Why is the AFL never going to be truly equal?

[Ripper]

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.

Easiest way around that is to free up list sizes so that if you can fit a minimum of 42 and a maximum of say 55 players if you can fit them into the respective Cap. v This would help the lower placed sides rebound faster as well.

 

[fabulousphil]

Of course its never going to be equal, clubs, like people in the real world are always looking for a edge.

The AFL to try to equalise things, but clubs are always looking for ways around the rules etc.

Rather than everyone be equal, cyclical is far better.

 

[Bulldocker]

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...

That is truly the best post I have seen on any board in a bloody long time!

 

[Rob]

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.

So how do you explain the Dogs easily outperforming Essendon over the last decade?

 

[mehow2g]

Its a boys club, whos mates with who it will never be equal.

 

[Doss]

So how do you explain the Dogs easily outperforming Essendon over the last decade?

Because they've had a much better list for a majority of the last decade?

 

[Bomberblitzer]

So how do you explain the Dogs easily outperforming Essendon over the last decade?

Every club has ebbs and flows of form/performance. Essendon has outperformed the Doggies for a century. 16 to 1.

 

[Rob]

Because they've had a much better list for a majority of the last decade?

That is absolutely true. Which is why money isn't as important off field whilst salary caps are in place. If it was, certain clubs simply wouldn't be able to compete.

 

[Collins-Langford-Ayres]

Demetriou wants Sydney to succeed. It makes him money. He will rort the system to achieve this to line his pockets.

There is no equal.

 

[Doss]

That is absolutely true. Which is why money isn't as important off field whilst salary caps are in place. If it was, certain clubs simply wouldn't be able to compete.

Completely agree. I am a wholehearted supporter of the at least partial equality the salary cap brings to the game. If the alternative ever came true- well, that'd be as likely that's anything to turn me off following the AFL full stop.

 

[gab213]

Demetriou wants Sydney to succeed. It makes him money. He will rort the system to achieve this to line his pockets.

There is no equal.

The AFL wants teams in the northern states to succeed cause it enables it to make huge amounts of money with the broadcast deals.

The smaller clubs in Victoria will be permanently kept on a drip, giving them just enough to keep them alive for the same reason. We apparently 'need' 9 games a week.

The AFL doesn't make decisions based on what is best for the game, it makes it based on what maximises its revenue.

There will never be equality or a pure, unadulterated competition.

 

[DardySingh360]

Wouldn't mind seeing a breakaway comp from the AFL, unfortunately it can never happen.

 

[gab213]

Wouldn't mind seeing a breakaway comp from the AFL, unfortunately it can never happen.

Nope it won't as the AFL stitched the clubs up after the last attempt to do such a thing. The Clubs can't compete outside of the AFL using their current names, guernseys etc. The AFL owns the rights to all those things.

 

[Frankmagpie]

I'm all for equalisation but Melbourne supporters whineing that every oner should get there turn at the top is disgraceful
You played in a grand final in 2000
Dogs haven't made one since god knows
Same with Richmond
Freo just made there first in 19 years
Remember the Brisbane bears shit heap for years they turned it round
What about the swans of early 1990 s also shit heap they turned it round


We all end up at the bottom for a while till ya get your shot
The game is just that a big game no one knows what the future holds
It all goes in cycles like a female on her period she happy for 3 weeks shitty for 1
That's why ya gotta enjoy the good when it happens
And suck it up when it shitty

 

[Bollox]

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.

