Who wants to watch Melbourne get flogged by 10 goals on a Friday night?

Sometimes equalisation is good for the club, but it's bad for the league overall. I agree that there needs to be balance: sometimes you balance it in the other direction and you still end up with an unbalanced application of inequality.

  On 11/09/2014 at 06:15, daisycutter said:

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

Well of course it will have to get the approval from Eddie, but best send it to his PA first.

Some interesting comments by all.

My view is slightly different. I think that until the "receiving" club has to give something up of similar/equal/meaningful value then the system will be flawed. Frawley should be able to leave to pursue success but whoever gets him should have to give up something of meaningful value for a marque player. Otherwise the possibility is there for the good clubs to get better and the poor clubs to struggle. Building in GNF's tiered structure could also be used but this disadvantages the player and I'm a believer in their rights to chose an employer.

Having said that MFC is a scarce case. We, along with Richmond, are really the only club to butcher their early picks to an extent that the rebuild failed completely. That was probably in part due to an underfunded football department and not being able to attract an experienced recruiter. Hopefully funding is now available.

I have no issue with Friday night footy being given to the better performing clubs as long as there is some financial compensation. Ultimately the AFL is a business which must make the most of its commercial opportunities. If we were winning games we'd get Fridays.

Our view on equalization as a group will be tainted IMO. We have failed and think what is happening to us is "normal". It's not. Look at how even Bulldogs and Brisbane are recovering and are competitive so much quicker than us. The draft and the salary cap do provide equalization except when the management of those areas are inept, which sadly, we were.

In trumps.

  On 11/09/2014 at 07:20, Baghdad Bob said:

Some interesting comments by all.

My view is slightly different. I think that until the "receiving" club has to give something up of similar/equal/meaningful value then the system will be flawed. Frawley should be able to leave to pursue success but whoever gets him should have to give up something of meaningful value for a marque player. Otherwise the possibility is there for the good clubs to get better and the poor clubs to struggle. Building in GNF's tiered structure could also be used but this disadvantages the player and I'm a believer in their rights to chose an employer.

fully agree. by the successful clubs giving up nothing and the afl compensating the giving-up club the afl are effectively subsidising the successful clubs

A bloke named Sam Colt had an interesting theory about equalization.

  On 11/09/2014 at 05:21, Grand New Flag said:

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.

One of the other significant advantages of this system is stopping compromising the draft with top teams not only getting players for nothing but every other team in the comp getting shunted a pick for each free agent that is mostly going to top teams.

  On 11/09/2014 at 07:20, Baghdad Bob said:

Some interesting comments by all.

My view is slightly different. I think that until the "receiving" club has to give something up of similar/equal/meaningful value then the system will be flawed. Frawley should be able to leave to pursue success but whoever gets him should have to give up something of meaningful value for a marque player. Otherwise the possibility is there for the good clubs to get better and the poor clubs to struggle. Building in GNF's tiered structure could also be used but this disadvantages the player and I'm a believer in their rights to chose an employer.

Having said that MFC is a scarce case. We, along with Richmond, are really the only club to butcher their early picks to an extent that the rebuild failed completely. That was probably in part due to an underfunded football department and not being able to attract an experienced recruiter. Hopefully funding is now available.

I have no issue with Friday night footy being given to the better performing clubs as long as there is some financial compensation. Ultimately the AFL is a business which must make the most of its commercial opportunities. If we were winning games we'd get Fridays.

Our view on equalization as a group will be tainted IMO. We have failed and think what is happening to us is "normal". It's not. Look at how even Bulldogs and Brisbane are recovering and are competitive so much quicker than us. The draft and the salary cap do provide equalization except when the management of those areas are inept, which sadly, we were.

In trumps.

[quote name="rjay" post="987774" timestamp="

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.

  On 11/09/2014 at 04:09, Beats said:

“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.

Great. You persevere with someone like, say Watts or Jamar and after 6 yrs they say adios.

Toumpas is coming up to his third year and arguably we have got nothing out of him. Let's say he does Ok next year. We might get two good years put of him before he decides to go home. He may not come good for another 3 years. That sucks and no one will want to develop players.

PLayers better watch themselves because no-one will draft a ruckman or maybe even a big bloke that will take time to develop.

Equalisation is a hugely important part of the game. Of course Marsh is going to advocate for the best FA he can get, that's his job. But unfortunately FA is the antithesis of equalisation.

