Why is the AFL never going to be truly equal?

[Pie Guy]

I just don't get what is happening as far as equalization in the AFL is concerned. I suppose that is why they went to this equalization conference or whatever recently, but it is so far from equal it is ridiculous.

I look at the lower sides in the competition, and think to myself, Where is all the money going? Why is it that Swans can afford to have a premiership side from 2012, and add Tippett and Franklin. Sure we can say COLA, but in comparison to say Melbourne, who haven't got 1/8th of the players Swans have, it surely is only part of the problem.

I have been thinking about this for a few years, but it escalates when we get a Swans scenario. I just finished reading an article on Heath Shaw, and the fact that he hates losing. He sooks big time, and it is looking unlikely that a move to GWS is on the cards because of this. Heath is looking like he wants to go to the Cats, because they have a winning culture.

This free agency scenario we see the AFL adopting is a real worry because of this. In an ideal world, the worse sides should have the money, and the better sides shouldn't be able to fit another player in. Why is this not the case. The choice for players should be Money or Success. It is very annoying that players like Buddy and Shaw have the opportunity to chose Money AND Success. It is stupid.

Something needs to change, because it isn't working, and it is going to only get worse. The good sides will stay good, and the poor sides will stay poor and the middle of the ladder sides will keep bouncing between the two.

Only exception could be the interstate sides.

I would love to see Bulldogs and Demons spend up big, and buy themselves some decent players, but it's not going to happen.

I barrack for the Pies, and I would give up key signings for this to happen. I would prefer us not get good players, but equally teams like the Hawks, Cats and Swans not be able to afford them either.

 

[Bomberblitzer]

Because clubs like Collingwood have endless streams of revenue compared to clubs like Footscray. Money outside the salary cap matters as much as money inside the salary cap.

 

[West Coast Weasel]

My concern is that FA will turn the AFL into an EPL system, where good players will leave poor performing clubs for cashed up or successful ones.

 

[master bate]

Salary cap doesn't seem to put enough pressure on the top sides. Obviously cats lost Ablett eventually but up until then they had only had Mumford squeezed out and he wasn't even best 22 when he left. Baltimore Ravens won the super bowl and lost half their starting defense and best receiver as they couldn't justify the higher contracts they had or were asking for.

Maybe lowering the mandatory that has to be paid would encourage clubs to go cheap one year and offer some crazy offers the next. Melbourne should only be spending 75% of what Hawthorn spend this year at best.

The everyone taking less approach that Brisbane took when they won 3 flags and Geelong copied really well (apparently barely anyone earns anything over 500k down there, Tom Hawkins is on less than 400k reportedly) is great for those sides being successful. But it hurts the teams who have to pay their players more to stay at a losing club.

Possibly they could split the salary cap into different divisions. Make it a top 5 have to be on a minimum or maximum of X amount and a cap for the next 10 and a cap for the rest. That could test friendships and loyalty a lot more. Sydney have just shed a bunch of depth really to accommodate Lance. That might cost them games if they lose players due to injury but I don't see Jessie White or Andreas Everitt winning Melbourne a bunch of games, not that they even want to come to us.

Priority picks became an abused system but they also helped St Kilda, Hawthorn, Collingwood and the dogs make prelim finals/grand finals/flags. Maybe the secret is to provide some extra draft help. A possible draft system where it goes pick 1 to 18 then the bottom place team gets 19, 20 the second last gets 21, 22 and so on. Everyone still gets a first round pick and after that the lower placed clubs get a big advantage in a combined rounds 2 and 3 to help speed the movement on the ladder up or down.

Of course it all comes to trying to equalise the money and power gap that has been created. Evening the fixture so each club gets a fairer commercial return and exposure would be nice but the AFL want to keep their broadcast deal and bank balance as fat as possible. Which in turn creates a whole bunch of clubs dependent on the AFL.

 

[MotleyLemon]

I just don't get what is happening as far as equalization in the AFL is concerned. I suppose that is why they went to this equalization conference or whatever recently, but it is so far from equal it is ridiculous.

I look at the lower sides in the competition, and think to myself, Where is all the money going? Why is it that Swans can afford to have a premiership side from 2012, and add Tippett and Franklin. Sure we can say COLA, but in comparison to say Melbourne, who haven't got 1/8th of the players Swans have, it surely is only part of the problem.

