GREED AND ALTRUISM RULES THE AFL OVER DRAFT ASSISTANCE by Whispering Jack

Last month, Hawthorn's president Andrew Newbold accompanied Andrew Demetriou and others to the US on an AFL-equalisation study tour. On his return, one of his first public comments was to slam the idea that the cash strapped and success-starved Melbourne Football Club should be the recipient of any financial or draft assistance from the AFL. I don't believe he mentioned anything about Melbourne, the Bulldogs or even North Melbourne being offered better fixtures along the lines that his club and the other big boys currently enjoy; no extra Friday night games to attract more sponsorship and supporters and no reduction in dead fixture times such as Sunday twilight and the like. In fact, Newbold offered no solutions in respect of the equalisation problem at all.

On that basis, it's not difficult to conclude that Newbold is a hypocrite and that the AFL trip was indeed a junket, as many suggested at the time. Instead of helping clubs in need, we are witnessing a flexing of muscles by the president of one of the stronger clubs seeking to maintain the status quo. All this, despite the fact that we are often told that it's in the AFL's interests for all clubs to be more competitive.

The fact that Demetriou himself has highlighted that the clubs oppose Melbourne's application suggests that the AFL constituent clubs are reverting to the selfish, greedy partisan politics that prevailed before the AFL Commission was formed - Clubs oppose priority draft pick for Melbourne .

The AFL (then VFL) Commission was created in 1985 to administer the competition and its constitution. In the main, it has retained its independence from the constituent clubs (which was its raison d'être in the first place) but the authority of the Commission and its independence is now under attack over the issue of whether the Melbourne Football Club should receive a priority draft selection as a result of its consistently poor performances over the period 2007-2013.

During this seven year period, the club's best efforts have been 8½ wins (twice) and otherwise, there have been five seasons in which it recorded between 2 and 5 wins per year. In the season just completed, the club won two matches and finished with a percentage of 54.07. This would have easily qualified Melbourne for a priority pick under the AFL rules that applied in most years prior to the 2012 season onwards but today, clubs can only receive such draft assistance at the discretion of the AFL Commission.

The specific criteria have not been announced but it is understood that "a more complicated formula will be used, which takes into account premiership points, percentage, finals appearances and injury rates for a club over several seasons". - AFL overhauls priority pick system

The reaction of the opposition clubs to Melbourne's application for assistance has been worrying. The problem I have with the objectors is that they are based on slanted opinions about Melbourne's recruiting performance and ignore the substantive points which the Commission is supposed to take into account in making its decision on draft assistance. And, they place too much weight on the controversy resulting from the AFL's selective "tanking investigation" into events that took place at one club during 2009 even though several others have had their own practices questioned without any scrutiny or investigation.

There is little doubt that the club's recruiting performance over the past decade or so has been disappointing (the application for assistance would be unnecessary if it were otherwise) but these assessments fail to take into account several factors. They ignore serious injuries to early picks - for example, of the 2008 draft crop, both Sam Blease and James Strauss suffered broken legs that kept them out for the length of a season and hindered their development. Tom Scully was headhunted by GWS with a $1m plus bounty which the player could hardly resist and Melbourne was never going to match. They ignore facts such as the information in a recent Herald Sun article that place Melbourne close to the bottom of the list of father/son recruits. Compare this with Geelong, the most successful club of the recent era, which received an enormous boost with its sons of former players.

The coaches, boards and recruiting officers in place at the time of the club's "bad" recruiting decisions have now moved on. Why make the task of returning the club to competitiveness more difficult for those now in charge? Surely, the fact that the club is overhauling its coaching and recruiting systems and personnel today should bear more weight on the Commission's decision to help out than the fact that it picked Cale Morton at pick four ahead of Cyril Rioli in 2007?

The suggestion that Melbourne must suffer again as a result of the events of 2009 for which it was penalised in February with heavy financial sanctions and penalties for officials is risible. The Demons' application is made because the team needs assistance in the here and now and it is inappropriate that it be penalised twice (or three times if you include the Scully fiasco) to feed the greed and altruism of rival clubs who claim that a priority pick would upset the integrity of the AFL draft.

The argument of the so-called "objecting" clubs comes across as rather hypocritical coming from some of them. It was only a year or two ago that the new franchises gained a swag of early draft picks (and not just the one that the Demons are requesting) which pushed struggling clubs like Melbourne off the map when it came to securing good draft picks in those years.

Hawthorn faces the prospect of losing free agent Lance Franklin at the end of the year but is it likely that Newbold will knock back a compensation draft pick (most likely in the first round) if Buddy takes the money and runs? The same thing will happen with Collingwood if Dale Thomas heads off to Carlton. Coincidentally, Thomas was a priority pick taken by Collingwood which lost its last eight matches in 2005 to snaffle that pick. The Pies somehow managed to avoid the scrutiny of an AFL investigation into that effort.

