Equalisation - the facts and the premiership merry-go-round

[telsor]

No percentage?

Why? Are you suddenly going to start noticing hard facts when (re)formulating your arguments?

 

[ShaneMug]

There are just too many teams now.

Re-building takes forever, there are too many teams in the competition, the new franchises have been a waste of time as they have diluted the talent pool too much and no one cares for AFL on the Gold Coast and Western Sydney. Sure it increased the television rights but who wants to watch an inferior product because there are too many teams?

The NRL is far more entertaining and produces more premiers and the time taken to rebuild is far quicker.

 

[Colonial]

There are just too many teams now.

Re-building takes forever, there are too many teams in the competition, the new franchises have been a waste of time as they have diluted the talent pool too much and no one cares for AFL on the Gold Coast and Western Sydney. Sure it increased the television rights but who wants to watch an inferior product because there are too many teams?

The NRL is far more entertaining and produces more premiers and the time taken to rebuild is far quicker.

Inferior? Hmm we have taken care of your mob the last few years and i would say this year as well.
So does that mean bye bye Carlton?

 

[Furn2]

if people are worried about the lack of overall talent then get rid of interchange.

Each week 72 players who aren't in their teams best 18 play 85-90% gametime.

 

[telsor]

if people are worried about the lack of overall talent then get rid of interchange.

Each week 72 players who aren't in their teams best 18 play 85-90% gametime.

Drop back to 20, like it's been for most of the game's history and you'd clear up 36 players, practically an entire teams list. It'd also mean they could get rid of the interchange cap.

 

[Farm Boy]

There are just too many teams now.

Re-building takes forever, there are too many teams in the competition, the new franchises have been a waste of time as they have diluted the talent pool too much and no one cares for AFL on the Gold Coast and Western Sydney. Sure it increased the television rights but who wants to watch an inferior product because there are too many teams?

The NRL is far more entertaining and produces more premiers and the time taken to rebuild is far quicker.

I know, it is annoying. But, there are too many teams in the competition. Part of me wishes that hopefully oneday the AFL just pulls the trigger and culls a few Victorian teams. Even if my beloved St Kilda is one, I except it, I know the league is too full, it is annoying. I love the game more than I love my own club. Most supporters probably don't though. The AFL needs to love the game more than they love the $$$$.

 

[ziad]

I know, it is annoying. But, there are too many teams in the competition. Part of me wishes that hopefully oneday the AFL just pulls the trigger and culls a few Victorian teams. Even if my beloved St Kilda is one, I except it, I know the league is too full, it is annoying. I love the game more than I love my own club. Most supporters probably don't though. The AFL needs to love the game more than they love the $$$$.

it is a fact, the standard of many players is poor/struggling in state leagues. A few clubs are economic basket cases.
You can be sure the AFL/VFL don't have the bottle to address this.

 

[ShaneMug]

The television rights won't be as big or lucrative the next time they come up. Gill told clubs at the CEO meeting that due to Netflix and other new mediums, that the last rights were a Tattslotto type bonanza and don't expect those to happen owing to the new mediums.

Just too many clubs and they are centralised in a state that is losing too much industry as long as South Australia. That state is a financial basket case.

Had a look at some RL games recently, I don't like the sport but there were two ties and two other games decided by less than a field goal. This is on the back of that amazing Grand Final. The dilution of talent in the AFL with the new franchises has lowered the playing standard and elite competition aspect.

 

[doppleganger]

Equalisation isnt meant to ensure everybody wins.

It is designed to remove inequalities that previously existed where clubs were able to benefit from inequality...ie being able to 'buy' a premiership team, have a zone that gifted a team a greater number of wuality players etc.

When operating within a level playing field, clubs can still develop competitive advantages and best practice that enable them to succeed where others fail.

Bad management, sh1t coaches and unstable clubs will still see teams struggle at the bottom.

Hawthorn are great because they have the best coach, benefitted from rules available to all clubs with priority picks, and have better talent identification than other clubs.

It is up to other clubs to improve their programs to suprsede Hawthorn as best practice.

