Analysis Cuts to Senior List Sizes

[Baygirl1977]

Afl has just released pay cuts ,


AFL player agents were briefed early on Wednesday afternoon regarding the changes.

Sources with knowledge of negotiations believe this deal is a win for players, who at one stage were facing a 15 to 20 per cent cut in salaries.

As first reported by foxfooty.com.au last Thursday, clubs will only be required to select a minimum of one player in December’s national draft, down from three.

Change in List Size numbers

2020 Total List Sizes: 38-47 | 2021 Total List Sizes: 37-44

2020 Primary List: 38-40 | 2021 Primary List: 36-38

2020 Cat A Rookies: 0-6 | 2021 Cat A Rookies: 0-6

2020 Cat B Rookies: 0-3 | 2021 Cat B Rookies: 0-2

 

[The Nostradamus]

If it does go to a 35 list the other thing I’ve heard a few times is additional train on lists seperate to this

Not sure how that works, I’m assuming these are just top up blokes playing for your reserves team but not sure if access will be given to them if injuries hit majorly

 

[eastfreo75]

If it does go to a 35 list the other thing I’ve heard a few times is additional train on lists seperate to this

Not sure how that works, I’m assuming these are just top up blokes playing for your reserves team but not sure if access will be given to them if injuries hit majorly

Preseason draft we already have and that might be it.

Might not help a list cursed with injuries.

 

[footyfan1978]

If it does go to a 35 list the other thing I’ve heard a few times is additional train on lists seperate to this

Not sure how that works, I’m assuming these are just top up blokes playing for your reserves team but not sure if access will be given to them if injuries hit majorly

Chris Pelchen I think was the guy that spoke of an idea of clubs have an "Active List" and an "Inactive List"
The Active list would be the 35 in what he talked about and the Inactive List is 10 players a club has access to, that can be elevated to Active List if you take another player down to Inactive List. I not heard him elaborate on it though other than just the basic idea of it. He actually said it was an original idea when draft system was brought in but never actually happened.

 

[eastfreo75]

Chris Pelchen I think was the guy that spoke of an idea of clubs have an "Active List" and an "Inactive List"
The Active list would be the 35 in what he talked about and the Inactive List is 10 players a club has access to, that can be elevated to Active List if you take another player down to Inactive List. I not heard him elaborate on it though other than just the basic idea of it. He actually said it was an original idea when draft system was brought in but never actually happened.

Not the same idea.

If you had an inactive list for players like Mitchell who are out for the season makes sense to me.

In the NBA teams draft players in the second round then let them play overseas but still retain the rights to the player for 4 years.

Jonah Bolden played in Israel for a year before playing in the G league and on the end of the bench.

Maybe, the AFL could do something similar.

Teams could draft a player but keeps the rights for 3 years. The club could decide to place them on the active list or inactive list.

The player could stay in their home state until the club put them on active list or they traded them.

 

[footyfan1978]

Not the same idea.

If you had an inactive list for players like Mitchell who are out for the season makes sense to me.

Teams could draft a player but keeps the rights for 3 years. The club could decide to place them on the active list or inactive list.

The player could stay in their home state until the club put them on active list or they traded them.

This has already happened.
They already call players on long term injury list as the Inactive List as of last season.
But yes, it is not what Pelchen was talking about because the form of Inactive List he was talking about was players could be poached to other clubs in season if they made a spot vacant on their own Active List. If you got a long term injured player now, they still not able to be got at by another club when inactive in season.

As for clubs drafting players and keep rights on them for a number of years, that also has happened already. The original drafts of early 80's clubs had rights on players they nominated in draft for this league whether they came or not. I think it was two or three years. Quite a few stayed in their local state league and came over later and sometimes beyond the period of the rights claim to play with another league club here.

Whilst much of this is interesting it does not address real practical issues for clubs if contracted lists got cut to 35.
I doubt it will happen as would tear at fabric of real club cultures if you only got a senior group of players that really feel part of club and hardly any development phase allowed for players to grow in same club before they ready for regular senior appearances. Might look good on paper but in reality cannot see it happening when lots of things against it.

 

[eastfreo75]

This has already happened.
They already call players on long term injury list as the Inactive List as of last season.
But yes, it is not what Pelchen was talking about because the form of Inactive List he was talking about was players could be poached to other clubs in season if they made a spot vacant on their own Active List. If you got a long term injured player now, they still not able to be got at by another club when inactive in season.

