Firstly well done to Hawks as they showed what a well run, coached, trade,development & cultured club can achieve....

But this is not what the afl wants, domination by one or 2 clubs.....

In the last 15 yrs 12 premierships by 4 clubs .. Hawks 4, cats 3, lions 3, swans 2 not to mention Hawks 5 gf, cats 4 gf, lions 4 gf & swans 4 gf...

Can't see equalisation here.......

Free agency has totally stuffed equalisation and the AFL have to consider restricting Free Agents moving to top 4 clubs. The Hawks have recruited Gibson, Lake and Frawley and others will be looking to move there, knowing that success is theirs for the taking.

Free agency has totally stuffed equalisation and the AFL have to consider restricting Free Agents moving to top 4 clubs. The Hawks have recruited Gibson, Lake and Frawley and others will be looking to move there, knowing that success is theirs for the taking.

Hawthorn have lost Franklin to free agency and gained Frawley through free agency.

Which of those two players would you prefer?

So much whinging.

We have been completely incompetent for 8 years.

Blaming the AFL for our drafting errors and horror management doesn't help.

Win games and they will come

They need to do something about the top clubs using bottom clubs as feeders. Personally I think rather than preventing top clubs from recruiting FA's they should give more power to bottom sides to keep their players or attract FA's. Sad as it is, we are the classic case to support this. We've lost players to FA every season since it was introduced, and always to a top four side. We've done pretty well out of the compensation in two of those years, probably gaining well over the value of the players, but it doesn't change the fact that top sides have taken the opportunity to wreak havoc with our ability to climb the ladder by plucking away the best of the players that we've put the time and effort into developing.

So the question is, what can be done to stop Free Agency warping the competition beyond redemption?

Limit the clubs a potential FA can go to by ladder position?

Ban top (x) clubs from bringing in Free Agents?

Create three pools of six and only let FA's move within their own pool?

Surely there is some way the players can have their Free Agency that doesn't completely destroy the integrity and evenness of the competition?

People still don't get it, the problem isn't free agency.

Frawley didn't win Hawthorn a premiership this year, the problem is players picking and choosing where they are traded to which has nothing to do with free agency.

Here's the thing, players have been picking and choosing where they are traded to for many years before free agency was introduced and this is what needs to change.

They need to do something about the top clubs using bottom clubs as feeders. Personally I think rather than preventing top clubs from recruiting FA's they should give more power to bottom sides to keep their players or attract FA's. Sad as it is, we are the classic case to support this. We've lost players to FA every season since it was introduced, and always to a top four side. We've done pretty well out of the compensation in two of those years, probably gaining well over the value of the players, but it doesn't change the fact that top sides have taken the opportunity to wreak havoc with our ability to climb the ladder by plucking away the best of the players that we've put the time and effort into developing.

So the question is, what can be done to stop Free Agency warping the competition beyond redemption?

Limit the clubs a potential FA can go to by ladder position?

Ban top (x) clubs from bringing in Free Agents?

Create three pools of six and only let FA's move within their own pool?

Surely there is some way the players can have their Free Agency that doesn't completely destroy the integrity and evenness of the competition?

Someone would take the AFL to court for restraint of trade................. and win

So much whinging.

We have been completely incompetent for 8 years.

Blaming the AFL for our drafting errors and horror management doesn't help.

Win games and they will come

Not at all . MFC position own fault ..

But there are 15 other clubs who haven't won a flag in 15 yrs....

80% of flags between 4 clubs.. Afl can't talk about equalisation then have these results .. How's our comp really changed from the dominance of a few clubs in each decade??? Apart from the 90s maybe...

You reap what you sew... MFC were diabolical...

Not sure if it's possible to have both. How many players that have moved via FA have stated 'I want to win a trophy', or 'I want to play in finals' etc? That's 100% at odds with equalisation. By doing that you've assisted a top side stay on top, and made it harder for the bottom side that you left to move up the ladder.

Sure, some clubs will work their way back up the ladder despite FA, but you have to get almost everything 100% right for it to happen.

Hodgey and Roughead as Priority picks didn't hurt them.

They got a strong list at the same time as the league had multiple compromised drafts and the introduction of FA.

Priority picks get scrapped and that didn't help.

Hawthorn are a strong club at the moment, no doubt, but they've also been fortunate with timing.

