The Tea Party argument.

While I usually agree with the idea behind that argument it doesn't work within the AFL. The way I see it the AFL need to act in a very socialist manner and ensure equality between teams. By this I don't mean premierships won or games won, I mean access to the market and opportunities to make money. Doing this will provide the AFL with as many strong viable clubs as possible which overall will make the comp as strong as possible.

Where the 'Tea Party Argument' comes in is in the competition between codes. If the AFL has mass inequality and supporter dissatisfaction they stand no chance against the other codes, that's why I think there needs to be a shift in thinking. Most people see it as club vs club in every way, this ignores the more important league vs league battle. In terms of health we should be looking at the health of the AFL and what is best for that. We know the answer but those at the top can't see it as everything is rosy.

The likes of Eddie need to answer if they would like a 6 team comp that plays second fiddle to at least one other code in the country as that is where their stance is taking us.

While I usually agree with the idea behind that argument it doesn't work within the AFL. The way I see it the AFL need to act in a very socialist manner and ensure equality between teams.

This.

Anyone who has studied even the slightest bit of sports economics would understand that socialism in team competition sport is the best way to go.

I remember when people were complaining about Brisbane's dominance, well look at them now.

Rewind to the 1950's and you'd still be complaining?

The fact is, teams take 5 or 6 years to get good, spend 5 or 6 years being good, and then drop away. Geelong is done. They're finished. Hawks look like they're about to drop off the perch, too. The fact that our administration and football departments have been absolutely deplorable for ten years is not the fault of the AFL. We've had PLENTY of opportunities to climb the ladder and failed. That's not the fault of the AFL. That's the fault of the peanuts who were running our club.

That may be the reality under the current set of conditions, but I for one, am not all too pleased that, a) it takes so long for that development to occur, and b) the clubs that have already developed the good lists and winning cultured get to hold onto that mantle for so long. As others have said it gets mighty boring seeing essentially the same teams finish in the top 4 for almost half a decade.

How much more interesting would it be if drafting/trading conditions were changed to shorten the cycles of success and failure?

Rewind to the 1950's and you'd still be complaining?

The fact is, teams take 5 or 6 years to get good, spend 5 or 6 years being good, and then drop away. Geelong is done. They're finished. Hawks look like they're about to drop off the perch, too. The fact that our administration and football departments have been absolutely deplorable for ten years is not the fault of the AFL. We've had PLENTY of opportunities to climb the ladder and failed. That's not the fault of the AFL. That's the fault of the peanuts who were running our club.

Agree 100% We blew so many chances that were given.

That may be the reality under the current set of conditions, but I for one, am not all too pleased that, a) it takes so long for that development to occur, and b) the clubs that have already developed the good lists and winning cultured get to hold onto that mantle for so long. As others have said it gets mighty boring seeing essentially the same teams finish in the top 4 for almost half a decade.

How much more interesting would it be if drafting/trading conditions were changed to shorten the cycles of success and failure?

how 'bout drafting players with the right attributes and attitude (which we are doing now) rather than the 6-7 years of nice Choirboys who Schwab liked

Personally i would love 10 years of dominance. There are a lot of opposition supporters i want to catch up with!!

Rewind to the 1950's and you'd still be complaining?

The fact is, teams take 5 or 6 years to get good, spend 5 or 6 years being good, and then drop away. Geelong is done. They're finished. Hawks look like they're about to drop off the perch, too. The fact that our administration and football departments have been absolutely deplorable for ten years is not the fault of the AFL. We've had PLENTY of opportunities to climb the ladder and failed. That's not the fault of the AFL. That's the fault of the peanuts who were running our club.

Free agency has altered the landscape in regards to teams dropping off.

Add Dangerfield, Henderson and whoever else they pick up outside of the draft and Geelong are actually far from done or finished.

Hawthorn will also pick up someone decent in the free agency pool which helps perpetuate these teams run at the top.

Yes we have done ourselves no favors through ineptitude but the system will ensure that rising up to a bona fide contender is very difficult, and is becoming more so every season.

Free agency has altered the landscape in regards to teams dropping off.

Add Dangerfield, Henderson and whoever else they pick up outside of the draft and Geelong are actually far from done or finished.

Hawthorn will also pick up someone decent in the free agency pool which helps perpetuate these teams run at the top.

Yes we have done ourselves no favors through ineptitude but the system will ensure that rising up to a bona fide contender is very difficult, and is becoming more so every season.

IF our recruiters keep nailing the right kids into the club the MFC will become a destination of choice for potential Free Agents. Get them wrong and we know what happens

We have all been there.

Rewind to the 1950's and you'd still be complaining?

The fact is, teams take 5 or 6 years to get good, spend 5 or 6 years being good, and then drop away. Geelong is done. They're finished. Hawks look like they're about to drop off the perch, too. The fact that our administration and football departments have been absolutely deplorable for ten years is not the fault of the AFL. We've had PLENTY of opportunities to climb the ladder and failed. That's not the fault of the AFL. That's the fault of the peanuts who were running our club.