As for clubs drafting players and keep rights on them for a number of years, that also has happened already. The original drafts of early 80's clubs had rights on players they nominated in draft for this league whether they came or not. I think it was two or three years. Quite a few stayed in their local state league and came over later and sometimes beyond the period of the rights claim to play with another league club here.

Whilst much of this is interesting it does not address real practical issues for clubs if contracted lists got cut to 35.
I doubt it will happen as would tear at fabric of real club cultures if you only got a senior group of players that really feel part of club and hardly any development phase allowed for players to grow in same club before they ready for regular senior appearances. Might look good on paper but in reality cannot see it happening when lots of things against it.

Great conversation.

I really it’s a bad idea to reduce lists to 35.

I think it will happen because the salary cap will be reduce and the top players will want to minimise the cuts to their pay.
Dangerfield is pretty selfish and entitled.

The other reason is the soft cap football spend. Less players equals less supporting staff.

 

[footyfan1978]

Great conversation.

I really it’s a bad idea to reduce lists to 35.

I think it will happen because the salary cap will be reduce and the top players will want to minimise the cuts to their pay.
Dangerfield is pretty selfish and entitled.

The other reason is the soft cap football spend. Less players equals less supporting staff.

I do not think the salary cap cuts or soft cap cuts automatically mean what you think they mean.
Assistant coaches will just mean paid less than they were and same with players getting over 300K might drop down in what they got but still good money and lists stay the same.

 

[briztoon]

I do not think the salary cap cuts or soft cap cuts automatically mean what you think they mean.
Assistant coaches will just mean paid less than they were and same with players getting over 300K might drop down in what they got but still good money and lists stay the same.

Yeah, I was going to post something similar.

Up until covid19 hit, Gil has always been on about getting as many players in to the system and as many opportunities for clubs to add players.

There’s no denying that the league and clubs will have to save money.

But that doesn’t mean we have to lose players.

The question is, how does the league decrease current player contracts to fit under the reduced salary cap?

 

[SL16]

Im really hoping the AFL does everything possible to avoid cutting the lists, and even if they do, to cut them as minimally as possible. Would hate to see lists be cut to 35 and every club delisting 15 or so players all at once.

 

[Kwality]

In what sense?

As I posted:
'In an email seen by The Weekend Australian, cricket’s head body predicts a drop of up to 80 per cent in what it calls “match revenues” even if India does tour.

The players’ association has reacted angrily to the email, which was sent on Wednesday and which lays out the organisation’s estimate that cricket revenue — which determines player payments — will fall by over 40 per cent in 2020-21 and a significant amount in 2021-22. The Australian Cricketers Association told members on Thursday that the projections “do not appear to be reasonable or consistent with an obligation of good faith”.'

The relationship between the players association & the controlling body - they look at things differently & a master/servamt should not apply. In cricket, even good faith is missing.

 

[Kwality]

The question is, how does the league decrease current player contracts to fit under the reduced salary cap?

These are individual contracts, & until they are screwed up they stand.

 

[Mego Red]

Restraint of trade is bollocks. You could argue that with the cut off date they have now.

The will of AFL not there. When they introduced the age limit to 18 there was resistance.

Reducing pressure off the 17 year olds in high school would be better. Having player have a full year of the second tier comp would better for the players and the comp.

This year is probably the only year they could do it.

They could raise the age 6 months this year and another 6 month next. Drop team list to 38 next year and 35 the year after.

Reduced drafts would soften the blow.

The thing is, no one actually involved with football agrees with you.

They know that an extra year for kids to sit around playing fortnite isn't going to help them - the best place to develop their football future is within the AFL system.

 

[Mego Red]

Personally, I think they will merge rookie and main playing lists into one list for next year, and they will go to 40 player lists in 2021 and 38 player lists in 2022.

I don't actually think we will ever go to 35 player lists. I think they're leaking that to the media so 40 and 38 player lists sound so much more reasonable to us.

 

[briztoon]

Personally, I think they will merge rookie and main playing lists into one list for next year, and they will go to 40 player lists in 2021 and 38 player lists in 2022.

I don't actually think we will ever go to 35 player lists. I think they're leaking that to the media so 40 and 38 player lists sound so much more reasonable to us.

Think it was an interview with the Suns ceo, where he mentioned list cuts down to possibly as low as 32, but 35 more likely.

