Brisbane needs help

[Power Raid]

No. I think you'll find AFL were very generous in their help. Deny it all you like but you can't change facts....

The game has been played out yet so lets agree to disagree for now

 

[Slax]

Leigh Mathews says let homesick draftees go in the pre-season draft and for Queensland and NSW players earning less than a set amount to get paid extra directly from the AFL.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2014-06-24/leigh-lethal-on-gohomers

The extra sounds like a modified COLA and fits in with what I have argued in regards to COLA.

"Statistics show the four northern state clubs are still most at risk of losing players to homesickness, with 96 percent of drafted players coming from outside Queensland and New South Wales.

The Lions have been particularly hammered in recent years, with figures gathered by advocacy group The Lion's Roar showing 10 of their past 19 first round draft picks left for homesickness."

How much evidence do people need to show that something needs to be in place to support retention in Queensland and NSW?

And 15 of 19 have finished their careers elsewhere, no-one comes close to these numbers

 

[Mayestro]

See if you can follow the highlighted section. Article claims that Qld and NSW have a high percentage of recruits from outside QLD and NSW. Article then states that Lions have had a tough time recently, with a high turnover of players. Poster then requests COLA for the Swans....

Typical....

If I can direct you to a post earlier in this thread where Roylion indicates that Sydney already has a retention allowance:

When both Brisbane and Sydney had bonuses, both had a retention allowance of approximately 10% of the salary cap. Sydney had an extra 5% for a cost of living allowance. When Brisbane's was cut, Sydney's allowance was reduced to 9% and re-branded as a COLA.

If you read the article and the thread, we are the only club in an expansion state that does not have some form of retention allowance. So to restate from my earlier post, even when we were winning, had cutting edge facilities and a retention allowance we were losing players. We just need some ability to stop new players being able to go home, and often to the club of their choice, after their first contract is up, usually with a substandard recompense. If we keep being a feeder club there is little chance of us ever being successful.

 

[Slax]

Sydney and Brisbane will likely be knocking the AFL's door down so it would be in their interests to at least have something to offer them. If you were particularly callous you could always point the finger at the AFLPA and say "we tried to help you out but THEY wouldn't let us". I'm sure the AFL are above such things, aren't they???

I'd like to think so.

The AFL do need to look at player retention in the NSW & Qld markets. If a club is constantly losing good young talent like Brisbane is then it creates a double-headed beast.
1. The club is uncompetitive, as such the local press don't give them column space, they are a running joke to locals and you can't convert people to follow AFL.
2. It becomes increasingly difficult for the club to market itself. Now Brown has retired if you walked into a pub in Brisbane and spoke to non-AFL fans and asked them to name more than one Lions player you'd find at least a 50% fail rate. At the moment now Brisbane has really one marketable face for the Queensland market in Daniel Rich, Rockliff might be our best player but he's never going to be the face of our club, in the same way players like Griffin & Mitchell have never been the face of their clubs, Mr Average just doesn't cut it in marketing. No marque player who do you advertise? GWS have found this out since Falou left, a bunch of no names you can get away with in AFL heartland, but emerging markets, no way.

 

[skipper kelly]

If I can direct you to a post earlier in this thread where Roylion indicates that Sydney already has a retention allowance:



If you read the article and the thread, we are the only club in an expansion state that does not have some form of retention allowance. So to restate from my earlier post, even when we were winning, had cutting edge facilities and a retention allowance we were losing players. We just need some ability to stop new players being able to go home, and often to the club of their choice, after their first contract is up, usually with a substandard recompense. If we keep being a feeder club there is little chance of us ever being successful.

Sydney have a cost of living allowance.

 

[Dynamics]

I'd like to think so.

The AFL do need to look at player retention in the NSW & Qld markets. If a club is constantly losing good young talent like Brisbane is then it creates a double-headed beast.
1. The club is uncompetitive, as such the local press don't give them column space, they are a running joke to locals and you can't convert people to follow AFL.
2. It becomes increasingly difficult for the club to market itself. Now Brown has retired if you walked into a pub in Brisbane and spoke to non-AFL fans and asked them to name more than one Lions player you'd find at least a 50% fail rate. At the moment now Brisbane has really one marketable face for the Queensland market in Daniel Rich, Rockliff might be our best player but he's never going to be the face of our club, in the same way players like Griffin & Mitchell have never been the face of their clubs, Mr Average just doesn't cut it in marketing. No marque player who do you advertise? GWS have found this out since Falou left, a bunch of no names you can get away with in AFL heartland, but emerging markets, no way.