 

[david addison]

Equalisation? Roughly, when do you think we started having this conversation that 'the rich clubs are winning all the flags'? I believe it was 2011, right after the Pies took home the chocolates. It didn't seem to bother anyone when Sydney and Brisbane were sharing five flags on the back of inflated salary caps. Why should I take this topic seriously when nobody else does. Guess what, the Kangaroos were winning flags when they had NO money. Money doesn't equal success, so get over it.

 

[Garlic muncher]

I don't think there are to many teams, i think there are not enough trophies of decent note on offer, if the pre season was treated with more respect it may mean more to the winner, put the prizemoney up, if for EX a nine a side comp was played during the season on a wednesday night and also provided with very decent prizemoney it would be another trophy worth winning, if something is worth winning then effort is put into it.

If for example you won the pre season comp that actually had some meaning then even if you missed the finals then the whole season is not a loss, if you won the preseason, mid week 9 a side and the premiership then what a year you would have had.

 

[Kwality]

I don't think there are to many teams, i think there are not enough trophies of decent note on offer, if the pre season was treated with more respect it may mean more to the winner, put the prizemoney up, if for EX a nine a side comp was played during the season on a wednesday night and also provided with very decent prizemoney it would be another trophy worth winning, if something is worth winning then effort is put into it.

If for example you won the pre season comp that actually had some meaning then even if you missed the finals then the whole season is not a loss, if you won the preseason, mid week 9 a side and the premiership then what a year you would have had.

The Little Aths approach?
The AFL could tell us what to think, who knows the Anzac Day medal would be highly regarded by decree of the right honourable AFL CEO of the day, with the accredited AFL media pack chanting for more ..... medals for the best handball by a player wearing white shorts every week !!

 

[Garlic muncher]

The Little Aths approach?
The AFL could tell us what to think, who knows the Anzac Day medal would be highly regarded by decree of the right honourable AFL CEO of the day, with the accredited AFL media pack chanting for more ..... medals for the best handball by a player wearing white shorts every week !!

That's not what i said or meant, i sort of making a comparison to some big leagues around the world, the Premier league in England for EX where they have 20 teams (?) per division and multiple trophies on offer, of course the top of the table is the one they desire, but they have European knockout, they have the FA cup, sides that may be having a injury run or bad year and no chance of winning the league can also feature in those.

No point making trophies easy to win, but perhaps there should be other high points during the year that clubs can aim at, it is up to the AFL to make them attractive to win.

 

[harmesy 37]

Equalisation isnt meant to ensure everybody wins.

It is designed to remove inequalities that previously existed where clubs were able to benefit from inequality...ie being able to 'buy' a premiership team, have a zone that gifted a team a greater number of wuality players etc.

When operating within a level playing field, clubs can still develop competitive advantages and best practice that enable them to succeed where others fail.

Bad management, sh1t coaches and unstable clubs will still see teams struggle at the bottom.

Hawthorn are great because they have the best coach, benefitted from rules available to all clubs with priority picks, and have better talent identification than other clubs.

It is up to other clubs to improve their programs to suprsede Hawthorn as best practice.

You seriously believe there is a level playing field now?

"Equalisation" is just a fancy name for a policy of trying to destroy Hawthorn and Carlton's chances of winning flags as a result of their success in the 1980s.

Sounds good in theory this "equalisation", but in fact, the AFL interferes all the time, next it will be an extra 10 million heading up to Brisbane no doubt, whilst Carlton rots in its grave. So 10 million to Brisbane is more important than 10 million to Carlton because Carlton is not in an "expansion" zone. Carlton has given over 150 years of service to the game, but that means nothing when there is money to be lost in Queensland.

GWS get an extra 1 million in the cap, Sydney get COLA, Hawthorn gets Tasmania. All this stuff is done in the name of "equalisation" or can be given other fancy names, but whatever you call it, it benefits certain preferred teams.

 

[Rob]

You seriously believe there is a level playing field now?