FA is severely hurting the weaker clubs, but if the weaker clubs can, despite FA, close the gap on the stronger ones, then FA will be a perfectly acceptable thing. The issue is whether it's possible for that to happen. I think it is, as I see a lot of things other than FA that can be addressed (e.g. fixturing, marketing, revenue raising and sharing, etc.). GNF's FA plan isn't so bad though.

Re : free agency, I like the idea the NBA has where if the free agent elects to leave he will need to take less money and a shorter contract to move. A recent example saw Carmelo Anthony of the New York Knicks stay in a place with less chance of victory for additional money. He would have sacrificed $30 odd mill to move.

Imagine James Frawley right now...go to Geelong, Collingwood etc for $2 mill over 4 years, while the Dees could offer $2.5 over 5 years. the decision becomes more complex. People say the players only care for the money, if he truly wanted success...he may sacrifice $$$$.

Traditionally clubs had always had to pay more to snare a player, this would be the inverse making the original club a better option and potentially keeping more players one club players and earning more money that if they switched.

  On 11/09/2014 at 07:20, Baghdad Bob said:

I'm a believer in their rights to chose an employer.

Draftees cannot choose their employer.

It is laughable that in the AFL an 18 year old is only on a 2 year contract no matter where they are taken in the draft.

The massive investment of a pick in the first few and only 2 years tied to that club...

Outside of the need to lengthen the initial contract to 4 years for 1st round draftees, the AFL should make contracts tradeable without the need for players to consent. This is indeed possible, as their contracts are with the AFL through the clubs.

Unless a player has a 'No Trade Clause' built into their contract - they should be subject to being traded without their consent, just like they are drafted to teams without their consent.

That's life in a professional, draft regulated sport.

Why not avoid a compromised draft by making FA a "forced trade" scenario.

Re-define the compo bands to align with draft order (1st round, 2nd round, 3rd round, no compo).

Then all "free agents" can be signed by anyone but the formula that awards the compensation is used to identify which pick must be traded.

Clubs could agree to an alternative trade if they prefer (other picks, players or a combination) but otherwise the club's have to pay.

No club can then double dip and sign free agents as well as get the best young talent. All clubs get equal access each year.

To ensure the lowest clubs aren't disadvantaged (I.e have to give up pick 1 while the premier gives up pick 18), the first picks of all non-finals teams are excluded.

So "band 1" is actually pick 11 through to 29, and so.

That is surely the most equal way of providing a free agency mechanism without benefiting the top teams?

A 'auction' process for the good time slots might be useful.

Every club is given a standard allocation of money to use for bidding for time slots.

The clubs can bid for slots based on how they anticipate the season will go, what their marketing plan is, etc.

If a club chooses to keep things lower key for the year (anticipating poor overall performance) then the leftover allocated money is theirs to use for other promotions and development.

It still maintains the 'big crowds overall are best for the game' concept, but makes it a lot more democratic and fair.

Of course, it is all pointless until the accumulating disaster of free agency is reigned in.

And if there is anyone out there that you happen to meet who thinks that the AFL is still a fairly even competition, here are the figures -

In the last ten years, the top 6 AFL teams have accounted for 70% of all finals wins. That's 1 final/year on average.

Remembering that it is impossible for more than one team to have 3 finals wins in a year.

And remembering that for a group of six teams to all be getting so many finals games, they must be playing eachother more often than not.

The number is extraordinary, disturbing, and definitive.

Gill the dill (I'm sure that Dimwit pushed for him as his successor only to make his own reign appear superior) apparently does nothing without the approval of the rich and powerful clubs. Appeasement works really well - ask Neville 'peace in our time' Chamberlain.

Bread and circuses (with perhaps an opposition fan being fed to the Brisbane lion) will replace any meaningful discussions on the betterment of the game. Fifty cents off the price of pie, a buck off a beer, some discounted seating and a laser show before games and all will be well in the land of Gill.

Lip service will continue to be paid to equalization, but I have little doubt that it will remain in the too hard basket for some time yet.

And the AFL will go the way of the EPL.

BB is a believer in the rights to choose an employer?

Do you not understand that is in direct opposition to the survival of your football club?

Hope you enjoy barracking for Collingwood...

Equalisation is not possible whilst 9 clubs reside in Melbourne & the rest are sprinkled around the country in 2 Team situations.

Whilst Sydney teams & Brisbane teams are given different caps to live on.

We will survive by playing hard ball. It's time to p!ss a few people off.

Every player we recruit must work...

We are a feeder club now because our recruiting has been shithouse.

