Equalisation

[Born to Run 204]

Read an interesting article on Paul Marsh's veiws as head of AFLPA:

http://www.news.com.au/sport/afl/paul-marsh-new-afl-players-association-chief-says-easier-road-tipped-for-free-agents/story-fnelctok-1227054476387

While I (as a MFC member) am scared of the 6 year free agency proposal, I was VERY pleased to hear someone (finally) acknowledge the issue with scheduling only the top clubs with big supporter bases on Friday nights or prime time. We continually talk of the 'rich' clubs propping up the 'poor' clubs, but the AFL continues to make this gap wider. As PM points out, sponsors and members provide the major flow of revenues to clubs, cut off their ability to participate in prime time, and you cruel their chances of being a 'rich' club.

His perspective is refreshing, having a goal where Melbourne playing the GC is not materially different to the Hawks playing Collingwood should be the stated desire of the AFL.

His comment about a mate of his who has a son who may be drafted and is worried about going to a club which is uncompetitive is VERY significant. The sooner the AFL realise this, the better. The MFC over the past few years has ruined careers of players. Who knows whether some of these players may have been solid AFL players in a semi competitive environment.

Equalisation is less about money than it is about providing a level playing field for players and supporters to experience the good, and bad that football provides. Imagine your son got drafted to St Kilda as a pick in the 40's next year. You would be worried about his ability to be a long term AFL player over the journey. Same can be said for MFC.

I also liked his views on seasons length. Stuff TV rights $$'s. Yes money is important to grow the game and pay our players amazingly well, but I would contend that the AFL would still get terrific $$'s for a 17 round season (everyone playing once), a finals series and maybe a state of origin concept (WA, SA, VIC teams only - start with two teams one year playing eachother, the winner hosts the team that did not play the following year). The NFL is a great example. Very short season, keeps interest up and TV rights are super strong. If they thought that increasing the length of season would provide heaps more cash, they would do it, they don't.

What are we scared of, that our AFL players will instead run to the money of rugby or cricket. As if. There are so few spots in cricket and rugby that would pay like AFL, that we have very little to fear. Would the players cop a discount to get an extra month of not playing to prolong their careers? I reckon they would. IT would also remove a lot of negativity which surrounds the last 7 rounds of the comp when many teams are out of the running with nothing left to play for.

$$'s are important - but stakeholder engagement is more important.

There can be a lot of positive change in the AFL to make the product more interesting for everyone. I hope this guy can advocate for a good amount to occur for the betterment of the entire AFL community.

[rjay 24,928]

I don't agree with all of his points but equalisation is a big problem and it's where the commission is not doing it's job. Mike "I'm out of the room" "integrity lol" "conflicted" Fitzpatrick has been a disaster.

I am getting really annoyed by the AFL's latest buzz about a game day experience. Smoke and mirrors.

They seem to be enamoured by the whole Port/ Adelaide oval thing and yeah it's really good...for now.

Do they think it would be the same if for one it was still played out at football park...hint about playing at ANZ in Sydney v the SCG.

....but the big one. How would the Port game day experience be if they had only won 4 games this year on the back of 2 the year before etc. etc.

To get a true game day experience, a good one at least for the members and supporters... you have to win games. All the dazzle, dazzle means s....if you can't win a game.

Stop trying to please everyone, "Simon the likeable" Gil and make some tough decisions. Actually make any decision on your own without asking Eddie if it's ok. That would be a start.

[Webber 10,468]

I'm not sure the length of service to a club before free agency kicks in is going to change anything, when the basic problem that free agency has created is the movement of good players from poor to successful clubs. Yes, I know there is compensation via the draft, but it is patently 'unequal' given the swap of 'known quality' for 'risk' (inherent to any 'draft'). Yes you can trade your draft pick for a 'known entity', but each exchange results in a potential dilution of quality.

Then there is the loss of profile. If your good players go, the support they drew to your club weakens it when they leave.

