List Mgmt. Saint list reduction 2021

[L_W_P]

Won't happen. No way the AFLPA allow 20% of their members to be out of a job like that.

 

[plugger66]

Won't happen. No way the AFLPA allow 20% of their members to be out of a job like that.

Exactly. They have given up more than anything expected this year. Numbers will slightly drop at the most. At least 40 on list is how I see it. No such thing as a rookie anymore as it means nothing anyway. Keep the category picks. There are some obvious outs. If it drops by 4 or 5 it shouldn’t be an issue. We won’t need to lose anyone we don’t want to lose.

 

[BrutThough]

Article in the AFL website suggests its looking like 38 players plus 2 rookies as the most likely scenario next year.

35 on a list? Clubs brace for cuts but complications loom

The AFL and AFLPA start discussions on potentially revising the CBA

www.afl.com.au

Means we would need to cut at least 8 from the current list due to the current drafting requirement (there is discussions the AFL could reduce the draft requirement down from 3 players)

Looking at those out of contract, I'd expect we delist
Langlands
Mayo
Austin
Brown (retired)
Parker
Clavarino

Other players out of contract who could be in trouble if list spots become tight
Marsh, Lonie, Hind, Phillips, Abbott and Bell.

Also the question on if Geary will play on again next year.

We have enough players OOC that we won't have any issue making the required list cuts.

We will have to get creative to find some back up key defenders in the off season along with our need for mids.

 

[sammm]

I know we love to speculate but this is a very premature discussion based on a set of circumstances which are no longer relevant.

When the first discussions about the need for list reductions started, it was because the league were looking at a very dire set of circumstances with the distinct possibility of no season and a $500M shortfall in revenue from Channel 7.

That hasn't happened, looks like they will get an almost complete season this year, they have now renegotiated with Channel 7 which will spread the impact out till 2024.

Probably still see some reduction in lists (maybe 3 to 5) with a slight cut to all existing contracts. The biggest cut will be to the soft cap but the AFL was looking at ways to do that anyway.

ok but if we cannot get victorian members into the games next year, the afl will nearly fall apart

 

[PostmanBish]

Its still the end of development players.
If its a 35 man list , surely you can't force the clubs to delist players to take a gamble on a 3rd round 18 year old.
Like i said, maybe the drafting age needs to be higher as well.

I can probably count the number of ruckmen and KP forwards and backs drafted in the last decade who were effective in the first 2 years without takinig my shoes off.

You'd think a 35-player list would have huge ramifications for management of the game ... even 38+2 could run it tight with an injury crisis.

Can you afford to have a draftee on your list who was injured, and is still recovering, for their first season?
Do you need to push players into early retirement to keep your list fresh?
Need to see a comprehensive strategy for long-term injury and concussion management in with the reduced list.
Probably need to seriously reconsider reintroducing a substitute player (or at very least a concussion sub - we have emergencies, so it's reasonable to nominate one or two of those to be the sub-pool) so that clubs with an early injury, or a concussion, aren't running their remaining players into the ground, or having to leave an injury which could get worse, out on the field because they're out of rotations. Would need to be signed-off by a controlling official, and not open-slather, but a failed concussion test would tend to be conclusive, at least.

What happens to the player who does an ACL, and is a little slow coming back, the McCartin, Roberton, or Stuv situation, or say, Daniel Menzel. Player welfare could easily go to hell, unless this is managed seriously well.

6 clubs have used >= 35 players this season, so far - even with shortened season and overall far less travel.

St Kilda in 2019 used 39, and 41 in 2018 ... when the injury bug bites, it bites HARD.

 

[Strahany]

ok but if we cannot get victorian members into the games next year, the afl will nearly fall apart

If the AFL stopped kowtowing to Murdoch and developed their own streaming platform, instead of selling the rights to foxtel, then they’d have a very solid revenue stream.

They could charge anywhere between 100-300 per season, depending on the quality of broadcast and additional content, whilst also reaping full advertising revenue.

It wouldn’t replace the revenue from fully attended games, but would be better than the current situation.

 

[jonathons11]

Exactly. They have given up more than anything expected this year. Numbers will slightly drop at the most. At least 40 on list is how I see it. No such thing as a rookie anymore as it means nothing anyway. Keep the category picks. There are some obvious outs. If it drops by 4 or 5 it shouldn’t be an issue. We won’t need to lose anyone we don’t want to lose.

Apparently the main benefit of the rookie list is that it is lower pay and a 1 year contract so allows clubs to take a free swing at more risky players that wouldn't normally get drafted.
Probably not a huge deal if it gets cut but it does have it's place.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

Article in the AFL website suggests its looking like 38 players plus 2 rookies as the most likely scenario next year.