Thats one of the most childish idiotic and sooky notions i've heard.
Melbourne has had access to EVERYTHING and MORE than all the clubs that you want to compare them too. Same for all of them.
1/8th of the players ? What a load of crap. Sydney for starters have done it IN HOUSE with 2nd and third rnd draft picks rather than a plethora of the best talent in the country. Sydney arnt alone in that. They have TRADED and used their scones rather than sat back doing sweet FA year after year. It is not a clubs fault if it chooses to go against the tide and trades and trains up rather than drafts.
The ridiculous conservatism that swept this comp in the early-mid 00's is only now starting to dissipate with a realisation that free agency shifts all the goalposts.
If Franklin/Tippett/Judd/Goddard etc etc etc WANTED to go to the Dees or North/Dogs etc then there is no difference...they can just as easily afford them as any other club (exception gws and gc) IFFFF they are aggressive. It is their own choice what they do with the SAME CAP. No well above avge AFL player is going to uproot, move the kids out of school, tell the missus she'll be starting a new life and suddenly move to Sydney simply for 40Kpa when they are on 400K and comfy as hell in Melbourne. Nobody would. Just the notion that the cola somehow hands a club some sort of enormous advantage is ridiculous and innane in REALITY.
Its how clubs are perceived though that makes a massive difference...and lifestyle. ALL clubs other than GWS and GC have the same salary cap and are free to make their own deals re marketing/ambassador roles or whateva...Hawthorn managed it and showed it to Franklin even after winning the flag this yr...payments outside the cap to a big name player in the hope of retaining him..BUT he was gone anyway....there is absolutely nothing stopping Dogs/North etc from doing exactly the same and offering an alternative. Whilst the massive names on massive money from teams that have been close or won flags arnt that interested in going to bottom dwelling clubs, that has nothing at all to do with any sal cap or inequitable measures...the AFL cant interfere with where a player wants to go unless there are rules broken. It isnt North Korea.

Why the intense desire for a socialist state within the AFL ? Should the Pies have to give away their huge advantage with footy dept spending ? Should they be forced to play 1/2 their games interstate like other teams do ?...instead of all but a few at home or a 10min cab trip down the road to their second home ground ? Should they give away any advantage they enjoy as one of the preferred destinations of choice for an out of contract player ?

Poor management, lack of aggression, lack of vision, dependence on outdated drafting theories, etc etc etc ...there is no rule that the Dees must keep the Aaron Davey's and Colin Sylvia's on 600Kpa all these yrs. Ultra conservative, risk averse clubs with the same opportunities as others are being left behind. At the same time you cannot tell a player where he wants to play his footy after being drafted...it is up to each club to reach for success.

 

[Books]

One problem is forcing every club to spend 95% of the salary cap.

So bottom clubs will always have to over-pay the duds they have, meaning they cannot save up to make huge offers to star players.
Not only that, any semi-decent player in a bottom team who is being overpaid, can save his money and wait to qualify for free agency, then walk to a top club on lower money and chase success. Make the money early, then chase a flag as well.

If bottom clubs only had to spend 80% of the cap, it would be a more accurate reflection on the strength of their list compared to the premiers list. PLUS they would have bucketloads of salary cap space to entice big-name players.

The whole current system is hopelessly flawed.

 

[00Stinger]

One problem is forcing every club to spend 95% of the salary cap.

So bottom clubs will always have to over-pay the duds they have, meaning they cannot save up to make huge offers to star players.
Not only that, any semi-decent player in a bottom team who is being overpaid, can save his money and wait to qualify for free agency, then walk to a top club on lower money and chase success. Make the money early, then chase a flag as well.

If bottom clubs only had to spend 80% of the cap, it would be a more accurate reflection on the strength of their list compared to the premiers list. PLUS they would have bucketloads of salary cap space to entice big-name players.

The whole current system is hopelessly flawed.

Could not disagree anymore with this. The problem is the salary cap is kept at a level that not all teams can afford. Reduce the salary cap to a fair amount that all clubs can afford to pay and that will somewhat level the field out

 

[PACatter]

Go to a flexible 90% salary floor - NFL rates it over a period of 4 years, so in any period, the team can't drop below 90% average for the rotation. However, if they want to shed cap for two seasons and then hit the cap max for two, as long as the average is better than 90% of the cap, it's fine.

Keep the COLA, but make it a per-head COLA: Make any team getting a COLA negotiate with a normal salary cap, and then split the COLA evenly across all listed players. It would provide for flexible adjustments for the more expensive places to live, without drastically influencing negotiations. Like Eddie said, Tippett and Franklin are getting 20% of the COLA - they should only each be getting about 3% of the COLA each. The cost of Buddy living for a day in Sydney is no more than that of someone like Jetta, and they should get the same cut of the pot.

It's not a lot of money, but it's the difference between Buddy getting 90k per year from the adjustment versus 30k - would that 60k per year less have provided an opening for Hawthorn to re-up him?

