AFL Reserves League

[fargothegreat]

With the AFL looking close to finally getting a reserves league going with all 19 teams included, I think now would be a good time to rejig the talent pathways for undrafted players.

I would remove the rookie list completely and replace it with a 30 player reserves list (possibly with a slightly larger senior list).

The reserves list would be full of part time players that are signed post-draft, with the idea being that clubs could elevate their reserves players to the senior list at any point during the season to cover long-term injuries. (E.g. last year Richmond could have signed Lefau to replace Gibcus without having to wait until the draft and risk losing him to another club.)

Clubs wouldn't be able to sign each other's reserves players, but could still take them in the draft if their current club didn't want to sign them to the senior list.

This would make the midseason draft redundant, so state league clubs (now the third tier) wouldn't be disrupted midseason. The small pool of overage players taken midseason from the CTL would need to wait until the national draft.

I like this idea because it cuts a bunch of players from senior AFL lists to help spread the talent around to accommodate the Devils + incentivises clubs to develop more players outside their list in the way Geelong, Footscray and Richmond have been successfully doing for a number of years now.

It also addresses the unfairness of clubs investing development time into their reserves players only to have them poached by another club (e.g. Sam Durham being taken by Essendon before Richmond).

 

[kranger]

National Reserves Comp

What will this mean for the old stand alone clubs in the VFL and the few aligned clubs?

www.bigfooty.com

 

[fargothegreat]

National Reserves Comp

What will this mean for the old stand alone clubs in the VFL and the few aligned clubs?

www.bigfooty.com

Mods plz merge.

 

[glengowan]

So a list of a bit under 70 for 2 teams? What happens to the 20ish players that don't get picked if the injury list is short?

 

[glengowan]

I would keep lists as is and have top ups Under 21, picked from the state the club is in, who are part time football and are assisted part time in study/apprenticeship, as well as still aligned with their state league club. Maximum three years (if picked straight out of U18's) on top-up list and then are either upgraded to main list or return to state league club at age 21.

 

[fargothegreat]

So a list of a bit under 70 for 2 teams? What happens to the 20ish players that don't get picked if the injury list is short?

The reserves list may not need to be that big. I was just going on current VFL list sizes.

Any reserves players that didn't get a game would play for their state league clubs.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

I’d do this

I’d do that



Increasing list sizes in any way is a huge cost

That’s why the AFL has been steadily reducing list sizes for 30 years

Reserves football is a huge cost and produces precisely bugger all in revenue

The league will be dragged kicking and screaming to this. Expect plenty of commentary around how it will mean the league has to cut other things.

 

[fargothegreat]

I’d do this

I’d do that



Increasing list sizes in any way is a huge cost

That’s why the AFL has been steadily reducing list sizes for 30 years

Reserves football is a huge cost and produces precisely bugger all in revenue

The league will be dragged kicking and screaming to this. Expect plenty of commentary around how it will mean the league has to cut other things.

It would be less players than we currently have. AFL lists would be cut by 2–6 players and VFL teams already pay 30 blokes to play for them part time — they'd just be moving to the reserves league instead.

Clubs would probably want to bump up their development coach resources, but the AFL should be all for that as it would grow the talent pool, which equals better quality footy, which equals more broadcast $$.

 

[Walshawk]

The WA clubs are not al all interested. It ain’t going to happen. Let Port join the VFL if they want. Not really sure how it will help them.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

It would be less players than we currently have. AFL lists would be cut by 2–6 players and VFL teams already pay 30 blokes to play for them part time — they'd just be moving to the reserves league instead.

Clubs would probably want to bump up their development coach resources, but the AFL should be all for that as it would grow the talent pool, which equals better quality footy, which equals more broadcast $$.

No way the AFLPA allows 2-6 spots (rookie listers) to be cut from AFL lists.

Nor would the clubs want it - lists are small enough, an injury crisis cripples you.

Are they to become permanent reserves players? Ie like current VFL players? How much will they be paid? What is expected of them in terms of training and preparation? Are they full time without the title and pay packet?

 

[fargothegreat]

No way the AFLPA allows 2-6 spots (rookie listers) to be cut from AFL lists.

Nor would the clubs want it - lists are small enough, an injury crisis cripples you.

Are they to become permanent reserves players? Ie like current VFL players? How much will they be paid? What is expected of them in terms of training and preparation? Are they full time without the title and pay packet?

The reserves players would be part-time as they are currently.

Clubs would offset the loss of a couple of list spots by being able to promote from their own reserves when long-term injuries happen.

 

[Carn The Berries]

The WA clubs are not al all interested. It ain’t going to happen. Let Port join the VFL if they want. Not really sure how it will help them.

Pretty sure WCE are currently deciding whether they want to be involved or not. Freo are the only ones who have come out and said they definitely don't want to be a part of it.

