What unpopular AFL opinions do you have? (Part 1 - cont in Part 2)

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.

Log in to remove this ad.

Don't know if this is unpopular but anyway.

The salary floor shouldn't exist, it forces bad clubs to players more than they're worth meaning the players become entitled and don't actually play as well as they should. The only reason why a salary floor should exist is to prevent owners from trashing the team to save money, but given AFL clubs are not owned by individuals trying to extract profit, I doubt clubs will just try and have the cheapest payroll possible, because that would simply destroy the onfield product and drive away members.
I'm not sure what the answer is but there has got to be a better way. It just defies any logic that a club like Brisbane has been paying its players roughly 95% of what Hawthorn has been playing it's players.

It makes it really hard for the bottom clubs to bounce back as they never have any salary cap room, and player managers have them over a barrel.

Say Player X is a $500k/yr player, but a club needs to pay him $700k/yr to hit their salary floor. He improves his output by 20% the next time his contract comes around, his player manager says he's now a 20% better player, he should be paid $840k/yr. It would be nearly impossible for a club to use the salary floor in negotiations to try and plateau out their contract.

Maybe the salary floor should only count in terms of base contracts, and there is no minimum payment on performance based payments.

If the salary cap is $10M per club ($180M across the league), then that could be reduced to say $8.5M per club ($153M across the league) with $8M per club minimum payment, and the remaining $27M is given to the players on a performance basis - Games played, games won, finals won, premierships won, high finishes in brownlow, high finishes in B&F, all australian guernsey etc... This would then skew the payments towards the top teams which is how it really should be.

Or would that make it harder for bottom clubs to attract/retain players. Base salary of 500K at a bottom club would finish around $550K after performance bonuses, but at a top club this could easily jump to around 700K...

Hard one to solve.
 
Even though we all like to moralise, there's generally a bandwagoner in all of us.

I've been a member for 14 years but confess I find it much easier to motivate myself to go to the footy now (knowing we're a decent chance of winning) than 2012-13 when the game was over before the first bounce.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

My unpopular view - games from 2010 onwards are far more enjoyable to watch (on the whole) than games from before around 2004

Jed Lamb deserved to get bashed by Basha Houli.
Taggers are a blight on the game

I know this post makes no sense because no one would ever tag Houli.
 
Ray Chamberlain is one of the competitions better umpires.

I wouldn't know who Ray Chamberlain was if commentators didn't mention his name. He's no more noticeable or notorious (at least when watching on tele) than any other umpire.
 
Carlton still won the Chris Judd trade, they might never have gotten out of that hole without his presence and marketability.

It's not like the Eagles were really any more successful than the Blues after the trade until Judd's retirement, either:

2008-2015

Carlton - 180 games (including finals), 83 wins, 2 draws, 95 losses (46.11% winning percentage).

West Coast - 184 games (including finals), 88 wins, 1 draw, 95 losses (47.83% winning percentage).

People need to realise it was mutually beneficial, but there was no "winner".
 
It's not like the Eagles were really any more successful than the Blues after the trade until Judd's retirement, either:

2008-2015

Carlton - 180 games (including finals), 83 wins, 2 draws, 95 losses (46.11% winning percentage).

West Coast - 184 games (including finals), 88 wins, 1 draw, 95 losses (47.83% winning percentage).

People need to realise it was mutually beneficial, but there was no "winner".
Yes I see is as one of those trades where both teams got more out of their half than the half they traded away.
 
... Except without the contested ball winning ability.

I like Billings, by the way, but that's a weird comparison. I'd say he's more similar to someone like Boomer Harvey.
I dont even think saints fans would make that comparison

More likely to be our Aka or Wingard
 
It's not like the Eagles were really any more successful than the Blues after the trade until Judd's retirement, either:

2008-2015

Carlton - 180 games (including finals), 83 wins, 2 draws, 95 losses (46.11% winning percentage).

West Coast - 184 games (including finals), 88 wins, 1 draw, 95 losses (47.83% winning percentage).

People need to realise it was mutually beneficial, but there was no "winner".

Top 4 finishes: 2 vs 0
Finals wins: 4 vs 2
GF appearances: 1 vs 0

Carlton from 2011 onwards have been a massive disappointment. One 14 and a half win season for 8 seasons with Judd isn't all that noteworthy. Judd arriving in his prime had an immediate impact and with Murphy-Gibbs-Kreuzer + Fev they thought they had the makings of a good side. Too much 'old Carlton' came through and they got ahead of themselves, and bringing in Malthouse was a debacle. Judd arrived to a team that was half a game off back to back to back wooden spoons, and by time he left they were wooden spooners again. It's only since Brendon Bolton started that you can really say Carlton look on the right track even if they're a few years off playing finals.

Judd leaving put us in a massive hole because Cousins left and Kerr played 26 games in 3 seasons. We crashed from 3 top 4 finishes in a row to 16 wins in 3 seasons then bounced back to play finals in 2011/12 and 2015. We picked up Kennedy from the trade, Masten, Selwood, Naitanui, Shuey, Sheppard, Gaff, Darling over the 2007-2010 draft periods who were all key players do a degree from 2011 onwards.

I don't think you can gauge who 'won' the trade based entirely on how the two teams performed since. The Judd trade was fantastic for Carlton, but they didn't capitalise on it. We're rapt with Kennedy but the trade still set us back a few years where we thought we'd be contending, and we have made a decent fist of things since without being spectacular.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top