AFL to fund the poorer clubs to pay 100% of the cap

[rpfc 28,262]

I just don't think the draw is an effective tool in equalisation. It actually has the potential to work the other way. If we'd played Collingwood, Essendon et al twice last year, rather than the bottom clubs, the end result would have been more dire than what it was.

The bottom line is poorly-performing clubs make for bad viewing. Who wants to watch Bulldogs v Saints on a Friday night? No-one given their current standing. But if they were sitting 1-2 on the ladder we would be salivating at match-of-the-round.

The draw defines the showcase of your brand.

How you can be so dismissive of it is hard to understand.

It is a part of the answer to equalisation of the league.

[dee-luded 2,959]

I just don't think the draw is an effective tool in equalisation. It actually has the potential to work the other way. If we'd played Collingwood, Essendon et al twice last year, rather than the bottom clubs, the end result would have been more dire than what it was.

The bottom line is poorly-performing clubs make for bad viewing. Who wants to watch Bulldogs v Saints on a Friday night? No-one given their current standing. But if they were sitting 1-2 on the ladder we would be salivating at match-of-the-round.

and this is Why the rotations need to be reduced further.

with the advent of the rotations/sports-science having increased the ability for most players to run constantly between rest rotations, the game has become congested quite a bit, more than the 'old game'.

so, now we have more set plays, more strategies, structures & defence & attacking ploys. this is murdering young immature teams still developing & learning & yet to grow some size on their frames.

its killing careers of some players who are more suited to more organic football, & it is ending some beginner coaches careers, trying to start a career with a lowly Club, struggling in this structure footy environment.

we still have to pull back harder on the rotation reins. get back some more longer use of the ball, & to some packs.

I want to see a bit more positional play come back into this game we watch now. I want to see the Lockets again, the Dempseys, the tandem rucks of Stynes & Strawbs O'Dwyer, the Daicos's & the Robbie Flower v Wayne Schimelbusch match-ups.

a hybrid of todays fitness running, & Pro training, with less congestion & more marks & roving the packs. a more spontaneous game than this one is now.

.

Edited June 4, 2014 by dee-luded

[praha 11,236]

Socialism is and always has been a way to distribute the proceeds of success to those less fortunate, not always disadvantaged. Melbourne is disadvantaged as a product of its own decisions.

I hope one day Melbourne is one of the "big" clubs being punished, instead of being looked upon as a leach.

The AFL tries really hard to make the league more "equal". It would be better served to invest all of this funding into direct business management education for the clubs to steer them in the right direction.

ATM I just see a whole lot of money thrown at a problem that never seems to go away.

I know a lot of the inner-city greenies here are going to jump down my throat but there's nothing noble about being given a leg-up in a competitive environment. If the season itself is a survival of the fittest, why isn't the league more broadly?

We've hated on the club for its off-field ineptness, and those issues haven't occurred at the hand of Collingwood's or any other big club's success. The club has been a product of its own failures and imo it should have had to get through them on its own accord (and it did in some regard during the Stynes years).

I mean, the success we see now is great, but it's a product of league intervention. It admittedly angers me. Sometimes i let my ego get the best of me.

I hope it gets to a point where the club can survive on its own. If Hawthorn can, Melbourne can. Hawthorn were worse off than Melbourne was in the mid-90s.

Edited June 4, 2014 by Cudi_420

[DeeSpencer 25,472]

and this is Why the rotations need to be reduced further.

with the advent of the rotations/sports-science having increased the ability for most players to run constantly between rest rotations, the game has become congested quite a bit, more than the 'old game'.

so, now we have more set plays, more strategies, structures & defence & attacking ploys. this is murdering young immature teams still developing & learning & yet to grow some size on their frames.

its killing careers of some players who are more suited to more organic football, & it is ending some beginner coaches careers, trying to start a career with a lowly Club, struggling in this structure footy environment.

we still have to pull back harder on the rotation reins. get back some more longer use of the ball, & to some packs.