I have been thinking about this for a few years, but it escalates when we get a Swans scenario. I just finished reading an article on Heath Shaw, and the fact that he hates losing. He sooks big time, and it is looking unlikely that a move to GWS is on the cards because of this. Heath is looking like he wants to go to the Cats, because they have a winning culture.

This free agency scenario we see the AFL adopting is a real worry because of this. In an ideal world, the worse sides should have the money, and the better sides shouldn't be able to fit another player in. Why is this not the case. The choice for players should be Money or Success. It is very annoying that players like Buddy and Shaw have the opportunity to chose Money AND Success. It is stupid.

Something needs to change, because it isn't working, and it is going to only get worse. The good sides will stay good, and the poor sides will stay poor and the middle of the ladder sides will keep bouncing between the two.

Only exception could be the interstate sides.

I would love to see Bulldogs and Demons spend up big, and buy themselves some decent players, but it's not going to happen.

I barrack for the Pies, and I would give up key signings for this to happen. I would prefer us not get good players, but equally teams like the Hawks, Cats and Swans not be able to afford them either.

Not sure that Shaw is choosing both of these. Can't imagine the Cats forking out over $500k for him.

Your point is awful. What's going to happen when they cap off field spending across the comp, and remove CoLA from the Swans/Giants? Are they going to propose measures to cap everyone's culture? Where does it end?

Whilst there is a bottom level of cap you must spend, there are always going to be players earning more than they should at the bottom level clubs, and poor list management for the coming years will see them struggle.

AFL really needs to look at the NFL to get Free Agency/Trades/Draft right. Do away with the PSD and Rookie Drafts, open up Free Agency all year, extend the trade period from after the season through to about week 8 or 10 of the season... Probably reduce list size too, to encourage the turn over of players at the bottom of the list...

 

[Hairy Lager]

M O N E Y

 

[master bate]

My concern is that FA will turn the AFL into an EPL system, where good players will leave poor performing clubs for cashed up or successful ones.

I've got no problem with free agents jumping on a performing teams bandwagon we just have to make sure that each team gets a turn climbing up the ladder OR each team at least has a shot with a few years of decent management of getting back to competing and looking promising.

If at the start of each year we can predict 8 teams capable of making the top 4 and 12 or more teams capable of making the 8 and those teams who miss out aren't the same year in year out then it's a great competition.

 

[master bate]

Not sure that Shaw is choosing both of these. Can't imagine the Cats forking out over $500k for him.

Your point is awful. What's going to happen when they cap off field spending across the comp, and remove CoLA from the Swans/Giants? Are they going to propose measures to cap everyone's culture? Where does it end?

Whilst there is a bottom level of cap you must spend, there are always going to be players earning more than they should at the bottom level clubs, and poor list management for the coming years will see them struggle.

AFL really needs to look at the NFL to get Free Agency/Trades/Draft right. Do away with the PSD and Rookie Drafts, open up Free Agency all year, extend the trade period from after the season through to about week 8 or 10 of the season... Probably reduce list size too, to encourage the turn over of players at the bottom of the list...

Agree except with reducing list sizes and I think that lists should be locked in come round 1 maybe with 1 addition possible within the first half of the year. But I don't think we want to get to an NFL style system where players are getting called out of retirement of off the couch. Also makes life very hard for state leagues. NFL can stuff around with their players because they pay them a bucket load and good signing bonuses. AFL can't really afford that and I don't think Australians will really stand for the chopping and changing meat market. It's not what we are about.

 

[Winston_Smith]

Free agents with talent want to move to a club that is successful, so the only way bottom 5 clubs can lure them (if at all) is by offering big money, which then consumes too much of the salary cap to be able to build a strong remaining list. Catch 22.

Higher draft picks based on lower ladder position only assist to an extent, because many high draft picks fail to develop into superstars, but there are plenty of decent players who were picked later (e.g Dane Swan pick #58).

One way to counteract this would be to also have varying salary caps also based on ladder position - restricted or increased as appropriate - to lessen the disadvantage of less successful clubs having to fork out mega $$ to lure talent.

In terms of money outside player salaries, McGuire has been hinting about pooled revenue since his trip to the US with Demetriou. Can't see that getting widespread support, though.

