rpfc

Finally, now we are getting somewhere. Hypotheticals are fun. I will give you the 6 teams to include: an ACT team, a Tas team, an NT team, new franchises in SA, WA, and Port Melbourne gets the nod as the most supported VFL team. The draft would have to be run for clubs entering a season. The two promoted teams would get the two best kids and the draft continues as it normally would. After 5 Rounds of the draft (the first 60 picks) the next 60 would be assigned to the second tier. Transfer fees seem a tad exotic for AFL fans but may be agreed to by smaller clubs. But how do you limit the big clubs from taking all the best players as they can afford the transfer fees?

I am an apologist for the status quo? What does that even pertain to? I voice my opinion on things when they arise - I have 'bored' people with my desires to move the draft age back 3 years, abolish the rookie list, alter the FA compensation parameters, have contracts for players made unchangeable over the life of the contract, the introduction of a lottery to avoid tanking, the introduction of a competitive percentage determinator to avoid tanking, and any other half-brained idea that I put forward and defend. But no, I am an apologist because I think your two-tiered relegation league is farcical and gave reasons why? It's too hot for this BS.

You have proposed moving to a two tiered league of 12 teams in each league with relegation and promotion. How can I not be allowed to challenge the wisdom of that? When is a discussion an argument? Or when is someone disagreeing with another a bully? I am discussing it, back your argument up, because it is losing merit - not gaining it.

The NBA and the NFL are draft and slary cap regulated. Like the AFL. They do not have relegation or anything like it. If new markets are more promising, they will move a team or start a new one. Charlotte Hornets went to New Orleans, then Charlotte got a new startup team a few years later to give an example. Their models are just like ours and they also have pathetic games and a great lack of talent across a number of teams but it is still a thriving league and well run teams still do well. Teams in small markets with less 'expenditure by clubs' (your first point, do well if they are well run) San Antonio, Phoenix, Oakland/Bay Area, Oklahoma City, and Portland, are competing with big US markets and are doing excellently well. They make good decisions and consistently do so. Frankly, who cares about your second point. If Tasmania, or the ACT, or (lol) Darwin wanted their own team - put forward your case and see how you go. Tassie couldn't sell it a few years ago, and have given up in the short to medium term with their deal with the Hawks and the Roos. There is no need to attempt to establish some sort of pseudo second league to cement these teams in their communities if as you say, the locals will only care about them when they go into the AFL - just chuck them straight into the AFL - if there is no tangible benefit - why bother? Plus the mechanics of their list management coming into the AFL will be similar to what we had with GC and GWS - if not, they will simply go back to this second tier league after a year. Point number three will be exacerbated in your format, and is a symptom of any competition. There will be terrible teams playing each other to avoid punishment, great. But those teams will be in the same cycle for a generation. Every year, even before the expansion teams, there were games no-one cares about - the key is to attempt to have those teams be different every year so that not the same teams are disspiriting their fan base. Your last point about an uneven draw is something that has been around for ages. Unless we can play 34 games, there will be no parity. How about 17 games? But that contracts the game and doesn't grow it. The NBA teams play 82 games. The NFL play 16 but have established 4-team divisions that play each other twice. There is a middle ground, compromise that pleases no-one that we will find at some point but what the AFL is doing now makes some sense. It is an issue, but an overblown one. Your solution solves this issue doesn't it? But while it solves that problem it creates a myriad of other problems that will ruin the game. Putting your solution into practice for a recently promoted Port Melbourne: They have taken Melbourne's spot in the AFL 1st Div. Approx. 15 of MFC's players have a contractual stiplulation that they must play in the AFL 1st Div. They are all let go. AFL rules stipluate that Port Melbourne gets first dibs to negotiate a contract. They sign the players they can currently afford as they move form a revenue stream of $2m to $25m thanks to new sponsors and AFL TV rights money (the AFL 1st Div average would be around $50m). Jones, Frawley, Trengove, Tyson, and a few other players ask for contracts that Port Melbourne can't afford. They are allowed to sign with any team that can give them that particular wage. Jones goes to Ess, Frawley to Haw, Trengove to Adel, and so forth. Glenelg is the other team promoted at the expense of St Kilda - the same thing happens to Glenelg. Port Melbourne play Glenelg, Coll, WCE, Haw, Ess, Freo, Adel, Port Adel, Carl, Rich, and Sydney. PM and Glenelg share the spoils between each other and lose every other game. They finish relegated, and lose their players to the Western Bulldogs, and the Brisbane Lions. These two teams then attempt to move from a revenue stream of around $5m to $30m... Cycle continues. How is this a good thing to do?

