News VFL recruitment rule changes

Remove this Banner Ad

May 6, 2007
39,099
22,790
South East Suburbs
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Tottenham Hotspurs, Melbourne Vixen
From Herald Sun in regards to VFL list sizes next year. Will directly impact the undrafted kids next year


VFL clubs will have smaller lists but pools of 19-year-old players next year
Paul Amy, Caulfield Glen Eira Leader
October 25, 2019 5:30pm
Subscriber only
Smaller lists, a new father-son recruiting rule and development pools of 19-year-old players are among a string of changes coming to the VFL.

Stand-alone clubs can sign 40 players next year, down from 45 in 2019, as well as six over-age players from the NAB League.

By 2021 primary lists will be cut to 38 and by 2022 to 36.


The salary cap will also be reduced from $380,000 next year to $350,000 in 2022.

Within two years clubs will be required to pay at least 90 per cent of the payment ceiling.


The cap for AFL and AFL-aligned clubs will be $150,000 by 2022.

“These measures have been put in place to not only promote consistency across State League competitions but also competitive balance within,’’ a document sent to VFL clubs from the AFL this week stated.


Each clubs’ development squad of six players will have three players who can play only VFL (Category A) and three who can play in the VFL and NAB League (Category B).

At least one 19-year-old player must be selected in the team each week, in addition to the 23rd player.


Clubs can recruit the Category A 19-year-olds from anywhere but the Category B players must come from a region designated to each club (Box Hill Hawks, for example, has been linked with Eastern Ranges).

AFL talent officers will identify the Category B players.

Clubs believe the development squads have been introduced as a way of compensating for the scrapping of the Development League two years ago.

The AFL paper said: “The development list is designed to create a stronger connection between the NAB League and the VFL by ensuring an immediate pathway exists for younger players.’’

The AFL and AFL-aligned clubs could list between 24 and 30 players this year.

But that will come down to 22 next year and 20 by 2022. They will also have development squads.

The proposed changes in primary list sizes for all clubs are designed to be more reflective of the current talent pool that participates in the competition, the revised salary cap that will be in place and in line with the objective to create greater consistency across all State Leagues,’’ the AFL paper said.

All clubs will also be able to rookie list two players classified as NGA and AFL Category B rookies.

And a father-son rule will be introduced next year.

Clubs can list a player whose father played 100 VFL games, including combined tallies (for example, 50 at Box Hill Hawks and 50 at Hawthorn).

“This rule supersedes any zone restrictions that may be in place and the player/s selected under this mechanism must still be factored into the salary cap,’’ the AFL said.

But three clubs spoken to today said there should be more reward for having a father-son listing.

List changes will still be permitted during the season.

NAB LEAGUE-—VFL ALIGNMENTS
Bendigo Pioneers: Essendon VFL/Richmond VFL (NGA)

Calder Cannons: Coburg/Essendon VFL (NGA)

Dandenong Stingrays: Frankston/Sandringham (NGA), Casey (NGA)

Eastern Ranges: Box Hill Hawks

Geelong Falcons: Werribee/Geelong VFL

Gippsland Power: Casey/Box Hill VFL (NGA)

GWV Rebels: Footscray VFL, Geelong VFL

Murray Bushrangers: Richmond VFL

Northern Knights: Northern Blues

Oakleigh Chargers: Port Melbourne/Collingwood VFL (NGA)

Sandringham Dragons: Sandringham

Tasmania Devils: North Melbourne VFL (NGA)

Western Jets: Williamstown/North Melb VFL (NGA)/Footscray VFL (NGA)



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Sep 22, 2011
40,580
87,831
Your girlfriend's dreams
AFL Club
Essendon
Reducing the salary cap when it's already too small? Do they want former AFL players to play VFL? Or give them more reason to go suburban?

No, they don’t. The VFL’s entire reason for being is to support the AFL. It’s got two roles to play within that: a reserves competition, and a development league for undrafted kids.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

No, they don’t. The VFL’s entire reason for being is to support the AFL. It’s got two roles to play within that: a reserves competition, and a development league for undrafted kids.
So they don't want players who, with another couple of years of development, could be re-drafted? Players like, say, Mitchell Brown, Michael Hartley, Mitch Hibberd, etc?
 
So they don't want players who, with another couple of years of development, could be re-drafted? Players like, say, Mitchell Brown, Michael Hartley, Mitch Hibberd, etc?
That's a pretty small number of players in the scheme of things. I guess if someone thinks they have what it takes to find their way back on an AFL list they'll do it anyway.
 
That's a pretty small number of players in the scheme of things. I guess if someone thinks they have what it takes to find their way back on an AFL list they'll do it anyway.
That's three off the top of my head. Not to mention the fact that it serves as a reserves comp, wouldn't you want players clearly capable of lifting the standard in it? A salary cap reduction is one of the stupidest things AFL Victoria could have done.
 
Sep 22, 2011
40,580
87,831
Your girlfriend's dreams
AFL Club
Essendon
So they don't want players who, with another couple of years of development, could be re-drafted? Players like, say, Mitchell Brown, Michael Hartley, Mitch Hibberd, etc?

On evidence I’d say no, they don’t give a *.

Their “study” a few years back identified a need to fill the development gap for undrafted kids. It was odds-on they’d try to shoehorn it into something existing, particularly after the gave the VFL reserves the arse. Why pay for anything when we can jam it in somewhere else in place of something existing?

It’s classic AFL thinking - it’s business thinking. Outlay as little as possible.

Someone has to be squeezed out and it’s probably the types you’re talking about.
 
On evidence I’d say no, they don’t give a fu**.

Their “study” a few years back identified a need to fill the development gap for undrafted kids. It was odds-on they’d try to shoehorn it into something existing, particularly after the gave the VFL reserves the arse. Why pay for anything when we can jam it in somewhere else in place of something existing?

It’s classic AFL thinking - it’s business thinking. Outlay as little as possible.

Someone has to be squeezed out and it’s probably the types you’re talking about.
Well, then they're stupid.
 
Well, then they're stupid.
I agree with what you are saying Eth but the reason behind reduced salary cap is the fact that Williamstown is the only stand alone club that has not gone close to going bust. Coburg have no money. Port nearly went under recently and Sandy would be in trouble without the Saints alignment. Frankston struggle. Casey rely on Melbourne. Box Hill are solid but would struggle without the Hawks.

At some stage the league will have to bite the bullet and bring back a reserves comp mainly because the VFL can be a bit of a joke as far as sides preparing players rather than wanting to win and the AFL sides with sides in the NEAFL are having issues with how poor the comp is.

The only sides doing okay are the SA and WA sides although there are plenty not happy with AFL reserves sides playing.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back