big-new-pay-deal-for-aflw-players

Great to see the pay increases for the players.

 

What doesn't make sense is a 10 game season when there are 18 teams.  How can the draw not be super compromised!  Nearly half the comp doesn't play each other!!

Guaranteed this year's top 6 won't play any of the 4 new teams or last year's bottom 4.  For them it will be like a finals series within a regular season.  And what a massive free kick into the upper part of the finals for any of last year's top 6 to play a new team or last year's bottom teams.

At least they have increased the finals to the top 8 which hopefully means the better teams will make the finals regardless of who they play.  But there is also a chance some will be eliminated before the finals because of a compromised draw.  

imv a 10 game season has made it a lesser comp than it should be.  A lot of games will be hard to watch.

What are the odds that Carlton and Essendon get very favourable draws...

Note to AFL:   Can we please have some Home games vs Freo, Lions and Crows where we get the ground and crowd advantage.  To not have that makes it very difficult for us to have Home finals let alone a Home GF.   They have had that advantage over us long enough!

Edited May 18, 20222 yr by Lucifers Hero

Too many teams leads to low quality fare. Expansion is too fast.

perhaps the time is right for 2 divisions. Promotion and relegation applies. You’ll have more competition matches. Try something different AFLW

40 minutes ago, BDA said:

Too many teams leads to low quality fare. Expansion is too fast.

perhaps the time is right for 2 divisions. Promotion and relegation applies. You’ll have more competition matches. Try something different AFLW

I thought that two about two divisions but doubt the AFLW will buy it for equality reasons- the newer teams won't get out of second division.

The other thought was Conferences but they failed badly because teams in Conf B made finals with less wins than teams in Conf A.   9/9 giving one cross-conference game each.

I would probably prefer conferences if they had a balanced fixture.  18 teams for 10 games is just awful and as you say it will really water down the quality.  As it is about 6-8 teams weren't competitive this year.  That jumps to 10-12 teams next year.

Unless the AFL have some brilliant, rapid plan to create more equitable seasons year on year, this 10-game nonsense is half-baked. By definition. 

2 hours ago, Webber said:

Unless the AFL have some brilliant, rapid plan to create more equitable seasons year on year, this 10-game nonsense is half-baked. By definition. 

It can't run in parallel with the mens game as it will get no coverage and at those pay rates the AFL can not afford a full season.

Public interest in AFLW is falling and will continue to do so as the quality of the product is still extremely poor.  It won't improve for a long period as it isn't an elite program with 18 sides.  It should be 8 sides which is a better reflection on the percentage of girls that play the game compared to boys, still high but you need 8 sides for a decent comp.  If you had 8 sides 14 game season with finals, more money for the players and it will be a good standard of football.

The AFL however knows that the male product at grassroots is in massive decline, other sports are smashing AFL for male participation add in online gaming, covid, the only way AFL can grow is through increase female participation.

Edited May 19, 20222 yr by drdrake

The AFL is going for the option that opens up the most pathways for as many players as possible, with the flow-on effect from the community-level up = more fans, more money. That's the idea anyway. If they wanted to prioritise quality at the top tier there are about a million things they'd have done differently starting seven years ago, so that ship has long sailed.

They can't plead ignorance about about players wanting more games if there were more teams though. The exact same thing was the main sticking point in the last CBA, that caused that process to stall. The group of players who stood up in 2019 managed to force a 10 game H&A season plus finals series for the 2022 season just gone (the AFL were wanting 8, for a 14-team comp). Those players in 2019 were looking ahead as well, managing to get an agreement that 13 H&A games wouldn't be off the table for the current round of negotiations (this was before the final expansion was announced). Obviously that hasn't come to much, but at least it wasn't a foregone conclusion!

The AFL put the negotiations under massive pressure by (unilaterally) bringing the next season forward, which at least seems to have worked in the players' favour re: pay. Without that pay increase, there would have been big player numbers lost after the tumult of this season. That would have put the AFL in a difficult position due to expansion. Additionally, the AFL has long held that working towards professionalisation/full-time hours in-season etc. was off the table until all clubs were in the comp. That's now, so that's another reason for the pay changes being pushed through. So, in prioritising expansion while simultaneously experimenting with the season timing, they've been forced into higher pay, but at the expense of a reasonable season length. Something had to give.