 

[Kenno27]

Bottom line is there are too many clubs.

With the rise of soccer & League/Union being dominant in NSW/QLD, 18 club dilutes the talent base too much.

 

[TedDougChris]

The AFL will never be equal because it's not in 90% of peoples best interests for it to be equal. People are only complaining about the issues that effect them. While Eddie and others have been good in the past at assisting the Victorian clubs that are struggling, you'll never hear him (for example) speak up in favour of Port wearing the jumper they wore with pride for 100 years or so. Why - because it's not in his interests to do so.

Clubs are against COLA for the Swans because it helps them get closer to premiership success. If Sydney get Franklin, then Pendles, then Player X, Y and Z - this doesn't help the Pies, Carlton, Richmond etc chances of winning. So everyone piles in on this issue.

The fact that the Dogs are still disadvantaged by another 10% beyond these clubs isn't an issue. The fact that it's more expensive in about 7 of the last 10 years to live in Perth is also irrelevant to the discussion.

It's all about market size, revenue and what is in it for me.

The AFL are equally guilty. Go and find new markets they say - North did this, it was called Friday night football. Now they can't get near it. But when the Pies and Bombers come up with ANZAC Day games, it's considered heresy to suggest that someone else could get a crack at it. The AFL, all the way to the top, is fixated on increasing revenue and attendance figures. So the big games are designated 'blockbusters' and there must be two of every type every season. Bugger an equitable draw, that's for kids. It's all about TV ratings, attendances and revenue. So the rich, who are better supported, get a favourable deal. So they succeed more, they are supported more and get a continued better deal. It's a vicious cycle.

IMO, FA is one of the issues that could spring up in a few years. I suspect the players will gravitate to the better supported teams, as these offer more opportunities and networks outside the game, while having the highest profile while in the game. There is not enough data yet, so it remains to be seen if it will be a problem long term.

You are talking about trying to balance out (in some cases) 100 years of history, bias, luck and in some cases, bloody hard work by certain clubs. The last 20 years or so has been state (AFL) sponsored bias, just as the competition has become truly national and truly enormous...

Best of luck changing it...

 

[Shoei]

It will never be equal because it hasn't started from a place of equality and are no measures to ensure financial equality in the future

The "smaller" supported teams will never be anything but that.

The "larger" supported teams will never be anything but that.

Collingwood, Tigers, Bombers, Hawks and Carlton will always have the lions share of followers in Melbourne. Bulldogs, North, Saints, Melbourne will always be feeding off the scraps.

You can come up with whatever schemes, scenarios, plans etc but you cant force people into supporting other teams. What you can do is create a way for these "smaller" clubs to generate profits ala Geelong.

A Clean skinned, boutique stadium is needed in Melbourne to service these smaller clubs or Etihad needs to be designated for the purpose.

Then a fixture needs to be put in place that sees every team treated equally in terms of TV exposure and travel

Thats just to scrape the surface. While neither of these two things are in place there will NEVER be an equal league and this isn't even touching on the difficulting of clubs in NSW and Queensland.

 

[Stamos]

It's cyclical, rather than unequal.
Of course, the unequal draw and the COLA make it less equal, but the biggest difference to how good a club is is how it is run by the current administration, which again, is cyclical.

The Bulldogs, for example as a supposed weak club recently played 3 Prelims in a row, and were unlucky not to make the GF.
Last year, Port were an absolute basket case. This year, they finished 5th. Freo have been a joke for most of their existence, but were 15 points away from a Premiership.

You need to look longer term.

 

[gab213]

You have got to get over thinking that the AFL is now or will ever be again a pure football competition, it is nothing but a stage managed series of events that are organised in a manner to maximise revenue.

We don't even have a fixture for goodness sake, if it were a competition there would be no 'easy' or 'hard' draws, each team would be competing on the same basis.

The Football Competition itself has been dead for some time, what we are left with is the theatre.

 

[Bardo State]

I think a big part of the problem is that clubs have to pay 95% of the cap. It's way too much. There is no way that Melbourne's playing list should, as a whole, be paid with a maximum 5% difference to Hawthorn or Geelong's list. It makes clearing out salary cap room for FAs harder, meaning that you have to overpay players and that you have to ridiculously front or back end contracts to meet the cap minimum if you don't land a FA/good player.