I want to see a bit more positional play more come back to this game we watch now. I want to see the Lockets again, the Dempseys, the tandem rucks of Stynes & Strawbs O'Dwyer, the Daicos's & the Robbie Flower v Wayne Schimelbusch match-ups.

a hybrid of todays fitness running, & Pro training with less congestion & more marks & roving the packs. a more spontaneous game than this one now.

You know rotations were just a by product of some clever thinking by sports scientists. The game changed because coaches (led by our own Paul Roos) noticed that full ground pressure was the best way to stop teams scoring at will.

For poor teams less rotations will just mean more chipping the ball around before long slow kicks down the line and all done by leaner less skilled athletes not footballers.

The good teams play good footy how it is - Haw, Port, Sydney, Geel. The bad sides struggle due to lack of talent not any number of rotations.

If they dropped the rotations down to 60 next week it would be out Salem and JKH, in McKenzie and Nicholson.

[Grapeviney 9,712]

Well I like watching good games of footy so I'd rather watch Port v North on a Friday night rather than Essendon/Carlton/Richmond.

Well it wasn't Port, but North played Freo on a Friday night a few weeks ago, so I'm not sure what we're arguing about. And in one way or another, Carl / Ess / Rich all made the finals last year so it makes sense they would get 'good' fixtures this year. Unfortunately for the AFL, all 3 have failed to fire this year.

Wait 2 or 3 years until the MFC is back in town and playing a swag of prime time blockbuster games and see whether you want to give up those slots in the interests of a fairer draw then. My guess is you won't.

[Grapeviney 9,712]

The draw defines the showcase of your brand.

How you can be so dismissive of it is hard to understand.

What difference to a crap club do you think a good draw makes?

As I asked earlier in the thread, what would have changed last year if we'd had 22 Friday night games?

Fans didn't go to our matches, and no-one watched on TV.

You talk about brands but overlook the main brand in question - the AFL's. It hurts their brand to 'showcase' poor teams in the best time slots.

[dee-luded 2,959]

You know rotations were just a by product of some clever thinking by sports scientists. The game changed because coaches (led by our own Paul Roos) noticed that full ground pressure was the best way to stop teams scoring at will.

For poor teams less rotations will just mean more chipping the ball around before long slow kicks down the line and all done by leaner less skilled athletes not footballers.

The good teams play good footy how it is - Haw, Port, Sydney, Geel. The bad sides struggle due to lack of talent not any number of rotations.

If they dropped the rotations down to 60 next week it would be out Salem and JKH, in McKenzie and Nicholson.

no, less rotations will, when the numbers are right, make it impossible for 'Most players' to run the Klms in a game that they are now. this will dictate that more positional play comes back to the once great game.

We only need to look back to the Lions teams on circa 2002, to see the style that is much more attractive to watch & be exhilarated by... but maybe not as exhilarating for the Coaches (intellectually),,, but for the average fans it will be.

the rotations started with the interchange bench introduction, but after it was extended in the 90's, twice,,, & then add the game going full-time professional. And then add the sports-science quotient to all of this, the result is players running further & harder than ever before. Effectively the equivalent of making the grounds smaller.

Historical interchange rules and tactics - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interchange_%28Australian_rules_football%29#Historical_interchange_rules_and_tactics

In the VFL/AFL, the number of interchanges allowed has followed the following time-line:

• Prior to 1930 – there was no means for either substitution or interchange. A team played with 17 on the field (19 prior to 1899) if a player was injured.
• 1930 – the introduction of a single substitute
• 1946 – the introduction of a second substitute
• 1978 – the replacement of two substitutes with two interchanges
• 1994 – the introduction of a third interchange
• 1998 – the introduction of a fourth interchange
• 2011 – the replacement of four interchanges with three interchanges and a substitute
• 2014 – the addition of an interchange cap at 120

unwinding this will help to introduce some more of the tradition back into the code. not all the way back, but to the style where all clubs & players could do on introduction to the AFL. they had some room to move & create.

they didn't have to spend 2.5 yrs in the reserves, to learn the strategies, they just had to wait till they were big & strong enough, if they were good enough.