May the fixturing gods be in our favour. On the bright side, to be the best you've got to beat the best...

17 hours ago, Dees_In_October said:

The AFL is going for the option that opens up the most pathways for as many players as possible, with the flow-on effect from the community-level up = more fans, more money. That's the idea anyway. If they wanted to prioritise quality at the top tier there are about a million things they'd have done differently starting seven years ago, so that ship has long sailed.

They can't plead ignorance about about players wanting more games if there were more teams though. The exact same thing was the main sticking point in the last CBA, that caused that process to stall. The group of players who stood up in 2019 managed to force a 10 game H&A season plus finals series for the 2022 season just gone (the AFL were wanting 8, for a 14-team comp). Those players in 2019 were looking ahead as well, managing to get an agreement that 13 H&A games wouldn't be off the table for the current round of negotiations (this was before the final expansion was announced). Obviously that hasn't come to much, but at least it wasn't a foregone conclusion!

The AFL put the negotiations under massive pressure by (unilaterally) bringing the next season forward, which at least seems to have worked in the players' favour re: pay. Without that pay increase, there would have been big player numbers lost after the tumult of this season. That would have put the AFL in a difficult position due to expansion. Additionally, the AFL has long held that working towards professionalisation/full-time hours in-season etc. was off the table until all clubs were in the comp. That's now, so that's another reason for the pay changes being pushed through. So, in prioritising expansion while simultaneously experimenting with the season timing, they've been forced into higher pay, but at the expense of a reasonable season length. Something had to give.

May the fixturing gods be in our favour. On the bright side, to be the best you've got to beat the best...

A good summary of the process, thanks.

Can't help but feel that by not considering the quality of games doesn't undermine their goal to get more fans and more money.  Its taken 7 years to get to a point where the quality is good from the better teams.  So this is the time to go for max crowds but if the quality isn't there or a 10 game season is seen as a joke more and more fans might just lose interest and the whole thing backfires on the AFL.

Having a 10 game season is just ridiculous. It would be like ending the AFL season after this week and thinking that is a fair fixture.

I'm guessing the rationale is that the AFL want to limit the number of opportunities for weaker expansion sides to be thrashed by the stronger established sides. Expect to see Adelaide/Melbourne/Brisbane/Fremantle all playing against each other, and with the bare minimum of games against expansion sides.

I struggle to see how the AFL will promote this AFLW season with the early rounds running against AFL finals. You'll be lucky to see more than one game a week on Channel 7, and heading out to venues like Casey for twilight or night fixtures in September is not an attractive proposition.

Good to see some more money available to players. Hopefully it allows the stronger teams more scope to keep their lists together.

 

1 minute ago, poita said:

Having a 10 game season is just ridiculous. It would be like ending the AFL season after this week and thinking that is a fair fixture.

I'm guessing the rationale is that the AFL want to limit the number of opportunities for weaker expansion sides to be thrashed by the stronger established sides. Expect to see Adelaide/Melbourne/Brisbane/Fremantle all playing against each other, and with the bare minimum of games against expansion sides.

I struggle to see how the AFL will promote this AFLW season with the early rounds running against AFL finals. You'll be lucky to see more than one game a week on Channel 7, and heading out to venues like Casey for twilight or night fixtures in September is not an attractive proposition.

Good to see some more money available to players. Hopefully it allows the stronger teams more scope to keep their lists together.

 

Exactly right!

But then the AFL haven't learnt from their previous mistakes, and come finals time, we will have these same expansion teams playing, but much better sides denied. 

3 hours ago, george_on_the_outer said:

Exactly right!

But then the AFL haven't learnt from their previous mistakes, and come finals time, we will have these same expansion teams playing, but much better sides denied. 

"the AFL haven't learnt from their previous mistakes" - shock!

3 hours ago, Lucifers Hero said:

A good summary of the process, thanks.