When the players were given free agency they should have been banned from nominating their own club before qualifying for FA

Firstly well done to Hawks as they showed what a well run, coached, trade,development & cultured club can achieve....

But this is not what the afl wants, domination by one or 2 clubs.....

In the last 15 yrs 12 premierships by 4 clubs .. Hawks 4, cats 3, lions 3, swans 2 not to mention Hawks 5 gf, cats 4 gf, lions 4 gf & swans 4 gf...

Can't see equalisation here.......

Of those premierships quoted, Cats had waited some 44 years before winning the first of those three flags, Brisbane/ex-Fitzroy even longer, and the Swans won the first of those two flags after waiting over 70 years. So it doesn't seem like those clubs had been dominating for years. Admittedly though, it does feel like Hawthorn have been up there for years.

Hodgey and Roughead as Priority picks didn't hurt them.

They got a strong list at the same time as the league had multiple compromised drafts and the introduction of FA.

Priority picks get scrapped and that didn't help.

Hawthorn are a strong club at the moment, no doubt, but they've also been fortunate with timing.

No, Hawthorn traded Croad to Fremantle in exchange for pick 1.

Franklin and Roughead were the draft with the priority pick. Your point is still valid, it's all about drafting and it just shows the difference in quality between drafts when one year we get Sylvia and McLean and they get Roughead and Franklin.

On top of this Hodge, Lewis, Mitchell and Rioli were all high picks that they have built this team around. Amazingly, Hawthorn have blown a few high picks along the way and probably would have won six premierships in a row now had they not stuffed those up.

There's no doubt that Hawthorn have earned their success. Six of their seven core 4-time premiership players were drafted by Hawthorn, not brought in by trade/FA (Burgoyne the only one who wasn't drafted).

Despite all that, there is a problem with the AFL when 16 of the last 22 grand final positions have been shared by just four clubs (Hawthorn x 5, Geelong x 4, Sydney x 4, West Coast x 3), and of the remaining 6, two clubs have had four of those spots (Collingwood and St Kilda with 2 each). That's six clubs sharing 20 of the last 22 grand final spots. In other words, 33% of the competition has had 91% of grand final positions over the last 11 years.

Hawthorn have traded brilliantly, but their targets are players from struggling clubs who want success: each of Gunston, Gibson, Lake, McEvoy and Frawley came to Hawthorn from a bottom 4 club. It's great for those players but not good for the competition, meaning it's not good for the majority of AFL players.

Of those premierships quoted, Cats had waited some 44 years before winning the first of those three flags, Brisbane/ex-Fitzroy even longer, and the Swans won the first of those two flags after waiting over 70 years. So it doesn't seem like those clubs had been dominating for years. Admittedly though, it does feel like Hawthorn have been up there for years.

Correct.... Though the dominace of 4 clubs has occurred regardless of premiership droughts ... My fear is free agency will allow top clubs to target bottom clubs of talent & keep their premiership clock open.....

So much whinging.

We have been completely incompetent for 8 years.

Blaming the AFL for our drafting errors and horror management doesn't help.

Win games and they will come

So many posters are so keen on self-flaggelation that they miss the point. Sure we have been hopeless, but are the other non-top teams also hopeless?

Clearly if top clubs can keep picking the eyes out of players developed at lowly clubs, equalization will not occur, even if occasionally a team likes ours appears to do well in the trade. Will we still be smiling about getting Brayshaw for Frawley when Brayshaw is poached by a top club in a few years and we have to replace him with another draft gamble?

The issue is, has been and always will be players nominating where they are traded to in addition to clubs requiring player permission in order to be traded.

I could potentially live with players nominating a state to play in (now that there are at least two clubs in each state) but certainly not nominating a team to be traded to.

There's no doubt that Hawthorn have earned their success. Six of their seven core 4-time premiership players were drafted by Hawthorn, not brought in by trade/FA (Burgoyne the only one who wasn't drafted).

Despite all that, there is a problem with the AFL when 16 of the last 22 grand final positions have been shared by just four clubs (Hawthorn x 5, Geelong x 4, Sydney x 4, West Coast x 3), and of the remaining 6, two clubs have had four of those spots (Collingwood and St Kilda with 2 each). That's six clubs sharing 20 of the last 22 grand final spots. In other words, 33% of the competition has had 91% of grand final positions over the last 11 years.

