List Mgmt. The Farce Known As "The Rookie List" (Time For A Full Review)

[LordLucifer]

MSN

It's time for a complete review in regards to the rules relating to the way clubs can structure their lists.

As pointed out in this article, we now have clubs putting players with 300 games under their belt on the rookie list in a bid to circumvent the rules via a loophole currently in the system.

I'm all for the implementation of a "Veterans List" to reward long-term players at a club whilst giving the clubs some salary cap relief as well.

Here's my take on how lists could & should be structured :

(i) Primary List - minimum of 36, maximum of 40
(ii) Veterans List - maximum of 4 (qualification : 10-years service and/or 200 games at the same club, 50% of salary is exempt from the cap)
(iii) Rookie List - maximum of 4 (for players not picked up in the National Draft)
(iv) Development List - maximum of 4 (for players from alternative backgrounds, could be a completely different sport or a different country)

I'm sure some posters will have a view on this or quite possibly, throw up some other worthwhile ideas to consider.

 

[BF Tiger]

MSN

It's time for a complete review in regards to the rules relating to the way clubs can structure their lists.

As pointed out in this article, we now have clubs putting players with 300 games under their belt on the rookie list in a bid to circumvent the rules via a loophole currently in the system.

I'm all for the implementation of a "Veterans List" to reward long-term players at a club whilst giving the clubs some salary cap relief as well.

Here's my take on how lists could & should be structured :

(i) Primary List - minimum of 36, maximum of 40
(ii) Veterans List - maximum of 4 (qualification : 10-years service and/or 200 games at the same club, 50% of salary is exempt from the cap)
(iii) Rookie List - maximum of 4 (for players not picked up in the National Draft)
(iv) Development List - maximum of 4 (for players from alternative backgrounds, could be a completely different sport or a different country)

I'm sure some posters will have a view on this or quite possibly, throw up some other worthwhile ideas to consider.

You'd have Marcus Bontempelli, fully in his prime, entering the Veterans List? If I was the Bulldogs I'd look to heavily back-end his contract and have a million more to spend on the polaying list.

Dustin Martin would have been on the Veterans List from the start of the 2019 season. You'd have six years of his seven year million dollar per annum contract would have counted at only 50% towards the salary cap? Along with any combination of Trent Cotchin, Jack Riewoldt, Alex Rance and Shane Edwards. Potential savings of $2,000,000.

Scott Pendlubury on the Veterans List since 2016, with Sidebottom from 2018?

 

[LordLucifer]

You'd have Marcus Bontempelli, fully in his prime, entering the Veterans List? If I was the Bulldogs I'd look to heavily back-end his contract and have a million more to spend on the polaying list.

Dustin Martin would have been on the Veterans List from the start of the 2019 season. You'd have six years of his seven year million dollar per annum contract would have counted at only 50% towards the salary cap? Along with any combination of Trent Cotchin, Jack Riewoldt, Alex Rance and Shane Edwards. Potential savings of $2,000,000.

Scott Pendlubury on the Veterans List since 2016, with Sidebottom from 2018?

To be honest, I don't have problem with that.

Rewarding longevity & loyalty should be encouraged.

However, if you think the proposed qualification for veterans is too lean, then it could be revamped to say ......... 12-years & 250-games.

Furthermore, to avoid the backending issue, it could be average annual salary over that contract period that is applied. Player could be on $1.8mil in the last year of the contract but the average over the 5-year deal is $950K so $475K would be taken off the cap.

 

[Sainter1873]

The rookie list does need reforming. Its purpose is to create opportunities for players from outside normal player pathways, so it is no longer fit for purpose given veterans are taking up spots.

The simplest solution is to abolish it and have one list of, say, a minimum of 40 and a maximum of 44. This gives clubs flexibility.

If they want to keep a rookie list then it needs a restriction of only first- and second-year players. Third-year players must be promoted onto the primary list or delisted. I don’t like having the two categories (A or B) either. It should just be one rookie list of up to 4 players on top of the 40 on the primary list.

 

[Outtatym]

MSN

It's time for a complete review in regards to the rules relating to the way clubs can structure their lists.

As pointed out in this article, we now have clubs putting players with 300 games under their belt on the rookie list in a bid to circumvent the rules via a loophole currently in the system.

I'm all for the implementation of a "Veterans List" to reward long-term players at a club whilst giving the clubs some salary cap relief as well.

Here's my take on how lists could & should be structured :

(i) Primary List - minimum of 36, maximum of 40
(ii) Veterans List - maximum of 4 (qualification : 10-years service and/or 200 games at the same club, 50% of salary is exempt from the cap)
(iii) Rookie List - maximum of 4 (for players not picked up in the National Draft)
(iv) Development List - maximum of 4 (for players from alternative backgrounds, could be a completely different sport or a different country)

I'm sure some posters will have a view on this or quite possibly, throw up some other worthwhile ideas to consider.

Didnt we have all of those things in the early 2000's?

The rookie list is a joke- at the very least rename it!

 

[RUNVS]

To me list spots in general are just needlessly complicated. The entire process can be streamlined pretty easily I imagine.

 

[doppleganger]

Why complicate it?

Have one list, one salary cap and just one draft.

You have a min of 40 and max of 45 players on your list, and each club must spend within a certain proportion of the same cap.

No discounts or rookie categories etc.

If a club wants to take a swing at a random US college drop-out, let them use pick 90 in the draft to add him to the list as player 44 or 45.

Why bother having the current scenario where clubs "pass" on pick 60s in the national draft to then have another different draft a few weeks later with different players? Lump them all in together.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

The only purpose it serves is to allow the AFL and clubs to pay the bottom few players less money

The conversation is already simple

AFLPA: Let’s get rid of the rookie list, everybody on the main list

AFL: no we can’t afford it, we’ll cut main list spots

AFLPA: ok we’ll keep it

 

[LordLucifer]

Why complicate it?

