Special assistance for Saints

[Blackas87]

Didn't Melbourne get like Pick 20 for Colin Sylvia in the same year St Kilda got 25 for Dal Santo and Hawthorn got 19 for Franklin? Lol

Wow the Saints made out like bandits getting compared to what the Hawks got

 

[bergholt]

The NBA does not say go for it to tanking. They hate it. They warned the clubs to not tank, and have now changed the draft lottery odds for next years draft to give less of an insentive to tank.

https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/www...king-teams-worst-record-standings-draft-picks

https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/dea...-for-nba-tanking-to-be-a-thing-1825264665/amp

Fair point! I haven't followed NBA properly for a while. Since franchises started regularly buying superstars the whole thing got a bit silly imo.

I still disagree that tanking should be considered a problem. Those articles you posted see only one side of the issue - some teams wanting to lose to get better picks, because they think the current position they're in is terrible.

I think that should be a legitimate option. Mainly because, at least in AFL, it basically doesn't work. In NBA it's different because there are so many fewer players involved. Get a Joel Embiid and a Ben Simmons and before long you can be in the playoffs.

Everyone ignores the other side of it though, which is equalisation. I think that's pretty important to keep Saints supporters and similar watching games and putting money into the comp. Without that, I'd definitely find something else to do with my life than follow AFL.

Look at the EPL where there's no equalisation. One ridiculous Leicester season aside, the little teams never win. They can never become big teams, they can never keep great players, they have very little hope of anything interesting happening. So they end up with 10k - 20k loyal supporters, because the team is local to them, and no-one else cares.

Sure, that's a legitimate system. There's nothing fundamentally wrong with it. The rules of sport are arbitrary anyway. But if you fight tanking too actively, by getting rid of equalisation, that's the system you're guaranteed to end up with. And everyone better hope their club is at the top when those changes happen, otherwise they'll literally never have a chance of seeing a flag in their lifetime.

 

[HungLong]

Just let them die.

 

[Marc_Remillard]

Well. Lets have a look here.

We have a Melbourne supporter calling us "loser clubs" and calling for us to "get our houses in order". First, let me point out that Melbourne didnt get their our house in order. There wasnt some epiphany at Melbourne where they internally made sweeping changes to their culture. It wasnt player led or by the coterie groups. No. The AFL threw a stack of cash at Paul Roos and got him to show you how to function as a modern day club. Roos had no burning desire to help Melbourne and didnt offer his assistance. The AFL approached him and said "how much?".

Wow, it's amazing how you can be so wrong

 

[bergholt]

Just let them die.

It's an opinion. You just need to find a club to fill the gap in the TV schedule then.

 

[Mat Mann]

View attachment 552682
You already get enough to pay your coach out

seems odd but look the the attendance figures and work out who loses the most money from AFL enforced stadium deal
team......................................Home Attendance tot............Games...............Avg
St Kilda .......................................5976949 ......................185...................32308
North Melbourne........................... 4129573.......................141...................29288
Western Bulldogs...........................5094211.......................170...................29966

as Comparison
Carlton........................................3023078..........................90....................33590
Essendon.....................................5120818.........................133...................38502

who are the 3 teams getting screwed by the AFL on Stadium Deals and then making up the difference in assistance monies

Sorry for playing at our home ground of 150 years.

not your fault at all, but when the AFL does a deal for early buyout of the stadium and refuses to allow said clubs to negotiate their own deals, that when that figure is skewed, take out that Stadium compensation figure and Melbourne starts to stink a bit as well

 

[Blackas87]

Fair point! I haven't followed NBA properly for a while. Since franchises started regularly buying superstars the whole thing got a bit silly imo.

I still disagree that tanking should be considered a problem. Those articles you posted see only one side of the issue - some teams wanting to lose to get better picks, because they think the current position they're in is terrible.

I think that should be a legitimate option. Mainly because, at least in AFL, it basically doesn't work. In NBA it's different because there are so many fewer players involved. Get a Joel Embiid and a Ben Simmons and before long you can be in the playoffs.

