The calumny of the AFL's priority pick policy

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,687]

5 minutes ago, DeeSpencer said:

We had more top draft picks in 2007, 08, 09 than any other club I'd imagine - Richmond were the only one who would be close. Unfortunately we were operating with a football department and club without anything close to the resources.

We were left behind when the rich clubs started spending money and the AFL had so much cash that they didn't know what to do with that they invented 2 whole new clubs. Our supporters rallied for the debt demolition campaign but that was only to get us back in the game.

The likes of Morton, Grimes, Maric, Trengove, Gysberts, Tapscott, Watts, Strauss and Blease should be [censored] as hell they were drafted to Melbourne and weren't given proper facilities, proper coaching or proper fitness/medical staff. The same issues that hindered Gold Coast's start up hurt that generation of our players. The only ones who made it through - Gawn and Jetta - spent most of the time injured.

Oh and what was our reward for taking all those draft picks so we were prepared for the new clubs - we were slandered in the media for tanking years after the event, furthering a rift between the coaches and administration. Our club name was turned to mud for doing the same thing several clubs had and have done since.

Where were our handouts in 2012-2014? We were as bad if not worse than the Suns are now and instead were given a small amount of extra funding for Roos and told to trade, draft and develop our way back. We had to give up prime draft picks and list spots for Tyson, Vince, Hibberd, Melksham, Frost, Garlett, Cross etc to get back to being a competitive side. Now the Suns can have their cake and eat it too? They can trade draft picks for experienced players whilst still getting access at the top of the draft. Damn right I'll say it's unfair.

Really? I don't think anyone cares two hoots.

[DeeSpencer 25,444]

1 hour ago, stevethemanjordan said:

 

The talk of our lack of outside speed is nothing but a big furphy in my opinion. We had the same list last year and at times we looked absolutely ballistic with our forward movement. It'll come down to having a fit and firing midfield with some players who need to lift their decision making game.

In case people haven't noticed, we averaged a huge number of inside 50's this year which means we need to start converting those into shots at goal.

Papley would have been absolutely perfect as that high pressure half-forward and Jack Martin turns opportunities to score into scores.

 

Have you seen the contract numbers thrown around with Papley - they are huge. And the reason he wants a big contract, well I've heard rumours he's in need of some money, possibly like some other traded players of late. Warning bells there.

As for Jack Martin - I'm a bit of a sceptic. He's now played a lot of years of nothing footy, has to be considered a gamble and I don't want to gamble that kind of money on him either.

There's also the issue of the salary cap. I don't think any of our overpaid players are trade-able for anything like good value. Who are we paying too much for - Tom McDonald, Brayshaw, Viney, Lever - we have to keep all of them unless we want to trade them away for 2nd round picks and pay salary.

I think we desperately need pace and run through the midfield or we wont' be able to defend. You can have 60 inside 50's but you won't win if the other team has 40 and scores a goal every time because your midfield leaks like a sieve. You can't put on forward pressure or play an aggressive backline zone without the midfield sealing the gaps.

Yes to plans B+C with goal kickers and pressure players (preferably both in one). Dan Butler for a cheap deal aside I'm not seeing a lot on the market.

 

[deebug 1,754]

2 minutes ago, Jara said:

Free country People can think whatever they like.

What i  think is that i hate the AFL. Like all carnivorous capitalist beasts, it grows fat by devouring the weak. Doubtless Greasy Gill will get bonuses etc for pushing GC up the ladder.

If we don't get this right then we are $%*#&@ all other clubs are starting to pass us already, such as the tigers, next it will be carlton, plus a few more.

We will lose players such as Trac and maybe more, this could be massive disaster for or club.

[Ethan Tremblay 30,825]

3 minutes ago, DeeSpencer said:

Have you seen the contract numbers thrown around with Papley - they are huge. And the reason he wants a big contract, well I've heard rumours he's in need of some money, possibly like some other traded players of late. Warning bells there.

As for Jack Martin - I'm a bit of a sceptic. He's now played a lot of years of nothing footy, has to be considered a gamble and I don't want to gamble that kind of money on him either.

