Equalisation

[Devo 104]

FA is compromised in the AFL because of the compensation element. I didn't mind it as a transition measure while it was being introduced, but the league really needs to wean clubs off the idea that they will be compensated for losing free agents. Free agents don't belong to anybody. Why should any club get compensated for losing something that it no longer owns? Compensation distorts the market. I don't particularly want Melbourne to lose Frawley, just like everyone else around here, but if he is a free agent and he wants to leave, then off he goes and that should be that.

Equalisation should come primarily through the draft and the hard salary cap. FA is about giving players more choices with regard to their place of employment, it isn't an equalisation measure.

[Pennant St Dee 13,305]

FA is compromised in the AFL because of the compensation element. I didn't mind it as a transition measure while it was being introduced, but the league really needs to wean clubs off the idea that they will be compensated for losing free agents. Free agents don't belong to anybody. Why should any club get compensated for losing something that it no longer owns? Compensation distorts the market. I don't particularly want Melbourne to lose Frawley, just like everyone else around here, but if he is a free agent and he wants to leave, then off he goes and that should be that.

Equalisation should come primarily through the draft and the hard salary cap. FA is about giving players more choices with regard to their place of employment, it isn't an equalisation measure.

well if you want that model of free agency then be prepared for the rich to get richer and clubs like us staying where we are with occasional trips to the bottom of the 8. Nothing surer than your model bringing us closer to the EPL model.

[Lucifers Hero 40,364]

Here we go again!! http://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/afl-premiership/afl-sets-up-taskforce-to-tackle-imbalance-between-power-clubs-and-perennial-battlers/story-e6frf3e3-1227315879385 Another taskforce, Another talkfest!

Get this line: "The league’s football operations boss Mark Evans said the league did not want to encourage tanking, but was working on solutions". That line makes me seethe!

The more the AFL try and manufacture outcomes they more they distort the game. A bit like the tax office changing rules...someone will always find a loophole or a way to exploit the change. AFL: Leave the game alone!!

If this talkfest results in a priority pick for St Kilda (Gil McLachlan's team) or Carlton (Mike Fitzpatrick's team) in the next few years I will go ballistic...that won't be a pretty sight

Call me a cynic but the timing of this coinciding with StK and Carlton 're-builds' raises my suspicions.

[DistrACTION Jackson 9,246]

The equalisation of the competition comes down to a few simple issues:

- Free agency: there needs to be limits put on which sides can pick up free agents otherwise the top clubs will continue to raid the lower clubs.

- Fixturing: the fixture needs to be 'cleaned' up so that clubs like Melbourne and the doggies get an even amount (slightly more even) of exposure as clubs like collingwood and hawthorn (i.e. friday night games).

- Salary cap: there needs to be a 'flexible' cap whereby clubs can pay less one year but more the other. It can be assessed over a 5 year period and as long as a club has paid the minimum requirement over those years but hasn't gone over then they are fine.

- Sydney and Brisbane DO NOT need academies. They already benefit from father son recruits so they don't need another avenue to gain players. The academy should be kept for GC and GWS for the foreseeable future though.

Edited April 22, 2015 by Is Dom Is Good

[rjay 25,093]

Call me a cynic but the timing of this coinciding with StK and Carlton 're-builds' raises my suspicions.

What does the AFL stand for, integrity or conflict of interest?

I would say the 2nd and your suspicions are well founded.

[praha 11,240]

The equalisation of the competition comes down to a few simple issues:

- Free agency: there needs to be limits put on which sides can pick up free agents otherwise the top clubs will continue to raid the lower clubs.

- Fixturing: the fixture needs to be 'cleaned' up so that clubs like Melbourne and the doggies get an even amount (slightly more even) of exposure as clubs like collingwood and hawthorn (i.e. friday night games).

- Salary cap: there needs to be a 'flexible' cap whereby clubs can pay less one year but more the other. It can be assessed over a 5 year period and as long as a club has paid the minimum requirement over those years but hasn't gone over then they are fine.

- Sydney and Brisbane DO NOT need academies. They already benefit from father son recruits so they don't need another avenue to gain players. The academy should be kept for GC and GWS for the foreseeable future though.

Here are some ideas:

- Free agency: there needs to be limits put on which sides can pick up free agents otherwise the top clubs will continue to raid the lower clubs.

