The 2 GF teams Continue to strengthen their list with top end talent with Draper & Allen and Cats Curnow

the afl have a supposedly equalisation lever with the draft but then offset with free agency and players able to nominate clubs they want to be traded, which generally they gravitate to teams at the top or unique clubs were obscurity in non afl states, vs 9 teams in metro Melb, not taking nothing away from well run clubs but afl concerned about game growth in northern states yet those states since 2000 played in 15 GFs & won 7 flags , a 3 peat, back to back & possibly another 3 peat & their own academies to develop talent

Yet between the foundation clubs of Melb,Ess,Carl,Saints,Nth,Dogs they have won 3 flags between with 4GF appearances

Not sure how this is equalisation??

Edited 13 hours ago13 hr by Demonsone

Oh thank god you edited this, I couldn’t understand the original post, haha.

Get rid of academy picks/father son. Give everyone equal access to all players coming through!

The AFL is willing to let VFL clubs die while paying snoopy dog dog millions to sing at the half-time show. I don't think equalisation is really their main priority.

There's always clubs that will lock players away on huge long term contracts that don't work out and end with a mad scramble to give them away.

But enough about us...

To stop the strong getting stronger and the weak staying weaker maybe free agency should either be restricted to exclude those are playing finals (or maybe too 4), or to cost the top teams more (maybe no draft available or high level picks not available).

Will not happen as the hypocrites who ru(i)n the game don’t actually care.

It seems to me that the original post is somewhat mis-guided because it confounds multiple concepts that are fundamentally distinct.

Equalisation is about things like the salary cap, draft order and, through its "nothing up my sleeve" approach, compensation picks. So big clubs have the same salary cap as do small clubs and AFL distributions vary to enable all clubs to cover the cap, rich or poor. Weak teams get to pick first in the draft and are better compensated for free agency departures than are strong teams. A case in point being that we got pick 3 (Brayshaw) for James Frawley heading to Hawthorn, whereas Hawthorn only got pick 19 for Buddy going to Sydney at the same time. I could be wrong but I don't recall reading a lot of diatribes from incensed Melbourne supporters at the time. (Hawthorn supporters on the other hand ...)

Free agency has absolutely nothing to do with equalisation (and, frankly, nor should it). Rather, it is a sop to the Players Association that is made for the sole purpose of stopping somebody taking the AFL to court over its restrictive trade practices involving player movements. Should that happen then, almost certainly, the AFL would lose and with it would go most of its approaches to equalisation because the consequence would be increased player freedoms. I would be willing to wager London to a brick on that the biggest losers in that scenario would be the weaker clubs and, in particular, the weaker Melbourne clubs because the big advantage everywhere else has over the Melbourne clubs is not having our fishbowl is lifestyle for the players. (Just getting out of town and heading down the highway to Geelong is enough, in case you missed it.) So, as a supporter of one of the weaker Melbourne clubs, you should be praising free agency with your every waking breath, whether we are beneficiaries or not.

As for academies, obviously they are going to favour locations where kids don't grow up playing aussie rules by default, which is what they are meant to be doing. That said, it doesn't mean you can't generate such players if you are in the southern states. Kako at Essendon, for example. We may get some joy from ours this year and we should have in the past if those morons at the AFL hadn't changed the rules for a year and cost us Mac Andrew. But this isn't grounds for complaint. The northern clubs have to put in the effort for it to work and they have and, overall, it is good for the game, IMNSHO. That's not to say that everything is perfect. I am certainly open to the suggestion that there is room to tinker with the pricing of academy players to make things a bit fairer. But that is a long way from abolishing them.

Finally, we have father/son picks. They are a sop to the fans. It is hard to believe that the AFL cares a tinker's cuss about the fans but this one is for those of us who think its great that a Daicos can be at Collingwood, a Silvagni at Carlton, or a White/Yze/Cordner/Woewodin/Brown/etc at Melbourne. They don't always work out but I, for one, like the notion of a bit of romance remaining in the game. God knows most other sources of joy have been squeezed out of the game by the AFL's cynicism and abject lack of principle that now pervades almost every part of the game (underlying the parlous state of the rules of the game, umpiring, and the abysmal performance of the tribunal, amongst many other things). It is not as though the only good parent/child players come from the strong clubs (although maybe the children of good players are more likely to be good players themselves, who knows). My guess is that these things go in cycles at best but are most likely just random events.

In sum, it makes little sense demanding that the entire place be torn down just because things are travelling great for us at the minute. Especially when a bunch of the things being bundled together as the source of the problem shouldn't be bundled together at all. Most of our problems strike me as being a direct response to mismanagement on our own part and not a failure of equalisation policy. Where is Peter Jackson when we need him?

5 hours ago, csdee said:

It seems to me that the original post is somewhat mis-guided because it confounds multiple concepts that are fundamentally distinct.