"Equalisation" is just a fancy name for a policy of trying to destroy Hawthorn and Carlton's chances of winning flags as a result of their success in the 1980s.

Sounds good in theory this "equalisation", but in fact, the AFL interferes all the time, next it will be an extra 10 million heading up to Brisbane no doubt, whilst Carlton rots in its grave. So 10 million to Brisbane is more important than 10 million to Carlton because Carlton is not in an "expansion" zone. Carlton has given over 150 years of service to the game, but that means nothing when there is money to be lost in Queensland.

GWS get an extra 1 million in the cap, Sydney get COLA, Hawthorn gets Tasmania. All this stuff is done in the name of "equalisation" or can be given other fancy names, but whatever you call it, it benefits certain preferred teams.

Sorry, how will more money help Carlton on the field? It's pretty clear that as long as you can pay the salary cap you are capable of competing for a flag. And Carlton have had no problem doing that.

Trying to pin Carlton's general shitness over the last 20 years on AFL policy is pretty lame.

 

[harmesy 37]

Sorry, how will more money help Carlton on the field? It's pretty clear that as long as you can pay the salary cap you are capable of competing for a flag. And Carlton have had no problem doing that.

Trying to pin Carlton's general shitness over the last 20 years on AFL policy is pretty lame.

Your point is valid. Carlton has itself to blame for its draft picks - eg Kreuzer instead of Cotchin, eg choosing Hampson instead of Goldstein etc. Look at 100 drafts and look at the mistakes. They are glaring and conspicuous.



However, there is another way of putting this.

Why did the AFL introduce "equalisation"?
In the 1980s Hawthorn and Carlton won seven flags between them. They felt the game would be better if more teams won. Or perhaps all they wanted is for other teams to win.

Is pure "equalisation" occurring?
How can it when there are salary cap concessions, were salary cap concessions for Brisbane, Sydney, GWS, Gold Coast, father-sons, priority picks, money assistance, special conditions to play in certain states with financial benefits etc.

Does the AFL treat the condition of teams such as Brisbane/North Melbourne etc as being more of a priority than teams such as Carlton?
I think the proof of the pudding in that will be later in the year when I expect the AFL to provide a massive financial "rescue" package for Brisbane. This is after they have just come off 3 flags in 2001-03. Carlton approx. 6 million and rising in debt, Brisbane over 10 million in debt. Which club do you think will get the "financial assistance" package and which club will get nothing?

 

[MaddAdam]

IMO free agency is the best equalisation method so far.

All clubs get an even shot at a free agent - the socialist element.

But it is up to clubs to demonstrate why a player should come to them and forgive me for slipping into Turnbullese, it is agile and professionally run clubs that will be best at it - the free market element.

That is an excellent mix and as long as a hard salary cap remains, it works very well. North identified this as an opportunity, entered the market and have been very well rewarded with players like NDS, Higgins and Waite.

It has now in some respects given as a competitive advantage - we can say to payers "Look at how well it turned out for those guys, we know what we are doing"

Despite forever copping lectures about being parasites and how we should do something to help ourselves, fans of the smaller teams by revenue have only ever said they want equality of opportunity, not "handouts" that drag others "down".

 

[Rob]

Your point is valid. Carlton has itself to blame for its draft picks - eg Kreuzer instead of Cotchin, eg choosing Hampson instead of Goldstein etc. Look at 100 drafts and look at the mistakes. They are glaring and conspicuous.



However, there is another way of putting this.

Why did the AFL introduce "equalisation"?
In the 1980s Hawthorn and Carlton won seven flags between them. They felt the game would be better if more teams won. Or perhaps all they wanted is for other teams to win.

Is pure "equalisation" occurring?
How can it when there are salary cap concessions, were salary cap concessions for Brisbane, Sydney, GWS, Gold Coast, father-sons, priority picks, money assistance, special conditions to play in certain states with financial benefits etc.