Everyone ignores the other side of it though, which is equalisation. I think that's pretty important to keep Saints supporters and similar watching games and putting money into the comp. Without that, I'd definitely find something else to do with my life than follow AFL.

Look at the EPL where there's no equalisation. One ridiculous Leicester season aside, the little teams never win. They can never become big teams, they can never keep great players, they have very little hope of anything interesting happening. So they end up with 10k - 20k loyal supporters, because the team is local to them, and no-one else cares.

Sure, that's a legitimate system. There's nothing fundamentally wrong with it. The rules of sport are arbitrary anyway. But if you fight tanking too actively, by getting rid of equalisation, that's the system you're guaranteed to end up with. And everyone better hope their club is at the top when those changes happen, otherwise they'll literally never have a chance of seeing a flag in their lifetime.

I agree from a clubs perspective when not finishing in finals, it’s better to finish lower. But from a general supporting view, it’s terrible to watch teams not go out to perform at their best.

Before the draft finishing last picking up the spoon was a bad thing, now you rewarded for it. Personally I’m against the draft as a whole, but that’s another story.

 

[Blackas87]

seems odd but look the the attendance figures and work out who loses the most money from AFL enforced stadium deal
team......................................Home Attendance tot............Games...............Avg
St Kilda .......................................5976949 ......................185...................32308
North Melbourne........................... 4129573.......................141...................29288
Western Bulldogs...........................5094211.......................170...................29966

as Comparison
Carlton........................................3023078..........................90....................33590
Essendon.....................................5120818.........................133...................38502

who are the 3 teams getting screwed by the AFL on Stadium Deals and then making up the difference in assistance monies



not your fault at all, but when the AFL does a deal for early buyout of the stadium and refuses to allow said clubs to negotiate their own deals, that when that figure is skewed, take out that Stadium compensation figure and Melbourne starts to stink a bit as well

No doubt the Etihad Stadium deal was terrible for it tenants. Hopefully that is improved. I’ve never said getting financial assistance was a bad thing, just when a St Kilda supporter is crapping on about Melbourne’s one off $3million bailout back in 2013, that currently his own club is getting an extra $4million than the other Etihad stadium tenants.

 

[Mat Mann]

Saints have the smallest fan base of all the vic clubs. Outside of the few thousand that support them does anyone really think they will be missed? I dont think any other clubs fans would care if they withered away and died.

AFL club supporter ladder
CLUB No. of supporters
Sydney Swans 1,204,000
Essendon 671,000
West Coast 669,000
Collingwood 663,000
Adelaide 541,000
Hawthorn 528,000
Geelong 515,000
Brisbane Lions 489,000
Carlton 464,000
Fremantle 459,000
Richmond 442,000
Port Adelaide 298,000
St Kilda 294,000
North Melbourne 263,000
Western Bulldogs 247,000
Melbourne 229,000
GWS 175,000
Gold Coast 106,000
*Numbers are generated from the Roy Morgan Single Source Australia poll.

 

[Mat Mann]

No doubt the Etihad Stadium deal was terrible for it tenants. Hopefully that is improved. I’ve never said getting financial assistance was a bad thing, just when a St Kilda supporter is crapping on about Melbourne’s one off $3million bailout back in 2013, that currently his own club is getting an extra $4million than the other Etihad stadium tenants.

every club has had assistance as some point in time, but its the annual distribution figures being used as proof of ( crapness ) assistance when the breakup of that figure and how its achieved that gets me.

When the AFL's stated aim is to increase TV revenue and game attendance, and thus some teams are given a far bigger slice of the pie than others in terms of exposure and beneficial game times over others, add Sunday Arvo Eithad games on top of extra crap stadium deals and the losses add up. even the clubs being looked after receive 10m, whats their excuse?

 

[bergholt]

Before the draft finishing last picking up the spoon was a bad thing, now you rewarded for it. Personally I’m against the draft as a whole, but that’s another story.