All of this begs the question of the purpose of the AFL rules relating to draft assistance which are designed to help teams in need to become more competitive. Melbourne is such a team and if the Commission refuses the Demons' request for help then the rule must be scrapped because the AFL would be giving into the greed and altruism of its own clubs as it did in years gone past and, on that basis, no other AFL club will ever qualify again.

pass the beer nuts

this seems so small minded to me,i don't get the PP argument

and I don't get the it once happened to us argument

I only get the we are stuffed and need to get off our own blurter and change argument

whilst no disagreeing with anything youve said,whats the point of what you've written?

I compare everything to local footy,because that's how I think it is,so weve appointed a coach,were now looking to fill our list, we get on with that and ignore all the glitter and glomour of the press and get the job done.

ive never believed in get back at them because they got us.thats childish and should be left for other people to play.interesting with vlad is I think he hits the nail on the head sometimes and says GET ON WITH IT.

simple really ,don't complicate an easy game like footy its not worth it

JUST GET TO THE BUSINESS OF NOW AND GO FORWARD

  On 16/09/2013 at 01:22, jazza said:

pass the beer nuts

this seems so small minded to me,i don't get the PP argument

and I don't get the it once happened to us argument

I only get the we are stuffed and need to get off our own blurter and change argument

whilst no disagreeing with anything youve said,whats the point of what you've written?

I compare everything to local footy,because that's how I think it is,so weve appointed a coach,were now looking to fill our list, we get on with that and ignore all the glitter and glomour of the press and get the job done.

ive never believed in get back at them because they got us.thats childish and should be left for other people to play.interesting with vlad is I think he hits the nail on the head sometimes and says GET ON WITH IT.

simple really ,don't complicate an easy game like footy its not worth it

JUST GET TO THE BUSINESS OF NOW AND GO FORWARD

I think that's exactly what he's saying.

What ever did come of the trip to the US anyway? I'd like to read a copy of that report, assuming one was even completed.

Just like Collins Street Politics.

The haves and have nots.

Once a have not becomes a haves.

They quickly forget their roots.

The only way they will remain on top is to keep those below them down.

Never give a sucker an even chance.

What a shite post of cliches!

  On 16/09/2013 at 01:22, jazza said:

pass the beer nuts

this seems so small minded to me,i don't get the PP argument

and I don't get the it once happened to us argument

I only get the we are stuffed and need to get off our own blurter and change argument

whilst no disagreeing with anything youve said,whats the point of what you've written?

I compare everything to local footy,because that's how I think it is,so weve appointed a coach,were now looking to fill our list, we get on with that and ignore all the glitter and glomour of the press and get the job done.

ive never believed in get back at them because they got us.thats childish and should be left for other people to play.interesting with vlad is I think he hits the nail on the head sometimes and says GET ON WITH IT.

simple really ,don't complicate an easy game like footy its not worth it

JUST GET TO THE BUSINESS OF NOW AND GO FORWARD

I think that's what Jack is saying, just as you say, "weve appointed a coach,were now looking to fill our list, we get on with that and ignore all the glitter and glomour of the press and get the job done."

Let's get on with building the list. A PP will help. Let's apply, if we don't get it, we'll move on.

  On 16/09/2013 at 01:30, Dr. Gonzo said:

What ever did come of the trip to the US anyway? I'd like to read a copy of that report, assuming one was even completed.

Yep, I would like to see that. I would have thought some good ideas had already been put into the mix here but maybe they were looking for the impossible dream. Keeping everyone happy whilst they remain at the top.

I thought the whole thing was very condescending anyway, all clubs should have been represented on that trip.

I thought it was pretty poor that the AFL even mention that other clubs weren't happy and that that should not even be an issue. As if any other club is going to want to compormise their own draft position for another side. The AFL should grow some and forget what anyone else says and make their own decisions. When AD was talking about that he also mentioned that the AFL were set to lose over 1 million because of the way certain games went week 1 of the finals. This seemed to me like a very strange thing to say and could be heavily scrutinised. Why should money even be mentioned with the winners of finals. Those teams have just as much right to be in the finals as the ones that lost. It stinks of bias from the AFL and it seems they would do any thing to make a buck.

  On 16/09/2013 at 02:20, Clark_Kent said:

I thought it was pretty poor that the AFL even mention that other clubs weren't happy and that that should not even be an issue. As if any other club is going to want to compormise their own draft position for another side. The AFL should grow some and forget what anyone else says and make their own decisions. When AD was talking about that he also mentioned that the AFL were set to lose over 1 million because of the way certain games went week 1 of the finals. This seemed to me like a very strange thing to say and could be heavily scrutinised. Why should money even be mentioned with the winners of finals. Those teams have just as much right to be in the finals as the ones that lost. It stinks of bias from the AFL and it seems they would do any thing to make a buck.