35 on a list? Clubs brace for cuts but complications loom

The AFL and AFLPA start discussions on potentially revising the CBA

www.afl.com.au

Means we would need to cut at least 8 from the current list due to the current drafting requirement (there is discussions the AFL could reduce the draft requirement down from 3 players)

Looking at those out of contract, I'd expect we delist
Langlands
Mayo
Austin
Brown (retired)
Parker
Clavarino

Other players out of contract who could be in trouble if list spots become tight
Marsh, Lonie, Hind, Phillips, Abbott and Bell.

Also the question on if Geary will play on again next year.

We have enough players OOC that we won't have any issue making the required list cuts.

We will have to get creative to find some back up key defenders in the off season along with our need for mids.

Would make sense to drop the drafting requirement.
I'm happy for a player to go for a 1st rounder. But i'm not wanting to let anyone go for a guess at a third rounder.

 

[sammm]

If the AFL stopped kowtowing to Murdoch and developed their own streaming platform, instead of selling the rights to foxtel, then they’d have a very solid revenue stream.

They could charge anywhere between 100-300 per season, depending on the quality of broadcast and additional content, whilst also reaping full advertising revenue.

It wouldn’t replace the revenue from fully attended games, but would be better than the current situation.

and if the high end $ players accepted sqay 25% less and the lower end players accepted say accept 10% less pay $ there would be no need for a reducton in the number of players. but in the in the end each player is in it for themselves and not the whole game

take our team
brad hill said ok for the good of the game i will accept $400k per year. and the 1 year players accepted 80$ 2nd year players accepted $100k ,3rd - 4th year players accepted $150 k and so on.

It won't happen

 

[pebblesofsand]

Article in the AFL website suggests its looking like 38 players plus 2 rookies as the most likely scenario next year.

35 on a list? Clubs brace for cuts but complications loom

The AFL and AFLPA start discussions on potentially revising the CBA

www.afl.com.au

Means we would need to cut at least 8 from the current list due to the current drafting requirement (there is discussions the AFL could reduce the draft requirement down from 3 players)

Looking at those out of contract, I'd expect we delist
Langlands
Mayo
Austin
Brown (retired)
Parker
Clavarino

Other players out of contract who could be in trouble if list spots become tight
Marsh, Lonie, Hind, Phillips, Abbott and Bell.

Also the question on if Geary will play on again next year.

We have enough players OOC that we won't have any issue making the required list cuts.

We will have to get creative to find some back up key defenders in the off season along with our need for mids.

I wouldn't be surprised if the AFL/AFLPA will allow for paying out contracts as a way of managing the change but based on current contract arrangements I'd be thinking that Mayo, Brown, Phillips and Austin as the definite de-listings that get us down to 40.

Then I'd be thinking

Talls - Clav, Joyce, Marsh

Smalls - Parker, Lonie Hind Geary Langlands

Rucks - Abbott Bell

Also given the lack of junior football - this year may be the year for trading draft picks for players.

 

[plugger66]

and if the high end $ players accepted sqay 25% less and the lower end players accepted say accept 10% less pay $ there would be no need for a reducton in the number of players. but in the in the end each player is in it for themselves and not the whole game

take our team
brad hill said ok for the good of the game i will accept $400k per year. and the 1 year players accepted 80$ 2nd year players accepted $100k ,3rd - 4th year players accepted $150 k and so on.

It won't happen

And why should it. Do normal employment industries go to those with a job and say if you accept huge pays and the ones you have suggested are huge then we can keep more people Maybe they do ask but my guess is 99% would say no. I certainly would. No idea why people think the afl should be different to anyone else. We are all in it for ourselves in the end.

 

[Fryman]

They could charge anywhere between 100-300 per season, depending on the quality of broadcast and additional content, whilst also reaping full advertising revenue.

For that sort of money people would expect a service like the MLB or NFL provide. The AFL simply don’t have the resources.

 

[gringo2011]

Pretty sure they're talking about taking a couple of years at least to get to 35.
We can easily lose 3 or 4 per year without any impact on contracts or depth.

I wouldn't be surprised if the AFL and AFLPA get together and negotiate down all contacts to keep close to a full squad or have a couple of players as "rookies" that play in reserve but get paid minimal money and match payments for any AFL games. The PA won't want less players.

 

[gringo2011]

And why should it. Do normal employment industries go to those with a job and say if you accept huge pays and the ones you have suggested are huge then we can keep more people Maybe they do ask but my guess is 99% would say no. I certainly would. No idea why people think the afl should be different to anyone else. We are all in it for ourselves in the end.

Yep, in corporate a lot of people's contracts were redone post GFC. Executive wages were pushed down for a while and now worse than before again. A lot of middle tier people were forced to take less than their contracts to keep jobs.

