The way to fix the AFL.

[Simon_Nesbit]

Big Statement? Uhuh. But these are merely my thoughts, and I would love to hear other peoples comments on these, or other AFL issues.

(Note: Apologies if anyone takes offence to any apparent 'holier-than-thou' approach here. These are merely my thoughts, and if it comes across that way, I apologize, as it is certainly not intended that way.

(I too, am a know-nothing, umpire-abusing fan like many of you.)

1. Draft:

a) All teams have x amount of selections, in reverse order to which they finish the previous season. These selections can all be traded. The teams finishing in the bottom three positions are randomly 'redrawn' as to avoid controvery regarding possible 'throwing' of games.

b) Father/Son: Vic teams, Sydney (South Melbourne), and Brisbane (Fitzroy) can choose players whose father played for their club. Adelaide and Port Adelaide 'share' the SANFL teams (geography's not my good point, but roughly 50/50). Similarily Fremantle and West Coast share the WAFL teams. Brisbane and Sydney can use the rule for those playing in their local leagues (QAFL, SAFL?). Fathers must have played '50' games in order to be selected.

c) 'Zoning' Pick: Works the same as father/son, each area has it's zone. Sydney (NSW), Brisbane (QLD), West Coast, Fremantle (WA 50/50), Adelaide, Port Adelaide (SA 50/50), Hawthorn (TAS), plus areas previously defined by the various clubs. (Again my geography not good. Club chooses an area/team/league (say 100km radius?), to develop, and players from this area/team/league can be recruited under this zoning.

For both 'b)' and 'c)', they must nominate this player PRIOR TO ROUND COMMENCING. (IE Prior to first round, those with father/son picks available say 'yes', and forfeit their pick for that round, or 'no', and if someone else picks him up, bad luck)

d) Priority Selection: In the event that a team scores less than 16 premiership points (four wins) in two consecutive years, then this team is allowed one Priority selection in the draft following the second season. This selection resets the particular teams ability (ie they cannot be eligible for Priority Selections for consecutive years). In the case of two teams being eligible for priority selection, they will be randomly drawn immediately prior to the selection being made.

2. Salary Cap:

a) Not sure what the current figure is, but feel that it should be given a constant (and previously known) increase %, including a factor for inflation. My suggestion would be a 5-7.5% increase every year. (Say in five year blocks, can be adjusted in accordance with TV deals, etc, but giving clubs time to restructure salaries). If suggestions in 3.a) are followed, then a once-off dramatic increase in Salary Cap would be required).

b) Complete Removal of 92.5% rule. There is no necessity for clubs (esp with players now 'worth' this money) being paid, often at expense of other areas.

c) Minimum Contracts: Again don't know figures, but would suggest that this is increased to say $50K (plus Match payments - see 3.a)). (Again adjusted with inflation, and growth, say 5-7.5% per year)

d) Maximum Contracts: To avoid the farcial situation currently being seen, where players are paid far more than they are worth (in some cases), a Cap is set on maximum player payments (Say 500K per season). This figure is indexed annually (5-7.5%)

e) 'Extra' Allowances for interstate clubs. Don't even know if PA, Adel, WC, Fre get this allowance, but feel that it should be completely removed. Instead, a 'cost-of-living' adjustment is made to the cap. (eg: Melbourne c-o-l is considered 100% and Salary Cap is $5 Million. Sydney's c-o-l is considered 120% (20% higher than melbourne), so their cap is $6 Million (20% higher than Melbourne). This is not only fair, it stops clubs being able to gain advantage with increased cap.

f) Player Lists: In accordance with 3(a), I would like to see player lists increased from their current amounts to approx 45-50.

3. The Draw (this one's gunna be fun)

a) Something not yet seen in AFL, and therefore revolutional. EXTEND the Home and Away season to 30 rounds. Rather than play some teams twice, and some only once, all teams play each other twice, once at home, and once away.

Extra Comment: (Thought this was needed). In many team sports, games are played so often, that the same players cannot play in every game, or at least play the whole game, every game. What this extended season would do, is to give the players from 30-40 on a team's list that much more importance, as they will be required to play, while team-mates are resting.