Today it seems to be more about the Coaches intellectual wishes of not being bored, more than exhilarating the masses. And the commentators are all intellectual comments people as well, instead of the type that were just enjoying the game & players. Thrilled by the awesome individual talents on display in front of them.

No, IMO we need to wind back the rotations a bit further Yet, to allow the game to rival the 2001 - 2004 period. the 90's were very good as well.

It takes far too long for beginning Clubs/Teams, to play attractive football in todays technical game. And we are left with too many very poor games, because of this technical aspect.

Edited June 4, 2014 by dee-luded

[Earl Hood 6,082]

You know rotations were just a by product of some clever thinking by sports scientists. The game changed because coaches (led by our own Paul Roos) noticed that full ground pressure was the best way to stop teams scoring at will.

For poor teams less rotations will just mean more chipping the ball around before long slow kicks down the line and all done by leaner less skilled athletes not footballers.

The good teams play good footy how it is - Haw, Port, Sydney, Geel. The bad sides struggle due to lack of talent not any number of rotations.

If they dropped the rotations down to 60 next week it would be out Salem and JKH, in McKenzie and Nicholson.

So Cudi what is the answer, do we just go under? I can follow your argument but if you are against any extra help for struggling clubs, what happens then? Yes the club's management has been appalling but what is the answer to get us back as competitive.

And the other point I might make is the constant changes in rules by the AFL, for instance the draft rules of the time allowed top clubs like the Hawks to clean up in the 2004 and 2005 drafts that set them up for successive shots at a premiership, based on a team failing to win 5 games in one year. The rules around priority picks have changed every year since to the point where you can't get one now. A la MFC who were dysfunctional in 2013 but did not rate a priority pick. Then you can look at the father son picks Geelong got for the equivelent of round three picks. they just happened to be gifted; the best mid fielder of all time, a fullback of the century, a modern power forward, an earlier Abblett forward and a ruckman as well. The dominance of Geelong and The Hawks is not just due to superior management skills, it goes back to being down the bottom at the right time or having a good gene pool of former players.

Sorry I quoted the wrong post!

Edited June 4, 2014 by Viscount Hood

[rpfc 28,262]

What difference to a crap club do you think a good draw makes?

As I asked earlier in the thread, what would have changed last year if we'd had 22 Friday night games?

Fans didn't go to our matches, and no-one watched on TV.

You talk about brands but overlook the main brand in question - the AFL's. It hurts their brand to 'showcase' poor teams in the best time slots.

We are not trying to equalise the competition with 2 win teams with a 52 percentage.

Nothing can help you sell that.

But are we trying to sell that?

No, we are trying to forget that. You talk about 'poor' teams like they would all play VFL-level football against good teams.

We are so starved of a simple middling team we think that all teams down the bottom of the ladder are as inept as we have been the last few years.

How would we go with 22 Friday night games this year? In both performance and interest?

Quite effing well.

And what would you say Peter Jackson would say to someone who thinks a 'good draw' is irrelevant?

[Grapeviney 9,712]

And what would you say Peter Jackson would say to someone who thinks a 'good draw' is irrelevant?

I bet you PJ's plan to get a good draw is more about regaining status as a big and successful club than it is about fighting a doomed equalisation argument.

In three years time when we're entrenched in the four, do you really think he's going to want to give away prime time MFC matches so 18th can play 17th or whatever it is you think should be scheduled on a Friday night?

[Dr. Gonzo 24,188]

Well it wasn't Port, but North played Freo on a Friday night a few weeks ago, so I'm not sure what we're arguing about. And in one way or another, Carl / Ess / Rich all made the finals last year so it makes sense they would get 'good' fixtures this year. Unfortunately for the AFL, all 3 have failed to fire this year.

Wait 2 or 3 years until the MFC is back in town and playing a swag of prime time blockbuster games and see whether you want to give up those slots in the interests of a fairer draw then. My guess is you won't.

The main issue is who you play as "home" games the scheduling of when you play is important but a secondary issue.

