The AFL's quest for equalisation, your thoughts ?

[SuperVolley11]

The new zoning system they brought in during the 80’s was meant to equal up the competition. The old VFL zoning system prior to the 80’s is why Essendon, Carlton, Collingwood, Hawks, Richmond dominated the competition for several decades.

Out of the Victoria clubs, Geelong have probably benefited the most with the new zoning system, and it’s why they’ve been a decent team in recent decades - over 1/3 of Geelong’s current list is from the Greater Geelong area.

Sorry what? Geelong don’t get a discount or first access to Geelong region players. They do recruit from the local league but still draft them normally. Any other side could of taken Stewart just like Geelong took Kelly in the draft out under the noses of Eagles and Dockers.

 

[Freshwater]

Sorry what? Geelong don’t get a discount or first access to Geelong region players. They do recruit from the local league but still draft them normally. Any other side could of taken Stewart just like Geelong took Kelly in the draft out under the noses of Eagles and Dockers.

This is correct. In fact the policy of the last 10 years to get former Geelong Falcons players to the Cats has had mixed results compared with the previous 10 years that drafted the best across the country that lead to 3 premierships.

 

[Scotland]

One of your points towards the end was “..but if you fu** it up you are back to square one” Of course you are and deserve to be. If you stuff up your development, coaching appointments, fitness/injury management, culture, etc these are all football related issues, it doesn’t matter if you get horrible draws every year or have millions in the bank. If you stuff up your recruiting and drafting and list management (Collingwood) you’re going to be in a world of pain.

Yep, the AFL system is not forgiving if you make a lot of mistakes. NBA teams are transformed with a #1 draft pick or a high profile free agent. Soccer is a battle of who has the deepest pockets. In the AFL once you are in a deep hole it takes a while to get out.

 

[FreoFan85]

Two major points one minor:
1. ) Need to stop the players nominating clubs when they aren't free agents. It really disadvantages the bottom and smaller clubs. Forces bottom or smaller clubs to use more of their salary cap to try and attract anyone.

2.) Players should not be able to receive any extra payment or benefit outside of their contract. Way too many under the table dodgy calls that again props up the bigger clubs. I understand that a lot of players run business' or get different experiences in avenues etc for life after football, so a difficult one to solve, but perhaps it all counts in the soft cap or something like that.

3.) The $$$ Bonus for playing in finals or winning the flag. Not many people know about this one, but there is a cash prize that gets distributed across the playing list for the grand final (pretty sure it is for the finals as well, but could be wrong). This is outside match payments. This effectively gives clubs tilting for a flag a higher salary cap. Should be scrapped... no need for it... everyone wants to win a flag, don't need a financial incentive.

 

[Kwality]

Not sure I'm a fan of that. Take Essendon for example. We made finals in 14,17 and 19. In reality though we were miles from a flag. So under your system we would be penalised for being mediocre and not completely shithouse. We would have been better off tanking those few years.

Any exception to the draft can be addressed but the current system fails its original aim.

 

[Freshwater]

Any exception to the draft can be addressed but the current system fails its original aim.

I don’t think it fails, it just doesn’t do what it needs quickly enough. I do like the time out of finals or time out of Grand Final for reverse order draft picks rather than last year’s ladder.
Saying that I grew up watching the dogs through the 70’s 80’s 90’s 00’s before seeing a flag, and have carefully watched and admired this recent list build and development of players. Very good Presidents, stable board and good footy and list managers.
Some clubs like Geelong, West Coast and Sydney have had so much finals success that their fans might be in for a shock if they were to have a decade in the doldrums?

 

[Back One Out]

Equalisation ends with the draft and the salary cap.

The only other thing that will make it equal is to either play each other side once per season, home one year, away the next or to have teams play each other twice per season, once at home and once away.

To achieve the latter of playing each other twice in a season, they need to do one of two things, cull clubs or keep all clubs, have shorter breaks between games and the players to be limited on how many of the 34 h&a games they're allowed to play.

Nah, there's more than that.

What about the extra $5 million or $6 million that some lucky clubs receive every year from the AFL ?