The current system is not the problem; a draft and salary cap regulated sport allows well-run bad teams to get better and compete against good teams. This happens in the NFL. This is starting to happen more in the NBA. This is the model to emulate. The problem that we face at the Dees is one of our own making, it isn't the inequitable system. Look around; Freo are up, the Saints have come down with the Dogs after being up, North are about to shoot up, the rest of the teams are yo-yoing as intended, the expansion teams have confused the situation but this will settle in a short while after their players become older and they lose some of their talent (as they have already - Dom Tyson). The MFC is the poorly run outlier. We have made consistently bad decisions for a decade, and they have come home to roost over the last few seasons, and I am not just talking about Neeld or Cook at ND12. We failed to keep Thompson, we got Pick 5 taken from us in 1999, we retired too many and too early, we picked poorly with early choices in 01, 02, 04, 07, 08, 09, and 11, we have chosen two coaches who couldn't last, we have had distractions seemingly every year. We do not need to implant foreign structures that will not work - we need to start (or continue as of Viney/Hogan) making better personnel decisions and properly develop players while keeping our current level of coach that we have now. It's not the AFL - it's us. And relegation and a league overhaul is a remedy to a problem we don't have.

If you want to have a football code that 'punishes failure' you can watch the EPL. If you want to have a football code in which most teams have a chance to win every year then you have to get over the desire to punish bad teams. Having the MFC relegated to 'fix out act' would end our activities. Who else thinks like this? I hope this isn't a widespread idea, I saw it in the HUN a few years ago. God help football if this happens.

That is quite a tale... In what world does a club playing in a second rate league, which is what it would be, garner enough interest, talent, and sponsorship to stay in the first rate league for any longer than one season? This is you simply imposing a structure from European football leagues and inventing the cause and effect to suit your argument. And I know from experiences up here in Canberra that if you had a team called Canberra play other state league teams in a 2nd division of the AFL it would not be followed at all. AFL fans here have their teams locally and they will only move to another team if they are in a higher league. Non-AFL supporters are not going to be won over by 2nd division AFL. And, again, explain how the payments will work and how the draft works in this 2 league system?

What would your report card look like, s-home?

Exactly how does a second division with relegation and promotion allow the game to evolve beyond its 'historical base?' Hold my hand and take my through how that 'works.' You have missed the point, but ironically enough, have mentioned it in your post - the way to grow the game and revenues is to turn ambivalence in to interest. Football followers in ACT, Tas, and NT have a 'path forward' with the Tasmanian Hawks playing 4 games and the 'North' Melbourne Kangaroos a further 2. The ACT has 4 games and the interest of a team that is competing with two other well-supported teams, and the NT has, at the moment, the MFC to see twice a year. These markets cannot sustain an AFL team. They may be able to have a 'AFL 2nd Division' team. But for what purpose? To spend a fifth of their competitors on players every second year as they go in and out of the AFL? I am sure that what we see today will be vastly different in 2064 - but I do not see a relegation based league as desirable progress and can barely see the merit in a nationwide 2nd division.

Why is this something to shoot for? The European Football leagues have it - is that the reason? In England 4 teams can win the competition, the same goes for Spain, Italy, Germany, and France. It is in no small part because of the fact that teams cannot build without the spectre of a one year failure that crushes them for half a decade or a generation. How would the draft work in this future league? How would player payments be affected? The evolution of a sporting league does not have to go toward punishment of bad teams - you don't make an equitable and exciting league by punishing those that are struggling and prolonging and indenturing that struggle. There is no need for a second division. Each football state has its leagues and the NEAFL is up and running for the new football states that need a more comopetitive league. There is little need for a second division league.

14th Jan 2014 - 24, 071 A week of leeway and already 2,100 ahead of last year at the benchmark of 21st Jan.