There's also the issue of the salary cap. I don't think any of our overpaid players are trade-able for anything like good value. Who are we paying too much for - Tom McDonald, Brayshaw, Viney, Lever - we have to keep all of them unless we want to trade them away for 2nd round picks and pay salary.

I think we desperately need pace and run through the midfield or we wont' be able to defend. You can have 60 inside 50's but you won't win if the other team has 40 and scores a goal every time because your midfield leaks like a sieve. You can't put on forward pressure or play an aggressive backline zone without the midfield sealing the gaps.

Yes to plans B+C with goal kickers and pressure players (preferably both in one). Dan Butler for a cheap deal aside I'm not seeing a lot on the market.

 

Loves a punt does Papley. 

[DeeSpencer 25,444]

7 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

Really? I don't think anyone cares two hoots.

Not these days, but it certainly would've been part of the problem in 2011-2014.

In 2010 we were really building something, the easy answer is to say the tanking itself had made the culture rotten, I don't think it had. Most clubs would've moved onwards and upwards from there, instead we went backwards at the rate of knots because the club was so under resourced.

[Lucifers Hero 39,556]

So GCS got a heap of priority picks.  But no news of the off field support they really need eg

• improved club rooms and facilities
• increased salary cap (Gil refused because he "...has a strong view that salary caps should not be compromised". LOL - Gil has principles!  Yeh, I know a cheap shot but couldn't resist!)  gold-coast-package
• Without sal cap increase they will struggle to both attract mature players and keep their young talent.
• better medical and fitness staff and related resources
• better development and welfare staff
• improve the low morale of draftees that play their Home games on dodgy suburban ovals that no-one goes to watch
• increase their 'soft cap' - Its tough getting football staff to go there without lots of $$.

Priority picks are like fool's gold.  Stewie Dew said as much mid year when he said pp's won't solve the problems.  Without changing the off field issues it will continue to be a revolving door of draftees.

I don't mind GCS getting the pps.  But it is so frustrating that he AFL have missed a golden opportunity to really help the club.  Fix the off-field things and players might stay.

Edited September 30, 2019 by Lucifer's Hero

[Cheap Seats 3,310]

39 minutes ago, stevethemanjordan said:

Man.

All of those lines I've bolded just contradict one another. 

You say "it's at a cost to clubs like ours" and follow it up with "I agree that it's up to the MFC to get it right" and finish with "I still maintain that people have a right to be [censored] off about it".

The AFL are doing what they were always going to do if this happened to one of the expansion teams this early in the piece. 

It has zero effect on us. You know why?

We don't need the AFL to screw us, we consistently do it to ourselves.

Ok fair point, in my attempt to be diplomatic you're rightly pointed out that I contradicted myself (no excuses but I am out and about on the phone)

To be clear there are 2 issues at play here

The first issue is - Club administration.

And I've stated multiple times I agree with you about the importance of good administration. Draft picks have zero affect if your house is in order, and everything is going right for you. Like you've pointed out the RFC is a great recent example. They were able to use FA, drafting and strategy to build a winning culture. But how long did it actually take them?

I've argued you're point in the is Goodwin right guy thread - that the MFC has been it's own worst enemy by not being able to stick to a plan and giving the right help to people they employ to fore fill roles.

The other issue is AFL directed compensation. GC have been given an unprecedented number of compensation picks for poor performance. No other club ever has received such compensation (not including the launches of the 2 x expansion clubs), and there have been a few clubs in recent memories who have been poor for a fair while.

While draft picks do not guarantee success, as per argument 1 - they certainly help give an advantage or a leg up to improve in a shorter time frame.

While you might not be offended that GC have been given a leg up to help them improve quicker to meet AFL objectives, others have the right to be.

The main issue here isn't that one club gets assistance, or the MFC have missed out. My issue is the AFL are dictating rules based on self interest. 

Per your argument re administration for a club to get it right under the current conditions set by the AFL - there should be no compromised drafts, there should be no restrictions in Free Agency or contracts, because it would be up to the clubs to get it right (their drafting, player management and strategy etc), There should be no interference from the AFL apart from applying the rules. Not dictating new ones when they feel like it.