I live about 15 minutes from Springfield which was to be the new home base for the Lions. The vast majority of people around here would struggle to name one current Lion. Particularly with Brown retiring. The media coverage is minimal and the Lions just aren't on the radar. There's a huge amount of work to be done if the AFL is really serious about growing the Lions brand. Not sure if they really have been in the last few years.

 

[Roylion]

Sydney have a cost of living allowance.

It's called that...but its actually a retention allowance. And perhaps also works as an "attraction allowance".

I don't disagree with the allowance at all. However I'm amazed that all of all the clubs in developing markets, Brisbane are the only ones not to have a such an allowance.

 

[skipper kelly]

It's called that...but its actually a retention allowance. And perhaps also works as an "attraction allowance".

I don't disagree with the allowance at all. However I'm amazed that all of all the clubs in developing markets, Brisbane are the only ones not to have a such an allowance.

We've been through this. You had one but were successful so it was removed. Sydney had one as well but it was reduced and re named to allow for the cost of living differential. Sydney and Brisbane both have retention issues with the go home factor, Sydney also have the cost of living on top of that.

 

[Roylion]

You had one but were successful so it was removed.Sydney and Brisbane both have retention issues with the go home factor, Sydney also have the cost of living on top of that.

To help retain and attract interstate players.

Sydney have been quite successful as well. Only three times out of the finals since 1996.
1996: 2nd
1997: 7th
1998: 5th
1999: 8th
(2000: 10th)
2001: 7th
(2002: 11th)
2003: 3rd
2004: 5th
2005: 1st
2006: 2nd
2007: 7th
2008: 6th
(2009: 12th)
2010: 5th
2011: 6th
2012: 1st
2013: 4th
2014: (likely Top Four finish)

Brisbane's period of success
1995: 8th
1996: 3rd
1997: 8th
(1998: 16th)
1999: 4th
2000: 6th
2001: 1st
2002: 1st
2003: 1st
2004: 2nd
(Then the Lions fell to 11th in 2005. Won a final in 2009 when they finished 6th)

 

[Holy Rioli]

Under a major sponsorship deal with Tasmania... that's 5 home games interstate per year.

4 games per year.

 

[TedDougChris]

If I can direct you to a post earlier in this thread where Roylion indicates that Sydney already has a retention allowance:

If you read the article and the thread, we are the only club in an expansion state that does not have some form of retention allowance. So to restate from my earlier post, even when we were winning, had cutting edge facilities and a retention allowance we were losing players. We just need some ability to stop new players being able to go home, and often to the club of their choice, after their first contract is up, usually with a substandard recompense. If we keep being a feeder club there is little chance of us ever being successful.

Two points, not related.

1 - there are clubs out there, that have not had either a COLA/retention allowance, not access to 10000 first round draft picks upon entry to the competition - that have not won a flag in the lifetime of their supporters. That have always been historically disadvantaged and been seen as feeder clubs. When are they going to get their time in the sun ? You are not guaranteed success in this competition, unless your names are Sydney, GWS and GCS.

2 - I actually have no argument about the need to develop and grow the game in the northern states, and if this means some form of additional support, so be it. But the majority of players who left last year were not looking for an extra 9.8% in their pay packet. You should not get an allowance for not looking after, developing or giving games to the younger players on your list - or for the crazy and wacky trading strategies of someone who had never managed or coached before in his life. For not having the staff in place to help them adjust to life in a new state. This money should come from the clubs operating/admin/staff budget, not some outside the salary cap allowance.

Some clubs don't have a great track record with retaining Aboriginal players, does that mean they should have an allowance ? I'd love to have a KPF allowance, because we can't ****ing get near one for love, nor money.