Did you know that Tom Wills was from NSW? I think you are dismissive of the need for a game to grow, and grow on people. At some point, WA and SA and NT and Tas were won over completely by a game invented at Yarra Park in the centre of Melbourne. That can't happen again? Or isn't happening now? As for that last line, you can't possibly think that that one line settles 'the TV rights argument?'

If earning a contract was a prerequisite we would have about 5 players on the list. And Viney was our second best midfielder in terms of talent last year (there is a wake up call Jack Trengove) but Matt Jones had the second best year out of our midfield group. Vince, Cross, and the improvement of others will threaten that in 2014 but he looks to be able to lay claim to being part of a more competitive (both inwardly and against peers) midfield immediately.

Another issue in the ACT is that Ainslie and Belconnen are loving being in the NEAFL and won't allow the league to move to what would be more beneficial to ACT footy, namely a two-team structure without allegiances - basically a North Canberra and South Canberra or something similar. Ainslie will be trying to get any Canberra licence in the AFL if it is an option... That would be an abortive move. And if people think that Canberrans that like footy aren't going to go for some team simply because it hasn't 'Canberra' in the title, they are misguided. The most supported team here in Canberra in the Swans, so that kind of eats into this notion that people can't go for teams that aren't named after the place they live in. The GWS are the 'second team' for a number of people I know and they put in effort to get folks to care about them. Phil Davis coming from Canberra is a plus. Frankly, 4 games and a bit of attention is all that Canberra should get at this moment. It simply isn't big enough to support an AFL side as a third string behind the Raiders and Brumbies.

The ACT may have history with AFL but it is a small market and I am not sure how it would survive trying to play 11 games at Manuka in front of 15k people. You may think that GWS may not work, but at least it has a chance to succeed - a team called Canberra would need money in perpetuity and all for the attention of a small market. The ACT has 150k less people than Tasmania and have far less AFL fans - if Tasmania is not a viable place for an AFL team in terms of stadia, corporate interest, and potential gate receipts - the ACT is even further behind.

Yeah, more people are going to see a game they like and play than the one they don't like and have little exposure to. There's a shock. Those in charge wanted to grow the game, what would you do if you were in charge?

He was our second best midfielder last year, so how quickly is the progress of others going to happen? And it's a contract extension - it doesn't mean he is guaranteed a spot. If you are right about him then he can be a depth player (I know how much Land loves depth) in the last part of his contract.

But Jordie McKenzie getting games ensures we are bottom 4?

We will still be bottom 4.

I think it is the other way around - you get the contracts doen for those you need to keep, or those desired enough, and then add the easy-to-sign pieces after that. Should Frawley not re-sign before the end of the season we will leave a Frawley sized hole in our TPP. The reason I say 'sign the important players first' is because it may change your opinion on whether to keep (and how long to keep) the other players. If Frawley leaves, do we want to re-sign a Dunn as defensive cover/flexibility, or do we want to use that spot to try and find the next Frawley? Sign your priorities first and move from there.

12 months before the end of their contracts (and 12 months into their contracts) they have been given a further 24 months. They may not be THE priority but with Frawley (RFA), Tapscott, McDonald, Blease, Strauss, Spencer, Bail, Dunn, Byrnes, Barry, Terlich, Cross, Clisby*, Riley*, Nicholson, Harmes ®, King ®, Georgiou ®, and Jetta ® the others out of contract - Kent and Jones would be in the top 4 priorities to re-sign (those bolded would be ahead of them).

Roos and co. must have made these two priorities... Kent looks very good at this early stage and Jones, while unfairly maligned because of his age and pedigree - was our second best midfielder and worked very hard. If he improves, and there seems to be a backer on here for every player bar Jones to improve under Roos, he will continue to be given responsibility and time in the middle.

Stock is a short term 'who cares' issue, but the location of the Demons Shop isn't. Surely the MCC can find us a place above ground? Perhaps the math says that online is where it is at - we are slowly getting better at that.

Yes, and decisions on contract renewals on players like Vince are not made with a year to run. Well not by good clubs...

About 3k ahead of last couple. HT should have a spreadsheet if he was organised? But was he organised?