So that means you're for the EPL-style system where only a few clubs will ever compete for a flag. Fine, if that's what you think makes a good competition. A lot of supporters would drop off. I wouldn't watch it any more because the Saints would rarely even make September let alone win a final. So it would be a pretty different competition with a fair bit smaller fan base and therefore less dollars. Not sure the AFL would go for that.

 

[Blackas87]

So that means you're for the EPL-style system where only a few clubs will ever compete for a flag. Fine, if that's what you think makes a good competition. A lot of supporters would drop off. I wouldn't watch it any more because the Saints would rarely even make September let alone win a final. So it would be a pretty different competition with a fair bit smaller fan base and therefore less dollars. Not sure the AFL would go for that.

EPL doesn’t have a salary cap

 

[bergholt]

EPL doesn’t have a salary cap

So you think just having a salary cap and no draft will equalise the comp?

I think the best players would take less cash to play for a club full of stars that plays preliminary finals each year (Sydney, Geelong, Hawthorn, Collingwood, etc), rather than take a huge paypacket at a club full of spuds which will finish in the bottom six regularly (St Kilda, Gold Coast, Carlton, etc). I think that's what we've seen and are seeing in the last 10 years.

 

[Blackas87]

So you think just having a salary cap and no draft will equalise the comp?

I think the best players would take less cash to play for a club full of stars that plays preliminary finals each year (Sydney, Geelong, Hawthorn, Collingwood, etc), rather than take a huge paypacket at a club full of spuds which will finish in the bottom six regularly (St Kilda, Gold Coast, Carlton, etc). I think that's what we've seen and are seeing in the last 10 years.

And list sizes.

Salary cap and list sizes means clubs can’t stockpile all the players.

Do only leagues with drafts work?

 

[bergholt]

And list sizes.

Salary cap and list sizes means clubs can’t stockpile all the players.

Do only leagues with drafts work?

No idea. Is that what the NFL has?

The NBA has a salary cap and limited list sizes. Still means the Dubs can sign KD while keeping Steph, Klay, Dray. Or the Heat can pick up LBJ and Bosh despite already having Dwyane on a max deal.

In the AFL I don't think it's about "stockpiling" players, more about just grabbing all the best ones.

The Tiges have two Brownlow Medallists, one Coleman Medallist, one 5-time AA. Presumably each of those could get at least $1m a season on the open market. (Maybe slightly less for Cotchin.) And yet they can still offer $1m a year to the most desirable free agent on the market. Because there are so many role players in the AFL and so few real stars, a side can be massively dominant with 4-5 stars. The salary cap doesn't stop them ending up with that.

Consider also the Swans. At the end of 2012 they'd just won a flag, had 4 AAs, a Brownlow medallist, and a recent Rising Star. They were able to attract Kurt Tippett with a big offer and the promise of success. A year later they had a few more AAs and were still able to attract the best player in the game, Buddy, with an even bigger offer. Salary cap didn't restrict them too much.

How about the Hawks? Throughout their success they were able to pick up two separate AA full-backs for not much (Lake and Frawley). Then two rising stars for not much either (Mitchell and O'Meara). They're being talked about for every free agent again this year.

Good teams can get away with paying their players less than market. Partly this is because they can average down by getting a lot out of GOPs. Partly this is because players want to be in a successful environment. Partly this is because they can offer more promotional and sponsorship opportunities outside footy. Partly this is because they negotiate stronger and have better relationships with player managers.

There are many reasons why poor clubs like the Saints just can't get talent, regardless of how much $ we offer. So "salary cap and list sizes" don't seem to do much for equalisation.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

Puts the AFL in an awkward postion though, on one hand they want to give the Suns one but on the other if they do they have to give Carlton one.

If the GC were going ok and Carlton were where the are there's not a chance in hell they'd give Carlton one.

If Carlton are able to lure McGovern it makes the sell easier. Even as poor as Carlton are they can still sign in demand players whereas the Sun's continue to bleed them.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

For the record I don't think we need a PP, I think we need a new coach and some on-field leaders.