The issues at Brisbane need to be addressed, and when they are, if the problems still continue then it can be looked at. I don't have an issue with some zone concessions from the Lions, perhaps a player or two extra on the rookie list from Brisbane/Qld area - the same could apply for GCS and GWS. I think you are correct that you have been disadvantaged compared to Syd/GCS/GWS, but there are other clubs a hell of lot worse off than you guys have been in the past 10 - 15 years... And that creates an issue when you are seen to be looking for another advantage again.

 

[JasRulz63]

Some clubs don't have a great track record with retaining Aboriginal players, does that mean they should have an allowance ? I'd love to have a KPF allowance, because we can't ******* get near one for love, nor money.

You can avoid drafting Aboriginal players in that case, there's still plenty of talent to choose from and you can be competitive without Aboriginal players on your list. Queensland and NSW can't avoid drafting players for interstate if they want to remain competitive, the talent is there hence the Academy system exists. In recent times, the Bulldogs have drafted a large majority of their players from Victoria (from memory, the last first round pick from interstate was Christian Howard from SA?) which mitigates the go-home factor; something those Queensland and NSW clubs can't do and remain competitive.

 

[TedDougChris]

You can avoid drafting Aboriginal players in that case, there's still plenty of talent to choose from and you can be competitive without Aboriginal players on your list. Queensland and NSW can't avoid drafting players for interstate if they want to remain competitive, the talent is there hence the Academy system exists. In recent times, the Bulldogs have drafted a large majority of their players from Victoria (from memory, the last first round pick from interstate was Christian Howard from SA?) which mitigates the go-home factor; something those Queensland and NSW clubs can't do and remain competitive.

Way to selectively quote. You didn't lose the players last year for money, so why would a retention allowance help in anyway ?

I do appreciate your point, which is why I suggested an alternative, extra rookie spots for Qld based players for you. Again, selective quoting and ignoring the actual issues here.

 

[JasRulz63]

Way to selectively quote. You didn't lose the players last year for money, so why would a retention allowance help in anyway ?

I do appreciate your point, which is why I suggested an alternative, extra rookie spots for Qld based players for you. Again, selective quoting and ignoring the actual issues here.

But you don't know if they were all offered extra money that they every single one would still have left? You mentioned some reasons why in your post like developing or giving games to youngsters on our list when in fact Docherty played 13 out of 22 games in 2013, Yeo played 19 games, Longer played 4 (remember that he's an undeveloped ruckman) and Polec only played 1 game but was injured for much of the season and when he was starting to get fit again in the reserves, he'd get injured again. Karnezis I admit wasn't given much game time, and probably had a big say in why he left. But apart from him, I don't see how we didn't give those players game time.

You also mentioned the "crazy and wacky trading strategies" but that doesn't affect those players because none of them were there when the so called "Crazy Vossy" trading happened. As for the staff being in place, we had some great staff on board during the early 00's (including the Lamberts who we lost to GWS, probably our most significant loss staff wise) and we still lost players during that time. You also need to be able to afford the staff, which we weren't really in the position to do.

Your idea of extra rookie spots for Queensland based players already exists and is currently ongoing (QLD and NSW clubs are allowed to register up to 3 players from their home state as category B rookie players). But the talent base isn't there for that to be much of an advantage (again, an argument for the Academy system).

 

[Football Pope]

I think that you will find that Port were only getting some of the money that, but for a cra** stadium deal, was theirs in the first instance.

The sum of 14 million.....

The AFL will give Port $1 million each year until 2013, and lend the SANFL another $9 million to give Port an extra $6 million, plus $3 million to Adelaide from 2012-14. Both bodies previously gave Port a combined $5 million in 2009.

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-ne...deal-to-14m-20110630-1gt27.html#ixzz35eLONvcq

 

[TedDougChris]

But you don't know if they were all offered extra money that they every single one would still have left? You mentioned some reasons why in your post like developing or giving games to youngsters on our list when in fact Docherty played 13 out of 22 games in 2013, Yeo played 19 games, Longer played 4 (remember that he's an undeveloped ruckman) and Polec only played 1 game but was injured for much of the season and when he was starting to get fit again in the reserves, he'd get injured again. Karnezis I admit wasn't given much game time, and probably had a big say in why he left. But apart from him, I don't see how we didn't give those players game time.