Reckon Hawthorn will still be propped up for a couple more years by FA. Still have a lot of talent and experience in their side.

Reckon Hawthorn will still be propped up for a couple more years by FA. Still have a lot of talent and experience in their side.

possibly. But other club are firming as viable FA destinations.

The GW$ GC $un$ draft fiasco is levelling out.

Tome to Corporate Raid them!!

While I usually agree with the idea behind that argument it doesn't work within the AFL. The way I see it the AFL need to act in a very socialist manner and ensure equality between teams. By this I don't mean premierships won or games won, I mean access to the market and opportunities to make money. Doing this will provide the AFL with as many strong viable clubs as possible which overall will make the comp as strong as possible.

Where the 'Tea Party Argument' comes in is in the competition between codes. If the AFL has mass inequality and supporter dissatisfaction they stand no chance against the other codes, that's why I think there needs to be a shift in thinking. Most people see it as club vs club in every way, this ignores the more important league vs league battle. In terms of health we should be looking at the health of the AFL and what is best for that. We know the answer but those at the top can't see it as everything is rosy.

The likes of Eddie need to answer if they would like a 6 team comp that plays second fiddle to at least one other code in the country as that is where their stance is taking us.

i don't barrack for the AFL and Pick no 1 is not always as good as pick 50.

i don't barrack for the AFL and Pick no 1 is not always as good as pick 50.

I didn't even mention picks as it wasn't what I was talking about and maybe you should be viewing it as the AFL as a whole, especially as it doesn't exist in a vacuum. That it what I was talking about, a required shift in attitude. If it doesn't happen we may well say good by to the AFL as a whole in the future.

I didn't even mention picks as it wasn't what I was talking about and maybe you should be viewing it as the AFL as a whole, especially as it doesn't exist in a vacuum. That it what I was talking about, a required shift in attitude. If it doesn't happen we may well say good by to the AFL as a whole in the future.

I'm fairly certain they will survive Chris.

My point was that our future is not in their hands.

If the franchise clubs fall by the wayside I couldn't possibly care less.

Rugby League makes far less money because they have decent beaches in Sydney and Brisbane.

The game itself was built by Australian people using their leisure time to compete and socialise.

It is only recently that it has become a badly run corporate enterprise piddling away 150 years of community goodwill.

We are older than them as an entity but have been just as badly managed in recent history ,but we learn.

I'm fairly certain they will survive Chris.

My point was that our future is not in their hands.

If the franchise clubs fall by the wayside I couldn't possibly care less.

Rugby League makes far less money because they have decent beaches in Sydney and Brisbane.

The game itself was built by Australian people using their leisure time to compete and socialise.

It is only recently that it has become a badly run corporate enterprise piddling away 150 years of community goodwill.

We are older than them as an entity but have been just as badly managed in recent history ,but we learn.

Rugby league is irrelevant, it is soccer that will take over. You are right that the AFL will survive but runs the risk of being second fiddle by a long long way. If that happens you can all but wave goodbye to half the teams, ours included. The writing is on the wall that this is occuring, many people can't seem to be able to read it. But like climate change really.

Rugby league is irrelevant, it is soccer that will take over. You are right that the AFL will survive but runs the risk of being second fiddle by a long long way. If that happens you can all but wave goodbye to half the teams, ours included. The writing is on the wall that this is occuring, many people can't seem to be able to read it. But like climate change really.

Yes Soccer is a world game,but then so is Hockey,Netball,Darts,Chess and a hundred more.

With the populace of the world exploding like flies ,there is room for diversity.

Yes Soccer is a world game,but then so is Hockey,Netball,Darts,Chess and a hundred more.

With the populace of the world exploding like flies ,there is room for diversity.

Absolutely there is, the point you are missing is that soccer will most likely become the top code in the land. That may well mean no more MCG for the AFL as it will be used for soccer as the MCC will make more money that way. It may mean half the current teams gone. If we keep our insular view of the world this outcome becomes all the more likely.

Absolutely there is, the point you are missing is that soccer will most likely become the top code in the land. That may well mean no more MCG for the AFL as it will be used for soccer as the MCC will make more money that way. It may mean half the current teams gone. If we keep our insular view of the world this outcome becomes all the more likely.

Don't we have lease conditions with the MCG trust that extend as far as the eye can see ?

Don't we have lease conditions with the MCG trust that extend as far as the eye can see ?

They do go along way but not forever. I am also not talking about next year or the year after, I am talking a few decades down the track.

While the AFL continues to manage and massage its own fixture to give its favoured teams a better chance at success and have in place a free agency system that allows a FA player to choose where he wishes to move to ie, from the lower ranked club ie, bottom 8 to go to a higher ranked team (say top 6 to 8) then expect to see the likes of Hawthorn, Sydney, Freo, West Coast & Geelong continuing to win premership after premiership.