Our home games this year? West Coast, Gold Coast (Easter Sunday), Sydney, Footscray, Port Adelaide, Collingwood, North Melbourne, Fremantle, Geelong, Brisbane, GWS. We have only played Carlton and Essendon once each at home in the last 5 years. We have no home games against either those two or Richmond this year. Similar story last year only 4 home games vs Vic sides and home games against non-Vic sides on Easter Sunday and Mothers Day. I'm pretty sure if you go back through the last decade or so you'll find performance has little to do with the fixture, Essendon and Carlton have been terrible for most of the last decade yet they always get return/home matches against the bigger clubs. The AFL uses their current positioning as justification yet no doubt they will all receive good fixtures again next year even though none of them look like making the finals in 2014.

The AFL currently has a "formula" for the fixture which is still open to massive manipulation and is not a fair policy at all. If they want a fair policy for the fixture with integrity in the competition instead of rigging it to try and swell their bonuses they will come up with an easily transparent way of determining the fixture each year. There are several options they could come up with but instead they put one in place which is still open to getting pretty much the same outcome as they have now.

[rpfc 28,262]

I bet you PJ's plan to get a good draw is more about regaining status as a big and successful club than it is about fighting a doomed equalisation argument.

In three years time when we're entrenched in the four, do you really think he's going to want to give away prime time MFC matches so 18th can play 17th or whatever it is you think should be scheduled on a Friday night?

The fixture rewards teams that pull crowds - not teams that win games. This is the problem.

And 'fighting a doomed equalisation argument'?

The irony is that today an equalisation document was released that noted and accepted the inequities of the draw. There is nothing wrong with the desire to have a fair fixture.

[Grapeviney 9,712]

The fixture rewards teams that pull crowds - not teams that win games. This is the problem.

And 'fighting a doomed equalisation argument'?

The irony is that today an equalisation document was released that noted and accepted the inequities of the draw. There is nothing wrong with the desire to have a fair fixture.

Teams that win games pull crowds and attract TV audiences, it's that simple.

St Kilda had plenty of prime time fixtures a few years age when they were in contention, as will we when / if we rise up the ladder.

You can fight for a fair fixture all you want, the commercial reality is that the league will always schedule successful teams in the best slots - that's what the fans want, and that's what advertisers demand.

And you haven't answered my question: Do you think PJ will still be fighting for a fair draw once we start getting our share of the money-making fixtures? I doubt it.

[rpfc 28,262]

Teams that win games pull crowds and attract TV audiences, it's that simple.

St Kilda had plenty of prime time fixtures a few years age when they were in contention, as will we when / if we rise up the ladder.

You can fight for a fair fixture all you want, the commercial reality is that the league will always schedule successful teams in the best slots - that's what the fans want, and that's what advertisers demand.

And you haven't answered my question: Do you think PJ will still be fighting for a fair draw once we start getting our share of the money-making fixtures? I doubt it.

I would hope Jackson continues his fight for equalisation that he eloquently stated here: http://www.afl.com.au/news/2014-02-26/share-the-wealth-jackson

And the reality is - due to the inequities of the draw - we are going to get a bump in our distribution from the AFL. If the draw stays the way it is now with the bigger clubs getting their desires met and the odd good team getting some Prime Time games - then the sharing of the wealth as Jackson says in that article is essential.

So what I would say to that question is Jackson wants to make it moot - in that article he wants gate receipts and match day revenue shared across the clubs.

This is how the NFL helps to achieve its standing as the league with the most parity.

[Grapeviney 9,712]

I would hope Jackson continues his fight for equalisation that he eloquently stated here: http://www.afl.com.au/news/2014-02-26/share-the-wealth-jackson

And the reality is - due to the inequities of the draw - we are going to get a bump in our distribution from the AFL. If the draw stays the way it is now with the bigger clubs getting their desires met and the odd good team getting some Prime Time games - then the sharing of the wealth as Jackson says in that article is essential.

So what I would say to that question is Jackson wants to make it moot - in that article he wants gate receipts and match day revenue shared across the clubs.

This is how the NFL helps to achieve its standing as the league with the most parity.

The article doesn't really touch on the draw at all, except to say that Jackson has no problem with the AFL's objective to maximise attendances, TV ratings and revenues through the fixture.