 

[Pie Guy]

One thing I will say first, it is really stupid of people to start a long message with "This is stupid, or this is one of the childish or sookiest yada yada yada" You might as well just have a bag, and stop typing. Generally people don't like that personal crap, and for me, if you are trying to give me a message, you lose your entitlement to have me read your post in the first line. There probably was a lot of point you made after the snipe, but I stopped reading, so those words will be read by not many I would imagine. It also makes me laugh when I look at the snipers team, and it is a Sydney or Cats supporter. Of course they're not going to understand this, and bag it, because if what I am saying was ever implemented, it would mean that every now and then, we would see these teams at the bottom, and that upsets people. So bag away, this post will be more understood by the supporters that have chose a poor club, and are disapppointed year in year out.

Most of the reply's so far were interesting to read.

I think that having 80,000 members for a club, is not something that the club today worked hard to do. For Collingwood for example, they gained a lot of support in the first 50 years of it's existence. When those people had kids, those kids often follow the side of their parents. Family's pass on the support of a club more often than not. So when people say that a Collingwood work hard to make the millions they make, is not entirely true.

I think what I read that Eddie said in regards to equalization, was first surprising that he said that, and I don't know whether he did as I am only taking the posters word for it, when I read that Eddie suggested some type of pool of money.

Whether he said this or not, this is exactly what the league should do. All gate takings and membership takings and the television takings should just go into one pool, and each club be allocated 1/18th of the pool. This money should cover all players and staff at a club. Coaches, assistant coaches, the works. There is no need for an AFL club to be making heaps of profit. It is a far fetched idea, but that is what should happen. Then we would see what each side can do by working hard to get what they achieve.

Prior to the season starting, instead of the NAB cup, I reckon we should play a State of Origin set up, where there is two Western Australian sides, Two South Australian Sides, Two Victorian Sides, and One all stars side from QLD, NT and Tamania. And One side from NSW. Play a fixture of games to find the strongest state of the year.

The Fixture should simply be each side plays each other once, that is 17 weeks of football. In the season, there should be two weeks of break, where I don't mind the split round happening. 17 + 2 is 19 rounds anyway, so we are almost to the 22 games that can make up an AFL Season. With a longer warm up to the season with the State of Origin idea, I think the season doesn't have to have the 23-24 rounds we see now. The three extra games can be decided after everyone has played each other once, as I believe the AFL are bringing in anyway. These are the best against the best, the medium against the medium, and the worst against the worst. Seems fair.

So it is a big call to make the AFL a communist set up, but I would rather that than a dictatorship that Demetriou has made it since he came in.

I just hate how strong sides stay strong, and teams like Geelong stay up for a good part of 10 years. I hated when Brisbane dominated for 5 years, and I just dislike back to back premierships. Even if it was my own team that did so. I am a big vote for teams like Dogs, Dees, Saints, Tigers and other poor sides, a good chance to win premierships, and show there faithful some success within a ten - fifteen year period. I think it is important.

 

[Kwality]

Thats one of the most childish idiotic and sooky notions i've heard.
Melbourne has had access to EVERYTHING and MORE than all the clubs that you want to compare them too. Same for all of them.
1/8th of the players ? What a load of crap. Sydney for starters have done it IN HOUSE with 2nd and third rnd draft picks rather than a plethora of the best talent in the country. Sydney arnt alone in that. They have TRADED and used their scones rather than sat back doing sweet FA year after year. It is not a clubs fault if it chooses to go against the tide and trades and trains up rather than drafts.
The ridiculous conservatism that swept this comp in the early-mid 00's is only now starting to dissipate with a realisation that free agency shifts all the goalposts.
If Franklin/Tippett/Judd/Goddard etc etc etc WANTED to go to the Dees or North/Dogs etc then there is no difference...they can just as easily afford them as any other club (exception gws and gc) IFFFF they are aggressive. It is their own choice what they do with the SAME CAP. No well above avge AFL player is going to uproot, move the kids out of school, tell the missus she'll be starting a new life and suddenly move to Sydney simply for 40Kpa when they are on 400K and comfy as hell in Melbourne. Nobody would. Just the notion that the cola somehow hands a club some sort of enormous advantage is ridiculous and innane in REALITY.
Its how clubs are perceived though that makes a massive difference...and lifestyle. ALL clubs other than GWS and GC have the same salary cap and are free to make their own deals re marketing/ambassador roles or whateva...Hawthorn managed it and showed it to Franklin even after winning the flag this yr...payments outside the cap to a big name player in the hope of retaining him..BUT he was gone anyway....there is absolutely nothing stopping Dogs/North etc from doing exactly the same and offering an alternative. Whilst the massive names on massive money from teams that have been close or won flags arnt that interested in going to bottom dwelling clubs, that has nothing at all to do with any sal cap or inequitable measures...the AFL cant interfere with where a player wants to go unless there are rules broken. It isnt North Korea.