However can we at least acknowledge that trying to rebuild in the era of completely compromised drafts has been completely faarked

Top 10 picks (2011-2016)
Giants - 19
Suns - 9
Dees - 7
Lions - 5
Blues - 3
Saints - 2

Come 2017 (not compromised) and the Saints and Blues get two top 10 picks each. That finally gives both clubs a proper shot at getting multiple high quality kids without GWS, GC or Melbourne hoarding AFL gifted picks.

I don't want hand outs or a PP. I just want a genuine go at the draft without the AFL screwing with it!!!

What AFL gifted picked did Melbourne get between 2011-2016?

 

[Blackas87]

No idea. Is that what the NFL has?

The NBA has a salary cap and limited list sizes. Still means the Dubs can sign KD while keeping Steph, Klay, Dray. Or the Heat can pick up LBJ and Bosh despite already having Dwyane on a max deal.

In the AFL I don't think it's about "stockpiling" players, more about just grabbing all the best ones.

The Tiges have two Brownlow Medallists, one Coleman Medallist, one 5-time AA. Presumably each of those could get at least $1m a season on the open market. (Maybe slightly less for Cotchin.) And yet they can still offer $1m a year to the most desirable free agent on the market. Because there are so many role players in the AFL and so few real stars, a side can be massively dominant with 4-5 stars. The salary cap doesn't stop them ending up with that.

Consider also the Swans. At the end of 2012 they'd just won a flag, had 4 AAs, a Brownlow medallist, and a recent Rising Star. They were able to attract Kurt Tippett with a big offer and the promise of success. A year later they had a few more AAs and were still able to attract the best player in the game, Buddy, with an even bigger offer. Salary cap didn't restrict them too much.

How about the Hawks? Throughout their success they were able to pick up two separate AA full-backs for not much (Lake and Frawley). Then two rising stars for not much either (Mitchell and O'Meara). They're being talked about for every free agent again this year.

Good teams can get away with paying their players less than market. Partly this is because they can average down by getting a lot out of GOPs. Partly this is because players want to be in a successful environment. Partly this is because they can offer more promotional and sponsorship opportunities outside footy. Partly this is because they negotiate stronger and have better relationships with player managers.

There are many reasons why poor clubs like the Saints just can't get talent, regardless of how much $ we offer. So "salary cap and list sizes" don't seem to do much for equalisation.

All the American leagues have drafts.
The NBA salary cap isn’t like the AFL’s, you’re allowed to go over the salary cap to re-sign your own players.

When the Warriors signed Durrant, the Salary cap jumped from $70million to $90million in one season. Curry was on a very modest $11 million contract. They traded Bogut out and had room under the cap to sign Durrant to a $30mil contract, they knew though they could go over the Salary cap the following year to sign Curry to a $40millon contract. That won’t happen in the AFL, sign a player up knowing you can sign your own out of contract players up over the salary cap.

The draft is an American thing, where players are choosing $30million to play at a losing team or $25million to play at winner. In Australia the difference between $500k or $400k is felt much more. So let’s compare to Australian leagues on similar wages.

AFL, NRL, A League, Big Bash, NBL. All leagues with Salary Caps, only one with a draft. Does any team in any league dominate and win year after year? I’d think salary cap and list sizes are keeping those Comps equalised.

All those Tiger players were recruited to Richmond as juniors, they weren’t poached from any club. Nothing wrong with clubs building successful teams.

The Hawks lost Lance Franklin and then had cap room to sign Frawley.

But regardless why do players tend to sign with teams higher on the ladder? First the draft puts teams like St Kilda and my club into long rebuilds, it’s takes years of been stuck down the bottom aquiring top draft picks, to get more draft picks you have to trade out best 22 players therefore weakening your team in the short term. Free agents don’t want to go play for losing teams when they can earn similar money at top clubs thanks to the 95% minimum clubs must play which should be lowered to 80%

Remember when Nicky Dal Santo left for North, St Kilda could of kept him as he had a year option left on his contract but thought a compensation pick was worth more to their rebuild. Now bottom clubs say free agents don’t want to come to their bottom club? They’re the ones letting them go.