To avoid the heat in earlier months, games are now scheduled mid-week as well (Tue/Wed night games). So a team would have a schedule something like:
Fri....Tue (N)....Sat (N)....Wed (N)....Sun....Fri (N)
....(3)...........(3)..........(3).............(3).....(5)

This means that the season would now last
30 (games) divided by
5 (games per three weeks)
==
18 (Weeks)

b) The finals system: We currently have a final eight, and my proposal is for a finals six. Why on earth should we play a full home and away season, only to eliminate half the teams? My suggestion is for a 'Top 6'

Week 1: 1st vs 6th at 1st, 2nd vs 5th at 2nd, 3rd vs 4th at 3rd.
Week 2: Highest Winner vs Highest Loser, 2nd Winner vs 3rd Winner
Week 3: Highest Winner vs Winner of 2nd vs 3rd.

In the current context that would mean that in (Home team first)
Week 1:
Ess vs Haw, Bris vs Syd, Carl vs Rich (Ess, Bris, Carl win)
Haw and Syd are out.
Week 2: Ess vs Rich, Bris vs Carl (Ess, Bris win)
Week 3: Ess vs Bris

4. AFL Assisted Finance.

a) TRAVEL ARRANGEMENTS - I would like to see an agreement come to regarding all teams, and their travel arrangements. I think that the AFL should provide for a certain amount of money to be divied up between the clubs on the basis of their trips interstate. A fair figure may be 50 people (I have no idea, just a guess) Any personnel over this is the responsibility of the club concerned. Obviously this would mean more money for interstate teams than present (as they do majority of travelling).

b) HAND-OUTS - I would like to see this completely scrapped. (well sortof anyway) See point d) for more details.

c) Gate Receipts: As all clubs will (under new 30-game roster) play each other twice, an agreement is made between all clubs, that GROSS gate receipts at both games are shared 50/50 by the clubs (ie before paying for use of facilities, etc).

d) Gate Receipts: (P.2) Prior to the above splitting of receipts, the AFL applies a 'tax' of (say 10%). This amount goes into a fund, which is then evenly distributed amongst all clubs. 10% is a guess, and almost any figure could be used, as the money is returned to the clubs. This money is only to be used in the removal of debt, or in case of debt-free clubs invested.

e) NON-FOOTBALL AREAS DEVELOPMENT - Considering '1 c)', teams that are involved in actively developing areas not currently associated with AFL (ie outside mainstream development areas, for example Country NSW, NT, etc), can apply for financial assistance from the AFL. This would come from a fund that is set aside from the AFL coffers, to be accessed as required. Assistance would be granted on a case-by-case basis.

5. AFL Expansion into a 'truly' national league.

(Another biggy change). What I would like to see is something along the following lines:

16 Team competition, with teams competing from:
Adelaide Crows, Brisbane Lions, Canberra Kangaroos (or other NSW team), Carlton Blues, Collingwood Magpies, Essendon Bombers, Fremantle Dockers, Hawthorn Hawks (some games in Tassie), Melbourne Demons, Port Adelaide Power, Richmond Tigers, Southport Saints (or other QLD team), Sydney Swans, West Coast, Western Cat-Dogs (sorry, couldn't resist - country Vic?)

Probably only other change could be Western going to West Coast (literally Western Eagles?), with Geelong gaining a wider country vic base?.

With predicted expansion of AFL, (specifically player payments, and spiralling associated costs), I don't feel that 10 Vic teams can survive. 7 1/2 could (I hope).

No offence to those clubs mentioned as moving, they are merely ones that seem more obvious at present.

6. Umpiring/Tribunal:

a) No offence to those in control of games, or those in charge of tribunal, but I am amazed at some of the goings on. My suggestion here is for a committe to be set up (if not already), consisting of existing Umpires, existing Players, existing Coaches, previous Ump/Play/Coaches, and some non-parochial influences. This committe should then sit down (now would be a good time), and nut out, not just what the rules are, but how they are going to be interpreted. Then go to the clubs (general meeting of sorts with all clubs football departments, player rep's etc), and TELL THEM!

b) I would also like to see some more...actually make that some, response from the various people concerned with the status of umpiring at present, interpretations, and the like. Personally, I don't see the need for secrecy regarding umpires decision. If a guy makes a mistake, he makes a mistake! Probably 50% or more of the time, the fans know what decision should be made, the players know what should be made, the coaches know what should be made, but the umpire doesn't make it. Does he have a different interpretation of the rules? Did he see it differently? Did he make a mistake? Did he Cheat? (Hopefully not the last but you get the idea).

7. AND FINALLY

Upon reading over my post, it is obvious that the great majority of these ideas would be 5-10 yr planning items, with clubs needing to have information on decisions anything up to 4-5 years prior to them being implemented.

Look forward to your replies!