The AFL have their hands in a lot of clubs business. It's not just draft assistance, its player management and contracts. You're kidding yourself if you think club administrators haven't been hamstrung due to AFL rules or AFL interference.

IF getting it right was so simple all clubs would be successful?

 

 

[Ethan Tremblay 30,825]

12 minutes ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

So GCS got a heap of priority picks.  But no news of the off field support they really need eg

• improved club rooms and facilities
• increased salary cap (Gil refused because he believes the sal cap should not be compromised. LOL - Gil has principles!  Yeh, I know a cheap shot but couldn't resist!)
• Without sal cap increase they will struggle to both attract mature players and keep their young talent.
• better medical and fitness staff and related resources
• better development and welfare staff
• improve the low morale of draftees that play Home games on dodgy suburban ovals that no-one goes to watch

Priority picks are like fool's gold.  Stewie Dew said as much mid year when he said pp's won't solve the problems.  Without changing the off field issues it will continue to be a revolving door of draftees.

I don't mind GCS getting the pps.  But it is so frustrating that he AFL have missed a golden opportunity to really help the club.  Fix the off-field things and players might stay.

I also posted a few weeks ago about GCS needing incentives and not extra draft picks, I think you’ve hit the nail on the head. Even if they’re struggling on field, if they have the right culture and can see a positive future (and throw in some extra coin), they’re going to be more willing to stay. Throwing extra draft picks at them is not tackling the actual issues they have.

Edited September 30, 2019 by Ethan Tremblay

[Nelo 813]

3 hours ago, stevethemanjordan said:

Christ Melbourne supporters are embarrassing.

You’re embarrassing. 

[Ethan Tremblay 30,825]

2 minutes ago, Nelo said:

You’re embarrassing. 

Is that because he’s a Melbourne supporter?

[YesitwasaWin4theAges 6,684]

1 hour ago, stevethemanjordan said:

Man.

All of those lines I've bolded just contradict one another. 

You say "it's at a cost to clubs like ours" and follow it up with "I agree that it's up to the MFC to get it right" and finish with "I still maintain that people have a right to be [censored] off about it".

The AFL are doing what they were always going to do if this happened to one of the expansion teams this early in the piece. 

It has zero effect on us. You know why?

We don't need the AFL to screw us, we consistently do it to ourselves.

That's what the AFL is Steve, a walking contradiction.

[Cheap Seats 3,310]

Haha this gets even better

Terry Wallace on trade radio spoke about the AFC statement just released (related to the GC compo picks).

If anyone thinks the AFL aren't up to their eyeballs in club land are naïve. On minute they're sprucing their new rules (live and future trading) the next minute we will create another new rule for another objective and stuff anyone who gets affected.

The AFL need to get out of club land and administer the game fairly - Gil needs to go

 

Edited September 30, 2019 by Unleash Hell

[TheoX 1,222]

1 kick separated our win tally from GC's yet theyre bad enough to get 3 years of pp's. Sickening. 

[Demonstone 22,305]

I just got home.  Anything of interest happen today?

[Watts the matter 1,235]

https://www.afl.com.au/news/2019-09-30/future-bright-as-suns-get-access-to-pendlebury-clone

Just in case the 4 picks weren't enough. Looking forward to hearing what JB has to say on this issue, obviously the clubs have all been told to stay quiet for the 'good of the game'.

[Wiseblood 24,637]

1 hour ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

So GCS got a heap of priority picks.  But no news of the off field support they really need eg

• improved club rooms and facilities
• increased salary cap (Gil refused because he "...has a strong view that salary caps should not be compromised". LOL - Gil has principles!  Yeh, I know a cheap shot but couldn't resist!)  gold-coast-package
• Without sal cap increase they will struggle to both attract mature players and keep their young talent.
• better medical and fitness staff and related resources
• better development and welfare staff
• improve the low morale of draftees that play their Home games on dodgy suburban ovals that no-one goes to watch
• increase their 'soft cap' - Its tough getting football staff to go there without lots of $$.