Hawthorn have traded brilliantly, but their targets are players from struggling clubs who want success: each of Gunston, Gibson, Lake, McEvoy and Frawley came to Hawthorn from a bottom 4 club. It's great for those players but not good for the competition, meaning it's not good for the majority of AFL players.

Well said... & no one wants to take away there succes as they managed & used the system well...

But does the afl want supporters feeling that their club basically has no chance of winning a flag???

So many posters are so keen on self-flaggelation that they miss the point. Sure we have been hopeless, but are the other non-top teams also hopeless?

Clearly if top clubs can keep picking the eyes out of players developed at lowly clubs, equalization will not occur, even if occasionally a team likes ours appears to do well in the trade. Will we still be smiling about getting Brayshaw for Frawley when Brayshaw is poached by a top club in a few years and we have to replace him with another draft gamble?

I dunno about you, but if my job was sheizen and there was a better employer out there offering better money and better prospects I'd jump off a shakey ship too.

Hardly picking the eyes out. 90% of players don't change clubs at the end of the year

The issue is, has been and always will be players nominating where they are traded to in addition to clubs requiring player permission in order to be traded.

I could potentially live with players nominating a state to play in (now that there are at least two clubs in each state) but certainly not nominating a team to be traded to.

Hawthorn has also shown the fallacy that is over-reliance on the draft. They have regularly traded out their first draft pick (I think they've done this in each of the last three years) which, for a premier, comes at around 18-20, in favour of maintaining the age profile of their list, and then backing in their culture and development processes to make better players out of second/third round draft picks.

They have also brought almost all of their talls in from other clubs (Gunston, Frawley, Lake, Gibson, McEvoy, Hale). Talls are a lot harder to find and develop from the draft. Much easier to let other clubs do the hard work and take them later and trade out small players instead (e.g. trading Savage for McEvoy).

Hawthorn has also shown the fallacy that is over-reliance on the draft. They have regularly traded out their first draft pick (I think they've done this in each of the last three years) which, for a premier, comes at around 18-20, in favour of maintaining the age profile of their list, and then backing in their culture and development processes to make better players out of second/third round draft picks.

They have also brought almost all of their talls in from other clubs (Gunston, Frawley, Lake, Gibson, McEvoy, Hale). Talls are a lot harder to find and develop from the draft. Much easier to let other clubs do the hard work and take them later and trade out small players instead (e.g. trading Savage for McEvoy).

This team was built around the draft in the initial stages (Hodge, Franklin, Roughead, Lewis, Mitchell, Rioli) and maintained through trading.

They wouldn't be here without the draft, it is the foundation of this team.

I dunno about you, but if my job was sheizen and there was a better employer out there offering better money and better prospects I'd jump off a shakey ship too.

Hardly picking the eyes out. 90% of players don't change clubs at the end of the year

Your first sentence just emphasises why those players will go to top clubs and why those clubs will pay for them.

Your second is confusing - if many players changed clubs each year it would not be 'picking the eyes'. So I don't understand your point. Perhaps I have confused you by implying that these players were rendered blind and thus somewhat hampered marking the ball......

This team was built around the draft in the initial stages (Hodge, Franklin, Roughead, Lewis, Mitchell, Rioli) and maintained through trading.

They wouldn't be here without the draft, it is the foundation of this team.

Agreed, but I meant over-reliance in a long-term sense. Clearly they drafted well when they needed to, but they have recognised that, with a strong core, you do not need to continue to go to the draft to keep a club strong.

It's a part of the reason why the draft isn't operating to equalise the competition - you don't need access to the draft to stay strong, so 'penalising' the better sides by having later picks than the lower sides doesn't always work.

Agreed, but I meant over-reliance in a long-term sense. Clearly they drafted well when they needed to, but they have recognised that, with a strong core, you do not need to continue to go to the draft to keep a club strong.

It's a part of the reason why the draft isn't operating to equalise the competition - you don't need access to the draft to stay strong, so 'penalising' the better sides by having later picks than the lower sides doesn't always work.

True, but the lower teams have better picks to trade as a result.

Melbourne would be a top four team right now if we nailed our draft picks from 2008 until 2012.

True, but the lower teams have better picks to trade as a result.

Melbourne would be a top four team right now if we nailed our draft picks from 2008 until 2012.

Yep, if we'd of nailed our picks we would be in the frame. Shocking drafting by MFC. We have a got a few right the past few years though. Hopefully we get our chance oneday,