Agree.

  On 16/09/2013 at 02:20, Clark_Kent said:

I thought it was pretty poor that the AFL even mention that other clubs weren't happy and that that should not even be an issue. As if any other club is going to want to compormise their own draft position for another side. The AFL should grow some and forget what anyone else says and make their own decisions. When AD was talking about that he also mentioned that the AFL were set to lose over 1 million because of the way certain games went week 1 of the finals. This seemed to me like a very strange thing to say and could be heavily scrutinised. Why should money even be mentioned with the winners of finals. Those teams have just as much right to be in the finals as the ones that lost. It stinks of bias from the AFL and it seems they would do any thing to make a buck.

I was thinking about this over the weekend. A very poor thing for AD to say, and says much about where the competition and AFL are at. The introduction of Free Agencies is a further risk to the smaller clubs. It risks making the minor clubs into no more than talent feeders to the big clubs. This competition and perhaps the future success of this sport is now at the cross roads. Does the AFL capitulate to short term money and the big clubs and allow the AFL to become a mirror of the EPL where only a handful of wealthy teams can win, or does it look to the longevity of the completion and try to maintain an even competition? The later may cost more in the short term, but is the fabric of success in the long term........... particularly as AFL is ONLY played in the country. The decision of the AFL in the PP matter will speak volumes on which way this competition is headed.

As for the AFLs loss of $1 Million because the wrong teams won, this Million will be made up 10 fold if Freo and Port Adelaide can become stronger and gain news supporters from their finals wins.

WJ, any possibility of getting that published on a news site?

That side of the argument is never presented fully. You only ever see them poorly used as straw man points, never expanded upon and always countered.

  On 16/09/2013 at 02:20, Clark_Kent said:

When AD was talking about that he also mentioned that the AFL were set to lose over 1 million because of the way certain games went week 1 of the finals. This seemed to me like a very strange thing to say and could be heavily scrutinised. Why should money even be mentioned with the winners of finals. Those teams have just as much right to be in the finals as the ones that lost. It stinks of bias from the AFL and it seems they would do any thing to make a buck.

When the AFL said there were concerns about match-fixing I didn't realise it was coming from head office - they told me it was shifty Asian gangs I needed to worry about.

What a disgraceful comment that was, Demetriou is becoming more like an Aussie Vince McMahon everyday.

The comments about Melbourne already having had enough draft assistance are actually irrelevant.

Its performance that matters and being a drag on the competition. No-one could argue against that.

Imagine if St. Kilda decides to clean up its act and, at the same time, in the interests of rebuilding its team for the future, trades Nick dal Santo and Sam Fisher to other clubs. Let's also say that David Armitage breaks a leg, Nick Riewoldt's form slips and Jack Steven is unable to back up his Trevor Barker Award (club B & F) winning performance of this year.

As a result, the Saints slip back from 5 wins to 2 wins in 2014 and finish last with a percentage of 54.

They apply for draft assistance (for their sake let's hope the rule wasn't scrapped after 2013) and the Hawthorns and Collingwood's of the world say they're not entitled because the club has a poor culture citing such things as the Milne/Montagna allegations, Grant Thomas and Rod Buttres tearing the club apart, the pregnant school girl scandal, nude player photos, the booze and drugs on the NZ pre season trip, Andrew Lovett, Ahmed Saad failing a drug test and the tale of the burning dwarf.

Of course, neither the Hawks nor the Pies can point to clean cultures themselves but they run the above argument. I can imagine that happening but for the life of me, I don't believe the AFL should be swayed by such argument. It's role should be based pure and simple on whether the Saints' performances in recent years warrant assistance.

End of story.

This was such a well-argued post that it should be sent directly to Demitriou's personal email and copied to all the major newspapers. The fact that none of them are likely to publish the facts or Demitriou take onboard the argument is secondary. We will have put them on notice that we are up to their machiavellian ways! Perhaps we could take out an advertorial in the Melbourne Press?

And yet even then Jack, assuming they do slip further, the saints will have played off in 7 of the previous 11 finals series, and 4 of the past 7, which is significantly better than our record over any comparable period.

  On 16/09/2013 at 01:06, Demonland said:

GREED AND ALTRUISM RULES THE AFL OVER DRAFT ASSISTANCE by Whispering Jack

The argument of the so-called "objecting" clubs comes across as rather hypocritical coming from some of them. It was only a year or two ago that the new franchises gained a swag of early draft picks (and not just the one that the Demons are requesting) which pushed struggling clubs like Melbourne off the map when it came to securing good draft picks in those years.