Priority picks are like fool's gold.  Stewie Dew said as much mid year when he said pp's won't solve the problems.  Without changing the off field issues it will continue to be a revolving door of draftees.

I don't mind GCS getting the pps.  But it is so frustrating that he AFL have missed a golden opportunity to really help the club.  Fix the off-field things and players might stay.

Spot on LH.  They need to improve their culture and their ability to develop and retain players, not add more young kids to the mix who might bolt in a few years time.  And that comes from all of the things you've mentioned above.

While I'm not fussed at all with our picks changing, I'm disappointed to see that the AFL have been very short sighted in the 'help' they've given to the Suns.

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,687]

1 hour ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

So GCS got a heap of priority picks.  But no news of the off field support they really need eg

• improved club rooms and facilities
• increased salary cap (Gil refused because he "...has a strong view that salary caps should not be compromised". LOL - Gil has principles!  Yeh, I know a cheap shot but couldn't resist!)  gold-coast-package
• Without sal cap increase they will struggle to both attract mature players and keep their young talent.
• better medical and fitness staff and related resources
• better development and welfare staff
• improve the low morale of draftees that play their Home games on dodgy suburban ovals that no-one goes to watch
• increase their 'soft cap' - Its tough getting football staff to go there without lots of $$.

Priority picks are like fool's gold.  Stewie Dew said as much mid year when he said pp's won't solve the problems.  Without changing the off field issues it will continue to be a revolving door of draftees.

I don't mind GCS getting the pps.  But it is so frustrating that he AFL have missed a golden opportunity to really help the club.  Fix the off-field things and players might stay.

I agree with your suggestions to assist, but it's not a binary issue. Gold Coast could still get all this assistance as well as the priority picks. In fact, wasn't the move of  Mark Evans from AFL HQ to be the CEO of Gold Coast part of that off-field assistance?

[Lucifers Hero 39,556]

5 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

I agree with your suggestions to assist, but it's not a binary issue. Gold Coast could still get all this assistance as well as the priority picks. In fact, wasn't the move of  Mark Evans from AFL HQ to be the CEO of Gold Coast part of that off-field assistance?

I expected it to be both pps and off-field support. 

Evans has been there for several years now, I think.  He would need to get a move on if he is to fix the off-field things.  One would hope the off-field support, if it was to be given would have been part of today's package. 

In the short term the items that benefit GCS the most are increase sal cap and increase soft cap.  Other improvements will flow from those, with the right people. 

[spirit of norm smith 16,267]

Give Suns better finals qualification chances for the next 3 years. 

Gift Suns automatic head start at beginning of year with 6 wins in 2020, 4 wins in 2021 and 2 wins in 2022. 

[Dr. Gonzo 24,162]

9 hours ago, stevethemanjordan said:

All AFL clubs had the chance to ready themselves for the draft concessions that both the Gold Coast and GWS were given in their first few seasons in the AFL.

Our club didn't ready itself. 

It is completely and utterly nonsensical for a Melbourne supporter to think it's 'unfair' that Gold Coast have been given more handouts.

We thought we'd raided the draft from 2007-2009 and so wouldn't be impacted because we had already stocked up. We stuffed those 3 years of picks, no one else to blame.

[binman 42,629]

6 hours ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

It's a bit more generous than I was expecting, but I have no problem with the AFL giving the Gold Coast a hand. What does surprise me is that all of the additional picks appear to be unencumbered. I was expecting the AFL to require at least one of the picks to be traded. That would have given the Gold Coast one or more mature players rather than another 18 year old. Of course, Gold Coast can still trade these additional picks on their own volition.

Agree. Im also surprised they didnt get some more support in terms of governance and football department 

[binman 42,629]

5 hours ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

So GCS got a heap of priority picks.  But no news of the off field support they really need eg

• improved club rooms and facilities
• increased salary cap (Gil refused because he "...has a strong view that salary caps should not be compromised". LOL - Gil has principles!  Yeh, I know a cheap shot but couldn't resist!)  gold-coast-package
• Without sal cap increase they will struggle to both attract mature players and keep their young talent.
• better medical and fitness staff and related resources
• better development and welfare staff
• improve the low morale of draftees that play their Home games on dodgy suburban ovals that no-one goes to watch
• increase their 'soft cap' - Its tough getting football staff to go there without lots of $$.

