EXPANSION CLUBS, UNCONTRACTED PLAYERS AND FREE AGENCY. EVENNESS? WHAT EVENNESS?

[nutbean 8,838]

After giving Geoff Slattery a serve that AFL.com never publishes anything remotely anti - AFL, he extended an invite for me to provide copy  (albeit he said he would edit it fairly) - so I have given it a go. 

Firstly - a big thanks to old55 who really gave a workable solution and pointed me to free agency

Secondly - whilst some, most, all may not agree with me - these are my views and I am looking for feedback on how the article reads and is my logic sound. 

EXPANSION CLUBS, UNCONTRACTED PLAYERS AND FREE AGENCY. EVENNESS? WHAT EVENNESS?

Andrew Demetriou was recently quoted on the subject of free agency as saying "The agreed model is fair for all concerned in that it gives players more flexibility but also contains safeguards that will help maintain the evenness of the competition".

The only thing missing from this statement is "maintain the evenness of the competition as long as the GWS and GC17 are little bit more even than the established clubs". Can the same litmus test of evenness be applied to the access to uncontracted players that GWS and GCS has compared to the free agency agreement ?

Whilst it is understandable that the AFL want the expansion clubs to be successful, the unlimited access to uncontracted players (barring the amount that can be taken) together with a significantly  increased cap available to the expansion clubs, flies in the face of Demetriou's desire for evenness.

On the extra money available in the cap  - "What's important about that is it's not a bucket of spare money and down the track you pay players over and above the odds," Demetriou said.

"I mean they actually need that money because they've got more players on their list."

These comments fail to point out the obvious – the expansion clubs have a disproportionate amount of new draftees on lower, fixed salaries meaning there is more to spend on uncontracted players. As to the comment about paying players over and above the odds – no one can deny this is exactly what happened with GC17 and will happen with GWS.

That the expansion clubs have advantaged access to 17 years olds and the cream of the crop from the national draft is not so worrying to supporters. GWS and GC17 still have to nurture and develop this talent.

Whilst it is understood that extra money given to the expansion clubs is also needed for retention, when this same extra money is used to lure players then the AFL is basically saying that all bets regarding evenness are off. GWS and GCS are rolling up to player auctions with a lot more AFL cash in their pockets to spend than the established clubs.

And placing restricted access on free agency but not doing the same on access to uncontracted players for the expansion clubs has led to the farcical situation that the likes of Dustin Martin and Tom Scully can be targeted. The AFL, in the cause of evenness, should ask why the likes of Martin and Scully are at their respective clubs. The players were high draft picks, picks that Richmond and Melbourne received due to poor performances in effort to even up the competition. That there is a possibility of any second year player leaving a club, especially high draft picks that are meant to improve ailing clubs, is ludicrous – evenness apparently doesn't stretch too far.

So what is the answer?

With the AFL determined to give the expansion clubs a leg up with extra cash to spend why not at least protect it establishment clubs by limiting the access to uncontracted players by length of service, as the free agency agreement does. Why not give the expansion clubs a year's head start on free agency?

Whilst players will head north for the lure of pay packets, at least the players will have given appropriate service to their clubs. This will at least be a better solution to maintaining the evenness in the competition that Andrew Demetriou keeps talking about.

Edited February 26, 2011 by nutbean

[Range Rover 1,935]

Nicely crafted argument and kudos to you and Old55 for putting it together. If there's anything missing, perhaps it is a sentence or two about the concept of fairness vis-a-vis the 'fabric' of the competition and the negative consequences of creating disillusionment within the ranks of supporters at the traditional Victorian clubs. But that probably deserves an article all to itself.

Bottom line though ... Vlad and his cronies are dead set on either one or both of the Gold Coast and GWS winning a flag in the next 5 years and the only way that's going to happen is if they crack a few skulls along the way. We have to accept that we're in the direct firing line of this lopsided "unofficial policy" and do what we can to beat the odds and win a flag/s anyway.

But I like your fight and willingness to stir the pot. Keeps the bastards honest (sort of). Well done!

Edited February 26, 2011 by Range Rover

[beelzebub 23,376]

That's very good . Very very good . It looks at all points quilts fairly in my view . It hints, quite rightly at the Animal Farm-ish imbalance that results from a lack of fairness to those clubs who draft( high) picks are devalued if not made redundant surely defeating the objective of fairness if not evenness .

Well done guys. Let's see if they have the balls to publish !

[hardtack 10,537]

A quick edit for you (take it or leave it), hope it helps ...

EXPANSION CLUBS, UNCONTRACTED PLAYERS AND FREE AGENCY. EVENNESS? WHAT EVENNESS?

Andrew Demetriou was recently quoted on the subject of free agency as saying, "The agreed model is fair for all concerned in that it gives players more flexibility but also contains safeguards that will help maintain the evenness of the competition".

Perhaps the latter part of this statement should have read, in true Orwellian fashion, "maintain the evenness of the competition as long as the GWS and GCS franchises are little bit more even than the established clubs".