 

[plugger66]

For that sort of money people would expect a service like the MLB or NFL provide. The AFL simply don’t have the resources.

Correct. The afl need to stick to what they do best and that’s provide the content and leave it up what streaming services do best and that’s show the content.

 

[plugger66]

Yep, in corporate a lot of people's contracts were redone post GFC. Executive wages were pushed down for a while and now worse than before again. A lot of middle tier people were forced to take less than their contracts to keep jobs.

That’s completely different to asking those to take permanent cuts. The players have already done what you have said others did. I bet none would do it for the good of others over a longer period of time

 

[gringo2011]

So we have 13 players not in the 22.

Backup/developing full back. ( 2 player )
Backup ruckman. Developing ruckman. ( 2 players )
Backup tall forward. Developing tall forward. ( 2 players )
Depth Midfielders. 3 Developing midfielders. ( 5 players )
Depth/Developing defender. ( 1 )
Depth/Developing small forward. (1)

That's crap you are choosing between being competitive now or being competitive some time in the future.
It just sucks to high hell and favours the teams who already have well developed teams and makes it harder for teams who are trying to rebuild.

It means we don't take a punt with a Ryan Marshall.
It means we don't have Josh Bruce and Tim Membrey when our number 1 draft pick gets concussed.
It means if you have issues like Robbo , its "Piss of mate go back in the draft when you fix your ticker " Someone does their ACL , so long, can't carry you.
Essentially it means you need to nail every draft pick you make. If they aren't playing year 1 , off they go. Bad luck for players like Paton, who weren't ready right away . ( More often or not its the 3rd year when a normal sized player makes his mark, talls longer ).

If they really want to do this, then i think they also need to put back the age of the draft. 20YO to get into the draft. 18 year olds are too much of a lottery.
And give the teams the choice to draft or hold onto their current players. Why be forced to delist a decent player to draft some kid who is a long shot in the 3rd round.

So our team/list would look something like.

Paton Howard Coffield : Marsh :Clavarino
Wilkie Carlisle Clark : Savage : Connolly
Hill Jones Billings : Sinclair Phillips : Byrnes
Membrey Butler Battle : Parker : Mayo
Kent King Hind : Lonie

Marshall , Steele, Gresham : Abbott Dunstan: Bell

Ross , Long, Phillps Bytel

---------------------------
Austen Not available enough to take up a precious list spot.
Roberton : Possibly he could be a good player again but have to be ruthless.
Joyce : Progressing well for a young guy with only a few years in the game. No more Irish rookies. Can't carry them.
McKenzie : Not good enough.
Alabakis : Tallest guy in footy, but no more list room for long term development players.
Langlands : Shows good signs , only 21 , can't take this long to develop any more.
Hannebery : Not available enough.
Ryder : If we can get several more years from Abbot, then we need to let Ryder go.
Geary : We need backup in our defence, its either Jarryn or Savage.
Webster : His spot has been taken by Wilkie, or Clark or Coffield. Not reliable.

It does help the well established teams but also really brutal for sides like Geelong who have a lot of older players. They literally have to make the call on playing for a Premiership now or losing the generation coming in behind them. It could really shake thinks up. Also means sides like GWS probably have to make much more drastic calls on their players and move on some guns. For example players like Callum Ward could end up out the door and would be available for sides like us for nothing. If you were close you could probably really exploit it.

 

[gringo2011]

So the afl have one bad year and they’re broke??? How too heavy are they??? Has the till been tickled????
It just doesn’t add up.

They spent all their money on buying back Docklands and have a lot of money that goes into development.

 

[plugger66]

So the afl have one bad year and they’re broke??? How too heavy are they??? Has the till been tickled????
It just doesn’t add up.

If they had to much in the bank clubs and supporters would be whinging you are a non profit organisation so why so much in the bank. It adds up unless you were able to see a year that hasn’t happened ever in the afl history Look at other sports and see how much better we are going than them.

 

[pebblesofsand]

They spent all their money on buying back Docklands and have a lot of money that goes into development.

They are a lot better off than most comps and I reckon they are overcompensating to make sure that if things aren't much better next year (ie limited crowds, additional costs etc etc) they will still survive.

I'd love to know how much of the $600M overdraft they've actually called on so far and how much the clubs have requested.

 

[ScrappyDo]

I wouldn't be surprised if the AFL and AFLPA get together and negotiate down all contacts to keep close to a full squad or have a couple of players as "rookies" that play in reserve but get paid minimal money and match payments for any AFL games. The PA won't want less players.

I think you're over estimating the power of the ALFPA. At the end of the day it's head office that will dictate the model, and the PA will seek the best deal within that framework.
From what I read a while back the idea is that affiliate state league teams will house x number of players at their own expense, and those players will be able to play for match payments when called up. By the numbers, it will save the league 18-20 million per year.
The down side obviously, is that the wealthy clubs may have better access to talent if the state league payments aren't strictly regulated.