 

[rickster]

re:

My reply is that your post is too long. Generation X/Y only has a limited attention span.

cheers

 

[WCE2000]

your ideas are quite interesting however there a few i dont agree with.

5 games every 3 weeks is to hard. Mid week games have been tried and weren't liked so games will only be played on weekends now.

As for maximum contracts, it does sound like a good idea, however, the AFLPA would never let it happen.

Also, on the priority picks, i do think it is better idea to only recieve a priotiy pick after 2 years of winning under 25% of games each year. And i also liked the idea of having the top 3 draft picks jumbled up to stop any possible match rigging.

 

[Roylion]

Some interesting thoughts, some of which I agree with and others I don't. Personally, while there are some minor issues such as Grand Final ticket allocation for example, I don't think there is much wrong with the AFL at all at the moment. Still that doesn;t necessarily mean that things can't be done better.

My comments on each of your comments.

1a) Agree in theory. Not sure what you mean by 'randomly re-drawn'. Why? One of the strengths of the competition is it''s even-ness. The worst possible scenario for the competition is for certain clubs to dominate the competition for years, leading to loss of interest and falling crowds and revenue. The late 70's in the AFL was a prime example of this.

1b) Agree.

1c) A limited zoning system is something which I beoleive will eventually come in especially if there is a more even spread of teams throughout the country (two in Queensland and two in NSW, so yes I would agree with you.

d) Not sure I agree with this. I don't see anything wrong with a poor side having priority picks every year, in order to even up the competition as quickly as possible. This also helps ensure the survival of clubs, as improvement made more quickly secures more sponsorship and money. I see your point about the possibility of throwing games though.

2a) Agree.

2b) Agree

2c) Minimum pay rates for players are already in place.

2d) Agree in principle.

2e) Totally disagree. 'Extra' Allowances for interstate clubs in rugby league held states should be allowed. I'm not sure how you arrived at your cost of living statement, but Sydney already get a 15% bonus to the salary cap, which is less than what you are proposing and Brisbane get 10% extra to the existing salary cap. I believe that both of these extra allowances are justified to develop football's profile in the northern states. Brisbane has 26% of it's list from their home state compared to a club like Carlton who have 80% of their list from their home state. Every club except for Sydney and Brisbane has over 60% of their list from their state they are based in, making it easier for them to retain their good listed players. The other problem with your suggested cost of living rule is the other non-Vic sides from SA and WA are unlikely to agree to a salary cap less than Victorian clubs purely on the basis that it's cheaper to live in Adelaide and Perth than it is in Melbourne.

2f) Increased player lists means the salary cap has to be bigger. 40 plus 2 veterans appears to be the right number.

3a) The Draw should stay where it is for the moment. Perhaps 24-26 rounds at the most if the competition was ever reduced to 14 teams, then a 26 round season and no pre-season could be OK. The AFL could quite easily make the draw far more equitable than it currently is, using 22 rounds, suign a two conference system (one ladder), that was changed every five years or so.

3b) A Final Five system is in my view the best system. However I would prefer the current system of a Final 8, to a Final 6. Revenue is also important, which is why a Final 6 and a Final 5 is unlikely to be adopted unless there is a reduction in the number of teams in the competition.

4a) Club currently pay their own travel. The interstate clubs travel out of their home state 11 times a year, (possibly more if they make the finals) while the Victorian clubs travel 4-5 times a year. Perhaps 6 times if they make the finals.

4b) Handouts. The northern clubs, I believe, are entitled to extra assistance from the AFL as they are in a developing market. All clubs recognise this, it's just the level of assistance that is disputed. Without that extra assistance, Brisbane and Sydney would find it difficult to keep players (apart from those in their own state) and would quickly move to the lower rungs of the ladder, as there is clearly NOT the AFL talent to be found in their home state. This then has the flow-on of the clubs not being competitive, support and interest dropping off and the loss of potentially a huge market. By 2050, Brisbane/Gold Coast and Sydney will be the two largest urban areas in Australia and it woukld be incredibly foolish by the AFL not to attempt to grow the game in those areas.

4c) In other words you are going to revert to what used to happen.

4d) Isn't this called the AFL dividend? It may not currently come from gate receipts as you propose, but the clubs currently receive $61 million from the AFL this year (or $3.81 million each). This will rise to $68 million in 2002, $75 million in 2003 and $78 million in 2004. There is also an extra $3 million welfare fund which cash-strapped clubs can apply for.

e) The AFL already does this as it channels money into NSW and Queensland football. Sydney also spends over $500,000 of it's money per year as well.