Can't help but feel that by not considering the quality of games doesn't undermine their goal to get more fans and more money.  Its taken 7 years to get to a point where the quality is good from the better teams.  So this is the time to go for max crowds but if the quality isn't there or a 10 game season is seen as a joke more and more fans might just lose interest and the whole thing backfires on the AFL.

Yeah, just imagine an eight team competition right now! That would be a great standard!

Interestingly, there's a good percentage of AFLW fans who aren't "traditional" footy fans who follow the men's league. I saw some stats on this that were surprising! The fanbase also comprises a fair percentage of former fans returning to the game after becoming disillusioned or losing interest in the AFL for whatever reason. Getting the game out of summer might draw back some fans who've melted out at Casey along the way. I know for me that's been a major stumbling block in my attempts to recruit fans who are otherwise keen but don't want to stand around in 35 degree heat with no shade at the height of summer.

Obviously the AFL will also be after the big numbers, being those who already follow men's footy. Club loyalty is the biggest driver there and (for the four new teams) that initial novelty factor. But you're right, the quality has to hold up or they'll lose interest.

Notably, one of the obstacles to quality that players speak about constantly is how the standard reached so far has in part occurred on a voluntary basis during the off-season and outside of the 15 contracted hours per week in season. Hopefully the new pay deal will help with that. The AFL is also clearly banking on the quality of the draftees coming through...not sure what's happening for the Year 12s and the early draft and August season start, which again, a foreseeable problem!

I guess the question is, would a longer season drive quality faster than better pay that allows a higher and more prolonged standard of training? I have no idea. Both and fewer teams would be the absolute ideal, but clearly that's not possible.

This is being built up way to quickly. There is not the talent to cover 18 teams. However it has been done and I believe there should be 2 divisions. 1st division with 10 teams and second with 8. Draft selections should be over both divisions from bottom to top and so after say 10 or 20 years you would be able to have 1 division. A 10 game series between 18 sides is ridiculous.

18 minutes ago, dl4e said:

This is being built up way to quickly. There is not the talent to cover 18 teams. However it has been done and I believe there should be 2 divisions. 1st division with 10 teams and second with 8. Draft selections should be over both divisions from bottom to top and so after say 10 or 20 years you would be able to have 1 division. A 10 game series between 18 sides is ridiculous.

We may end up with that as a defacto result as 18 into 10 doesn't go.

To avoid diabolically poor games they will have to fixture the 4 new teams and last year's bottom 5 or 6 teams against each other.  Last years top 9-10 teams play each other.

As I and others have mentioned the result will be that poor teams will play finals at the expense of good teams, like they did when we had 'Conferences'.

I think they need to pay a full time livable salary for all players so that they can be footballers. It doesn't have to be AFLM money, but working towards a 60k per person minimum at least sets a benchmark which can be "topped up" through other work if desired but allows full time focus during preseason and season as well.

I'm concerned about the quality difference between the teams and think that divisions are probably the way to go, but understand it won't be popular. 

I also wonder if playing 2 seasons of "8 game plus finals" per year, a spring and autumn comp, is actually a plausible option? It minimises long seasons and dead rubbers. There can be 2 teams up and down twice per year, making conferences more palatable, and swapping teams around a lot more. There can be an extra trade period mid year if needed. 6 month player contracts to cover each shorter season might make the financial part more palatable for the AFL.

Some people would know the recruits better than me but would our best side look like this

B: Birch, Colvin

HB: Goldrick, Lampard, Heath

C: McNamara, Purcell, Mithen

HF: Hore, Zanker, Bannan

F: D.Pearce, Harris

FOLL: L.Pearce, Paxman, Hanks

IC: Wilson, Gay, West, Ivey, Sherriff

On 6/10/2022 at 1:31 PM, WERRIDEE said:

Some people would know the recruits better than me but would our best side look like this

Good effort Werridee.   Some thoughts: prefer to see Fitzsimon included, Paxy is better on a wing these days, West is only gonna get better,  high hopes for improvement in Gillard.  We have a strong group and will be amongst the top teams again.