The AFL are not really serious about equalisation, they lack the courage to antagonise the big clubs with logical options, or damage the free to air TV ratings with shared Friday night scheduling.

Equitable gate revenue sharing, equality in prime time tv scheduling, heavier weighting of the draft to the bottom clubs (e.g. top 12 picks to bottom 4 clubs every year) are just NOT places they are prepared to go.

As an example, the very idea that the MFC SHOULDN'T get a priority pick this year is simply ludicrous, when you look at the embarrassment of benefits given to the Sydney Swans. (Salary cap, academy, 2 home grounds).

In the context of these facts, equalisation as it is employed by the governors of the competition is just nonsense on steroids, and the continued future of the AFL as the dominant game in this country is a fantasy.

[biggestred 5,093]

the problem is this:

he says there that he wants free agency after 6 years

and that every player should have the chance to win the flag.

but that isnt equalisation.

all you will see is MORE players going to the stronger clubs and chasing flags.

no one will want to play for a weak club so they will leave in droves to play for a strong club and the gap will get bigger.

[Webber 10,468]

the problem is this:

he says there that he wants free agency after 6 years

and that every player should have the chance to win the flag.

but that isnt equalisation.

all you will see is MORE players going to the stronger clubs and chasing flags.

no one will want to play for a weak club so they will leave in droves to play for a strong club and the gap will get bigger.

Depends on the compensation, and on other measures used to rotate success through the competition.

[rjay 24,928]

Depends on the compensation, and on other measures used to rotate success through the competition.

I don't trust the current management/commission of the AFL to get this right 'Webber'. There is no incentive in it for them.

[Webber 10,468]

I don't trust the current management/commission of the AFL to get this right 'Webber'. There is no incentive in it for them.

Agree.

[Machsy 2,858]

Feigning concern about equalisation, while pushing his barrow of increased FA that only exacerbates the gap.

Worry about getting equalisation right, and then his reasons given for wanting increased FA evaporate.

[Beats 190]

“When you consider the average career length of a player is only six years, effectively most players don’t ever get the opportunity to choose to play for the club they want,” Marsh told the Herald Sun.

You can also add to that effectively most players aren't desired by the club they want to play for. James Strauss may want to play for Hawthorn, but they wouldn't want him.

“Players wanted their views heard and considered ... hopefully that will be a hallmark of my time here,” Marsh said. “The people that run the game should be listening to the players.”

The people who run the game should be listening to the fans. Players are the product and fans are the customers.

“The players have agreed to a significant number of restrictions. They don’t get a choice as to where they get drafted, how much they get paid is capped and their ability to move when they are at a club is severely restricted.

While I am empathize with this they are well compensated for those restrictions. There are also good reasons for those restrictions, becasue realistically, how many 18yo's would have wanted to be drafted to Melbourne over the last 8 years? Not really sure where he gets off saying that their payments are capped - it's capped based on their own ability and the ability of their agent.

“If you say, ‘OK, our goal here is to actually decrease the gap between the top and the bottom so that everyone is stronger’, then you get to a point where the difference between the fixturing of Melbourne versus the Gold Coast on a Friday night and Hawthorn versus Collingwood is actually not that much.”

Completely agree with this. Unfortunately the AFL won't allow for crowd numbers to drop significantly while the small teams build/ re-build their supporter bases.

[rjay 24,928]

Completely agree with this. Unfortunately the AFL won't allow for crowd numbers to drop significantly while the small teams build/ re-build their supporter bases.

...and while their salary packages are linked to TV deals (revenue).

[Straight Sets Simon 23,113]

May as well scrap the draft if players can walk after six years. Very few players really hit their straps before that time.

[rpfc 28,433]

May as well scrap the draft if players can walk after six years. Very few players really hit their straps before that time.

Well, you know my thoughts on the draft age, so if they lifted the draft age to 20 or 21 I would be ok with 6 years to FA...