What if St Kilda kept Nick Dal Santo but was able sign a good group of 18 year olds to good contracts because they have cap space. The top clubs are trying to keep their experienced players to win flags, the Saints sign local Sandy dragon players (Josh Kelly, Christian Salem, Nathen Freeman, Zach Merret, Jayden Hunt, Tom Langdon) while giving Tom Boyd an opportunity to learn off Nick Riewoldt and have a future key forward spot and Rory Lobb an opportunity at become St Kilda’s next ruck. Youre then getting your rebuild well an trully under away in one year while not losing best 22 players, therefore not bottoming out so hard and more likely to attract free agents

 

[bergholt]

What if St Kilda kept Nick Dal Santo but was able sign a good group of 18 year olds to good contracts because they have cap space. The top clubs are trying to keep their experienced players to win flags, the Saints sign local Sandy dragon players (Josh Kelly, Christian Salem, Nathen Freeman, Zach Merret, Jayden Hunt, Tom Langdon) while giving Tom Boyd an opportunity to learn off Nick Riewoldt and have a future key forward spot and Rory Lobb an opportunity at become St Kilda’s next ruck. Youre then getting your rebuild well an trully under away in one year while not losing best 22 players, therefore not bottoming out so hard and more likely to attract free agents

Well thought out generally, I just don't think this would happen though. Graham Wright would go to Josh Kelly (who went pick 2 so he was obviously highly rated) and offer him $60k - which is still a lot for your first job at 18 - rising to $200k over the first 3-4 years. And Kelly would accept.

Because Wright would say "We're not going to give you much money straight away, but Clarko makes players into stars. If you go to the Saints you'll never fulfil your potential. We have a winning culture, you can learn from Mitchell and Lewis and Hodge and Roughead for the next few years and then we think you'll be our best player in a couple of years, and then you'll get paid $1m a year. You're in it for a career not for a year."

And unless Kelly was an absolute muppet he'd agree to that. As the saying goes, investing in your career is the safest bet you can make, and that's what he'd be doing.

 

[Blackas87]

Well thought out generally, I just don't think this would happen though. Graham Wright would go to Josh Kelly (who went pick 2 so he was obviously highly rated) and offer him $60k - which is still a lot for your first job at 18 - rising to $200k over the first 3-4 years. And Kelly would accept.

Because Wright would say "We're not going to give you much money straight away, but Clarko makes players into stars. If you go to the Saints you'll never fulfil your potential. We have a winning culture, you can learn from Mitchell and Lewis and Hodge and Roughead for the next few years and then we think you'll be our best player in a couple of years, and then you'll get paid $1m a year. You're in it for a career not for a year."

And unless Kelly was an absolute muppet he'd agree to that. As the saying goes, investing in your career is the safest bet you can make, and that's what he'd be doing.

You've hit the nail on other reason why I don't like the draft. Players don't get a choice in where their career direction goes.

Take my club, had plenty of high picks, where players careers were ruined by a club with bad development. They were all highly rated, they had no choice and got no extra payment to come to Melbourne and have their development ruined.

Being a top draftee is no guarantee to becoming a star. Jon O'Rouke another number 2 pick ended up at Hawthorn for his 3rd season, has he developed into a player where he is now getting a big contract? Going to Hawthorn is still not a guarantee, they can't guarantee you $1million in the future if you don't live up to the expectations.

If Kelly was offered a contract at St Kilda say a 3 year deal worth $300k a season($900k total) because they rate him highly, which also has Lenny, Nick Dal and Montanga to learn his midfield craft off with more opportunity for senior games, or Hawthorn who's salary cap is tight as they are competing for premierships, $100k a season for 2 years ($200k total) and harder to break into the senior team, Now Kelly doesn't know if he's going to turn into a star or not, who does he choose?