Equalisation is about things like the salary cap, draft order and, through its "nothing up my sleeve" approach, compensation picks. So big clubs have the same salary cap as do small clubs and AFL distributions vary to enable all clubs to cover the cap, rich or poor. Weak teams get to pick first in the draft and are better compensated for free agency departures than are strong teams. A case in point being that we got pick 3 (Brayshaw) for James Frawley heading to Hawthorn, whereas Hawthorn only got pick 19 for Buddy going to Sydney at the same time. I could be wrong but I don't recall reading a lot of diatribes from incensed Melbourne supporters at the time. (Hawthorn supporters on the other hand ...)

Free agency has absolutely nothing to do with equalisation (and, frankly, nor should it). Rather, it is a sop to the Players Association that is made for the sole purpose of stopping somebody taking the AFL to court over its restrictive trade practices involving player movements. Should that happen then, almost certainly, the AFL would lose and with it would go most of its approaches to equalisation because the consequence would be increased player freedoms. I would be willing to wager London to a brick on that the biggest losers in that scenario would be the weaker clubs and, in particular, the weaker Melbourne clubs because the big advantage everywhere else has over the Melbourne clubs is not having our fishbowl is lifestyle for the players. (Just getting out of town and heading down the highway to Geelong is enough, in case you missed it.) So, as a supporter of one of the weaker Melbourne clubs, you should be praising free agency with your every waking breath, whether we are beneficiaries or not.

As for academies, obviously they are going to favour locations where kids don't grow up playing aussie rules by default, which is what they are meant to be doing. That said, it doesn't mean you can't generate such players if you are in the southern states. Kako at Essendon, for example. We may get some joy from ours this year and we should have in the past if those morons at the AFL hadn't changed the rules for a year and cost us Mac Andrew. But this isn't grounds for complaint. The northern clubs have to put in the effort for it to work and they have and, overall, it is good for the game, IMNSHO. That's not to say that everything is perfect. I am certainly open to the suggestion that there is room to tinker with the pricing of academy players to make things a bit fairer. But that is a long way from abolishing them.

Finally, we have father/son picks. They are a sop to the fans. It is hard to believe that the AFL cares a tinker's cuss about the fans but this one is for those of us who think its great that a Daicos can be at Collingwood, a Silvagni at Carlton, or a White/Yze/Cordner/Woewodin/Brown/etc at Melbourne. They don't always work out but I, for one, like the notion of a bit of romance remaining in the game. God knows most other sources of joy have been squeezed out of the game by the AFL's cynicism and abject lack of principle that now pervades almost every part of the game (underlying the parlous state of the rules of the game, umpiring, and the abysmal performance of the tribunal, amongst many other things). It is not as though the only good parent/child players come from the strong clubs (although maybe the children of good players are more likely to be good players themselves, who knows). My guess is that these things go in cycles at best but are most likely just random events.

In sum, it makes little sense demanding that the entire place be torn down just because things are travelling great for us at the minute. Especially when a bunch of the things being bundled together as the source of the problem shouldn't be bundled together at all. Most of our problems strike me as being a direct response to mismanagement on our own part and not a failure of equalisation policy. Where is Peter Jackson when we need him?

Correct poor mgt of clubs impacts the success, my point is rather the Afl carries in about growing the game in northern states and supporting the expansion clubs etc but both the lions & Swans have played in over 50% of GFs in the last 25yrs, expecting similar success in GC & GWS whilst there vic clubs stay unsuccessful

Let's not forget that we managed to attract Lever, May, Grundy, and were front runners for Houston before all hell broke loose. If you run your club well from the bottom up, you will attract talent. Let's not forget that the AFL essentially nudged both Roos and Jackson to set us up, which they did, before we Melbourne'd it. As much as I hate Geelong, they do something right and make the most of their location and coterie. They are definitely pulling shifties though.

As for Brisbane they are just super appealing to talent. Get out of the Melbourne bubble, and get to live in sunny Queensland where your dollar goes much further.

They are [censored] in lots of ways but the AFL can’t be blamed for geography and clubs shouldn’t be penalised for benefiting from their local environment. Jackson showed us how to overcome that until we Melbourne’d it, as Praha said.

i can't remember who posted it on one of these threads, but i've quoted this diatribe so many times...

It’s over. At some point the analytics told the AFL that 85% of its audience aren’t going anywhere - regardless of results.

Huge, monumental spectacle is what the AFL wants its brand to be. Why spend decades building up half the competition when the other half already provides everything you need?

The smart big clubs woke up to this a while back. Collingwood’s list strategy is diabolical on paper, but they know they’ll just top up on talent because the system is built to sustain them. 3 of Geelong’s 4 best players came from other clubs.

This year was the least competitive season of AFL ever. The top 9 teams were decided by mid April. Thats 5.5 months of meaningless footy for half the clubs. The Age report on how poor this season was because they aren’t feeding directly from the AFL trough. Everyone else just happily follows the talking points, or else they might not get a good free suite at next years Gather Round.

It annoys me enormously that 2025 will be a huge financial success for the AFL because its overall product has stunk this year, and the guy leading the organisation never really wanted the job, and clearly has no vision for the future of the game. This is all part of the problem. It continues to succeed in spite of itself, because we love the game too much.

the '85%' number is something that my friends and i keep referring to each other