What about the soft cap (tax) on football department spending?

What incentive is there for clubs to maximise their own revenues when the AFL evens things up with charity handouts every year and prevents the wealthy clubs from spending what they want on support staff, equipment, etc?

What about the huge fixture discrepancies? Why should Carlton, Collingwood, Essendon and Richmond get to play each other twice every year? They all get at least 7 matches in prime time (H&A) vs the other "big four" teams. These clubs are guaranteed their prime time MCG "blockbusters" every year from March-April-May while every other club has to travel around the country.

Why did the Hawks have to play Sydney and Geelong twice a season during golden eras for those clubs when they were the best performed? No other club played them as often as we did. The Hawks used to be stung with hardest fixture and the AFL justified it by saying we were one of the "top seeds", but you don't hear them mention seedings any more. Funny that. Just making up rules as they went along and justifying it with the catch-all reason of "equalisation".

How about the NSW and Queensland zones? Must be nice to be able to cherry pick the best athletes in your home city and give them specialised personal training over a 4/5 year period and have them ready-to-go from the day they're drafted as 18-year-olds. The Swans academy graduates already know how the Swans play when they become listed players and they can slot them into their senior team as teenagers. It's a big advantage with list sizes of just 38-40 players

 

[Kwality]

I don’t think it fails, it just doesn’t do what it needs quickly enough. I do like the time out of finals or time out of Grand Final for reverse order draft picks rather than last year’s ladder.
Saying that I grew up watching the dogs through the 70’s 80’s 90’s 00’s before seeing a flag, and have carefully watched and admired this recent list build and development of players. Very good Presidents, stable board and good footy and list managers.
Some clubs like Geelong, West Coast and Sydney have had so much finals success that their fans might be in for a shock if they were to have a decade in the doldrums?

Agree on most of your points bar your suggestion the kids dont develop quickly enough ... few players are up to it day #1, but the media make out they will be, & the
its part of the narrative.
Some guys take longer to develop, we expect it from bigger guys. We know of the Tim Kellys, Marlon Pickett. If they were drafted young would they have made it at all, see Sam Menegola would bounced around AFL clubs then delisted back to the 2nd tier before the Cats picked him up.

Perhaps its clubs so under pressure for kids that they walk past the diamonds in the rough.
I believe there is too much group think amongst the recruiters with little attention to the type of players their club needs instead of the best available.

 

[Herne Hill Hammer]

Nah, there's more than that.

What about the extra $5 million or $6 million that some lucky clubs receive every year from the AFL ?

What about the soft cap (tax) on football department spending?

What incentive is there for clubs to maximise their own revenues when the AFL evens things up with charity handouts every year and prevents the wealthy clubs from spending what they want on support staff, equipment, etc?

What about the huge fixture discrepancies? Why should Carlton, Collingwood, Essendon and Richmond get to play each other twice every year? They all get at least 7 matches in prime time (H&A) vs the other "big four" teams. These clubs are guaranteed their prime time MCG "blockbusters" every year from March-April-May while every other club has to travel around the country.

Why did the Hawks have to play Sydney and Geelong twice a season during golden eras for those clubs when they were the best performed? No other club played them as often as we did. The Hawks used to be stung with hardest fixture and the AFL justified it by saying we were one of the "top seeds", but you don't hear them mention seedings any more. Funny that. Just making up rules as they went along and justifying it with the catch-all reason of "equalisation".

How about the NSW and Queensland zones? Must be nice to be able to cherry pick the best athletes in your home city and give them specialised personal training over a 4/5 year period and have them ready-to-go from the day they're drafted as 18-year-olds. The Swans academy graduates already know how the Swans play when they become listed players and they can slot them into their senior team as teenagers. It's a big advantage with list sizes of just 38-40 players

Every club gets money from the AFL , some more than others, amounts change year by year and club by club. Some of it to compensate for shitty fixturing.

We're you cranky on other clubs getting extra games at Docklands to make up the contractual shortfall in games at the stadium because Hawthorn were selling games to Tassie under a sweetheart deal?