Can the same litmus test of evenness be applied to the access by the established clubs, to uncontracted players that the GWS and GCS franchises have, compared to the free agency agreement ?

Whilst it is understandable that the AFL want the expansion clubs to be successful, unlimited access to uncontracted players (barring the numbers that can be taken), together with a significantly increased cap available to the expansion clubs, flies in the face of Demetriou’s desire for evenness.

With regards to the extra money available in the cap - "What's important about that is it's not a bucket of spare money and down the track you pay players over and above the odds," Demetriou stated.

"I mean they actually need that money because they’ve got more players on their list."

These comments fail to point out the obvious – that the expansion clubs have a disproportionate number of new draftees on lower, fixed salaries, meaning there is more to spend on uncontracted players.

As to the comment about paying players over and above the odds, no one can deny that this is exactly what happened with GC17 and will happen again with GWS.

That the expansion clubs have advantaged access to 17 year olds and the cream of the crop from the national draft, is not so worrying to supporters generally as GWS and GCS still have to nurture and develop this talent.

Whilst it is understood that extra money given to the expansion clubs is also needed for retention, when this same extra money is used to lure players from other clubs, then the AFL is basically saying that all bets are off regarding a level playing field. The GWS and GCS franchises are rolling up to player auctions with a lot more AFL cash in their pockets to spend than the established clubs.

By placing restricted access on free agency but not doing the same on access to uncontracted players for the expansion clubs, the AFL has created a farcical situation where the likes of Dustin Martin and Tom Scully can be poached. In the name of evenness, perhaps they should be asking why the likes of Martin and Scully are at their respective clubs. These players were high draft picks, picks that Richmond and Melbourne received due to repeated poor performances, in an effort to even up the competition. That there is a possibility of any second year player leaving a club, especially high draft picks that are meant to improve ailing clubs, is ludicrous – evenness apparently doesn’t stretch too far.

So what is the answer?

With the AFL determined to give the expansion clubs a leg up with extra cash to spend, why not at least protect the established clubs by limiting access to uncontracted players by length of service, as the free agency agreement does.

Why not give the expansion clubs a year’s head start on free agency? Whilst players will head north, lured by the promise of very attractive (some might say irresistible) pay packets, at least the players will have given appropriate service to their clubs. This will at least provide a more acceptable solution when it comes to maintaining the evenness in the competition that Andrew Demetriou keeps espousing.

[nutbean 8,838]

A quick edit for you (take it or leave it), hope it helps...

Better - Thanks !

[Deeoldfart 8,033]

Well argued and succinct ... an excellent response imo. Importantly, it doesn't read as a parochial, 'it might cost my team' point of view, but rather, it addresses the the big picture to demonstrate the double standards that underpin the AFL's thinking. Well done guys!

[GOLF 13]

You may have missed one essential point - the ridiculous contract figures being paid have set a benchmark for Vlad's salary to exceed. He is now pulling in more that Ablett.

So the second word of any response from the AFL is likely to be "off".

Edited February 26, 2011 by GOLF

[nutbean 8,838]

You may have missed one essential point - the ridiculous contract figures being paid have set a benchmark for Vlad's salary to exceed. He is now pulling in more that Ablett.

So the second word of any response from the AFL is likely to be "off".

As the CEO of a business that is turning over as much as the AFL is, whilst some may find it obscene, Demetriou's salary is not out of line on what CEO's for these size businesses are being paid.

I am not egotistical enough to think that anything I write will have an impact on AFL thinking - but if AFL.com allows nonsense like Phelans article to be published under their banner, and when it is challenged the response comes back - "happy to allow a different opinion"- then I am gonna give it a go.

( actually I am egotistical - a published journo !!!! wooo hooo !!! I'm tipping that Demonland is as far as this article will go)

[jnrmac 20,065]

Will be interesting after two years whether their young players will be bailing out of GC17 and GWS. And whether we will be raising that as an issue.

[Sir Why You Little 37,036]

on a related, but side issue-In todays Age Sport section (page 18-19) is the latest club Audits.

The Filth's memorabilia cabinet is valued at $9.1 million that they didn't even include...is double our entire assets!

Our club has done a fantastic job to get out of the Garbage Bin and back to zero in the last 3 years, but we do need some sustained success to build up a new generation(s) of members.

We also must make some very shrewd business decisions off the field to increase revenue so as to pay top dollar for our football department, otherwise they will just be poached by the bigger clubs.

I really believe we can climb up the ladder on & off the field, it will be tough. We need to play hard exciting footy on free to air-Our jumper and Emblem are fantastic, young kids i hope will want to be proud Demons in time.

Edited February 26, 2011 by why you little

[RalphiusMaximus 6,053]

I still want to know if GWS can poach from GC17 next year. I would love to hear Vlad preach about even playing fields if they manage to grab Day or Bennell.

[biggestred 5,088]

i am of the opinion that the afl needs to extend the salary cap to the entire football department. including coaches, support staff and footy equipment.

[Sir Why You Little 37,036]

i am of the opinion that the afl needs to extend the salary cap to the entire football department. including coaches, support staff and footy equipment.