It's a very valid point that Melbourne has had to/is trying to construct its rebuild through drafts diluted by the expansion sides. In any other year we would have the No. 1 pick after 2 wins but again we are pushed back, not because GWS are necessarily rubbish, but because their list is so young/inexperienced.

If the AFL reject Melbourne's request for a PP it will be purely as a result of the emotional response of other sides. By all measures we would be entitled to get one.

The AFL is becoming more and more a transparently conflicted governing body. As some of you have pointed out, AD's open regrets at the loss of money associated with last weekend's teams show just how driven by profit they are. Of course they are, and must be at some level. He is equally happy to report that the other clubs oppose our PP. Of course they will, they have an interest in keeping other clubs down.

What is lacking from Demetriou's tenure though, is equally transparent governance commentary. Where was the the follow up to his comment about gate receipts, talking about the AFL's enthusiasm for growing supporter bases, employing equalisation policy so that Port and Sydney being playing on the weekend wouldn't damage profits? Why haven't they addressed the plight of North Melbourne and Western Bulldog's Etihad deal, which virtually assures their minnow status? Where was his follow up commentary to the PP disgruntlement outlining the logical reasons for draft equalisation, regardless of club self interest?

Andrew Demetriou might want to have it both ways, but if the AFL are truly interested in the utopian ideal of 18 clubs of equivalent strength and drawing power, then he should stop moaning about a weekend's receipts, and tell the other clubs that their self interest doesn't reflect the independence and clear focus of the AFL's governance toward true equality.

he was interfering with club politics again in the press this morning

making an impassioned plea to dusty martin to stay at ninthmond

wtf has that got to do with him or the afl

  On 16/09/2013 at 22:48, daisycutter said:

he was interfering with club politics again in the press this morningmaking an impassioned plea to dusty martin to stay at ninthmondwtf has that got to do with him or the afl

Yep, these are the things he's more than happy to comment on! What he should have said is that all clubs have the same salary cap, a policy which promotes an even competition, and which they manage in their best interests. If they feel Dusty's not going to fit their money plan, it's up to them.

  On 16/09/2013 at 22:56, Webber said:

Yep, these are the things he's more than happy to comment on! What he should have said is that all clubs have the same salary cap, a policy which promotes an even competition, and which they manage in their best interests. If they feel Dusty's not going to fit their money plan, it's up to them.

I'd also be happy for him to espouse a desire to see players stick it out at clubs, develop loyalty to encourage fans to get on board with their favourite players and help maintain the club community environment that had been such a strength of the AFL over years. And then point out that this applies to Lance Franklin and Daisy Thomas and Colin Sylvia and Jack Watts as well.

  On 16/09/2013 at 23:15, deanox said:

I'd also be happy for him to espouse a desire to see players stick it out at clubs, develop loyalty to encourage fans to get on board with their favourite players and help maintain the club community environment that had been such a strength of the AFL over years. And then point out that this applies to Lance Franklin and Daisy Thomas and Colin Sylvia and Jack Watts as well.

That would be great, but I think AD has stamped his dance card on this topic. Did he comment when GWS were given financial carte blanche to get Scully? No, because interests were singular......GWS above all.

  On 16/09/2013 at 23:24, Webber said:

That would be great, but I think AD has stamped his dance card on this topic. Did he comment when GWS were given financial carte blanche to get Scully? No, because interests were singular......GWS above all.

Believe it or not but that was actually AFL assistance him leaving and what we got in return.

Hey Whispering

Bit late on checking in, but I did want to compliment you on a beautifully written, well-balanced article.

As some of the others here have said, why not submit it to The Age?

Cheers

A

  On 17/09/2013 at 12:00, Jara said:

Hey Whispering

Bit late on checking in, but I did want to compliment you on a beautifully written, well-balanced article.

As some of the others here have said, why not submit it to The Age?

Cheers

A

Thank you for that but, while I do like many of the Age's sporting journalists, I don't think I'd be popular with its chief football writer.

The latest brouhaha involving Richard Colless' attack on Paul Roos highlights exactly what I mean about the necessity for an independent AFL Commission as against the individual clubs making or influencing decisions on issues where they place undue and heavy influence by seeking to apply criteria that are not of great relevance. The Swans are upset at Melbourne so how do we expect them to behave at the AFL Commission on Monday?

There's every possibility that if the Commission gives undue weight to extraneous factors in deciding on Melbourne's application for draft assistance then it will not only be the beginning of the end for Demetriou but of the Commission itself. Once the precedent is set, then more partisan results can be expected. I can see Eddie starting the ball rolling by attacking Sydney's $900 salary cap advantage.

Interesting times.