You also mentioned the "crazy and wacky trading strategies" but that doesn't affect those players because none of them were there when the so called "Crazy Vossy" trading happened. As for the staff being in place, we had some great staff on board during the early 00's (including the Lamberts who we lost to GWS, probably our most significant loss staff wise) and we still lost players during that time. You also need to be able to afford the staff, which we weren't really in the position to do.

Your idea of extra rookie spots for Queensland based players already exists and is currently ongoing (QLD and NSW clubs are allowed to register up to 3 players from their home state as category B rookie players). But the talent base isn't there for that to be much of an advantage (again, an argument for the Academy system).

Let's separate the issues. If you are paying 100% of your cap (and we're in the same boat here - so don't take it the wrong way), without the ability to increase the salaries of your younger guys as they develop - then the list management is terrible. You shouldn't get extra money for poor list management, the same way I opposed an extra priority pick for Melbourne last year (although for different reasons).

The 'Crazy Vossy' comment relates to two things - the more kids you bring in and keep (not just trade away for Fev etc), then the better long term structures, friendships and supports you can put into place - which helps keep kids. This was purely due to inexperience and mis-reading of where the list was at by someone who wasn't really in a position to assess. Yes, perhaps none of the players that left were there then, but it did impact on the way the club and the players developed and thought of their time at the club. Secondly to that, payment of staff is outside the cap, so no retention allowance will help here. You are in the same boat here as the Dogs, Melbourne, Saints etc - we cannot match the financial resources of the bigger clubs for player development and welfare.

I wasn't aware of the extra rookie B spots you had, so that is good that it is in place. I actually don't object to the academies so much, perhaps they need to be pooled though, so one for NSW and one for QLD. And perhaps some restrictions need to be put in place to prevent you from taking multiple players in the one year, so that the likes of Eddie and co cannot say they don't get access (although this is hypocritical as the Dogs cannot complete for international rookies etc, which suits the bigger clubs fine).

 

[MickyG]

See if you can follow the highlighted section. Article claims that Qld and NSW have a high percentage of recruits from outside QLD and NSW. Article then states that Lions have had a tough time recently, with a high turnover of players. Poster then requests COLA for the Swans....

Typical....

No. I wrote "How much evidence do people need to show that something needs to be in place to support retention in Queensland and NSW?" Nothing about the Swans.

 

[TedDougChris]

No. I wrote "How much evidence do people need to show that something needs to be in place to support retention in Queensland and NSW?" Nothing about the Swans.

The Swans aren't in NSW now ???? When did this happen ?

 

[Janus]

The sum of 14 million.....


http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/grants-increase-port-rescue-deal-to-14m-20110630-1gt27.html#ixzz35eLONvcq

If you were asking for money to increase your football department spend and get better development coaches, I don't think anyone would have a problem with that. That's the help that Port Adelaide received (even though $11 million of that is a loan that has to be repaid as part of buying our license and the Crows got $3 million from the AFL as well). But what I gather is you don't want that, but rather some sort of salary cap relief because Queensland is such a poor destination to be at as a footballer?

There are only 18 places where you can play elite level football in the world. If someone wants to go home, an extra $10,000 for every $100,000 isn't going to make a difference. What will is creating a culture of success and instilling the belief in your young players that Brisbane is a destination club and not a feeder club - and that only comes from hard work.

Port Adelaide could have easily taken that $14 million and pissed it up the wall. Sydney isn't successful because of any player retention allowance, but because they have developed a winning culture of success at any cost which filters down to the younger players and they buy in because of it. That's the culture that we as a club are starting to rediscover, because we had it during our SANFL days. But going cap in hand for salary cap concessions to attract and retain star players just because your club couldn't capitalize on the goodwill you had in the community after winning 3 premierships in a row, a feat that won't be replicated for a very long time? Brisbane needs help, not welfare.

 

[Lion for Life]

In an ideal world, I'd love to see a system where a player can be traded anywhere - however that won't ever happen.

Why? It happens all the time in the US where players are viewed as an asset as they should be.

I think any young prospect hoping to nominate for the ND and go on to play in the AFL should understand that it's a peiviledge to do so no matter where that may be and that you are committing yourself to the system of being a tradeble asset until such a time as you qualify for free agency.