Priority picks are like fool's gold.  Stewie Dew said as much mid year when he said pp's won't solve the problems.  Without changing the off field issues it will continue to be a revolving door of draftees.

I don't mind GCS getting the pps.  But it is so frustrating that he AFL have missed a golden opportunity to really help the club.  Fix the off-field things and players might stay.

Just saw this. 100% agree. I don't mind the priority pick (though you can only laugh when they get a pick right before our first 2 picks).

But I will mind if like may, lynch, Martin etc they up and leave in 2 years time 

[Dr. Gonzo 24,162]

8 hours ago, Unleash Hell said:

Yes, like I said I agree with your points.

What I'm saying is that there are issues with the fairness of the competition which can make governing clubs difficult. If you're a bottom feeder like us - where are the resources coming from to be best practice? To employ the best people in the industry?

I am not sure there would be too many leagues in the world where the governing body have such a big say in the day to day running of club land, player contracts, compensation etc... Even the Free agency rules are heavily weighted in unfairness to clubs.

Rules vary from year to year in every facet of the competition.

How many high end FAs end up at bottom clubs? I personally don't think it is that simple to just fix administration. But I 100% agree with your points it plays a huge part in making the competition work for you. The competition doesn't make it easy for teams who don't have massive following/money/influence.

 

The AFL has been involved in the running of clubs since the Commission was formed because the club's have proven time and again that they are incapable of running themselves. Look what happened to our club when left to our own devices. Thankfully the AFL stepped in giving us Roos and Jackson to help us operate like a professional organisation.

I'm not saying the AFL is perfect, in fact it is extremely amateurish and incompetent in many facets. But if all they were measured by was the viability of the club's and the competition they would be seen as resoundingly successful.

[Adam The God 30,120]

8 hours ago, stevethemanjordan said:

 

Well I'm not entirely sure who you're alluding to. I know over the journey I have been extremely critical of list management and recruitment decisions. 

Maybe supporters can vote me in to a recruiting role or something, I don't know? 

Who would you / are you drafting this year, Stevo? Who's your top 5?

[Dr. Gonzo 24,162]

7 hours ago, stevethemanjordan said:

Here's something that should be on the minds of Melbourne supporters instead of this Gold Coast package fluff.

How about some energy and attention goes toward the pending decisions that will be made around trade period time?

I'm far more concerned to hear that both Papley and Martin have nominated Carlton as their club of choice whilst also potentially getting Betts back.

Now without wanting to jump the worry gun just yet, I find it alarming and fascinating that our name wasn't linked to either player. Whilst the Elliott offer is promising, I'm praying that we haven't gone all eggs in one basket with him and there's some transparency around us and Tom Papley. For instance, if he didn't want to come then what was the reason? Again, it will reflect extremely poorly on us if it's because of the season we had and it should be a reminder to those who continually excuse this as "just a blip year". 

The talk of our lack of outside speed is nothing but a big furphy in my opinion. We had the same list last year and at times we looked absolutely ballistic with our forward movement. It'll come down to having a fit and firing midfield with some players who need to lift their decision making game.

In case people haven't noticed, we averaged a huge number of inside 50's this year which means we need to start converting those into shots at goal.

Papley would have been absolutely perfect as that high pressure half-forward and Jack Martin turns opportunities to score into scores.

If Elliot signs, I'll be over the moon. If he doesn't, I'll be wanting answers in regards to game changing players like Martin and Papley and why we didn't pursue them.

At the moment, Carlton are going to leapfrog us and they won't be turning back once they get on a role. 

Let that sink in for a minute.

I agree wholeheartedly, I can't believe we haven't been linked to any of Papley, Martin or Brad Hill. These guys are the exact kind of players we need. It's a bit disheartening as either we haven't bothered or were quickly rebuffed.