Why the intense desire for a socialist state within the AFL ? Should the Pies have to give away their huge advantage with footy dept spending ? Should they be forced to play 1/2 their games interstate like other teams do ?...instead of all but a few at home or a 10min cab trip down the road to their second home ground ? Should they give away any advantage they enjoy as one of the preferred destinations of choice for an out of contract player ?

Poor management, lack of aggression, lack of vision, dependence on outdated drafting theories, etc etc etc ...there is no rule that the Dees must keep the Aaron Davey's and Colin Sylvia's on 600Kpa all these yrs. Ultra conservative, risk averse clubs with the same opportunities as others are being left behind. At the same time you cannot tell a player where he wants to play his footy after being drafted...it is up to each club to reach for success.

Will the socialist state be factored into the equalization discussion OR is equalization just about money, here take a few $000 ... that should fix it?

 

[greatwhiteshark]

Nope it won't as the AFL stitched the clubs up after the last attempt to do such a thing. The Clubs can't compete outside of the AFL using their current names, guernseys etc. The AFL owns the rights to all those things.

Of course it can happen, so for a couple of years while compromise is reached the blues just change their name and gurnsey for a short period. Everyone would still know who they are. The names, colours and grounds are not the reason in anyway shape or form why it could not happen.
The real reason it won't happen is because no matter what Victoria want 10 clubs in a national comp and therefor when it comes to the crunch they would rather play in a comp where they get screwed, it is not equal, it has no integrity, no fairness. They would rather it that way than to be the bigger club and say we want to fix the game and we are for breaking away for the good of the sport long term.
Money can do anything.

 

[NUFC Tiger]

There will always be a gap between clubs. The competition is becoming increasingly difficult to win and because of that, clubs will always try and be creative and look for unique ways to gain a competitive advantage. Sadly for some clubs, those with lots of resources will have more opportunities to find that edge.

 

[Books]

Could not disagree anymore with this. The problem is the salary cap is kept at a level that not all teams can afford. Reduce the salary cap to a fair amount that all clubs can afford to pay and that will somewhat level the field out

Really? I would have thought fundraising was a separate issue, but you have a point. If some clubs cannot afford to pay 100% of the current salary cap, that is a problem.

Reducing the salary cap will never happen. The AFLPA would not allow it. So helping clubs compete is another issue the AFL needs to urgently address.

If all clubs could afford to pay 100%, I still believe it would benefit some bottom clubs to have the option of paying much less, so they can afford to make big offers to uncontracted stars. As it is, with Melbourne, Dogs etc having to pay 95% minimum, they will never ever be able to land a Buddy / Goddard / Tippett type in his prime.

The minimum payment just adds to the inequality, IMHO.

 

[Hawkk]

Every club has ebbs and flows of form/performance. Essendon has outperformed the Doggies for a century. 16 to 1.

Slightly off topic but Essendon won 6 flags before the Dogs even joined the VFL

 

[Albert Ross]

Go to a flexible 90% salary floor - NFL rates it over a period of 4 years, so in any period, the team can't drop below 90% average for the rotation. However, if they want to shed cap for two seasons and then hit the cap max for two, as long as the average is better than 90% of the cap, it's fine.

The NFL also look at the Salary Floor for the league.

So if Hawthorn were at 100% and Melbourne at 90% that would average out as meeting the league's 95% minimum. If the league averages under the floor (say by $1m bucks) then every player gets $1m / 720 players in the league = $1400 each from the league.

As much as me complain about equalisation there wouldn't be too many leagues with as many different premiers, grand finalists and top-4 teams as ours.