 

[Harro59]

Think it was an interview with the Suns ceo, where he mentioned list cuts down to possibly as low as 32, but 35 more likely.

32 would be a bit slim. You start to get 6 - 7 injuries to the main list and you'd start to be a bit concerned.

 

[Matthew Jelley]

Ok I'll try a hypothetical 2021 Geelong list of 35, broken down into positions to help

Defenders
Blicavs
Stewart
Tuohy
Kolojashnij
Clark
Henry
OConnor
Bews
De Koning
Draft

Midfielders
Dangerfield
Selwood
Steven
Duncan
Parfitt
C.Guthrie
Narkle
Constable
Fogarty
Stephens
Draft
Draft
Draft


Rucks
Stanley
Draft

Forwards
Hawkins
Ratugolea
Jenkins
Krueger
Rohan
Dalhaus
Miers
Atkins
Draft
Draft

 

[WWSD]

Sydney’s injury list is a prime example as to
why the AFL shouldn’t reduce list sizes. If the AFL did that next year and say the Swans had the same number of injuries (minus 10 players with the list reduction), then Sydney would have only about 4 or 5 players to choose from outside the best 22. Already we are seeing an increase in the amount of injuries this year.

 

[Kwality]

Sydney’s injury list is a prime example as to
why the AFL shouldn’t reduce list sizes. If the AFL did that next year and say the Swans had the same number of injuries (minus 10 players with the list reduction), then Sydney would have only about 4 or 5 players to choose from outside the best 22. Already we are seeing an increase in the amount of injuries this year.

The AFL will need to run that past the AFLPA for 2021, the money is just not there. Even then, any agreement with the AFLPA will not over ride current contracts so the AFL will need to dip further into the line of credit.

 

[CatToTheFuture]

I think it makes sense for the afl to just drop cap and allow breaches in 2021 to carry over in subsequent years.

If you have a bunch of players in their final year next year forcing your spend upwards then pick the players you're keeping and give them contract extensions for less money to reflect cap conditions. You can back end the ones you want while paying out the ones you don't want or the ones that are retiring.

No need to drop list numbers if you can stay under cap. Would be a bit difficult for the cats with all the retirees over the next few seasons who have contract's already in place but not unmanageable I'd presume

 

[Heaps of fun]

Have we heard any more rumblings about this happening? Coming towards the midway point of the season and it's not going to be fair to clubs or players if it's still uncertain going forward. Players would be at risk of losing their houses, being left without a job for 2021 and in a situation they could not have possibly had started preparing for before this year began.

 

[Kwality]

I think it makes sense for the afl to just drop cap and allow breaches in 2021 to carry over in subsequent years.

If you have a bunch of players in their final year next year forcing your spend upwards then pick the players you're keeping and give them contract extensions for less money to reflect cap conditions. You can back end the ones you want while paying out the ones you don't want or the ones that are retiring.

No need to drop list numbers if you can stay under cap. Would be a bit difficult for the cats with all the retirees over the next few seasons who have contract's already in place but not unmanageable I'd presume

where is the money coming from ?

 

[kreglze]

Suns have 41 listed players contracted beyond this year. Will be interesting to see what happens to these guys.

 

[Mego Red]

I think they might look to remove the rookie list and slowly bring in list reductions - 40 next year (perhaps with some provision for clubs with more than 40 already contracted), then 38.

 

[CatToTheFuture]

where is the money coming from ?

Are you taking about paying players as trade targets or financing the league? The league got a loan for the purpose of keeping the place operating and part of that is continuing to pay employees. If the afl can't pay its employees then the professional league folds

If you're talking about where the cash for trade targets is coming from then I'm saying that you can create cap space by signing players on longer contracts and backending payments to later years where there are fewer contracts competing with the cap. New and extended contracts would be for reduced cash per year reflecting the lower cap.

 

[Kwality]

Are you taking about paying players as trade targets or financing the league? The league got a loan for the purpose of keeping the place operating and part of that is continuing to pay employees. If the afl can't pay its employees then the professional league folds

If you're talking about where the cash for trade targets is coming from then I'm saying that you can create cap space by signing players on longer contracts and backending payments to later years where there are fewer contracts competing with the cap. New and extended contracts would be for reduced cash per year reflecting the lower cap.

So TV revenue has had a hair cut, not much revenue from any other source, 2021 isnt going to be much better, clubs in the same boat & you've got a plan ... fair enough, I dont share your optimism.
Will you be paying your membership next year?