Does the AFL treat the condition of teams such as Brisbane/North Melbourne etc as being more of a priority than teams such as Carlton?
I think the proof of the pudding in that will be later in the year when I expect the AFL to provide a massive financial "rescue" package for Brisbane. This is after they have just come off 3 flags in 2001-03. Carlton approx. 6 million and rising in debt, Brisbane over 10 million in debt. Which club do you think will get the "financial assistance" package and which club will get nothing?

You can hardly say the AFL doesn't provide assistance to Victorian clubs given there are at least 3 Victorian clubs that have been on annual multi million dollar subsidies for many years.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

IMO free agency is the best equalisation method so far.

All clubs get an even shot at a free agent - the socialist element.

But it is up to clubs to demonstrate why a player should come to them and forgive me for slipping into Turnbullese, it is agile and professionally run clubs that will be best at it - the free market element.

That is an excellent mix and as long as a hard salary cap remains, it works very well. North identified this as an opportunity, entered the market and have been very well rewarded with players like NDS, Higgins and Waite.

It has now in some respects given as a competitive advantage - we can say to payers "Look at how well it turned out for those guys, we know what we are doing"

Despite forever copping lectures about being parasites and how we should do something to help ourselves, fans of the smaller teams by revenue have only ever said they want equality of opportunity, not "handouts" that drag others "down".

Your statement would be true if the AFL and AFLPA didn't agree for a minimum salary floor of 95% of the cap. That means the theoretical difference between the top and bottom clubs are about $550k, or well under what typical free agencies get.

Basically put in a pure, open market, the players collectively in a poor team aren't worth 95% of the top team, but they get paid as much, which effectively hinders bottom teams because they are over-paying poorer players and therefore by default have less money to improve their list.

A lot of people are complaining about how Free Agency hinders bottom clubs, and benefits top clubs. Whilst we don't want to see any team do a 76ers-esque tanking by simply paying 75&% of the cap, reducing the salary floor to 90% or something similar would give the bottom clubs a bigger "war chest" to take advantage of the innate equalisation measure that is the salary cap and pick themselves off the bottom of the ladder.

 

[Rob]

Your statement would be true if the AFL and AFLPA didn't agree for a minimum salary floor of 95% of the cap. That means the theoretical difference between the top and bottom clubs are about $550k, or well under what typical free agencies get.

Basically put in a pure, open market, the players collectively in a poor team aren't worth 95% of the top team, but they get paid as much, which effectively hinders bottom teams because they are over-paying poorer players and therefore by default have less money to improve their list.

A lot of people are complaining about how Free Agency hinders bottom clubs, and benefits top clubs. Whilst we don't want to see any team do a 76ers-esque tanking by simply paying 75&% of the cap, reducing the salary floor to 90% or something similar would give the bottom clubs a bigger "war chest" to take advantage of the innate equalisation measure that is the salary cap and pick themselves off the bottom of the ladder.

You're dead right, but that's where good list management comes into play. If you've got a list worth 80% of the salary cap for the next 2 seasons, then you bring forward 20% of next year's cap into this year's (by renegotiating contracts) and you've suddenly got 40% free cap space for the next year to raid free agency.
Once players earn over $180k a year there's no reason why they wouldn't want to be paid in the earlier year. So there's really no excuse for overpaying a shit list.

I agree with you though that 95% is way too high to set as the minimum.

 

[Topkent]

Equalisation going well
Looks like the top 4 this year will be Hawks Swans Cats and then possibly the crows
Luckily we haven't seen those teams up the top for a while now

 

[Colonial]

Equalisation going well
Looks like the top 4 this year will be Hawks Swans Cats and then possibly the crows
Luckily we haven't seen those teams up the top for a while now

Competition is really close. Working wonders

 

[Topkent]

Competition is really close. Working wonders

Its always been close don't know if you followed footy before the Giants were around but the difference between 1st and last is bigger than ever

 

[Colonial]

Its always been close don't know if you followed footy before the Giants were around but the difference between 1st and last is bigger than ever

Im guessing when there was only 12 teams it was closer.

But there is a log jam up the top.

 

[Pessimistic]

Hawks, Cats, Swans, Pies, Eagles, Crows

it really is the big 6 going forard