11 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Agree, rookie contracts need to be 3+1+1 with club options for 4th and 5th year. This at least gives clubs some more surety than a 2 year contract for a kid who just finished high school.

 

19 minutes ago, layzie said:

I'd think a 3 year rookie contract could help but I don't see it stopping kids requesting trades after their first or second year like JHF. I understand we want more protection for clubs and a bit more leverage at the trade table but there would be a knock on effect somewhere else in list management eg if we go to delist Fraser Rosman and have to pay out his last year, these instances would add up.

i agree with layz here, 3 year deals for all draftees is too much given the average career is 3yrs length. and quite often players are delisted after 2. less players will be drafted as there will be more clutter on each list each year, this would therefore bulge the cap and the top players would have to play for less etc etc theres too much flow on, the idea for the first round i would be ok with as usually they're given longer than 2 years in the system regardless and whilst i'm on it the end of 1st round should also be the cut off for NGA bids as well, 40 is too far out and gives no incentive to clubs to invest in it 

hope they opt for succession and close the borders

I'm not sure we never draft from WA again, but it has to be a factor, particularly at the top end of the draft.

Jackson wasn't comparable to any other player in the draft, but why would you take a WA midfielder over a Vic midfielder if they are otherwise pretty similar.

 

I think it's more a Melbourne bad luck thing more than anything. 

Farmer

Hogan

Jackson

We have a tendency to lose once in a generation forwards and KPP back to WA. 

Honestly I reckon it has to do with the club being so heavily concentrated and "Melbourne" in nature. Other clubs like Collingwood have a large footprint across the country with supporters scattered everywhere whereas the Demons are distinctively Victorian with a very centralised supporter base in Melbourne, so there's less exposure to the MFC for these players when they're growing up. And thus it's harder to feel "at home" when they arrive. Imagine how alien the MFC is to a kid from WA vs saying Collingwood or Carlton who probably have at least 1 supporter in every year level in a school. They'd go their whole life without meeting anyone with anything to do with MFC until they're drafted.

So to a degree I agree, we should focus on Victorian kids and really lean into our focus here. But also maybe we can work on improving our footprint over in WA. Because it honestly seems like we are to WA as Barcelona FC is to Australia.

9 minutes ago, praha said:

I think it's more a Melbourne bad luck thing more than anything. 

Farmer

Hogan

Jackson

We have a tendency to lose once in a generation forwards and KPP back to WA. 

Honestly I reckon it has to do with the club being so heavily concentrated and "Melbourne" in nature. Other clubs like Collingwood have a large footprint across the country with supporters scattered everywhere whereas the Demons are distinctively Victorian with a very centralised supporter base in Melbourne, so there's less exposure to the MFC for these players when they're growing up. And thus it's harder to feel "at home" when they arrive. Imagine how alien the MFC is to a kid from WA vs saying Collingwood or Carlton who probably have at least 1 supporter in every year level in a school. They'd go their whole life without meeting anyone with anything to do with MFC until they're drafted.

So to a degree I agree, we should focus on Victorian kids and really lean into our focus here. But also maybe we can work on improving our footprint over in WA. Because it honestly seems like we are to WA as Barcelona FC is to Australia.

What about our footprint in the NT? Is it really that strong as some suggest?

2 minutes ago, ElDiablo14 said:

What about our footprint in the NT? Is it really that strong as some suggest?

Almost non existent is my guess

About ten years ago when we were playing twice a year up there I was at the MCG. Near me was a group of boys from NT who had come down to play in an under 16 carnival.

I asked them if MFC had much of a following in NT. They looked at me as if I was an alien. No one in the group plus their friends followed Melbourne

100% agreed.  Would not bother unless / until the AFL ringmasters decide to alter the ridiculously short contract term to around 4 seasons minimum and/or sufficient minimum standards/points/$$/player swaps introduced as compensation.

Will that ever happen?  Who knows.

The AFL circus continues unchecked.