If he chooses Hawthorn as he believes thats best for his development, that his choice it's his career, bad luck St Kilda, move on to the next young player, with that money you will be able to attract young players.

It is also up to the clubs to get the best development coaches in to also attract these young players. If I was an 18 year old star back in 2011, no way would I join Melbourne with their young players getting their careers ruined. But in 2014-15 after Melbourne got Paul Roos in and a bunch of experience development coaches in they become a much more attractive club for 18 year olds to join.

So it's up to the clubs to offer the best deals to these 18 year old with contracts and development to get the best out of their careers.

 

[Toump Ass]

There are many reasons why poor clubs like the Saints just can't get talent

Saint kilda not getting talent has nothing to do with being poor and everything to do with being crap.

If you've got an idiot for a coach, waste top picks on spuds and have a list full of players who haven't developed then no one will want to play for you. Get a decent coach and draft/ trade well and you'll become an attractive proposition.

Hopefully you can turn it around next year.

Didn't Melbourne get like Pick 20 for Colin Sylvia in the same year St Kilda got 25 for Dal Santo and Hawthorn got 19 for Franklin? Lol

Pick 23 (2 picks earlier than St Kilda). Same year Collingwood copped pick 11 for Daisy Thomas.

Ended up flipping that one for Bernie Vince who won a b&f. Saints picked up Billy Longer...

 

[bergholt]

Saint kilda not getting talent has nothing to do with being poor and everything to do with being crap.

If you've got an idiot for a coach, waste top picks on spuds and have a list full of players who haven't developed then no one will want to play for you. Get a decent coach and draft/ trade well and you'll become an attractive proposition.

Our board is way ahead of you on all that. Unfortunately we have no say in what the club does.

 

[bergholt]

You've hit the nail on other reason why I don't like the draft. Players don't get a choice in where their career direction goes.

Take my club, had plenty of high picks, where players careers were ruined by a club with bad development. They were all highly rated, they had no choice and got no extra payment to come to Melbourne and have their development ruined.

Being a top draftee is no guarantee to becoming a star. Jon O'Rouke another number 2 pick ended up at Hawthorn for his 3rd season, has he developed into a player where he is now getting a big contract? Going to Hawthorn is still not a guarantee, they can't guarantee you $1million in the future if you don't live up to the expectations.

If Kelly was offered a contract at St Kilda say a 3 year deal worth $300k a season($900k total) because they rate him highly, which also has Lenny, Nick Dal and Montanga to learn his midfield craft off with more opportunity for senior games, or Hawthorn who's salary cap is tight as they are competing for premierships, $100k a season for 2 years ($200k total) and harder to break into the senior team, Now Kelly doesn't know if he's going to turn into a star or not, who does he choose?

If he chooses Hawthorn as he believes thats best for his development, that his choice it's his career, bad luck St Kilda, move on to the next young player, with that money you will be able to attract young players.

It is also up to the clubs to get the best development coaches in to also attract these young players. If I was an 18 year old star back in 2011, no way would I join Melbourne with their young players getting their careers ruined. But in 2014-15 after Melbourne got Paul Roos in and a bunch of experience development coaches in they become a much more attractive club for 18 year olds to join.

So it's up to the clubs to offer the best deals to these 18 year old with contracts and development to get the best out of their careers.

Yep, all good points, just not sure it would give an equal competition. Still sounds like that leads to the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. As I said earlier, if that's what we want then fine, it's all arbitrary anyway. But if we're going for an equal competition I just don't see that leading there.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

Lets face facts, there is lots of unevenness in the AFL.

This years draw was a classic. How many teams did Melb play in the 8 again to make finals?

We had double up games against last year's runners up, last year's Prelim finalists, 2 mid-table teams pushing for finals (like us) and a bottom dweller. How did we get a cushy draw again?

 

[Demonic Ascent]

Frawley was more like Jake Carlisle than Nathan Brown at that point.

And Saints paid pick 5 for Carlisle so pick 3 for Frawley isn't exorbitant.