Clubs that finish in the top 8 must pay a luxury tax, which is a percentage of the acquired player's salary, with the percentage increasing the further up the ladder you go.

For example, Hawthorn finished first last year, and then signed Frawley to, say, $650k a year. They finished first so they pay, let's say, a 20% luxury tax on his salary (which doesn't contribute to the salary cap). So they'd have to pay a further $130,000 to the league for the acquisition of the player. Alternatively, create a "transfer fee", which is paid to the club losing the player, but only if they finish below a certain point on the ladder. That'll "equal" things up quickly if lower teams are losing out: more money in the coffers equals more money on football development.

Fixturing: the fixture needs to be 'cleaned' up so that clubs like Melbourne and the doggies get an even amount (slightly more even) of exposure as clubs like collingwood and hawthorn (i.e. friday night games).

I don't see how this is a solution for the growing gap. If Melbourne played on the national stage *more* during 2012-2014, it would have only further damaged the club's brand.

Broadcasters have a lot of say in fixturing and it's not good for the game if poor sides are put on the national stage. The reality is that good football equals better exposure. I understand that the catch-22 is that more exposure equals further reach of your brand, and the less exposure your brand has the less people are interested which means fewer members and less money. But you have to look at it both ways: it's not good for the sport or the league if bad teams are the highlight of the league during primetime. But it's also bad for the sport and league if lower clubs don't get exposure which helps them expand their brand.

For one, Melbourne needs home games against the likes of Essendon, Richmond, Hawthorn, Carlton and even Geelong. We constantly get away games but then get home games against Fremantle. From a business perspective I'd rather travel to Perth to play Freo if that meant we got a home game against one of those teams (even in NT).

Salary cap: there needs to be a 'flexible' cap whereby clubs can pay less one year but more the other. It can be assessed over a 5 year period and as long as a club has paid the minimum requirement over those years but hasn't gone over then they are fine.

Isn't this already the case? On a case-by-case basis. Melbourne in 2012, 2013 should not have been paying the full cap.

[DistrACTION Jackson 9,246]

Here are some ideas:

Clubs that finish in the top 8 must pay a luxury tax, which is a percentage of the acquired player's salary, with the percentage increasing the further up the ladder you go.

For example, Hawthorn finished first last year, and then signed Frawley to, say, $650k a year. They finished first so they pay, let's say, a 20% luxury tax on his salary (which doesn't contribute to the salary cap). So they'd have to pay a further $130,000 to the league for the acquisition of the player. Alternatively, create a "transfer fee", which is paid to the club losing the player, but only if they finish below a certain point on the ladder. That'll "equal" things up quickly if lower teams are losing out: more money in the coffers equals more money on football development.

I don't see how this is a solution for the growing gap. If Melbourne played on the national stage *more* during 2012-2014, it would have only further damaged the club's brand.

Broadcasters have a lot of say in fixturing and it's not good for the game if poor sides are put on the national stage. The reality is that good football equals better exposure. I understand that the catch-22 is that more exposure equals further reach of your brand, and the less exposure your brand has the less people are interested which means fewer members and less money. But you have to look at it both ways: it's not good for the sport or the league if bad teams are the highlight of the league during primetime. But it's also bad for the sport and league if lower clubs don't get exposure which helps them expand their brand.

For one, Melbourne needs home games against the likes of Essendon, Richmond, Hawthorn, Carlton and even Geelong. We constantly get away games but then get home games against Fremantle. From a business perspective I'd rather travel to Perth to play Freo if that meant we got a home game against one of those teams (even in NT).

Isn't this already the case? On a case-by-case basis. Melbourne in 2012, 2013 should not have been paying the full cap.

In relation to some of your points:

Luxury Tax: this won't really work as the rich clubs will be happy to pay a little extra. What I think should be done is like the NFL where clubs who finish at the top are unable to enter free agency. This would then limit the players that the top clubs can acquire each year. If this was put in place you could then get rid of the compensation.

Exposure: The idea behind this would be to try and get more people watching to help build a supporter base. You can't base your argument on our poorly run club of the previous 8 years. It would mean clubs like the Dog (who I think have been run really well but get shafted), North, Melbourne etc. get to have games at better time slots. At the moment it's the same clubs playing the same time slots each week which is a joke.