5. Will probably happen at some stage. There will be clubs (whether new or relcoated I don't know) in Southport, Sydney and Canberra at some stage in the next twenty-thirty years.

6a+b) Yes, I agree to a certain extent. The criticism of the umpires in my view is often unjustified, when you have rules that are ambiguous. Tighten up the rules and surprise, surprise you might see an corresponding rise in umpire consistency. Australian Rules Football would have to be close to the only sport that I know of, where the umpire/s, (no matter their age or experience) are continually reviled and abused.

 

[MarkT]

Back to basics.

Survival of the fittest.
If you can recruit every good young player well good on you for getting it right.
If you go broke then on ya bike. Get yourself out of trouble or die.

No draft, No salary cap, even draw and keep the $ from all your home games. There is no other fair way.

Solcialism has not worked in any place in any area ever! Not even in China. Why would it work in the AFL? It can't. The evidence is at St.Kilda, Bulldogs, North, and a few others.

The market will find the level like it did for 100 years. The cap did not save clubs like the AFL say. If it did then why are so many destitue?

 

[Pessimistic]

I'd let clubs have priority recriutment from their own state at one per 5 home games played there, but at the expense of a draft pick so they cannot take players from home state then steal from another state as well.

Once hawthorn has played 5 home games in tassie then a priority pick is allowed

Clubs take a priority pick or a father/son, not both

 

[Simon_Nesbit]

In response

Rickster = I'll deal with you first, considering the content of your post. I'M only 21, so I guess I'm a generation x'er myself!

MarkT = In a perfect world, I might agree but clubs go in cycles from big-small, successful-rebuilding etc. Whoever was dominant when this decision came in would have huge advantage over a struggling club.

RoyLion = I guess I am looking more at the 'ideal' situation, which considering my time period (5-10 years down the track to be initially implementing), I think that the NSW and QLD markets will (hopefully) be more fully developed.

Regarding the draw, it happens in most sports, so why not in Football? Why should games be spread so far out that you can always (barring injury/suspension of course) play your best 18? How often do English Premier League play? 40-odd games in a few months, prob 2-3 a week?

Think about this. Essendon vs Fremantle....no contest normally...but Ess play Bris the following week in battle for top spot...do they rest Lloyd, Hird, etc to avoid injuries, or to have them fresh for next week? I'm sure their reserve players are good, but are they as good as Fremantle 1sts?

In regards to the support for Northern Teams, (and interstaters) this should be done on a case-by-case application. By having AFL pay travel costs for interstates 'levels the playing field.' These clubs are obviously in developing markets so could approach the AFL for funding to go about this development.

(EG Hawthorn may approach AFL and receive 100K for developing in Tassie (as it is already an AFL state), while Sydney could approach and receive say 1 Million, for doing the same job. (Reasons are two-fold here. Population difference, and also the fact that NSW is Rugby territory)

Of course there was one other point that I wished to mention:

re: Trading of Players

Considering the recent 'buying' of players attempted by Fremantle and co, (ie Gaspar), we have some players being paid ridiculous salaries. To this end, my proposal of 'capping' the salaries (Ie Maximum Salary) could be implemented only on those players that are not from your club originally.

(ie, if he's yours (drafted/recruited/rookie list/traded for previously (while on lower salary), you can pay him what you like)

If you try and poach him, there's only x amount you can pay him.

(In this case, Richmond can pay Gaspar $ 1 Million if they felt like it (and could afford it, fit under cap, etc), where Fremantly could only bid say $500K.

This is obviously advantageous to those clubs that develop their own superstars, as against try and poach them from other clubs, and should also stop some of the skyrocketing player payments. (How much of which is actually the doing of player managers?)

 

[Bulldog1954]

What about we just put Kingsley Hunter in charge? Problem fixed?

 

[MarkT]

Re: In response

Originally posted by Simon_Nesbit
MarkT = In a perfect world, I might agree but clubs go in cycles from big-small, successful-rebuilding etc. Whoever was dominant when this decision came in would have huge advantage over a struggling club.
[/B]

I see where you are comming from and perhaps I might even agree in the short term.

In the end it isn't about playing strength at any point in time. If that were so North Melb. wouldn't be broke after being arguably the best performed side over 10 years and with the best player.

It would come down to who gets it right on and off the field. Sponsors, financial and administartive stability and attraction of talent is what would decide who makes it and wfo doesn't.