 

[Purple_Passion]

The fixture is the biggest issue for me - we won't have an equal competition until that's sorted.

 

[gab213]

The fixture is the biggest issue for me - we won't have an equal competition until that's sorted.

That could easily be sorted but there's no way the AFL or the hordes of hangers on making an income from the game would accept the decrease in revenue. Won't ever happen.

 

[Admiral Byng]

I think a big part of the problem is that clubs have to pay 95% of the cap. It's way too much. There is no way that Melbourne's playing list should, as a whole, be paid with a maximum 5% difference to Hawthorn or Geelong's list. It makes clearing out salary cap room for FAs harder, meaning that you have to overpay players and that you have to ridiculously front or back end contracts to meet the cap minimum if you don't land a FA/good player.

I agree with this. For bottom and under-performing clubs there are too many list cloggers that enjoy the footballer lifestyle, and not really doing their utmost footy-wise, but they know the club can't delist more than a handfull of players at a time.

It's a condition the players union insisted on. We see to be stuck with it.

 

[doona]

I agree with this. For bottom and under-performing clubs there are too many list cloggers that enjoy the footballer lifestyle, and not really doing their utmost footy-wise, but they know the club can't delist more than a handfull of players at a time.

It's a condition the players union insisted on. We see to be stuck with it.

You can massively front load contracts of the good players especially with free agency. Why not pay the list cloggers, list clogger prices. No other club will pay more nor trade for them. Front load a few guns contract (nothing in the rules saying you cant pay 2 mill one season, 1 dollar the next (or a player worth 500K a year, 2 million 1 season, $1 dollar for the next 3)) then go hard at free agents.

It is not against the rules. I hate what the swans have done, but with free agency you need to invest in your list management finance department.

It is always harder as a struggling club, but there is an element to list management that is required.

 

[Furn2]

Sydney are the only top side making big signings for massive overs.

 

[Dalphonso]

Bottom line is there are too many clubs.

With the rise of soccer & League/Union being dominant in NSW/QLD, 18 club dilutes the talent base too much.

Good call. Especially in Victoria.
If every club played each other twice home and away it would be a good start in evening things up.Once that is in place then we can look at the other 10 or so things to make it level. But an even home and away is a must.

 

[Soul_Pie]

I think a big part of the problem is that clubs have to pay 95% of the cap. It's way too much. There is no way that Melbourne's playing list should, as a whole, be paid with a maximum 5% difference to Hawthorn or Geelong's list. It makes clearing out salary cap room for FAs harder, meaning that you have to overpay players and that you have to ridiculously front or back end contracts to meet the cap minimum if you don't land a FA/good player.

This is a very important aspect. Ultimately the salary cap needs to be more flexible so as to allow sides to quickly muster the necessary funds to improve their team, the sides that are down the bottom are ultimately paying more for players that simply aren't worth anything close to the amount that they're being paid. In a sense the cap, which was brought into place to equalise the competition, is not entirely equal because some teams are getting far more value out of the amount they are paying for their players. I mean, the idea that the Demons have paid their players nearly as much as Geelong has over the course of the past 6 years is mind bogging to me.

 

[PP34]

My concern is that FA will turn the AFL into an EPL system, where good players will leave poor performing clubs for cashed up or successful ones.

Well the EPL doesn't have a salary cap so hopefully that helps even things up long term. It probably won't so the AFL will need to find other solutions.

 

[LeverPuller]

Salary cap floor needs to be lower. The fact that at a minimum, the Melbourne list was earning 95% of what the Hawthorn and Freo lists were earning is an absolute joke. Clubs like Melbourne, Port, North and the Dogs have little room to move due to this forced funding tieup. What if, say, Melbourne could now get away with paying 90% of the cap, re-investing that money into the FD in 2014 and then move to lure a big-time player come the end of next year?

Instead, Melbourne's minimum is a mere $400,000 less than Hawthorn and Freo.

 

[Galileo9]

The AFL will never be equal because it's not in 90% of peoples best interests for it to be equal. People are only complaining about the issues that effect them. While Eddie and others have been good in the past at assisting the Victorian clubs that are struggling, you'll never hear him (for example) speak up in favour of Port wearing the jumper they wore with pride for 100 years or so. Why - because it's not in his interests to do so.

agree 100%.