Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Weekly Prize - Join Any Time - Tip Round 10
The Golden Ticket - MCG and Marvel Medallion Club tickets and Corporate Box tickets at the Gabba, MCG and Marvel.
Well, since I argue FA has worked against equalisation I definitely don't attribute everything to the removal of priority picks! I also think that requiring clubs to pay out most of the salary cap also hurts, as it means poor teams have to over-pay average players, reducing their ability to create war chests to poach good players. How long since the PSD was actually a mechanism to get talent to bottom teams?Talking post 2006 and you have to really take into account free agency and the introduction of Gold Coast/GWS taking out a lot of the best young talent.
Those are massive factors and make it so you can't just go pre 2006 we had priority and post 2006 we had priority.
My point is the draft isn't sufficient to equalise, that the idea that it is sufficient on its own is a joke. Not that it should be abolished, or has no effect whatsoever. It partly works, but is nowhere near enough. Hence why I believe it should be boosted.The draft and salary cap are sufficient. How would we expand on those?
So your solution is to arbitrarily hand out extra picks under the guise of FA compensation?
Again, do you accept that this flies in the face of the AFL's stated policy that FA compensation is not meant to be full compensation?
Surely, if that is the AFL's position, it is a glaring inconsistency for some teams to be over-compensated.
I don't see how that's defensible.
They have that. Whether they're good enough to get there is another matter.
Good luck to those clubs for being able to keep a list together.
Did Franklin take a pay cut to join Sydney?
If the draft is such a joke, then what good would it do to give s**t teams extra picks?
You've just said the draft is a joke and achieves very little in terms of equalisation. I disagree completely but how can you write off the draft as an equalisation mechanism, only to turn around and say the draft should be used more as an equalisation mechanism?
Either it works or it doesn't.
My argument is that we shouldn't go any further. Certainly, just handing out extra draft picks arbitrarily isn't the answer.
If a club is really s**t for a prolonged period, the AFL has the discretion to give them another draft pick. I have no problem with that. But it shouldn't be automatically triggered or assigned in an ad hoc manner under the guise of FA compensation.
Beyond that, I'm not really sure what you'd propose. There is a system for player movement that all clubs are subject to. You can't exempt some clubs and, as an example, somehow force Jesse Hogan to stay at Melbourne. You can't engineer a system to ensure Melbourne or Carlton or whoever draft well. We've got a draft and a salary cap and it's up to individual clubs to be competitive within those parameters. The onus is not on the AFL to engineer equal outcomes. The onus is on the clubs to get better.
Draft and salary cap combined are as much equalisation as is desirable.My point is the draft isn't sufficient to equalise, that the idea that it is sufficient on its own is a joke. Not that it should be abolished, or has no effect whatsoever. It partly works, but is nowhere near enough. Hence why I believe it should be boosted.
That's unnecessary. You don't need to automatically trigger an extra pick for a team like Freo in 2016.My response would be that every team finishing bottom 4 gets an additional pick after the non-finalists, or one before the first round if its the second time it happens in a two year period. Yes, it means teams like Collingwood 2005 and Fremantle 2016 get lucky, but I'm willing to take that flaw to give teams perennially near the bottom in an 18 team competition the leg up they need to overcome the deficit of talent in their lists.
What's wrong with the discretion element?Such an approach also takes out the "discretion" element of priority picks, which might help with the perception of the AFL as fiddling for its own desired ends.
On the other hand, Hawthorn lost a player like Franklin to FA. A prime example that kicks against what you're saying.It is pretty much established that ALL the top teams now get discounts on player salaries. It isn't "good on em", its standard practice. Which would be fine and dandy as an equalisation method if players were leaving left right and centre for money, but few do.
The Swans were smart enough to rearrange their finances to get it done and were bold enough to take the risk with the 10-year deal. Good luck to them.Sydney and Franklin were a result of a different loophole (which I'd happily see closed) that gave Sydney additional salary cap. Hardly an argument for or against the salary cap's effectiveness when the rules are being distorted by AFL favouritism.
He was here before but you just missed him.So Tom Rockliff? Am I in the wrong place?
Is his fat new contract weighing him down?I'm pretty sure you can catch him - he might have had 40 possessions, but he's only gained ten metres down the road.
Is his fat new contract weighing him down?
Tough break.From what I've been told by the media, the real issue with Rocky is that he isn't Patrick Dangerfield.
We'll just have to agree to disagree. If you can't provide any evidence that your claim equalisation still works exists, I think we're just talking past each other. Franklin leaving isn't evidence against - the fact his team went on to win two more premierships just shows how bad the system is right now. And when three teams have won 8 of the last 9 premierships and are all top 4 again, I think its pretty obvious who the top teams have been.Draft and salary cap combined are as much equalisation as is desirable.
A new mechanism that automatically triggers extra draft picks would create more issues that it would solve.
That's unnecessary. You don't need to automatically trigger an extra pick for a team like Freo in 2016.
That's a recipe for frustration and cynicism.
If a team is really bad for several years, the AFL can hand out an extra pick at their discretion. That's fine. But I see no argument for these extra picks to be triggered automatically.
What's wrong with the discretion element?
That's preferable to them being triggered automatically, which creates a perception that tanking is incentivised.
On the other hand, Hawthorn lost a player like Franklin to FA. A prime example that kicks against what you're saying.
Besides, Hawthorn aside, the top teams have chopped and changed in recent years.
I mean, when you say 'the top teams', who are you talking about? Hawthorn, Sydney, Geelong, North, GWS, WC, Adelaide, Bulldogs – Freo and Port have made a GF and PF in recent times. It's not like there's just 2-3 teams with a monopoly and then daylight.
The Swans were smart enough to rearrange their finances to get it done and were bold enough to take the risk with the 10-year deal. Good luck to them.
My claim is that it works adequately and that further mechanisms would create more issues than they would solve. That's not the kind of claim that can be 'proven' but we've seen what happened when extra picks were triggered automatically and I don't think many people would favour a return to that policy.If you can't provide any evidence that your claim equalisation still works exists, I think we're just talking past each other.
No. But if you're going to characterise free agency as overwhelmingly stripping good players from the weak teams and sending them to the strong teams, Franklin is one of a few pretty emphatic counter-examples.Franklin leaving isn't evidence against - the fact his team went on to win two more premierships just shows how bad the system is right now.
Hawthorn, Sydney and Geelong.And when three teams have won 8 of the last 9 premierships and are all top 4 again, I think its pretty obvious who the top teams have been.
Unless someone else pays him?Quotes attributed to Rockliff today.
"I'm contracted until 2017. I'm captain of the footy club and I've been here since 2009,
"I really enjoy it up here and I'm building a house and so on.
"I can't see myself leaving."
Unless someone else pays him?
I wonder if it will need to be that much in the end.If another clubs wants to pay Rockliff $800,000 per year for five years as reported, go ahead and make him that offer.
Jenkins for Rockliff straight swap. Yay or nay?Linked to the crows, what a signing that would be. Perfect for the replacement of Thompson
1st and CEY for Rockliff. Or they can wait until FA, where they won't get as much.
1st and CEY for Rockliff. Or they can wait until FA, where they won't get as much.
To be fair, I made that comment before seeing it was a Rucci article.Or the Lions can re-sign Rockliff on a contract somwhere between 3-5 years.
http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2016/07/15/rockliff-staying-afl-lions-manager
I still say and nothing will change my mind. The most overrated footballer in the last 10 years. Pure rubbish!