Salary cap: I didn't realise they have a flexible cap at the moment so if they do that is a positive.

[biggestred 5,140]

Minimum salary cap has to go. Why should we pay players nearly the same as the hawks do?

Also front and back loading of contracts should be removed. It slows down the whole process.

Re exposure- we are playing our first friday night game in 3 years this week. The tigers have 7 this year. People want to see close footy - so schedule bottom teams together.

Its also a long term thing. Clubs with exposure win more fans...

Edited April 22, 2015 by biggestred

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,909]

Minimum salary cap has to go. Why should we pay players nearly the same as the hawks do?

Also front and back loading of contracts should be removed. It slows down the whole process.

Re exposure- we are playing our first friday night game in 3 years this week. The tigers have 7 this year. People want to see close footy - so schedule bottom teams together.

Its also a long term thing. Clubs with exposure win more fans...

Because the players do not have a choice of who they play for. Why should a player be paid less to play for a poor team when they didn't have a say as to where they were drafted? Effectively what would happen would be more players would want to leave clubs who don't pay the full amount, making the situation for those clubs even worse.

[Sir Why You Little 37,134]

Equalization can never exist with 18 teams in 22 rounds

[Fat Tony 5,272]

The introduction of free agency and the ability of players to nominate their destination in trades has created a competition where the top clubs can remain at the top of the ladder indefinitely, so long as they continue to be well managed. This has made each season highly predictable and is bringing the bottom clubs to a precarious financial situation.

I feel the neatest solution to on field equalisation is to rejig the draft order so that each of the 10 sides that miss the finals get two picks inside the top 20 of the draft. The top eight (finalists) would then each get two picks out of picks 21-36. The picks from 1-20 should also be decided by a lottery, which is weighted according to when clubs are eliminated from finals contention. (i.e. clubs which cannot make the finals early in the season get a higher probability of early picks in the lottery.) The draft order would be in reverse finishing order from pick 37.

A proposed formula for the lottery is: Each Club’s Number of Lottery Balls = 1 + (23 - Round Eliminated from Finals Contention)^2

For example, for a club that is eliminated from finals contention in Round 18, they would receive 1 + (23-18)^2 = 26 balls in the lottery. A club eliminated from contention in Round 22 would receive 1 + (23-22)^2 = 2 balls.

I would also be in favour of giving the sides outside the finals (the bottom 10) extra money in the salary cap for the next season. The finalists (top 8) should also get diminishing salary caps based on finishing position. For example, the 2015 salary caps should be:
2014 Premier (Hawthorn): $9.4m
2014 Runner Up (Sydney): $9.6m
…
2014 Eighth Place (Richmond): $10.8
Clubs 9-18th: $11.0m

These two measures would speed up the cycle and would help make bottom clubs more attractive to free agents. It also eliminates the tanking debate, because all clubs and players will naturally strive to play in the finals (and the benefit of finishing down the ladder from 9th is only small and has a random element).

Initial player contracts should also be looked at. Clubs should be given an option contract on all drafted players for third and fourth years. The third and fourth years could be at a market salary (determined by the AFL), which means the player will still earn a fair amount.

[daisycutter 29,743]

Equalization can never exist with 18 teams in 22 rounds

you could say the same about 5,6,7,8 day breaks between games

but there is a huge difference between some inequality and gross inequality

even with 22 rounds there is heaps of scope for more equality and fairness in the draw

[Sir Why You Little 37,134]

you could say the same about 5,6,7,8 day breaks between games

but there is a huge difference between some inequality and gross inequality

even with 22 rounds there is heaps of scope for more equality and fairness in the draw

Very little wriggle room mate.

The Broadcast deal of $1.3 Bill also put a big hole in equalization

The Broadcasters NEED ratings to pay for their massive outlay

They demand Big Games & Blockbusters & they will get them. Bottom clubs are going to have to be run exceptionally well to rise up the ladder for sustained periods

This whole issue has become about TV

It's why the fixture has become so lopsided

[daisycutter 29,743]

Very little wriggle room mate.