[daisycutter 29,616]

May as well scrap the draft if players can walk after six years. Very few players really hit their straps before that time.

and 6 years becomes 5 years in reality as all the funny business occurs in the preceding 12 months......wonderful

[Machsy 2,858]

Well, you know my thoughts on the draft age, so if they lifted the draft age to 20 or 21 I would be ok with 6 years to FA...

The players would never let that happen - it would decrease the number of paid years in the game.

[Dr evil 1,185]

Lel, the simple solution is to make the top 4 sides unable to pick up free agents and the bottom 4 sides either unable to lose them or receive compo for them where other sides don't.

[rpfc 28,433]

The players would never let that happen - it would decrease the number of paid years in the game.

In the NFL you have to 3 years removed from high school.

[Grand New Flag 3,227]

FA is destroying our competition. Between 1996 and 2006 every team played off in a Preliminary Final, now we have a two tier comp with the smaller clubs nothing more than feeder teams for the large clubs. The AFL needs to step in quickly before its too late. The AFL needs to adopt the US NFL FA system and must urgently make the following adjustments.

Tier 1: Teams 1 - 4: Forbidden from Free Agency. These teams can only lose players not gain players. There is no compensation for lost players.

Tier 2: Teams 5 - 8: Restricted Free Agency. These teams can only gain players if they lose players. There is no other compensation.

Tier 3: Teams 9 - 12: Open Free Agency: These teams can poach FA with no restrictions, they can also lose players to FA. No draft compensation.

Tier 4: Teams 13 -16: Open Free Agency but can't lose players. All players wishing to leave must be traded. Therefore no draft compensation required.

Making these changes would reverse the flow of players. The good teams would lose players to the poor teams, the reverse to which it is today. The big teams will still have an advantage when down the ladder as naturally players will want to play for them.

I call on the AFL to urgently make these changes for the long term health of our competition. No one wants to see the same teams win every year like in the EPL. AFL is only played in Australia, destroy the competition and the sport will suffer.

Edited September 11, 2014 by Grand New Flag

[Little Richard 6,262]

FA is destroying our competition. Between 1996 and 2006 every team played off in a Preliminary Final, now we have a two tier comp with the smaller clubs nothing more than feeder teams for the large clubs. The AFL needs to step in quickly before its too late. The AFL needs to adopt the US NFL FA system and must urgently make the following adjustments.

Teams 1 - 4: Forbidden from Free Agency. These teams can only lose players not gain players. There is no compensation for lost players.

Teams 5 - 8: Restricted Free Agency. These teams can only gain players if they lose players. There is no other compensation.

Team 9 - 12: Open Free Agency: These teams can poach FA with no restrictions, they can also lose players to FA. No draft compensation.

Team 13 -16: Open Free Agency but can't lose players. All players wishing to leave must be traded. Therefore no draft compensation required.

Making these changes would reverse the flow of players. The good teams would lose players to the poor teams, the reverse to which it is today. The big teams will still have an advantage when down the ladder as naturally players will want to play for them.

I call on the AFL to urgently make these changes for the long term health of our competition. No one wants to see the same teams win every year like in the EPL. AFL is only played in Australia, destroy the competition and the sport will suffer.

That sounds like a considerably more fair system.

[rpfc 28,433]

That sounds like a considerably more fair system.

Tanking will come into vogue again though...

NFL doesn't have an issue with tanking - as Herm Edwards said - "You play to win the game!"

It doesn't have an issue because there are only 16 games and each game is an event in and of itself - there just seems to be too much pressure to win for coaches and admins that tanking just doesn't seem to happen. The fact that teams are literally one or two players away from contention also stops the desire to be bad...

[Grand New Flag 3,227]

I disagree that tanking will come back in with this model rpfc. The only gain in losing would be from moving from the 3rd tier to the 4th tier. This is unlikely because the 12th team is generally still in with a finals chance until late in the season and the prize moving down to the 4th teir would still be less than the prize for say getting #1 draft pick by coming last. Technically teams could still tank to come last and collect #1 pick. However, now the AFL has clamped down on this I don't think it will be an issue in the future. Likewise I don't think tanking to get from tier 3 to tier 4 is likely.