The MFC is an extraordinarily poor example of how to manage a club from 2007 to 2013 so shouldn't be used as a sample in any arguments like "hey this fixture/draft discussion does / doesn't apply to us look at how poorly we've recruited" etc. But even our horrible management/recruitment until then has been hamstrung with losses of very experienced players like Rivers and Chip to top 6 clubs that dont need any extra depth/ assistance. Same applies to the lower ranked clubs like the Doggies/Richmond/Saints. Can you imagine the difference a buddy would have made (if healthy) to a Doggies outfit last night!?? Difference between going deep into finals and not.

I agree with Jnr, the competition really isnt close to fair and isnt worth watching anymore unless you're happy seeing the same core group of clubs in Prelims & GFs every year with fairly predictable results....boring. Might get an occasional surprise cameo from an interstater once in a wile as they have huge followings (or the Pies/Tiges here for similar reasons) but they will quickly drop back to mediocre as free agency sees the top clubs "top up" every year with players at their peak looking to finish their career with some silverware.

Tuning over to more NFL and in particular the 49ers from here. And not just because of Jarryd...but he helps! (if he gets a gig!)

Edited September 12, 20159 yr by Rusty Nails

Free agency has altered the landscape in regards to teams dropping off.

Add Dangerfield, Henderson and whoever else they pick up outside of the draft and Geelong are actually far from done or finished.

Hawthorn will also pick up someone decent in the free agency pool which helps perpetuate these teams run at the top.

Yes we have done ourselves no favors through ineptitude but the system will ensure that rising up to a bona fide contender is very difficult, and is becoming more so every season.

The probably is the minimum salary cap payments. When luring a FA they will either go for success or money. With every club essentially paying the same cap every year it gives bottom clubs less room to move in offering big money to FA's to lure them across so they go to the top clubs for success.

If Dangerfield is offered $100k less to play at Hawthorn or Geelong over Carlton or Melbourne he'll go there knowing he has a far greater chance at immediate success.

If Melbourne or Carlton can offer him $400k more a year he would have a hard time turning it down.

The other issue is the lack of FA's on the market which is why I wouldn't necessarily be against lowering the FA qualifying periodbut it would need to be done as part of an overhaul of the whole system including removing or substantially lowering the cap floor.

While the AFL continues to manage and massage its own fixture to give its favoured teams a better chance at success and have in place a free agency system that allows a FA player to choose where he wishes to move to ie, from the lower ranked club ie, bottom 8 to go to a higher ranked team (say top 6 to 8) then expect to see the likes of Hawthorn, Sydney, Freo, West Coast & Geelong continuing to win premership after premiership.

The MFC is an extraordinarily poor example of how to manage a club from 2007 to 2013 so shouldn't be used as a sample in any arguments like "hey this fixture/draft discussion does / doesn't apply to us look at how poorly we've recruited" etc. But even our horrible management/recruitment until then has been hamstrung with losses of very experienced players like Rivers and Chip to top 6 clubs that dont need any extra depth/ assistance. Same applies to the lower ranked clubs like the Doggies/Richmond/Saints. Can you imagine the difference a buddy would have made (if healthy) to a Doggies outfit last night!?? Difference between going deep into finals and not.

I agree with Jnr, the competition really isnt close to fair and isnt worth watching anymore unless you're happy seeing the same core group of clubs in Prelims & GFs every year with fairly predictable results....boring. Might get an occasional surprise cameo from an interstater once in a wile as they have huge followings (or the Pies/Tiges here for similar reasons) but they will quickly drop back to mediocre as free agency sees the top clubs "top up" every year with players at their peak looking to finish their career with some silverware.

Tuning over to more NFL and in particular the 49ers from here. And not just because of Jarryd...but he helps! (if he gets a gig!)

The NFL really such a far superior and sophisticated competition - it opened my eyes to how utter rubbish the administration of the AFL has been for so long once I started following the NFL closely. Not to say it's a better game (if it's not it is a very close second) but the structure of the competition is light years ahead of what we have in regards to equality (or parity).

The probably is the minimum salary cap payments. When luring a FA they will either go for success or money. With every club essentially paying the same cap every year it gives bottom clubs less room to move in offering big money to FA's to lure them across so they go to the top clubs for success.

If Dangerfield is offered $100k less to play at Hawthorn or Geelong over Carlton or Melbourne he'll go there knowing he has a far greater chance at immediate success.

If Melbourne or Carlton can offer him $400k more a year he would have a hard time turning it down.

The other issue is the lack of FA's on the market which is why I wouldn't necessarily be against lowering the FA qualifying periodbut it would need to be done as part of an overhaul of the whole system including removing or substantially lowering the cap floor.

They may as well make FA after 5 years for all but give clubs the ability to trade without player approval.

If it works both ways the system will be fairer.

They may as well make FA after 5 years for all but give clubs the ability to trade without player approval.

If it works both ways the system will be fairer.

That for me is the biggest issue, the players seem to have all the power, they can veto trades and demand everything in every circumstance. Tail and dog come to mind.

They may as well make FA after 5 years for all but give clubs the ability to trade without player approval.

If it works both ways the system will be fairer.

They would also need to give clubs options on rookie contracts so draftees can't walk after 2 years. Probably need to make it up to 4 year option (with conditions) but ideally would make it up to whatever year FA kicks in.