I see your point, but i cannot see it ever happening. We the MFC just have to steadily grow.

Our move to the Casey region may be the best decision out of all.

I give credit to the previous board for that.

[old55 23,573]

Good work nutbean!

The argument against the FA restrictions are that they didn't apply to GC17. Let's look at their uncontracted players re the FA rules

7 years service or less: not eligible for FA

Krakouer - draft 2006

Harbrow draft 2006

Rischitelli draft 2003

8 or 9 years service and top 10 paid player: restricted FA, club has the right to match offer

Bock - rookie elevation 2002

Brennan - draft 2002

Ablett - draft 2001

Brown - draft 2001

10+ years: unrestricted FA

Fraser - draft 1999

So it's only Krakouer, Harbrow and Rischitelli that wouldn't have been eligible.

[nutbean 8,838]

This article may actually get an airing - After submitting the article, I have been asked about the source of the AD quotes. Fortunately both of them came from articles on AFL.com !

Edited February 27, 2011 by nutbean

[H_T 3,047]

Well done nutbean. I hope it gets an airing. What are the odds it fly's by Demetriou's desk and the quotes are edited .... ?

[nutbean 8,838]

Well done nutbean. I hope it gets an airing. What are the odds it fly's by Demetriou's desk and the quotes are edited .... ?

Nope - don't think so. I was sent the edited version and it really hasnt moved the substance of the article and the quotes are still in.

[H_T 3,047]

Nope - don't think so. I was sent the edited version and it really hasnt moved the substance of the article and the quotes are still in.

1000-1 then. Was there much change in the edited version at all ?

[nutbean 8,838]

1000-1 then. Was there much change in the edited version at all ?

Not too much - one part about the player auction has gone - but all in all - feels the same. I am pretty sure it will get aired as he said he will squeeze it in. ( what will be interesting is what my byline says as I gave him three alternatives for the sign off).

When it gets an airing I will be interested in feedback on whether it differs in substance from what I presented.

Note - thanks to Hardtack as his edited version was submitted.

[hardtack 10,537]

Not too much - one part about the player auction has gone - but all in all - feels the same. I am pretty sure it will get aired as he said he will squeeze it in. ( what will be interesting is what my byline says as I gave him three alternatives for the sign off).

When it gets an airing I will be interested in feedback on whether it differs in substance from what I presented.

Note - thanks to Hardtack as his edited version was submitted.

Hey Nutbean, you're welcome! After all, I had a vested interest in this as it was my original post on their Facebook page that prompted their "response" article :-)

And well done on getting it that far!!

[nutbean 8,838]

Hey Nutbean, you're welcome! After all, I had a vested interest in this as it was my original post on their Facebook page that prompted their "response" article :-)

And well done on getting it that far!!

Yikes - it is up !!!!

not one article but two - seems the hackles were raised by the challenging of AFL.com's impartiality!!!!

http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/108525/default.aspx

http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/108528/default.aspx

[hardtack 10,537]

Yikes - it is up !!!!

not one article but two - seems the hackles were raised by the challenging of AFL.com's impartiality!!!!

http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/108525/default.aspx

http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/108528/default.aspx

Excellent... but I'm a bit concerned (and maybe I'm just being paranoid) at the fact that some of their "edits" have altered the text/grammar to make it look somewhat amateurish (look above and you will notice these two cited examples were just fine in the copy sent to them):

"It is understood that the extended salary cap given to the expansion clubs is needed to the draftees whose contracts will all expire at similar times."

and

"In the name of evenness, perhaps they should be asking why the likes of Martin and Scully came to at their respective clubs."

Edited February 28, 2011 by hardtack

[beelzebub 23,376]

Well done Nutbean. Not just for having the temerity to question the beast that is the AFL but the fortitude and application to see it through. Plaudits for throwing it at us for comment and review. Kudos actually to the Beast for publishing. Who knows where this will lead as Vladland seldom truly adresses mistakes.

Good onya

[nutbean 8,838]

I didnt think the editing did much to the story however I was horrified that when i clicked into news and it gives a taste of the stories

Open Space: Evenness, what evenness?

In the first of this series, reader Jeff Robinson asks why the AFL won't restrict expansion clubs' poaching of experienced players

The argument and what I wrote on free agency and the suggested solution is not about restricting the poaching of EXPERIENCED players but the likes of Scully, Martin and now add Callum Ward to the list.

[hardtack 10,537]

I suppose what I was saying was that they were perhaps editing to produce a piece that looked slightly amateurish... and now seeing that intro you mentioned, perhaps they are just generally trying to paint it in a bad light by giving a readers a preconceived notion before they have a chance to read it. I might be wrong, but it certainly looks that way.

I suggest you post a comment on the AFL's Facebook page to the effect that they are misrepresenting your views in their lead-in to the article. (on the off chance you are one of the few who has resisted the urge to create a Facebook account, I'm more than willing to do that on your behalf).

Edited February 28, 2011 by hardtack