The Broadcast deal of $1.3 Bill also put a big hole in equalization

The Broadcasters NEED ratings to pay for their massive outlay

They demand Big Games & Blockbusters & they will get them. Bottom clubs are going to have to be run exceptionally well to rise up the ladder for sustained periods

This whole issue has become about TV

It's why the fixture has become so lopsided

well that is self evident wyl, no one is disputing that

it doesn't mean it is sacred and couldn't be changed

having a more even competition with a fairer draw could be MORE financial for the networks in the long run

if they continue this way they will lose more on the telecasts of the increasingly insignificant lower clubs

in the long run better for tv networks having 9 competitive matches each week

[Sir Why You Little 37,134]

well that is self evident wyl, no one is disputing that

it doesn't mean it is sacred and couldn't be changed

having a more even competition with a fairer draw could be MORE financial for the networks in the long run

if they continue this way they will lose more on the telecasts of the increasingly insignificant lower clubs

in the long run better for tv networks having 9 competitive matches each week

i doubt anything will change whilst the $$$ stakes are so high.

The problem started with the original asking price which was always way to high.

The AFL were far too greedy. 9 games is a ridiculous amount when 3-4 of them are boring.

[Demonsone 2,044]

Equalisation died when the 2 expansion teams were introduced......clubs like ours who butchered their early picks from the mid 2000s along with poor culture & development are paying the price now.....someone has to finish last but the competition should not be about the same teams winning the flag also.... Current free agency had seen top clubs pick up kpp & lower clubs pay overs to attract them.. Afl & players want it both ways ... Players right to move & play finals & control clubs via salary cap whilst the expansion teams get all the best talent ....Have the biggest teams playing prime time & banish teams to play Sunday arvo... This is not a competition rather a marketing exercise....

[Sir Why You Little 37,134]

Equalisation died when the 2 expansion teams were introduced......clubs like ours who butchered their early picks from the mid 2000s along with poor culture & development are paying the price now.....someone has to finish last but the competition should not be about the same teams winning the flag also.... Current free agency had seen top clubs pick up kpp & lower clubs pay overs to attract them.. Afl & players want it both ways ... Players right to move & play finals & control clubs via salary cap whilst the expansion teams get all the best talent ....Have the biggest teams playing prime time & banish teams to play Sunday arvo... This is not a competition rather a marketing exercise....

Agree 100%

In terms of the Australian market it is better for the AFL that an interstate clubs wins the flag.

I believe this is why all the suburban Home Ground were dissolved into Etihad.

[CarnTheDees 52]

My thoughts on equalisation is that it needs to be addressed in two parts: 1. On-field and 2. Financial. The difficulty is the grey area where the two overlap, i.e. where the richer clubs are more successful because they spend more on coaches, facilities etc.

I feel that on-field, the system is pretty fair at the moment. The draft plus the fixturing (with the three groups of 6) should be enough, everything else being equal, for teams lower down to rise up the ladder within a few years.

The biggest concern is the finances, with some clubs massively advantaged over others in terms of the revenue they can generate because they have better stadium deals and they get better access to prime-time scheduling. This is where an equalisation payment comes in for the poorer clubs, Eddie's favourite "tax" on the rich clubs, and it should be set up with a formula that relates to fixturing and stadium deals.

[KingDingAling 3,758]

How about the AFL start with the most simple of tasks - making top sides trade for a FA.

As it stands, a guy like Frawley leaves to Hawthorn for nothing more than cap space.

If Frawley is worth first round compensation (pick 3 in our case), then he has just walked into Hawthorn for nothing more than cap space.

They didn't have to trade for him, this is why FA is benefiting the top sides, they are getting stronger - because they don't have to trade for FA.

The bottom sides get compensation (which doesn't help them much in the short term), and the top sides are widening the gap.

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,909]

How about the AFL start with the most simple of tasks - making top sides trade for a FA.

As it stands, a guy like Frawley leaves to Hawthorn for nothing more than cap space.

If Frawley is worth first round compensation (pick 3 in our case), then he has just walked into Hawthorn for nothing more than cap space.

They didn't have to trade for him, this is why FA is benefiting the top sides, they are getting stronger - because they don't have to trade for FA.

The bottom sides get compensation (which doesn't help them much in the short term), and the top sides are widening the gap.