We'll definitely need to have our own VFL team within a couple of years. And I suppose that is where guys like Jack Bell would develop before being listed.
The Saints will probably get screwed, but to be realistic, it's not the 6 worst players on your list that determine success..

 

[Strahany]

Could there be a way to prevent list culling, altogether, through back-pay mechanisms?

For example, rather than making top end players take a flat 25% pay cut, why don't they take a temporarily higher pay cut (e.g 40%) with a contract signed to renumerate the player, once they've retired. So if someone is on 800K over the next 3 years, instead of being paid 600K each year (25% cut), they get paid 480K per year (40% cut), with 200K per year x3 (600K) being paid in instalments, once they've retired - this would mean they're effectively paid 680K per year, which is a 15% cut.

This would allow lists to stay largely unchanged, since the AFL is saving the more money in the short term, and can start paying players back once the competition is earning good money once more. It would be feasible, due to the AFL covering player wages (via the clubs), but it might be too complicated and might see objections from current players, since they may want money up-front for investing purposes (although the supposed tax benefits of spreading out the renumeration should be considered).

It won't happen, but I thought it was an interesting concept.

 

[JG22]

We appear to be in a relatively good spot for a potential list reduction at the end of this season. The only key guys really that are out of contract are Steele, Carlisle and Geary.

Going to be an interesting one with Jake and the key backs. I'm not sure how much truth was around talk of Carlisle out at the end of last year. If he weren't to be in the side I think certain teams could really get a hold of us with two tall forwards with one being left for a Wilkie who surprised me being only 191. Only makes sense to re-contract Jake but on a reduced wage.

So Brown is already done, I hear people delisting Clavarino, Joyce and Austin. Potentially, but I feel you probably keep one just on the merit that you leave yourself to vacant in the one spot.

Ooh & Benny Paton we must sign too.

 

[St Plugger]

I'm going to express a couple of left field options here, that may well be at play with this move in reducing player lists on the bigger AFL stage rather than at club level.

1. Reduced playing lists will immediately lead to a number of [supposedly] AFL players available to make up 2 additional teams. An immediately competent Tasmanian AFL team and either an additional W.A. team or a Northern Australian team could be made from the 180 players let go. This would then make it a 20 team comp.

2. THe AFL becomes a 15 or 16 aside competition. [5-5-5, 15 aside has one less back, mid and forward, 6-4-6, 16 aside has 2 less mids]

3. Reduced number of interchange/replacement players


In practice this would mean that all the machinations here on which players are kept and those who are needed for depth become a relatively non issue when only a "best 18" is required rather than a "best 22". IE 15 on the ground and 3 interchanges/replacements.
The effect of the reduction in playing numbers down to 35 would be cancelled out.
The outcome of only needing a "best 18" is a 20% reduction in playing personnel required, and a huge saving in player payments for individual clubs. Then there's saving everywhere else as a consequence as well. Fewer coaches required, uniforms, medical expenses, even rolls of strapping and training footballs.
Would the game change as we know it?
Probably, but not that much. There would be less on field congestion and fast teams would become even faster.
Would we watch?
Absolutely because we'd all still want to see the Saint win!

 

[SaintsSeptember]

I'm going to express a couple of left field options here, that may well be at play with this move in reducing player lists on the bigger AFL stage rather than at club level.

1. Reduced playing lists will immediately lead to a number of [supposedly] AFL players available to make up 2 additional teams. An immediately competent Tasmanian AFL team and either an additional W.A. team or a Northern Australian team could be made from the 180 players let go. This would then make it a 20 team comp.

2. THe AFL becomes a 15 or 16 aside competition. [5-5-5, 15 aside has one less back, mid and forward, 6-4-6, 16 aside has 2 less mids]

3. Reduced number of interchange/replacement players


In practice this would mean that all the machinations here on which players are kept and those who are needed for depth become a relatively non issue when only a "best 18" is required rather than a "best 22". IE 15 on the ground and 3 interchanges/replacements.
The effect of the reduction in playing numbers down to 35 would be cancelled out.
The outcome of only needing a "best 18" is a 20% reduction in playing personnel required, and a huge saving in player payments for individual clubs. Then there's saving everywhere else as a consequence as well. Fewer coaches required, uniforms, medical expenses, even rolls of strapping and training footballs.
Would the game change as we know it?
Probably, but not that much. There would be less on field congestion and fast teams would become even faster.
Would we watch?
Absolutely because we'd all still want to see the Saint win!

If they are doing the cuts to reduce costs, two new teams won't be even vaguely considered.