 

[Walshawk]

Someone please tell me how this would help the SA or WA clubs.

 

[fargothegreat]

Someone please tell me how this would help the SA or WA clubs.

Their reserves would play against a higher standard of competition with the same rules as AFL.

 

[Walshawk]

Their reserves would play against a higher standard of competition with the same rules as AFL.

Peel aside, the other three clubs are already getting beaten most weeks. How will it benefit them to get beaten by more? And travel every fortnight.

 

[glengowan]

Peel aside, the other three clubs are already getting beaten most weeks. How will it benefit them to get beaten by more? And travel every fortnight.

Port are the main complainers here in SA, and the Crows just silently follow along.

They have mentioned two problems.

One is the different rules, eg. last touch out of bounds.
Two, and this is the biggest one they have a gripe with IMO, is the lack of quality of the top up players, which becomes noticeable when there are lots of injuries to the AFL side.

When both sides have not many injuries, they generally win. Port have made two Grand Finals since they became an AFL Reserves side in 2014 - they hadn't made a Grand Final since 1999 prior, as the Port Magpies of old, with their own zone etc.

Several times the Crows Reserves have shut up shop come September, putting players in for surgery early and leaving their Preliminary Final side short on depth and have subsequently lost.

When people think of quality of play, they don't take into account what is on the line. Winning the SANFL premiership is far superior than both the VFL premiership and any AFL Reserves premiership could be, given both the latter competitions are made of either mostly, or all, AFL Reserves sides. Crowd attendances and the fact that neither the Crows or Port have been able to win a premiership in the SANFL back this up further.

In terms of how will it benefit both sides more? It won't - at least in terms of winning games and premierships. I don't think it would make a difference if it was still the old system where they farmed out players to the different SANFL clubs. I think what Port, and to a lesser extent Crows, want, is an even playing field to the 16 clubs on the eastern border. And given half their playing lists are Victorian kids anyway, it's probably nice for them to be playing in front of their families more weekends per year.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

The reserves players would be part-time as they are currently.

Clubs would offset the loss of a couple of list spots by being able to promote from their own reserves when long-term injuries happen.

The natural extension of this though is that you have some sort of NHL/NBA two-way contract system where clubs can retain draft rights to players without necessarily signing them to contracts, players can get promoted from reserves teams to cover any absences from an "active" list of players available for any given game, etc

The issue with this though is that the AFLPA are not as concerned with the salary cap as much as they are that they want 700+ full-time AFL players. It would only add to the cost, not reduce it, because we have to assume teams would be allowed to go over the salary cap to cover injured players if promoting from their reserves at any time.

The other thing is that AFL players don't necessarily earn enough, to make fringe players throw out all other life balance. Some part-time footy player might be fine playing in the reserves league, but they might also be studying at uni - what happens when they get a call-up to the AFL three weeks before exams and before it's too late to pull out of a uni course? But then why would any club sign them to their reserves team if they would rather fill a team with players that would accept a call up at any stage?

These are just considerations before the cost of flying four teams to the east coast, when there's perfectly adequate quality of opposition in the home state. Even if the concerns those four teams have are valid, it's ridiculous that we've got to a situation where the AFL would rather pay millions for those flights, rather than use its financial clout to sit down with the SANFL and WAFC and tell them they have to reorganise their structures.

 

[RedV3x]

The natural extension of this though is that you have some sort of NHL/NBA two-way contract system where clubs can retain draft rights to players without necessarily signing them to contracts, players can get promoted from reserves teams to cover any absences from an "active" list of players available for any given game, etc

The issue with this though is that the AFLPA are not as concerned with the salary cap as much as they are that they want 700+ full-time AFL players. It would only add to the cost, not reduce it, because we have to assume teams would be allowed to go over the salary cap to cover injured players if promoting from their reserves at any time.

The other thing is that AFL players don't necessarily earn enough, to make fringe players throw out all other life balance. Some part-time footy player might be fine playing in the reserves league, but they might also be studying at uni - what happens when they get a call-up to the AFL three weeks before exams and before it's too late to pull out of a uni course? But then why would any club sign them to their reserves team if they would rather fill a team with players that would accept a call up at any stage?

These are just considerations before the cost of flying four teams to the east coast, when there's perfectly adequate quality of opposition in the home state. Even if the concerns those four teams have are valid, it's ridiculous that we've got to a situation where the AFL would rather pay millions for those flights, rather than use its financial clout to sit down with the SANFL and WAFC and tell them they have to reorganise their structures.

The AFL removed the reserves competition to reduce costs.
Adding the reserves competition would greatly increase costs - money that could be used more effectively elsewhere.
The absence of the reserves competition puts AFL clubs in the same position.
The absence of the reserves competition boosts the state competitions without spending any money.
State competitions are the lifeline of football.