If a top ten draft pick wants out in the first 5 years the cost must be at least the initial draft pick. 

3 hours ago, ElDiablo14 said:

Min 3 year rookie Contracts with club option for a 2 year extension. This should make this sort of players 'untouchable' for at least 5 years.

What about a living away from home clause for extra pay? Ie buy them fir a bit extra afl clause with limitations. 

16 minutes ago, ManDee said:

If a top ten draft pick wants out in the first 5 years the cost must be at least the initial draft pick. 

Too open to manipulation. 

I could see clubs with interstate recruits 'encouraging' the go home factor to top tens who are not living up to expectations so to get their 'money back' 

 

15 minutes ago, Palace Dees said:

Too open to manipulation. 

I could see clubs with interstate recruits 'encouraging' the go home factor to top tens who are not living up to expectations so to get their 'money back' 

 

How is that a problem? The home state clubs don't have to take them.

1 minute ago, ManDee said:

How is that a problem? The home state clubs don't have to take them.

Ah, sorry. I thought you meant AFL compensation.  Gotcha 👍

2 hours ago, Diamond_Jim said:

Almost non existent is my guess

About ten years ago when we were playing twice a year up there I was at the MCG. Near me was a group of boys from NT who had come down to play in an under 16 carnival.

I asked them if MFC had much of a following in NT. They looked at me as if I was an alien. No one in the group plus their friends followed Melbourne

To be fair, Melbourne circa 2012...who could blame them?

The 3rd year option for clubs on first round picks is a no brainer. Boost first round picks salaries for years 1+2 by 50k per year then add 300k for year 3. 

I favour a model of max contracts for years  3-6. 400-600k escalating through the years is the most you can make. With bonus incentives for top 5 b+f finishes, all Australian squads or Brownlow finishes.

I’d also limit the most a rival club can offer to 20% less than the max for years 3-6.

Any player out of contract from years 3-6 is a restricted free agent. They can sign elsewhere but their original team is most welcome to match the deal and then trade them at their convenience. Most players will sign for more money then ask for the trade anyway.

This structure will allow the draft to do it’s job as teams have 6 years of control with young players and can build a side.

After 6 year service everyone is unrestricted and go for your life. Let the salary cap do it’s job. Publish salaries for anyone above average wage. Don’t want the scrutiny, lower your wage and you’ll be fine. 
 

The added bonus is teams stop getting held hostage by young players and the cap will go to guys from 24-30 who form the backbone of successful sides.

5 hours ago, DeeSpencer said:

The 3rd year option for clubs on first round picks is a no brainer. Boost first round picks salaries for years 1+2 by 50k per year then add 300k for year 3. 

I favour a model of max contracts for years  3-6. 400-600k escalating through the years is the most you can make. With bonus incentives for top 5 b+f finishes, all Australian squads or Brownlow finishes.

I’d also limit the most a rival club can offer to 20% less than the max for years 3-6.

Any player out of contract from years 3-6 is a restricted free agent. They can sign elsewhere but their original team is most welcome to match the deal and then trade them at their convenience. Most players will sign for more money then ask for the trade anyway.

This structure will allow the draft to do it’s job as teams have 6 years of control with young players and can build a side.

After 6 year service everyone is unrestricted and go for your life. Let the salary cap do it’s job. Publish salaries for anyone above average wage. Don’t want the scrutiny, lower your wage and you’ll be fine. 
 

The added bonus is teams stop getting held hostage by young players and the cap will go to guys from 24-30 who form the backbone of successful sides.

Interesting ideas DS. I like the general gist of adding restrictions early and loosening them later. It would become very difficult and probably unlikely to see movement of star young players.
Do you have any thoughts on mature-age recruits? ie is a 21yo recruit  treated the same as an 18yo (year 1) or come in at year 4?
Do you have any thoughts on clubs trading players involuntarily?

As an aside, I've long supported the raising of the draft age to 19yo or even 20yo. I might start another thread re that but helping protect teams from losing high draft pick kids was one of the reasons I support it.