Clearly it is not conceivable for a finals bound team to tank so no issues with the higher ranked teams.

Alternatively you could takeout tier 3 altogether and have all non finals teams with an unrestricted free agency.

Edited September 11, 2014 by Grand New Flag

[DemonOX 8,791]

Equalisation what a joke.

It's good the the better performing clubs and it's bad for clubs like ours

The only equalisation going on is the bigger/better performing clubs take the developed/ more mature players from the lower clubs.

The lower clubs are a breeding ground for the bigger/better performed clubs and I don't c it changing.

We r going to reman in a world of hurt if we don't improve quickly.

[T-34 409]

FA is destroying our competition. Between 1996 and 2006 every team played off in a Preliminary Final, now we have a two tier comp with the smaller clubs nothing more than feeder teams for the large clubs. The AFL needs to step in quickly before its too late. The AFL needs to adopt the US NFL FA system and must urgently make the following adjustments.

Teams 1 - 4: Forbidden from Free Agency. These teams can only lose players not gain players. There is no compensation for lost players.

Teams 5 - 8: Restricted Free Agency. These teams can only gain players if they lose players. There is no other compensation.

Team 9 - 12: Open Free Agency: These teams can poach FA with no restrictions, they can also lose players to FA. No draft compensation.

Team 13 -16: Open Free Agency but can't lose players. All players wishing to leave must be traded. Therefore no draft compensation required.

Making these changes would reverse the flow of players. The good teams would lose players to the poor teams, the reverse to which it is today. The big teams will still have an advantage when down the ladder as naturally players will want to play for them.

I call on the AFL to urgently make these changes for the long term health of our competition. No one wants to see the same teams win every year like in the EPL. AFL is only played in Australia, destroy the competition and the sport will suffer.

This is the only way that Free Agency would be equitable however I fear the ship may have already sailed and we are rocketing down the EPL road.

There are several teams now who are seen as nothing more than feeders for the perennial contenders who will share premierships among themselves.

Edited September 11, 2014 by T-34

[Machsy 2,858]

In the NFL you have to 3 years removed from high school.

That may be, but considering the status quo, I doubt that AFL players will let us remove potential earning years from their grasp, in a profession where your earning capacity has a serious used-by date.

They'll fight tooth & nail to maintain what they have and take anything more they can get.

Unsurprisingly.

[rjay 24,928]

FA is destroying our competition. Between 1996 and 2006 every team played off in a Preliminary Final, now we have a two tier comp with the smaller clubs nothing more than feeder teams for the large clubs. The AFL needs to step in quickly before its too late. The AFL needs to adopt the US NFL FA system and must urgently make the following adjustments.

Tier 1: Teams 1 - 4: Forbidden from Free Agency. These teams can only lose players not gain players. There is no compensation for lost players.

Tier 2: Teams 5 - 8: Restricted Free Agency. These teams can only gain players if they lose players. There is no other compensation.

Tier 3: Teams 9 - 12: Open Free Agency: These teams can poach FA with no restrictions, they can also lose players to FA. No draft compensation.

Tier 4: Teams 13 -16: Open Free Agency but can't lose players. All players wishing to leave must be traded. Therefore no draft compensation required.

Making these changes would reverse the flow of players. The good teams would lose players to the poor teams, the reverse to which it is today. The big teams will still have an advantage when down the ladder as naturally players will want to play for them.

I call on the AFL to urgently make these changes for the long term health of our competition. No one wants to see the same teams win every year like in the EPL. AFL is only played in Australia, destroy the competition and the sport will suffer.

Send a copy to Dill, looks a good idea to me.

[daisycutter 29,616]

Send a copy to Dill, looks a good idea to me.

why dill he doesn't make any decisions, send it to eddie..........oh wait a minute