of the list and then some as rookies - though again I'd even with rookies be encouraging mature agers to be the focus given their higher hit rates.

The AFLPA and any grievances they may have would be largely irrelevant as clubs can still trade back any of the players they would have lost if the player doesn't want to go, and that would be on the clubs to find players/picks that would be satisfactory alternatives.

I'm not sure why the weather in Tasmania would be so troubling. It's not like you have everyone putting up their hand to move to WA or QLD out of complaint it's too cold everywhere else. With all the distance the footballers cover, playing in Tasmania and running around there would for some possibly be more comfortable conditions for match play and much more enjoyable for preseasons with Summer over there much easier to manage.

Tasmania and Hobart in particular in recent years has actually become a destination where a lot of Melbournians are making the move.

It’s not the AFLPA that would have an issue with the bolded, but rather the current clubs that need to vote on accepting the new franchise. A “buy back” system won’t get over the line.

Out of the suggested options the only one likely to have an impact over and beyond what was offered to GC and GWS to correct the errors in their setup was the marquee players outside the cap. Having thought on it since I suggested it yesterday the biggest hole in it is how it’s sold to the existing clubs. My gut feel is the AFL needs to sell it as a trial which will be reviewed after the first three seasons to deem whether it should be rolled out league wide, but I question whether the existing clubs will allow it.

To be blunt the italicised sentence is garbage without context. What are the age demographics of people making that move? What lines of work? What level of income? A broad based statement of people making a tree change down to Tasmania could literally be based on Covid numbers during Melbourne’s never ending lockdowns which AFAIK is starting to reverse anyway…