Equality will not happen

I don't understand how anyone can claim to be pressing the case of equalisation when the oldest club in the competition is incapable of paying 100% of it's salary cap.

how can a bottom club attract top end talent when they would need to pay overs and can't even do that? the system is terrible

We are all equal, just that some are more equal than others.

Eddie and his cohorts want equalisation as long as it doesn't mean the have nots have an opportunity to compete at the top level.

Equalisation means we will ensure you just have enough to survive but not to thrive.

Four legs good, two legs better.

I like the tiered system but would do it a little different with the AFLPA wanting to lower the years too 6.

There would be 3 tiers based on position 1) 1st-6th 2) 7th- 12th 3) 13th-18th

Tier 1= they can only take players who are with their club for 10+ seasons

Tier 2= they can only take players who are with their club for 8+ seasons

Tier 3= they are eligible to take players who are with their club for 6+ seasons

What do you think?

My plan is as follows:

• The Salary Cap weighting should be reduced to 85% for one club players to encourage player loyalty.
• The Salary Cap should be 1% lower for every ladder position from bottom to top. (So the Premiers have a Salary Cap 83% the size of the Wooden Spooners.)
• The Draft should be rejigged with the First Round only including clubs that miss the Top 8. Clubs that miss the Top 8 two years running receive two picks in the First Round. There would also be a weighted lottery for the First Round (based on two years worth of results) to discourage tanking. The subsequent rounds of the Draft would run from 8th to 1st and then 18th to 9th.
• Players could become Restricted Free Agents after two years, with no compensation.

Speaking of priority picks...

Over the last 8 years Melbourne has averaged less than 5 wins a season.

No other club has an average below 8 wins a season.

Also. Melbourne's BEST individual season in these last eight years, (8 wins and a draw), is a lower result than the WORST AVERAGE of any other club (Brisbane, 8.9 wins).

In other words, our most successful season in the last 8 years is worse than what the next worst club's supporters can expect in any given year.

Hand it over Gil, and Caroline Wilson can get stuffed.

  On 12/09/2014 at 08:35, Little Goffy said:

Speaking of priority picks...

Over the last 8 years Melbourne has averaged less than 5 wins a season.

No other club has an average below 8 wins a season.

Also. Melbourne's BEST individual season in these last eight years, (8 wins and a draw), is a lower result than the WORST AVERAGE of any other club (Brisbane, 8.9 wins).

In other words, our most successful season in the last 8 years is worse than what the next worst club's supporters can expect in any given year.

Hand it over Gil, and Caroline Wilson can get stuffed.

this is yuk.

i still believe the draft order should depend on how many games a team has won in the last 5 years.

would discourage/eliminate teams pulling the plug early on a season due to injury etc etc

either that or on years since the flag was last one (start up clubs exempt for the first few years)

  On 11/09/2014 at 15:10, rpfc said:

Draftees cannot choose their employer.

It is laughable that in the AFL an 18 year old is only on a 2 year contract no matter where they are taken in the draft.

The massive investment of a pick in the first few and only 2 years tied to that club...

Outside of the need to lengthen the initial contract to 4 years for 1st round draftees, the AFL should make contracts tradeable without the need for players to consent. This is indeed possible, as their contracts are with the AFL through the clubs.

Unless a player has a 'No Trade Clause' built into their contract - they should be subject to being traded without their consent, just like they are drafted to teams without their consent.

That's life in a professional, draft regulated sport.

The 4 year contracts would only work if only the first 2 years were guaranteed otherwise we'd be stuck with guys like Gysberts and Cook for 4 years.

I'm not sure whether the reduction in years for FAs down to 6 is as much of an issue as it initially appears - currently FAs are moving to the top clubs but that is mainly because they are coming to the end of their career and so want success before they are finished. This may be less of an issue for younger players who may be more inclined to follow the money knowing they will have another contract and opportunities to seek a flag before they retire. It may free up the movement of players meaning more are on the market and the bottom clubs are able to rebound quicker.

  On 12/09/2014 at 12:12, Dr. Gonzo said:

The 4 year contracts would only work if only the first 2 years were guaranteed otherwise we'd be stuck with guys like Gysberts and Cook for 4 years.

I'm not sure whether the reduction in years for FAs down to 6 is as much of an issue as it initially appears - currently FAs are moving to the top clubs but that is mainly because they are coming to the end of their career and so want success before they are finished. This may be less of an issue for younger players who may be more inclined to follow the money knowing they will have another contract and opportunities to seek a flag before they retire. It may free up the movement of players meaning more are on the market and the bottom clubs are able to rebound quicker.

I would have 2+1+1 as the auto-contract for teenagers in the first round.