So in that scenario Elliot Yeo comes to the end of his contract either;

a) he re-signs with the Brisbane Lions or,

b) he requests to be traded whereby the Lions have freedom to shop his talent around to all other 17 clubs to secure the best possible outcome for the club or,

c) he isn't happy with either outcome where he would then spend the next 12 months out playing in the WAFL and only then would qualify for the PSD.

The AFLPA would scream blue murder but they wanted free agency which then should mean it is more difficult to move before before a player qualifies, you can't have it both ways.

 

[Lion for Life]

http://m.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl...966854575?nk=96830dde773edc2ecb233f488e74d62b

He entirely misses the point of the academy setup and it's purpose of putting a higher amount of QLD and NSW players on our lists in an effort to solve our retention problems but alas Eddie always gets what Eddie wants, it's an absolute joke.
For once i can agree with Caroline Wilson
Caro's Arrow on Footy Classified this week:

Eddie McGuire calls a rival president for making some salient points about the competition "a hall of fame hypocrite".

Eddie McGuire says crowds are down because there are too many spuds playing AFL footy.

Eddie McGuire says a powerful club should play on Good Friday.

Eddie McGuire says it is stupid to re-write or go and look at the origins of our competition.

Eddie McGuire doesn't like academies for Sydney or Queensland clubs.

Well, welcome to another big week in footy, or the gospel according to Eddie McGuire.

No Eddie, this arrow's not for you, but for the AFL who cave in to you and your black and white demands again and again - so compliant against the might of Collingwood and its media-happy President that they check with you before they make their every move. Man up AFL. You run the competition, not Eddie. And Eddie, stop misusing your power.
Garry Lyon's response was "Phwoar. But he's a spokesman for the competition!"

 

[Slax]

I live about 15 minutes from Springfield which was to be the new home base for the Lions. The vast majority of people around here would struggle to name one current Lion. Particularly with Brown retiring. The media coverage is minimal and the Lions just aren't on the radar. There's a huge amount of work to be done if the AFL is really serious about growing the Lions brand. Not sure if they really have been in the last few years.

That's the whole problem, the AFL has decided to pump tens of millions into the Western Sydney market, but to fund it has removed funding from the Brisbane market.

 

[Dynamics]

That's the whole problem, the AFL has decided to pump tens of millions into the Western Sydney market, but to fund it has removed funding from the Brisbane market.

I have no idea what the AFL's actual ledger looks like but it certainly seems that way.

It's obvious when you're up here that the lack of support, combined with the club being run in a pretty unspectacular fashion, has led to the Lions dropping off the radar.

 

[Damon_3388]

Why? It happens all the time in the US where players are viewed as an asset as they should be.

I think any young prospect hoping to nominate for the ND and go on to play in the AFL should understand that it's a peiviledge to do so no matter where that may be and that you are committing yourself to the system of being a tradeble asset until such a time as you qualify for free agency.

Because basically AFL clubs are too soft and "matey", and for some reason think they'll be seen as the bad guy if they don't accomodate some MOR player. The players have been given too much power in this instance IMO.

 

[whatboutbob]

The players have been given too much power in this instance IMO.

Yep. Free Agency culture has swung the needle even further the players' way. We even had a young star player (Wingard) recently being lauded for his courage in telling GWS if they drafted him he'd leave at the end of his first contract. The power needs to swing back to the drafting club just a little. Once they're drafted I think a few little hurdles need to be put up to make it just that little bit more difficult for young players to get to the exact club they want after their initial contract.

I've liked some of the suggestions I've read lately, like requiring players to nominate for the national draft before they can nominate for the PSD. Make them run the full gauntlet of all the clubs in the national draft, rather than cherry picking their destination based on the few clubs with PSD picks. It'll help determine if players are genuinely homesick and how desperate they are to leave if they don't get to choose exactly who they play for. I'd also like to see the rules tightened around the 'Luke Ball play' (ie dodgily front-ended contracts to put other clubs off drafting him) to prevent that mechanism from failing. From memory Ben Jacobs pulled that one to get to North Melbourne in the national draft.