Have one list, one salary cap and just one draft.

You have a min of 40 and max of 45 players on your list, and each club must spend within a certain proportion of the same cap.

No discounts or rookie categories etc.

If a club wants to take a swing at a random US college drop-out, let them use pick 90 in the draft to add him to the list as player 44 or 45.

Why bother having the current scenario where clubs "pass" on pick 60s in the national draft to then have another different draft a few weeks later with different players? Lump them all in together.

If it was up to me, I'd have one draft and one list too.

There is way too much unnecessary faffing about with a lot of the stuff the AFL does but I think that is purposely designed to to ensure there is always something happening thus giving the media something to talk about.

 

[candyapple]

Why have a list cap at all?

Stops scrubs in developing teams being overpaid, gives clubs more chances of striking gold and finding quality players from later in the draft or alternate pathways.

 

[Dangerousfield]

Minimum salary cap spend is a socialist farce.

We've had Neeld's Dees being paid 95% of the cap while the all conquering Hawks were paying a total of just 5% more! Reckon those Dees players weren't a touch overpaid?

The whole salary cap, drafting, trading, rookies, points scale, F/S, the rort that is NGA's, academies, FA compo is totally broken.

Clubs are like taxation lawyers, spend a lot of time working out how to bend the rules to their own advantage. Doesn't help that the AFL just makes stuff up as it goes to suit it's own agenda.

Any changes the AFL makes will be done at a point in time so as not to disadvantage the big Melbourne clubs.

AFL will look what players could be affected by rule changes to the draft etc in 2024, if there's a Darcy Moore

30

Darcy Moore

Age

28

Ht

203cm

Wt

100kg

Pos.

Def

Career

Season

Last 5

D

11.1

3star

K

7.0

3star

HB

4.1

3star

M

4.8

5star

T

1.6

4star

MG

169.1

3star

D

13.9

3star

K

7.3

3star

HB

6.6

4star

M

4.9

5star

T

0.7

1star

MG

182.0

3star

D

6.8

2star

K

4.2

2star

HB

2.6

3star

M

2.6

3star

T

1.8

4star

MG

87.4

2star

coming through, they'll hold off changes until 2025 on some bullsh*t premise that clubs have already traded 2024 picks so therefore shouldn't be disadvantaged. Bring in a complete overhaul ASAP as this years draft is farcical as a means of a competition leveler.

 

[Freomaniac]

Minimum salary cap spend is a socialist farce.

We've had Neeld's Dees being paid 95% of the cap while the all conquering Hawks were paying a total of just 5% more! Reckon those Dees players weren't a touch overpaid?

The whole salary cap, drafting, trading, rookies, points scale, F/S, the rort that is NGA's, academies, FA compo is totally broken.

Clubs are like taxation lawyers, spend a lot of time working out how to bend the rules to their own advantage. Doesn't help that the AFL just makes stuff up as it goes to suit it's own agenda.

Any changes the AFL makes will be done at a point in time so as not to disadvantage the big Melbourne clubs.

AFL will look what players could be affected by rule changes to the draft etc in 2024, if there's a Darcy Moore coming through, they'll hold off changes until 2025 on some bullsh*t premise that clubs have already traded 2024 picks so therefore shouldn't be disadvantaged. Bring in a complete overhaul ASAP as this years draft is farcical as a means of a competition leveler.

I have to Admit that was bloody bad.

Mark Neelds demons were bad in 2013. and yet 95 percent on the cap was spent minimum. You wonder who was on big money for the demons in that season? Hawks and Cats had a superior squad in 2013.

I have said this many times... Salary floor should go down to 90 percent. or like in 2009 or 2010, knock it down to 92.5 percent. 13 millon in the salary cap is $8-900,000 in wrggle room.

Hell if the Salary cap was $15,600,000. thats $300,000 a week exactly. take 10 percent out of that is $1.5 million in wriggle room.

Imagine if the crows made finals last season, they could of lured a gun talent back to SA on $800-1,000,000 a year.

But year Rookie list rules should be changed.

Rookie listed players minimum should be on $130,000 a year or $2,500 a week and $2-$3,000 a game on a rookie contract.

 

[LordLucifer]

Minimum salary cap spend is a socialist farce.

100% agree, if a club wants to pay 75% of the cap then so be it, that's up to the club admins and the players themselves.

All for a maximum cap, but have never agreed with forcing clubs to play more than they possibly need to.

 

[The 747]

There used to be a veteran's list, why did the AFL get rid of it?

 

[Yoda_]

Need to utilise the draft 'rounds' imho

scrap the rookie list; allow academies to have extra spots should they have an academy player taken in the draft


Round 1 - draftees get 4 years
Round 2 - draftees get 3 years
Round 3 - draftees get 2 years
round 4 onwards - draftees get 1 year

If an academy player is taken in the first round the good for "growing the game" as I am so eloquently told its for.

Allow clubs to have an undiscounted bid to match in each round but that is it. None of this multiple first round talent that's taken place. If Gold Coast have an additional first round talent taken, maybe allow them an additional list spot at end of round 3 as reward for developing a first round talent. a second round talent, additional spot at end of round 4 etc.

4 years is long enough to keep a first rounder, or to keep trade value if they go all Jason Horne - Francis on drafted club. Ditto second rounder,


I dunno, the draft is supposed to be an equalisation measure, it is being under-utilised significantly by the AFL and is being exploited something shocking now a days by clubs.

The rookie list is null in void.

 

[HairyO]

Or just make the Rookie list for players 22 and under, or over 22 but only if they have played fewer than 20 AFL games.

That brings it back to its original purpose with minimal fuss.