I'd be surprised if he remains keen to sacrifice MFC gate receipts and match day revenue once we start generating and receiving our share of the spoils.

And sorry but 'eloquently stated'? "The way free agency is, whether [it's that] you can't attract a player in or you can't keep a player, that is not a level playing field," Jackson said.

[rpfc 28,262]

The article doesn't really touch on the draw at all, except to say that Jackson has no problem with the AFL's objective to maximise attendances, TV ratings and revenues through the fixture.

I'd be surprised if he remains keen to sacrifice MFC gate receipts and match day revenue once we start generating and receiving our share of the spoils.

And sorry but 'eloquently stated'? "The way free agency is, whether [it's that] you can't attract a player in or you can't keep a player, that is not a level playing field," Jackson said.

The eloquence is in the paraphrasing by Peter Ryan...

As for your bolded sentence - there is a big IF that comes after that isn't there?

IF there is sharing of match day revenues.

On the question of whether Jackson would like to share match day revenues into the future - he has already seen the top with Essendon and the bottom with Melbourne and he thinks there should be sharing of gate receipts and match day revenue.

I would be surprised if he was being insincere now.

[Grapeviney 9,712]

The eloquence is in the paraphrasing by Peter Ryan...

As for your bolded sentence - there is a big IF that comes after that isn't there?

IF there is sharing of match day revenues.

On the question of whether Jackson would like to share match day revenues into the future - he has already seen the top with Essendon and the bottom with Melbourne and he thinks there should be sharing of gate receipts and match day revenue.

I would be surprised if he was being insincere now.

Of course he's sincere - equalisation is still in our interests given our current standing.

But I reckon you're being naive if you think his position on this is principled rather than pragmatic.

I'd expect he'll continue to act in the MFC's interests as our circumstances change, rather than advocate on behalf of other struggling clubs when we're no longer one of them.

[rpfc 28,262]

Of course he's sincere - equalisation is still in our interests given our current standing.

But I reckon you're being naive if you think his position on this is principled rather than pragmatic.

I'd expect he'll continue to act in the MFC's interests as our circumstances change, rather than advocate on behalf of other struggling clubs when we're no longer one of them.

So he wants to change policy now and then he will change his mind and lobby for the old policy in a few years time?

I don't think you give enough credit to Jackson and those interested in an equalised league.

The NFL shares revenues and different teams, and smaller teams, can, and do, compete for the title.

It isn't the answer, but it is a part of the answer.

[Grapeviney 9,712]

So he wants to change policy now and then he will change his mind and lobby for the old policy in a few years time?

Forget about changing policy, he understands the reality of the fixture dynamics, as evidenced by the bolded sentence in my post above.

Is he going to flip flop and make himself look like a fool by directly contradicting himself? No.

But he'll be pushing other barrows in a few years time.

[sue 9,096]

http://thenewdaily.com.au/sport/2014/06/05/afl-equalisation-paying-veterans/

[Sir Why You Little 36,981]

http://thenewdaily.com.au/sport/2014/06/05/afl-equalisation-paying-veterans/

Why??

Just why??

I would increase it....

[rpfc 28,262]

Why??

Just why??

I would increase it....

It allowed Geelong to extend their run as they kept so many of their stars.

We will never see something like Geelong again as the three drafts where they got their best players 1999-2001 meant that they were all around the same age and when the entered Vets status a few years ago Geelong were able to the each $120k outside the cap. That meant that they had an extra $1m to give to some very good players.

I can fully understand why the AFL is doing away with it. We may see a return to some form of it but they have a couple years to think of something.

[dee-luded 2,959]

The fixture rewards teams that pull crowds - not teams that win games. This is the problem.

And 'fighting a doomed equalisation argument'?

The irony is that today an equalisation document was released that noted and accepted the inequities of the draw. There is nothing wrong with the desire to have a fair fixture.

I would actually put it the other way about.

the fixture excludes the clubs that are 'down & out' after all these years, are now struggling to pull crowds & make a strong contest.

IMO this is the exact cause of these clubs demise, other than being unprofessional in the early days, unable to afford the best of skilled professionals.