KingDA, I agree on the substance of your post but I'd change "making top sides trade for a FA" to "making top sides pay for a FA". I don't mean "pay" in a dollar sense, but they need to give up something rather than the current scheme where compensation hurts every team, other than the recipient of the compensation pick, by shifting the draft order.

The other problem is that in essence, the only difference between the team that finishes last and the team that finishes first is Pick 1. After that, those two sides basically have adjacent picks (ie, pick 18 and pick 19; pick 36 and pick 37, etc) with the team finishing first ironically getting the pick before the team that finished last. Having said that, I don't believe changing the draft should occur in isolation. The whole drafting, trading and free agency system - that is the whole list management process - needs to be looked at holistically.

Another thing I would do (and I've said this before) is to help teams retain players by allowing them a "loyalty discount" for salary cap purposes. For example, after say an initial three year term, clubs can shave a percentage of the actual salary from the salary cap. For example, Player X is on $200,000 per annum but in his fourth year with the club, a 20% discount is calculated for salary cap purposes, so the club pays Player X $200,000 but only has to include $160,000 of that in its salary cap. After 6 years, that discount might be 30%, so Player X is then on, say, $270,000, the amount the club includes in its salary cap would be $189,000. If Player X wants to go to another team instead, that team would have to count 100% of Player X's salary in its total player payments cap. That doesn't stop players from wanting to move - but it limits the ability of other clubs to offer them terms which are more enticing than Player X's club.

[Its Time for Another 4,292]

Unfortunately the MFC Administrations over a long period of time highlight the fact that no matter what the AFL does for equalisation if a Club's Admin is sub standard it can create it's own massive competitive problems.

At our lowest point we turned to the AFL or the AFL stepped in at their own insistence and Demetriou made one phone call to PJ and the rest is history.

Without that intervention I wonder where we would be now.

Lack of money over the years is no doubt a major cause of so many of our problems. But lack of judgement at Board and CEO level has a lot to do with where we've been over th past 8 yrs.

PJ walked in the door and his first observation was the lack of experience at all levels in the footy dept and the Admin. He cut costs to focus spending on experience starting with Roosy and steadily filling in the Footy Dept. To be fair, the facilities headed by the move to AAMI and the appointments of Misso, Viney & Jason Taylor had already been made. But what a transformation PJ's made since. You wonder what state we'd be in now if he had been appointed instead of CS.

[Its Time for Another 4,292]

KingDA, I agree on the substance of your post but I'd change "making top sides trade for a FA" to "making top sides pay for a FA". I don't mean "pay" in a dollar sense, but they need to give up something rather than the current scheme where compensation hurts every team, other than the recipient of the compensation pick, by shifting the draft order.

If its equalisation you're after, I'd punt for the US System where the top teams can't get Free Agents at all.

[Red and Bluebeard 2,101]

If the AFL is serious about equalisation, then they will pool all gate receipts and distribute them equally. That takes stadium deals out of the equation. However, I won't hold my breath ...

[M C 221]

How about the AFL start with the most simple of tasks - making top sides trade for a FA.

As it stands, a guy like Frawley leaves to Hawthorn for nothing more than cap space.

If Frawley is worth first round compensation (pick 3 in our case), then he has just walked into Hawthorn for nothing more than cap space.

They didn't have to trade for him, this is why FA is benefiting the top sides, they are getting stronger - because they don't have to trade for FA.

The bottom sides get compensation (which doesn't help them much in the short term), and the top sides are widening the gap.

I agree with you for the most part King but I'm not sure you can use Hawthorn as an example in this case. They have lost Buddy to free agency and imo have become a weaker side because of FA. They definitely have not gotten stronger Edited April 23, 2015 by M C

[KingDingAling 3,758]

I agree with you for the most part King but I'm not sure you can use Hawthorn as an example in this case. They have lost Buddy to free agency and imo have become a weaker side because of FA. They definitely have not gotten stronger

They basically got pick 3 (or equivalent of in Frawley), pick 18 (Franklin compo) for Franklin. They freed up their salary cap, allowing them to get Frawley.

Hawthorn whinge about FA, but they received a first round pick for Franklin and had Frawley walk to them for nothing a year later.

If they'd of kept Franklin, they wouldn't have Frawley, pick 18, and they would've lost 1, maybe 2 players due to cap pressure.