2 minutes ago, Big Col said:

Interesting ideas DS. I like the general gist of adding restrictions early and loosening them later. It would become very difficult and probably unlikely to see movement of star young players.
Do you have any thoughts on mature-age recruits? ie is a 21yo recruit  treated the same as an 18yo (year 1) or come in at year 4?
Do you have any thoughts on clubs trading players involuntarily?

As an aside, I've long supported the raising of the draft age to 19yo or even 20yo. I might start another thread re that but helping protect teams from losing high draft pick kids was one of the reasons I support it.

Mature age: Good question, I’d say the years service to reach free agency would be based on when they first nominate for the draft, nominate at 18 you don’t get punished for not being picked up. The salary restrictions I’d probably end at 24 regardless of years service.

Involuntary trading: just not needed if we make the other changes to protect the value of draft picks. Guys simply don’t earn enough to deserve that treatment.

Draft age: Don’t see the need for it, most guys are ready. A few big name kids have mostly moved for cash, let’s take that incentive away. I’d like to spend money on the second tier system and making it a more successful option for those who aren’t ready. Plus we should expect players to get cut, drop back and come again more often. 

 

13 hours ago, Diamond_Jim said:

Almost non existent is my guess

About ten years ago when we were playing twice a year up there I was at the MCG. Near me was a group of boys from NT who had come down to play in an under 16 carnival.

I asked them if MFC had much of a following in NT. They looked at me as if I was an alien. No one in the group plus their friends followed Melbourne

There’s a lot of people who 10 years ago, who wouldn’t want to have admitted they followed the MFC

On 10/10/2022 at 4:04 PM, drysdale demon said:

Talk about over the top reaction.

OK. An over the top reaction is too when the reaction is too extreme and not suitable, or demanding too much attention or effort, especially in an uncontrolled way.

All sorted now mate?

5 hours ago, Big Col said:

Interesting ideas DS. I like the general gist of adding restrictions early and loosening them later. It would become very difficult and probably unlikely to see movement of star young players.
Do you have any thoughts on mature-age recruits? ie is a 21yo recruit  treated the same as an 18yo (year 1) or come in at year 4?
Do you have any thoughts on clubs trading players involuntarily?

As an aside, I've long supported the raising of the draft age to 19yo or even 20yo. I might start another thread re that but helping protect teams from losing high draft pick kids was one of the reasons I support it.

My concern at raising the draft age is whether the sport might lose individuals who choose a different career (sport or otherwise). Most 18 year olds finish their year 12 education just before they are drafted. If they have to wait a year, or more, before being eligible to be drafted they will have to choose to do something else for that year (or more) and may be lost to AFL altogether.

6 hours ago, Wizard of Koz said:

OK. An over the top reaction is too when the reaction is too extreme and not suitable, or demanding too much attention or effort, especially in an uncontrolled way.

All sorted now mate?

As I said an over the top reaction.

All our WA players are out of contract at the end of next season. Kozzie Pickett, Trent Rivers, Jacob van Rooyen, Taj Woewodin & Judd McVee.

What about the WA players that don’t want to stay in the West? Homesickness doesn’t impact everyone and I’m sure there are players that want to broaden their horizons and see more of Australia.

If I was a young draftee I wouldn’t want to stay in Melbourne (unless it was with the Dees). Swans would be my choice, away from the fishbowl to a good club and city. Lions would be next. Perth and Adelaide I’d rather avoid. Not sure how I’d feel if I landed at the Suns.  

10 hours ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

My concern at raising the draft age is whether the sport might lose individuals who choose a different career (sport or otherwise). Most 18 year olds finish their year 12 education just before they are drafted. If they have to wait a year, or more, before being eligible to be drafted they will have to choose to do something else for that year (or more) and may be lost to AFL altogether.

An NCAA type of competition in Australia? Not sure how feasible that would be 

The other side of the coin.

 

Well yeah, if you're GWS..